Cogency and contribution in IS research

2015 International Conference on Information Systems: Exploring the Information Frontier, ICIS 2015

Volumn , Issue , 2015, Pages

  Hovorka, Dirk S ^a   Boell, Sebastian K ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Argument; Cogency; Research contribution

Indexed keywords

INFORMATION SYSTEMS;

ARGUMENT; COGENCY; IS RESEARCHES;

INFORMATION USE;

EID: 85126568700     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (19)

1. Avison, D., and Malaurent, J. 2014. "Is theory king?: Questioning the theory fetish in information systems," Journal of Information Technology (29:4), pp 327-336.
2. Conlon, E. 2002. "Editor's comments," Academy of Management Review (27), pp 489-492.
3. Corley, K. G., and Gioia, D. A. 2011. "Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution?," Academy of Management Review (36:1), pp 12-32.
4. Habermas, J. 1984. "The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume I," Boston: Beacon).
5. Hambrick, D. C. 2007. "The field of management's devotion to theory: Too much of a good thing?," Academy of Management Journal (50:6), pp 1346-1352.
6. Hirschheim, R., and Klein, H. K. 2012. "A glorious and not-so-short history of the information systems field," Journal of the Association for Information Systems (13:4), pp 188-235.
7. Kilduff, M. 2007. "Editor's comments: The top ten reasons why your paper might not be sent out for review," Academy of Management Review (32:3), pp 700-702.
8. Kuhn, T. S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, (3rd ed.) University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL.
9. Kuhn, T. S. 1977. "Second Thoughts on Paradigms," in The Essential Tension, University of Chicago Press: Chicago, pp. 293-319.
10. Lee, A., and Hubona, G. 2009. "A Scientific Basis for Rigor in Information Systems Research " MIS Quarterly (33:2), pp 237-262.
11. Locke, K., and Golden-Biddle, K. 1997. "Constructing Opportunities for Contribution: Structuring Intertexual Coherence and "Problematizing" in Organizational Studies," Academy of Management Journal (40:5), pp 1023-1062.
12. Rehg, W. 2009. "Cogent science in context," Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13. Shapira, Z. 2011. ""I've Got a Theory Paper-Do You?": Conceptual, Empirical, and Theoretical Contributions to Knowledge in the Organizational Sciences," Organization science (22:5), pp 1312-1321.
14. Staley, K. W. 2004. The evidence for the top quark: Objectivity and bias in collaborative experimentation, (Cambridge University Press.
15. Straub, D. W. 2009. "Editor's Comments: Why top journals accept your paper," MIS Quarterly (33:3), pp iii-ix.
16. Toulmin, S. 1958. The Uses of Argument, (University Press: Cambridge.
17. Toulmin, S. 1977. Human understanding: The collective use and evolution of concepts, (Princeton University Press.
18. Weber, R. 2012. "Evaluating and Developing Theories in the Information Systems Discipline," JAIS (13:1), pp 1-30.
19. Wenzel, J. W. 1990. "Three perspectives on argument: Rhetoric, dialectic, logic," Perspectives on argumentation: Essays in honor of Wayne Brockriede), pp 9-26.