The Nature of Theory in Information Systems

Abstract

The aim of this research essay is to examine the structural nature of theory in Information Systems. Despite the impor tance of theory, questions relating to its form and structure are neglected in comparison with questions relating to episte mology. The essay addresses issues of causality, explanation, prediction, and generalization that underlie an understanding of theory. A taxonomy is proposed that classifies information systems theories with respect to the manner in which four central goals are addressed: analysis, explanation, predic tion, and prescription. Five interrelated types of theory are distinguished: (I) theory for analyzing, (2) theory for ex plaining, (3) theory for predicting, (4) theory for explaining and predicting, and (5) theory for design and action. Examples illustrate the nature of each theory type. The appli cability of the taxonomy is demonstrated by classifying a sample of journal articles. The paper contributes by showing that multiple views of theory exist and by exposing the assumptions underlying different viewpoints. In addition, it is suggested that the type of theory under development can influence the choice of an epistemological approach. Support Allen Lee was the accepting senior editor for this paper. M. Lynne Markus, Michael D. Myers, and Robert W. Zmud served as reviewers. is given for the legitimacy and value of each theory type. The building of integrated bodies of theory that encompass all theory types is advocated.

Service Systems Engineering

“…Following Gregor's (2006) categorization of theories, most theoretical approaches in service systems research address either theories for explanation, with a minimal amount of kernel theories or components and limited empirically robust theory testing. Little research exists on service systems engineering that develops or tests theories for prediction, theories for prediction and explanation or even theories for design and action.…”

Coherence and transparency: some advice for qualitative researchers

“…Studies that investigate theory for explaining and predicting tend to employ case studies, surveys, archival studies, experiments and statistical analysis and tend to be more aligned with quantitative research techniques. These studies are often undertaken by researchers that follow a positivist paradigm (Gregor, 2006). However it is important to stress that a research paradigm does not dictate the choice of research method i.e.…”

“…The ensuing debate from senior scholars suggested that theory was still relevant but that there needed to be greater clarity from researchers regarding the type of theory contribution they were making, the significance of that theoretical contribution and the adoption of appropriate research methods for theory development. Gregor (2006) discusses five main types of theory: (i) theory for analysing; (ii) theory for explaining; (iii) theory for predicting; (iv) theory for explanation and prediction; and (v) theory for design and action. The more common applications of theory types in IS tend to be either to explain, predict or explain and predict.…”

“…Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis et al, 1989). While Gregor (2006) argues that no theory type belongs to a particular research paradigm, she acknowledges that researchers that align to a particular world view will tend to focus on some theory types over others. For example, interpretivists will tend to advocate theory for explaining and positivists will tend to focus on theory for predicting or theory for predicting and explaining.…”

Creating a Brazilian school in international information systems research: opportunities and challenges

“…In seeking to propose some provisional avenues for theoretical advances, Brazilian researchers, espousing a more positivistic stance, could rely on Gregor (2006) to position their theoretical contribution. In her article "The Nature of Theory in Information Systems", Gregor offers five types of theories that might help IS researchers argue for the nature of their theoretical contribution: (a) theory for analyzing (this type is interesting for positioning research whose final products are typologies and taxonomies, for instance); (b) theory for explaining; (c) theory for predicting; (d) theory for explaining and predicting; and (e) theory for design and action (more prescriptive results).…”