Insufficient theoretical contribution: A conclusive rationale for rejection?

European Journal of Information Systems

Volumn 23, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 593-599

  Ågerfalk, Pär J ^a  

^a UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84908670855     PISSN: 0960085X     EISSN: 14769344     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1057/ejis.2014.35     Document Type: Review

References (32)

1. ÅGERFALK PJ (2013) Embracing diversity through mixed methods research. European Journal of Information Systems 22(3), 251-256.
2. AVISON D andMALAURENT J (2014) Is theory king? Questioning the theory fetish in information systems. Journal of Information Technology, advance online publication, 6 May, doi:10.1057/jit.2014.8.
3. BAKER T and POLLOCK TG (2007) Making the marriage work: the benefits of strategy's takeover of entrepreneurship for strategic organization. Strategic Organization 5(3), 297-312.
4. BANVILLE C and LANDRY M (1989) Can the field of MIS be disciplined? Communications of the ACM 32(1), 48-60.
5. BASKERVILLE RL and PRIES-HEJE J (2010) Explanatory design theory. Business & Information Systems Engineering 2(5), 271-282.
6. CORLEY KG and GIOIA DE (2011) Building theory about theory building: what constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review 36(1), 12-32.
7. EGGERM and SMITH GD (1997) Meta-analysis: potentials and promise. BMJ 315, 1371-1374.
8. GELETKANYCZ M and TEPPER BJ (2012) From the editors: publishing in AMJ-Part 6: discussing the implications. Academy of Management Journal 55(2), 256-260.
9. GOES PB (2014) Editor's comments: design science research in top information systems journals. MIS Quarterly 38(1), iii-viii.
10. GREGOR S (2006) The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quarterly 30(3), 611-642.
11. GREGOR S andHEVNER AR (2013) Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Quarterly 37(2), 337-355.
12. GREGOR S and JONES D (2007) The anatomy of a design theory. Journal of the Association of Information Systems 8(5), 312-335.
13. HAMBRICK DC (2007) The field ofmanagement's devotion to theory: toomuch of a good thing? Academy of Management Journal 50(6), 1346-1352.
14. HEVNER AR, MARCH ST, PARK J and RAM S (2004) Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly 28(1), 75-105.
15. IIVARI J (2014) Distinguishing and contrasting two strategies for design science research. European Journal of Information Systems, advance online publication, 7 January, doi: 10.1057/ejis.2013.35.
16. KIM M, ZIMMERMANN T and NAGAPPAN N (2014) An empirical study of refactoring challenges and benefits at Microsoft. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 40(7), 633-649.
17. KUECHLER W and VAISHNAVI V (2008) The emergence of design research in information systems in North America. Journal of Design Research 7(1), 1-16.
18. LARSSON AO and MOE H (2012) Studying political microblogging: Twitter users in the 2010 Swedish election campaign. New Media & Society 14(5), 729-747.
19. MILLER D (2007) Paradigm prison, or in praise of atheoretic research. Strategic Organization 5(2), 177-184.
20. MILTGEN CL and PEYRAT-GUILLARD D (2014) Cultural and generational influences on privacy concerns: a qualitative study in seven European countries. European Journal of Information Systems 23(2), 103-125.
21. MYERS MD (1999) Investigating information systems with ethnographic research. Communications of the AIS 2(23), 1-20.
22. PRIES-HEJE J and BASKERVILLE R (2013) Discovering the significance of scientific design practice: new science wrapped in old science? In Electronic Proceedings of the SIG Prag Workshop on IT Artefact Design & Workpractice Improvement, 5 June, Tilburg, the Netherlands. [WWW document] http://www.vits.org/?pageId=407 (accessed 24 August 2014).
23. ROWE F (2011) Towards a greater diversity in writing styles, argumentative strategies and genre of manuscripts. European Journal of Information Systems 20(5), 491-495.
24. ROWE F (2012) Toward a richer diversity of genres in information systems research: new categorization and guidelines. European Journal of Information Systems 21(5), 469-478.
25. SANDELOWSKI M (2000) Whatever happened to qualitative description? Research in Nursing & Health 23, 334-340.
26. STRAUB DW (2009) Editor's comments: why top journals accept your paper. MIS Quarterly 33(3), 3-9.
27. SUTTON RI and STAW BM (1995) ASQ forum: what theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly 40(3), 371-384.
28. THOMAS G and JAMES D (2006) Reinventing grounded theory: some questions about theory, ground and discovery. British Educational Research Journal 32(6), 767-795.
29. WALSHAM G (1995) Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method. European Journal of Information Systems 4(2), 74-81.
30. WEICK KE (1995) What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly 40(3), 371-384.
31. VENKATESH V (2006) Where to go from here? Thoughts on future directions for research on individual-level technology adoption with a focus on decision making. Decision Sciences 37(4), 497-518.
32. YIN RK (2014) Case study Research: Design and Methods, 5th edn, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.