SPECIAL ISSUE: NEXT-GENERATION IS THEORIES

NEXT-GENERATION INFORMATION SYSTEMS

THEORIZING: A CALL TO ACTION1
Andrew Burton-Jones
UQ Business School, University of Queensland,
Brisbane, QLD 4072 AUSTRALIA {[email protected]}

Brian S. Butler
College of Information Systems (iSchool), University of Maryland, College Park,
College Park, MD 20742 U.S.A. {[email protected]}

Susan V. Scott
London School of Economics and Political Science,
London, WC21 2AE UNITED KINGDOM {[email protected]}

Sean Xin Xu
School of Economics and Management, Tsinghua University,
Beijing 1000084 CHINA {[email protected]}

Why Theorize? Why Now? theories are unlikely to be sufficient to address today’s new
challenges. We call upon the scholarly community to rethink
Theorizing is the intellectual engine of a scholarly com- our theories and create new theories to guide us.
munity. With this special issue, we hope to inspire the IS
community to reaffirm its commitment to developing In research, there is a noticeable counter-trend, namely a
foundational theories and offer bold new theoretical ideas and move toward doubting theory’s value. While theory has had
approaches to inspire and shape our field’s future. a hallowed status in many fields for decades (Mueller and
Urbach 2017; Straub et al. 1994), two doubts are increasingly
Such work is especially important now because of two trends. raised. Some question if researchers need theory in an age of
big data and machine learning. According to this view, highly
In practice, the nature of information systems is changing predictive algorithms may be enough; theory may not be
faster and their impact is greater than ever before. So many needed (Anderson 2008; Kitchin 2014; Steadman 2013).
of the grand challenges of our time, from health and well- Others ask why we want theory so much. From this perspec-
being, to sustainability, education, and social inclusion, now tive, too many researchers suffer from a theory fetish (Avison
depend deeply on information systems. We need bold new and Malaurent 2014), fixation (Hirschheim 2019), or
theories to help us understand these challenges and guide our obsession (Dennis 2019), and devalue other contributions
contributions. While our field has always studied how infor- (Ågerfalk 2014). Similar criticisms have been raised in other
mation systems are developed and how individuals, groups, fields (Hambrick 2007), with some arguing that an obsession
organizations, and markets interact with new technology with theory risks their field’s future (Tourish 2020).
(Sidorova et al. 2008, p. 475), these activities have changed
dramatically and continue to do so. In contrast, theories tend Our response to the trend in practice is that theorizing is now
to change slowly (Kuhn 1996) and as a result, many of our more critical than ever. This is because what we are seeing

1
This special issue was accepted while Arun Rai was Editor-in-Chief.

DOI: 10.25300/MISQ/2021/15434 MIS Quarterly Vol. 45 No. 1, pp.301-314/March 2021 301

Burton-Jones et al./Special Issue: Introduction

in practice is a significant rise in complexity, and making ephemeral data, machine learning, mashups, connected x,
sense of complexity is exactly what theory is for (Popper digital x, smart x, hyperautomation, quantum computing, and
1980, p. 59; Wilson 1998, p. 56). After all, the complexity of augmented reality. That is not what we mean.
a domain rises with increases in the number of elements,
interconnections, and dynamics (Wood 1986). Look at any As a field, Information Systems scholars know more than
context in our work or personal life and that’s exactly what most how important it is to find a balance between focusing
digitalization is doing: we see more sensors, data, and soft- on fundamentals and fads in our theorizing. Accordingly,
ware, more interfaces and interactions, and more change. We rather than referring to the latest “hot” topics, we use next-
need theories to help us make sense of this complex world and generation theorizing to refer to new ways of thinking that
to act wisely. shift significantly from current patterns of theorizing and
where this shift rewards scholars by revealing significant new
Likewise, our response to the trend in research is that better lines of inquiry (adapted from Kitcher 1982, p. 48). The
theorizing is now more critical than ever. Rather than dimin- “generation” label, therefore, has a dual meaning: a new
ishing the value of theory, new forms of data and machine generation of ideas to inspire a new generation of scholars. In
learning provide opportunities to improve theorizing, for short, we are looking for fresh, bold, path-breaking ideas,
example, by becoming new theorizing instruments (Einav and ideas that can reshape prevailing paradigms or even spark new
Levin 2014). Likewise, doubts over the value of theory ones (Kuhn 1996).
should motivate us to theorize more effectively (Agarwal and
Dhar 2014; Berente, Seidel, and Safadi 2019; Chang et al.
2014; Johnson et al. 2019). Many critiques of theorizing are Strategies for Next-Gen Theorizing
actually just critiques of old-fashioned views of theorizing
that we can move beyond. We need to adopt fresh approaches At this point, a reader might ask, “MIS Quarterly is always
to theorizing for the road ahead (Jordan and Mitchell 2015). looking for new ways of thinking, so why do we need a
special issue for it?” The reason is that scientific fields are
Several of our sister disciplines are having similar discussions often risk-averse (Wang et al. 2017). Authors can feel unsure
about their own theorizing (Haveman et al. 2019; Moorman how bold they can be, and journals may fail to receive or
et al. 2019; Zeithaml et al. 2020). And our colleagues in the accept the novel papers they desire. While MIS Quarterly
data and machine learning communities are recognizing the works hard to avoid those traps, we still face these risks.
need for theory to inform the development of algorithms and Accordingly, our goal in this special issue was to explicitly
guide approaches for evidence-based decision making (Jordan call for fresh, bold, path-breaking work, and to create a
and Mitchell 2015). The collective reflection in which we are
review process that would appreciate and celebrate it.
engaged is an opportunity for all of us, across academic disci-
plines and between academia and industry, to reconsider old
As noted above, next-generation theorizing is not an exercise
intellectual boundaries and lenses and bring fresh insights to
in theorizing the latest hot topics. Rather, as Table 1 shows,
our shared challenges.
we see four ways of engaging in it, defined by two axes:
We hope this special issue will fuel and sustain the intellectual
• Stance toward IS phenomena: Researchers may be
engine of our scholarly community at this crucial point in
studying either existing or new phenomena. Both ap-
history. The call for papers issued for this special issue
proaches have long traditions in our field, as shown, for
resulted in the submission of far more papers than we could
publish. Rather than being a problem, we saw this as a rare example, by calls in MIS Quarterly editorials for
chance to trigger a broad intellectual movement that we hope researchers to reconsider the fundamental nature of IT
will be reflected in the publication of exciting theoretical artifacts (see Volume 27, Issue 1) as well as to study the
contributions across the field in the coming years. We are latest IS phenomenon (see Volume 37, Issue 1). Either
inspired by this movement, and hope you will be too. way, next-generation theorizing is needed when
researchers realize that changes occurring in the contem-
porary world render existing theories insufficient.
Changes in intellectual toolkits are needed to keep up
What Do We Mean by Next- with changes occurring in familiar phenomena and to
Generation Theorizing? understand new phenomena emerging.

