In Search of Paradigms: Identifying the Theoretical Foundations of the IS Field

The goal of this paper is identify the theoretical foundations of the IS field. Currently there is a lack of consensus about what the core IS theories are, or even if we have any at all. If we do, they certainly don’t appear in IS curricula or textbooks as they do in more mature disciplines. So far, most of the debate on this issue has been conducted at a subjective and prescriptive (normative) level. We attempt to broaden the debate by taking a descriptive (positive) approach, using relatively objective data. We do this by consulting the “geological record”: the pattern of citations in the leading IS journals. We use a combination of quantitative and qualitative techniques to identify the most influential theories in the IS field. The results of our analysis are surprisingly positive, especially in the light of warnings about IS being overly dependent on reference disciplines (a discipline with no theory to call its own) and being obsessed with research methodology (emphasising how to research at the expense of what to research). This suggests that the negative views often expressed about the progress of IS may be unjustified and that its development has followed the normal evolutionary pattern of any research field. Being aware of our theoretical foundations will help clarify our disciplinary identity and guide teaching and scholarship.

[1]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research , 1977 .

[2]  H. Klein,et al.  Information systems research: contemporary approaches and emergent traditions , 1991 .

[3]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory , 1994 .

[4]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  The Identity Crisis Within the IS Discipline: Defining and Communicating the Discipline's Core Properties , 2003, MIS Q..

[5]  I. Nonaka A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation , 1994 .

[6]  Ron Weber,et al.  Ontological foundations of information systems , 1997 .

[7]  Fred D. Davis A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems : theory and results , 1985 .

[8]  Peter A. Todd,et al.  Understanding Information Technology Usage: A Test of Competing Models , 1995, Inf. Syst. Res..

[9]  E. Rogers,et al.  Communication of Innovations; A Cross-Cultural Approach. , 1974 .

[10]  Ron Weber,et al.  Editor's comment: still desperately seeking the IT artifact , 2003 .

[11]  Scott Hamilton,et al.  Knowledge Utilization Among MIS Researchers , 1982, MIS Q..

[12]  Maurice Landry,et al.  Can the field of MIS be disciplined? , 1989, CACM.

[13]  Carl Sagan,et al.  The demon-haunted world. Science as a candle in the dark , 1995 .

[14]  Gordon B. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View , 2003, MIS Q..

[15]  C. Fornell,et al.  Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. , 1981 .

[16]  E. Rogers,et al.  Diffusion of innovations , 1964, Encyclopedia of Sport Management.

[17]  Ron Weber,et al.  An Ontological Model of an Information System , 1990, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[18]  Jean Hartley,et al.  Case study research , 2004 .

[19]  Younghwa Lee,et al.  The Technology Acceptance Model: Past, Present, and Future , 2003, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[20]  Alan R. Hevner,et al.  Design Science in Information Systems Research , 2004, MIS Q..

[21]  Ron Weber,et al.  Editor's comment: theoretically speaking , 2003 .

[22]  R. Yin Case Study Research: Design and Methods , 1984 .

[23]  Fred D. Davis Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[24]  Venkataraman Ramesh,et al.  An analysis of research in computing disciplines , 2004, CACM.

[25]  E. F. Codd,et al.  A relational model of data for large shared data banks , 1970, CACM.

[26]  Varun Grover,et al.  A Citation Analysis of the Evolution and State of Information Systems within a Constellation of Reference Disciplines , 2006, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[27]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models , 1989 .

[28]  R. Merton Social Theory and Social Structure , 1958 .

[29]  Robert D. Galliers,et al.  An alternative perspective on citation classics: Evidence from the first 10 years of the European Conference on Information Systems , 2007, Inf. Manag..

[30]  A. Kellerman,et al.  The Constitution of Society : Outline of the Theory of Structuration , 2015 .

[31]  M. D. Mey The Cognitive Paradigm , 1992 .

[32]  Ephraim R. McLean,et al.  Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable , 1992, Inf. Syst. Res..

[33]  Ron Weber,et al.  Still desperately seeking the IT artifact , 2003 .

[34]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. , 1964 .

[35]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Quo vadis TAM? , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[36]  J. Barney Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage , 1991 .

[37]  J CulnanMary Mapping the intellectual structure of MIS, 1980-1985: a co-citation analysis , 1987 .

[38]  Ephraim R. McLean,et al.  The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success: A Ten-Year Update , 2003, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[39]  Peter B. Seddon A Respecification and Extension of the DeLone and McLean Model of IS Success , 1997, Inf. Syst. Res..

[40]  E. Rogers,et al.  Communication of innovations: A cross-cultural approach, 2nd ed. , 1971 .

[41]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  Veni, Vidi, Vici: Breaking the TAM Logjam , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[42]  Dale Goodhue,et al.  Task-Technology Fit and Individual Performance , 1995, MIS Q..

[43]  R. Briggs,et al.  Association for Information Systems , 2009 .

[44]  Mary J. Culnan,et al.  The intellectual development of management information systems, 1972-1982: a co-citation analysis , 1986 .

[45]  K. Eisenhardt Building theories from case study research , 1989, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[46]  P. Ein-Dor,et al.  A paradigm for management information systems , 1981 .

[47]  Shirley Gregor,et al.  The Nature of Theory in Information Systems , 2006, MIS Q..

[48]  Ali F. Farhoomand,et al.  Scientific progress of management information systems , 1987, DATB.

[49]  野中 郁次郎,et al.  The knowledge-creating company , 2008 .

[50]  Dirk S. Hovorka,et al.  Analyzing unstructured text data: Using latent categorization to identify intellectual communities in information systems , 2008, Decis. Support Syst..

[51]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Research Commentary: Desperately Seeking the "IT" in IT Research - A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact , 2001, Inf. Syst. Res..

[52]  Charles D. Barrett Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior , 1980 .

[53]  Nile W. Hatch,et al.  Design Rules, Volume 1: The Power of Modularity , 2001 .

[54]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  The Option Value of Modularity in Design: An Example From Design Rules, Volume 1: The Power of Modularity , 2000 .

[55]  D GalliersRobert,et al.  An alternative perspective on citation classics , 2007 .

[56]  A. Adam Whatever happened to information systems ethics? Caught between the devil and the deep blue sea , 2004 .

[57]  E. Rogers Diffusion of Innovations , 1962 .

[58]  Lori N. K. Leonard,et al.  Citation classics from the information systems literature , 2000, Inf. Manag..

[59]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior , 1980 .