At first glance, next-generation theorizing might mean • Stance toward theorizing: Researchers may be oriented
building theories of blockchain, Internet-of-Things, Industry toward using existing theories or inventing new ones.
4.0, geotargeting, social analytics, big data, the dark web, Both traditions have long histories in IS research (Keen

302 MIS Quarterly Vol. 45 No. 1/March 2021

 Burton-Jones et al./Special Issue: Introduction

Table 1. Four Next-Gen Theorizing Strategies

Stance toward IS Phenomena
Studying existing phenomena in a Studying new phenomena emerging
changing world in a changing world
Inventing new IS Replace Envision
theory (Replacing existing theory with new IS (Developing a new theory that opens
theory to understand a phenomenon up a new world)
Stance more effectively)
toward
Theorizing Using existing (often Reformulate Extend
reference-discipline) (Unpacking and altering a theory (Expanding a theory significantly so
theory considerably so that it offers new and that it can explain/reveal a new world)
better insights)

1980). Some researchers use existing theory (often from computing environment (Yoo 2010). In both cases, new
reference disciplines) (Dennis 2019) while others theory was developed for new and important domains that
develop new theory (Grover and Lyytinen 2015; Sarker were emerging at that time.
et al. 2019). Next-generation theorizing occurs when
researchers show that well-accepted theories need to Finally, exemplars of the extend strategy include the extension
fundamentally change or that new theories must replace of accepted theories of identity to study the emerging notion
old theories in order to engage new realities. of “IT identity” (Carter and Grover 2015) and the extension
of existing theories of the firm, and firm innovation, to study
To illustrate these notions, it is helpful to consider some the changing structure of the firm in a platform-based
prominent MISQ papers published with each strategy over the economy (Parker et al. 2017). Once again, in these cases, the
years. focus is on developing forward-looking theory to understand
changes we are beginning to see in the world around us.
A seminal example of the replace strategy is Dennis et al.’s
(2008) award-winning paper urging researchers studying IT- While none of these papers was explicitly framed as next-
mediated communication to shift from the theory of media generation theorizing, each one exemplifies it. No matter
richness to the theory of media synchronicity. A more recent their stance toward theorizing and toward IS phenomena, each
one calls for and provides a significant shift in thinking, and
(also award-winning) example is Lukyanenko et al.’s (2019)
opens significant new lines of inquiry.
call for designers to shift from class-based data structures to
instance-based data structures when designing systems for
discovery-oriented data collection. In both cases, the papers
The Role of the Past and the Future
tackled existing phenomena in the field (online communi-
in Next-Gen Theorizing
cation and online data collection) and developed new theory
to replace existing theory.
As each of the four strategies in Table 1 emphasizes, next-gen
theorizing aims to provide novel ways of thinking that are so
An influential example of the reformulate strategy is Nan’s sufficiently different they shift existing patterns of theorizing.
(2011) effort to improve the prevailing paradigm for studying A natural question to ask is: How do we generate next-gen
system use, which relied on natural language formulations, theoretical innovation and what makes it different?
with a more formal, agent-based formulation that afforded
more rigorous analysis. A more recent example is Berente et Broadly, we see two views of what novelty means, providing
al.’s (2019) use of institutional analysis to reformulate the researchers with different ways to consider next-generation
resistance-to-change paradigm so that it can serve as a more theorizing.
suitable theoretical platform for research on enterprise
systems. A linear view on novelty will make sense for researchers who
see theory building in chronological terms, gaining a better
Classic examples of the envision strategy include the devel- understanding through successive efforts over time (Cook and
opment of a new design theory for emergent knowledge Campbell 1979). From this perspective, a next-generation
processes (Markus et al. 2002) and the formulation of a new theory opens up a new line of work that builds on a prior line
paradigm for theorizing digital innovation in a ubiquitous but extends it in a new direction.

MIS Quarterly Vol. 45 No. 1/March 2021 303

Burton-Jones et al./Special Issue: Introduction

A hermeneutic view on novelty will make sense for (attributing agency to IT not just to users, and critiquing the
researchers who see theory building as ongoing attempts to notion of “users” altogether). Inspired by the changing con-
reach a better understanding of a phenomenon by cycling texts of that time, these authors helped reshaped the field’s
between understanding the parts and the whole (Bernstein thinking and ushered in multiple new lines of inquiry
1983). Repeated cycles of the hermeneutic circle create (achieving an average of 1700 citations each on Google
multiple interpretations which afford the possibility to reach Scholar).
original or unusual understandings that relate to the horizons
of prior views (Peat et al. 2019). From this perspective, a Despite the continued relevance of these papers, the world has
next-generation theory will provide a significant and original changed greatly since then. With the passage of time, several
interpretation of a part, a whole, or a fusion of horizons. characteristics of these studies are quite noticeable. For ex-
ample, they focused squarely on organizational contexts and
We stress this point about novelty for the simple reason that implications, whereas now the line between organizational
pushing for next-generation or new thinking does not mean and non-organizational contexts often blurs, and many more
forgetting the past. In both interpretations above, we cannot social implications are recognized. They also viewed techno-
understand the future without appreciating the past. In the logical phenomena as relatively isolatable and stable whereas
linear view, scholars must understand the past because the now there is increasing recognition of the interconnected and
new lines of inquiry are still path-dependent. In the herme- overflowing nature of the digital world. With such significant
neutic view, scholars must understand the past because current shifts taking place, it is unsurprising that other disciplines
and past understandings are related through the hermeneutic have joined us in studying “technology.” This challenges us
circle. Both views also provide us with a way to think of what to strive toward having impact beyond the IS field, reinforcing
is new. New insights can help move the field forward (linear a long-standing commitment to make digital and digitalization
view) or deeper and outward (hermeneutic view). our primary focus, not a background interest, all of which
suggests that we need next-generation theories and approaches
It is important for scholars to understand this link between the to understand the new world we inhabit and see ahead.
old and the new because a key characteristic of the IS field is
our constantly changing phenomena: novel technologies and
uses continue to emerge (Wang 2010). And yet, we also have
long-lived, persistent phenomena, such as the fundamentals of
Updating Views on Theory to Enable
information, sociotechnical systems, legacy infrastructure, and Next-Generation Theorizing
the installed base (Boell 2017; Bostrom and Heinen 1977;
Keen 1980; McKinney and Yoos 2010; Sarker et al. 2019; Publishing ground breaking theoretical work can be chal-
Star and Ruhleder 1996; Winter et al. 2014). Thus, those lenging if reviewers’ views on theorizing are locked in the
engaging in next-generation theorizing must keep an eye on past. This special issue provides a good opportunity to en-
the past while also looking to (or even creating) the future. gage in discussions about the practice of theorizing. After all,
it is hard to engage in next-generation scholarship if our views
To see all these aspects of next-generation theorizing in on theorizing are out-of-date.
action, consider the last special issue on theory in this journal.
The current special issue is MIS Quarterly’s second special The IS field has a long tradition of reflecting on its theories
issue devoted to theory papers. In March 1999, MIS Quarterly and theorizing (Keen 1980). While many of these papers are
issued a Call for Submissions for a Special Issue on well-known, we offer a summary in Table 2 as a reminder.
Redefining the Organizational Roles of Information Tech- This literature has been enormously helpful to us and many
nology in the Information Age, with the papers ultimately others, as has been the broader literature on theorizing in
published across two years (2002–2003). While not named as general (Dubin 1978; Jaccard and Jacoby 2010; Schutz 1962)
such, that special issue was an exercise in next-generation and in our neighboring fields (Carroll and Kellogg 1989;
theorizing motivated by changes occurring during the 1990s. Makadok et al. 2018; Tadajewski 2004; Wacker 1998; Weick
The papers in that special issue (Griffith et al. 2003; Lamb 1995).
and Kling 2003; Markus et al. 2002; Sambamurthy et al.
2003) all became classics. As we worked on this special issue, we reviewed and reflected
on this literature, as well as on our own experiences as authors
All four of those papers focused on contemporary phenomena and editors. We identified ways of thinking that work against
(knowledge management, digital strategy, and virtual teams), taking a next-generation view. In particular, we believe that
illustrated new ways of thinking (design theorizing and op- some researchers are held back from engaging in next-
tions thinking), and broadened and challenged core concepts generation theorizing, and some reviewers are held back from

304 MIS Quarterly Vol. 45 No. 1/March 2021

 Burton-Jones et al./Special Issue: Introduction

Table 2. Insights from the IS Literature on Theory and Theorizing

Categories of Insights Example References
Calls for IS-specific vis-à-vis reference Benbasat and Weber 1996; Grover and Lyytinen 2015; Keen 1980; Lee 2001;
discipline theory Markus and Saunders 2007; Orlikowski and Iacono 2001; Truex et al. 2006;
Weber 1987
The nature of theory and good theory Gregor 2006; Hassan et al. 2019; Lee and Baskerville 2003; Rivard 2014; Weber
2003, 2012
Aspects of causal structure Avgerou 2013, 2019; Burton-Jones et al. 2015; Davison and Martinsons 2016;
Hong et al. 2014; Lee et al. 1997; Markus and Robey 1988; Markus and Rowe
2018; Paré et al. 2008; Zhang and Gable 2017
The roles of theory in interpretive, Carroll and Swatman 2000; Klein and Myers 1999; Lee 1991; Longshore Smith
positivist, and critical research 2006; Orlikowski and Baroudi 1991; W alsham 1993
The nature and opportunities of Berente, Seidel, and Safadi 2019; Birk s et al. 2013; Urquhart and Fernandez
grounded theorizing 2013; Urquhart et al. 2010; W eische et al. 2017
The role of theory in design and action Baskerville et al. 2018; Davison et al. 2012; Gregor and Jones 2007; Gregory and
research Muntermann 2014; Rai 2017

appreciating next-generation theorizing, because one or both The IS Field’s Capabilities and Respon-
parties has an underdeveloped perspective on theorizing. sibilities to Engage in Next-Generation
Accordingly, in Table 3, we detail four shifts in the way theo-
Theorizing
rizing is often understood that we believe are important for
enabling next-generation theorizing: At this point in human history, as digitalization shapes almost
every aspect of work and life, IS phenomena are arguably
• from theory as an intellectual product to theory as an some of the most salient phenomena of our time. Unsur-
intellectual conversation prisingly, many fields are now trying to grapple with them.
• from theory as truth to theory as a lens Yet it remains the case that the IS research community is
• from theory as purely desk work to theory as reflective uniquely capable of doing so, because we have been theo-
engagement rizing the design, nature, and effects of information tech-
• from theory as purely representational to performative nology in business and society for half a century (Emery
1973; Langefors and Samuelson 1975; Mason and Mitroff
Each shift allows reviewers to provide more helpful and 1973).
developmental reviews of theoretical work. Viewing theo-
rizing as a conversation enables reviewers to appreciate how Our theorizing over these decades has benefited from a cul-
authors are trying to support or change a theoretical tradition. ture that values theory both for its power of application and
Viewing theory as a lens helps reviewers appreciate the value “for its own sake” (Keen 1980, p. 12). Such a culture has
of different perspectives. Viewing theorizing as reflective
been incredibly important because it has enabled and encour-
engagement allows reviewers to appreciate the benefits of
aged scholars to explore the profound complexity of the
learning from abstract reflection on one hand and learning in
phenomena that emerge at the intersection of IT and social
engaged modes of design and/or action on the other. And by
viewing theorizing as performative, reviewers can see how settings (Lee 1999). It is hard not to overstate this com-
authors are being mindful of theoretical positions, the world plexity. Because information systems are open systems, there
with which they are entangled, and how theories can become is an inexorable tension between studying the whole system in
generative in ways that are world-making. all its intricacy (where we risk saying nothing about a lot) and
focusing on a small subset that is more feasible to study
In sum, when reviewers keep all four of these perspectives in (where we risk saying a lot about nothing). Much of our
mind, we believe they will be more able to identify and shape field’s history has involved finding a balance between these
the potential of next-generation theories. And when both poles, and rebalancing over time as the phenomena we study
authors and reviewers appreciate these perspectives, we be- evolve (Kling and Scacchi 1982; Mumford 2003; Orlikowski
lieve next-generation theories are more likely to emerge. and Scott 2008; Robey et al. 2013; Sarker et al. 2019; Winter
Accordingly, we kept these in mind throughout this special et al. 2014).
issue process.

MIS Quarterly Vol. 45 No. 1/March 2021 305

Burton-Jones et al./Special Issue: Introduction

Table 3. Updating Our Views of Theorizing in the IS Field to Support Next-Generation Theorizing
Shifts in Views of Implications of the Shift for Implications of the Shift for
# Theorizing Description of Each View Theorizing in General Theorizing in IS
From: Theory as Theory is an explicit set of state- Knowing the history of theoretical Need to appreciate the history
intellectual product ments using constructs and ideas helps researchers when of ideas in IS because some
relationships to explain a particular selecting, building, or assessing parts of the field change
phenomenon. theory. For instance, the choice (sometimes dramatically) while
of a theory in a study often makes others stay stable. The goal is
more sense when you know the to improve and celebrate old
1 To: Theory as Theory is an evolving set of ideas choices in prior studies. Like- ideas while building and
intellectual that emerge and change over time wise, the way a theory is used in refining new ideas. Ideas may
conversation within and among scholarly com- a study (perhaps in a different also move in and out of
munities. The theory in a specific way to the theory’s original intent) relevance over time (e.g., the
paper is a version stabilized among may make sense when viewed in rise, fall, and rise of interest in
an authorship and review team at context. ethics).
one time.
From: Theory as A theory is an attempt to mirror a Researchers will gain more from Need to recognize that many
truth portion of reality. The goal is to seeking requisite variety in lenses IS phenomena are emergent,
select theories with greater fidelity rather than holding a winner- dynamic, and sociotechnically
and to improve the fidelity of takes-all view of theory, and by complex. Need to scope
existing theory. seeking tractable uncertainty and theories carefully, appreciate
productive insight rather than how theories are enabled and
To: Theory as lens A theory is a lens purposefully seeking certainty. New methods constrained by our methods,
2 selected for its specific focus and of data-informed theorizing offer and recognize that scholarly
relevance to key research ques- new opportunities for theorizing communities evolve with
tions. Need diversity in lenses by providing and refining lenses. different/changing starting
because the world is complex and assumptions.
overflows a single perspective or
priorities. Lenses may offer value
by surfacing questions or sensi-
bilities, not just answers.
From: Theory as A theory is ultimately a product of Researchers seeking to build or Need to be aware how the
purely desk work the researcher’s intellect (e.g., advance theory may need to world is changing, how we are
worked out in her/his armchair or engage in the field through being prevented or constrained
desk), removed from the empirical design, action, or interaction even from understanding certain
world being studied. more than those who wish merely parts of it, and how we can
3 to apply or test theory or who engage ourselves in action,
To: Theory as A theory can be a product of
conduct atheoretical work. By design, and learning with and
reflective engagement reflective engagement and action
corollary, lack of access to the from practitioners to theorize
research scholarship. While theo-
field or constraints on design/ important issues.
rizing can require desk work, it can
action can constrain theory
also occur in and through practice
building.
in the field and during design.
From: Theory as A theory is a simplified representa- Researchers need to be attentive Need to appreciate how the
purely tion of how a portion of the world to their entanglement with the sociomaterial phenomena we
representational works. The aim is to articulate the world and the generativity of the are studying is itself partly a
core logic in a simple, accurate, models with which they work product of theorizing, and how
generalizable way. (whether developed in research our theorizing, in turn, can
or practice). Researchers can potentially be enrolled (by us
To: Theory as A theory that is performative
4 contribute by articulating, and others) into world-making
performative describes and produces the world
critiquing, or even improving activities that can make a
simultaneously. Theories are thus
these theories, mindful of the difference.
‘models of’ and ‘models for’ the
effects of doing so.
world. They can make a difference
to events and the enactment of
reality (both positively and
negatively).

306 MIS Quarterly Vol. 45 No. 1/March 2021

 Burton-Jones et al./Special Issue: Introduction

Not only has the IS field valued theorizing for many years, Because of the growing challenges and complexities wrought
our focus on theorizing has increased in intensity over time by digital evolution, researchers have a great responsibility to
(Dennis 2019; Hirschheim and Klein 2012).2 As a result, the develop theories that can help society make sense of and act
IS field has now generated rich theoretical traditions across its in the world we encounter and are involved in creating.
various domains, from understanding how systems are Because of our strong capabilities in theorizing, the IS field is
developed (e.g., Hirschheim et al. 1995; Orlikowski 1993; exceptionally well-suited to do so. The responsibility and
Sabherwal and Robey 1995), to understanding the many ways opportunity is ours.
individuals, groups, organizations, and markets interact with
IT (e.g., Choudhury et al. 1998; Dennis et al. 2001; Hitt and
Brynjolfsson 1996; Majchrzak et al. 2000; Robey and
Boudreau 1999; Venkatesh et al. 2003; Zuboff 1988). The IS The Special Issue Process
field also has a rich history of questioning and improving the and Papers
philosophical foundations upon which these theories are based
(Hasan et al. 2018; Hirschheim et al. 1995; Mingers and Motivated by the need to demonstrate and further develop the
Willcocks 2004). These improvements in our theories and IS field’s theoretical capabilities, we released our call for
theoretical foundations have further benefitted from interplay papers in 2018. We were excited but unsure what we would
with our empirical traditions, such as our longstanding respect receive. We were delighted by the response! In this section,
for new data and analysis techniques (Brynjolfsson and Kahin we outline how we handled the papers we received and we
2000; Maas et al. 2018), diverse research methods (Birks et introduce the papers we accepted.
al. 2013; Rai 2017; Robey 1996; Sein et al. 2011), and
diverse contexts (Avgerou 2019; Hong et al. 2014; The special issue process involved four rounds: submission
Ngwenyama and Lee 1997). of abstracts, submission of full papers, and two rounds of
revisions. We conducted reviews at each stage to provide
Valuing theory comes with costs and challenges. Building feedback and cultivate the best work. From around 170
and writing theory can be time consuming and frustrating for abstracts and 60 full paper submissions, five full papers
authors. The seemingly never-ending dialogues and debates emerged. The submitted papers covered the full range of
that come with building a body of theory can hinder the timely topics and approaches in the field. We hope all these papers
description and addressing of practical topics. The language go on to have substantial influence. The five papers we
of theory is also often seen by practitioners as esoteric and accepted, in particular, are outstanding examples of next-
academic, exacerbating the research–practice divide. Our generation theorizing that we expect to have long-lasting
field has a long history of recognizing these challenges influence.
(Hovorka et al. 2019; Keen 1980).
In addition to these full papers, we also invited a number of
Despite the costs and limitations that a focus on theory can short contributions on theorizing, under the theme of theo-
impose, the theorizing capabilities developed in the IS field retical “provocations.” As the name suggests, we hope these
over the past 50 years are critically important, and must be thought pieces will provoke readers to think anew about the
nurtured, because the trends now facing the world are more work they currently do or might do going forward.
complex and serious than ever. In the field’s early days, some
researchers critiqued what we theorized as “much ado about When we reviewed and developed the full papers and provo-
nothing” (Huber 1983). But that time has long gone. The cations, we followed our call-for-papers in searching for
contemporary world is overflowing in digital interactions, manuscripts that excelled in the following dimensions:
with increasingly serious consequences for individuals,
groups, organizations, markets, and societies (Bharadwaj et al. • Motivate: We sought papers that revealed salient prob-
2013a; Majchrzak et al. 2016). The world of research is like- lems with existing theory and provided a powerful case
wise overflowing with digitalization, with ever-more sensors, to support new theorizing. We asked reviewers to ques-
data, and techniques (Bailey and Barley 2020). tion whether the theorization would make a real
difference to our understanding going forward.

• Create: We sought papers that advanced theory signi-

2
We verified this trend by examining MISQ’s editorial notes throughout the ficantly or created entirely new theory. We asked our
journal’s history. We found that while editors have balanced their focus on reviewers to support authors in advancing beyond fami-
theory and practice throughout MISQ’s history, editors focused more on liar or established theories and help them develop ideas
practice in the early years and more on theory in later years, with the 1990s that could be used by others.
being the transition.

MIS Quarterly Vol. 45 No. 1/March 2021 307

Burton-Jones et al./Special Issue: Introduction

• Mobilize: We sought papers that could excite readers to spective of an ecosystem’s parts, Wang replaces this view
pursue a new theory’s implications. We asked reviewers with a focus on part-whole dynamics. He achieves this
to share our goal of finding inspiring ideas and ap- shift by introducing the concept of holon from ecology to
proaches that enable the IS community to research theorize part–whole relations. He also links it to funda-
differently and better address the challenges around us. mental IS-specific concepts, such as information
processing, and shows how it can help us understand the
For the full papers, we encouraged papers that demonstrated role played by digital technologies in serving to integrate
excellence on all three of these dimensions. For the invited the parts and whole of an innovation ecosystem. The
provocations, we asked authors to focus on motivating and new theory offers a fruitful lens for exploring how to
mobilizing alone, to incite readers to tackle the creation aspect orchestrate a sustainable innovation ecosystem.
themselves in the future.
• Reza Mousavi Baygi, Lucas Introna, and Lotta Hultin, in
their paper “Everything Flows: Studying Continuous
The Full Papers: Exemplars of Next- Socio-Technological Transformation in a Fluid and Dy-
Generation Theorizing in namic Digital World,” provides another example of the
Information Systems “replace” strategy. Their paper is motivated by the
constant transformative change and flux wrought by new
We accepted five full papers, each one introducing a signifi- technologies that we see all around us. While they
cant shift in thinking in the IS field. Collectively, the papers acknowledge the growing importance of this issue, their
reflect all four strategies for engaging in next-generation point is that this has always been the case, for transfor-
theorizing shown earlier in Table 1. Like many strong papers, mative change is all there is. Their paper argues that
they make multiple contributions that can be interpreted in while prior theories (which tend to be actor-centric) have
different ways. While our summaries below cannot do justice their place, researchers can benefit from shifting to an
to their entire contribution, they provide a glimpse of what alternative, flow-centered orientation to theorizing. The
these papers offer. authors offer concepts from social anthropology to enable
this shift toward flow and show how they can transform
• Dorothy Leidner and Olgerta Tona, in their paper “The what we look at and theorize. Specifically, they show
CARE Theory of Dignity Amid Personal Data Digitali- how such an orientation toward flow can help us make
zation,” are motivated by the proliferation of personal sense of rapidly shifting digital phenomena (such as the
data and its implications for human dignity. The authors online emergence of political movements). The authors
outline the limitations of past theories and perspectives also outline the implications of their flow perspective for
for addressing the totality of the issue and, therefore, the rethinking how we theorize in the field.
need for a new overarching theory. The new theory they
create helps reveal the complex relationships between • Aaron Baird and Likoebe Maruping’s paper, “The Next
personal data digitalization and human dignity, including Generation of Research on IS Use: A Theoretical Frame-
its positive and negative elements, its individual and col- work of Delegation to and from Agentic IS Artifacts,” is
lective elements, and its immediate and longitudinal an exemplar of the “reformulate” strategy. Motivated by
trends. By serving as an overarching theory, comple- the increasing degrees of agency found in contemporary
menting and extending a number of influential theories in information systems, the authors call for a change to the
the field, the new theory offers numerous opportunities traditional “IS use” paradigm—arguably the largest body
for researchers to extend and test it. In terms of Table 1, of theory in our field. They argue that this traditional IS
this paper is an excellent example of the “extend” use paradigm needs an accompanying delegation
strategy, in that the authors extend theories of dignity to paradigm if we are to understand the use of agentic IS
understand an important emerging phenomenon. artifacts. The reformulation requires a new way of
thinking about use, users, systems, and how their inter-
• Ping Wang’s paper, “Connecting the Parts with the relationships lead to outcomes in particular tasks and
Whole: Toward an Information Ecology Theory of Digi- contexts. The authors offer a new framework of delega-
tal Innovation Ecosystems,” is an excellent example of tion to help guide research, illustrate several ways it can
the “replace” strategy in Table 1. Motivated by the be applied, and outline how it can be extended by others
growing importance of innovation ecosystems and the in the future.
difficulty of sustaining them, Wang builds a theory to
understand how efforts can be integrated in such systems. • Gerald Kane, Amber Young, Ann Majchrzak, and Sam
Whereas prior studies examined this issue from the per- Ransbotham’s, “Avoiding an Oppressive Future of

308 MIS Quarterly Vol. 45 No. 1/March 2021

 Burton-Jones et al./Special Issue: Introduction

Machine Learning: A Design Theory for Emancipatory growing scale of digital phenomena, and the limits to our
Assistants,” illustrates the “envision” strategy. Rather understanding of scale as revealed by practice theories,
than explaining the current world, they look into the in their provocation, “Scale Matters: Doing Practice-
future—a future that could be just around the corner Based Studies of Contemporary Digital Phenomena.”
given the signs and trends that we see around us.
Alarmed by the potential oppression that could occur in • Erik Brynjolfsson, Chong (Alex) Wang, and Xiaoquan
this future environment (a world they call “Informania”), (Michael) Zhang provoke the field to migrate to new
they draw on the traditions of critical theorists and design questions, and new ways of answering questions, on the
theorists to offer a new theory for the design of personal economics of IT, in their provocation, “The Economics
agents to fight AI oppression. The aim of these agents is of IT and Digitization: Eight Questions for Research.”
to help avoid a state of Informania and create a future
marked by reconciliation between machines and humans • Sudha Ram and Paulo Goes provoke the field to question
rather than oppression. This thought-provoking paper the place of theory in the pursuit of high-impact research,
offers new design principles for designers to use and for in their provocation, “Focusing on Programmatic High
researchers to explore. It also exemplifies a form of Impact Information Systems Research, Not Theory, to
theorizing that might be applied fruitfully in many Address Grand Challenges.”
domains of IS research in the future.
• Bernd Stahl and M. Lynne Markus provoke the field to
reflect on how it can take a leadership position in the
The Provocations: Ideas and Challenges for ethics of smart systems, in their provocation, “Let’s
Next-Generation Theorizing in Information Claim the Authority to Speak Out on the Ethics of Smart
Systems Information Systems.”

We invited eight short provocations, each undergoing several • Natalia Levina provokes the field to reflect on the need
rounds of editorial review. We selected author teams based to be more transparent and systematic in the way it con-
on the abstracts we received from our first call for papers ceptualizes, uses, and describes theorizing, in her provo-
together with a desire to represent the diversity of voices and cation, “All Information Systems Theory Is Grounded
approaches in the field. We sought contributions that could Theory.”
help the field avoid the perils of risk-aversion that can impede
theorizing (Wang et al. 2017) and the tendency to follow • Finally, John Leslie King provokes scholars to get back
existing scripts (Grover and Lyytinen 2015). Much like the to their roots in understanding what theorizing is and why
“Visions and Voices” contribution in the Digital Business it matters, in his provocation, “Who Needs Theory?”
Strategy special issue (Bharadwaj et al. 2013b), we hoped to
encourage researchers to think differently, spark debate, and
unsettle researchers who have fallen into a rut with existing
scripts. Conclusion
Each of the provocations provokes researchers in different Working on this special issue has been an immense privilege
ways: for us. We saw our roles as helping the IS field, in at least a
small way, to reimagine its theoretical foundations and
• Monica Tremblay, Rajiv Kohli, and Nicole Forsgren pro- futures. It has been an exciting and challenging journey! We
voke the field to rethink what theorizing should be with received many more submissions than we could publish, and
practitioner–academic engagement, in their provocation, we hope all these papers go on to be published in the future.
“Theories in Flux: Reimagining Theory Building in the Together with the excellent papers in this special issue, we
Age of Machine Learning.” hope this new body of theoretical work creates a new wave of
interest in theory and theorizing, and a new wave of energy
• Dirk Hovorka and Sandra Peter provoke the field to for advancing IS research of all genres.
revisit its responsibility to help society understand and
shape our shared futures, in their provocation, “Specula- As we wrap-up this special issue, we are even more excited
tively Engaging Future(s): Four Theses.” about the potential for theorizing in our field than we were at
its start. The special issue process afforded us a two-year’s
• Michael Barrett and Wanda Orlikowski provoke the field long conversation with scholars from all corners of our field
to rethink the limits of practice theories in the face of the interested in reflecting on and debating theory. The process

MIS Quarterly Vol. 45 No. 1/March 2021 309

Burton-Jones et al./Special Issue: Introduction

has reinforced our belief that it has never been a more impor- acknowledge the generous support of the College of Infor-
tant time in our field to theorize creatively and boldly. It is mation Studies at the University of Maryland for hosting our
through theorizing that we create new ideas and insights. special issue workshop, and Emily Dacquisto for her help.
Theorizing is an expression of our curiosity—our need to We owe a special debt to Dr. Gongtai Wang for his excellent
wonder, invent, imagine. And nothing is surer than the need research and editorial assistance. We also benefitted from
for this to continue. To paraphrase Duke Ellington’s descrip- comments from participants in seminars at the London School
tion of a great musician, it is through theorizing that we keep of Economics, HEC Montreal, University of Georgia, Univer-
the intellectual foundations of our field “perpetually con- sity of Texas at San Antonio, Deakin University, and Xidian
temporary” (Williams 2007). University. Finally, we acknowledge all the reviewers and
editorial board members serving on the special issue. They
are listed below, alphabetically.
Acknowledgments
We thank Arun Rai for his tireless support for this special
issue and all the authors who trusted us with their work. We

Special Issue Associate Editors and Reviewers

Diane Bailey Varun Grover Likoebe Maruping Ulrike Schultze
Michael Barrett Hong Guo Nigel Melville Gerhard Schwabe
Michel Benaroch Janine Hacker John Mingers Anastasia Sergeeva
Beth Bechky Wencui Han Shaila Miranda Teresa Shaft
Nicholas Berente Matthew Hashim Emmanuel Monod Maha Shaikh
Kevin Boudreau Rudy Hirschheim Eric Monteiro Pratyush Sharma
Glenn Browne Susanna Ho Saggi Nevo Mari-Klara Stein
Gordon Burtch James Howison Jeffrey Nickerson Ning Su
Bendik Bygstad Lucas Introna Wanda Orlikowski Anjana Susarla
Hasan Cavusoglu Michael Jacobides Brian Pentland Barney Tan
Min Chen Robert Johnston Alain Pinnsoneault Amrit Tiwana
Panos Constantinides Steven Johnston Neil Pollock Emma Vaast
Robert Crossler Matthew Jones Hatim Rahman Ping Wang
Kevin Crowston Jannis Kallinikos Jan Recker Martin Wiener
Luciana D'Adderio Prasanna Karhade Ching Ren Robin Williams
John D'Arcy Brian Keegan Lauren Rhue David Xu
Alan Dennis Seamas Kelly Kai Riemer Ling Xue
Anne-Laure Fayard Huigang Liang Lionel Robert Mochen Yang
Jens Foerderer Natalia Levina Terence Saldanha Jinjing Zhang
Marlene Fraune Aron Lindberg Jorgen Sandberg Bob Zmud
Ahmed Gazawneh Rikard Lindgren Carol Saunders
Jodi Gittell Kalle Lyytinen Krishnan Satish
Vern Glaser Ann Majchrzak Steve Sawyer

310 MIS Quarterly Vol. 45 No. 1/March 2021

 Burton-Jones et al./Special Issue: Introduction

References Bostrom, R. P., and Heinen, J. S. 1977. “MIS Problems and

Failures: A Socio-Technical Perspective. Part 1: The Causes,”
Agarwal, R., and Dhar, V. 2014. “Big Data, Data Science, and MIS Quarterly (1:3), pp. 17-32.
Analytics: The Opportunity and Challenge for IS Research,” Brynjolfsson, E., and Kahin, B. (eds.). 2000. Understanding the
Information Systems Research (25:3), pp. 443-448. Digital Economy: Data, Tools, and Research, Cambridge, MA:
Ågerfalk, P. 2014. “Insufficient Theoretical Contribution: A MIT Press.
Conclusive Rationale for Rejection?,” European Journal of Brynjolfsson, E., Wang, C., and Zhang, X. 2021.“The Economics
Information Systems (23:6), pp. 593-599. of IT and Digitization: Eight Questions for Research,” MIS
Anderson, C. 2008. “The End of Theory,” Wired (16:7), p. 71. Quarterly (45:1), pp. 473-477.
Avgerou, C. 2013. “Social Mechanisms for Causal Explanation in Burton-Jones, A., McLean, E., and Monod, E. 2015. “Theoretical
Social Theory Based IS Research,” Journal of the Association for Perspectives in IS Research: From Variance and Process to
Information Systems (14:8), pp. 399-419. Conceptual Latitude and Conceptual Fit,” European Journal of
Avgerou, C. 2019. “Contextual Explanation: Alternative Ap- Information Systems (24:6), pp. 664-679.
proaches and Persistent Challenges,” MIS Quarterly (43:3), pp. Carroll, J. M., and Kellogg, W. A. 1989. “Artifact as Theory-
977-1006. Nexus: Hermeneutics Meets Theory-Based Design,” ACM SIG
Avison, D., and Malaurent, J. 2014. “Is Theory King? Questioning CHI Bulletin (20:SI), 1989, pp. 7-14.
the Theory Fetish in Information Systems,” Journal of Infor- Carroll, J. M., and Swatman, P. A. 2000. “Structured-Case: A
mation Technology (29), pp. 327-336. Methodological Framework for Building Theory in Information
Bailey, D. E., and Barley, S. R. 2020. “Beyond Design and Use: Systems Research,” European Journal of Information Systems
How Scholars Should Study Intelligent Technologies,” Infor- (9:4), pp. 235-242.
mation and Organization (30:2), pp. 1-12. Carter, M., and Grover, V. 2015. “Me, My Self, and I(T):
Baird, A., and Maruping, L. M. 2021. “Theorizing IS Delegation: Conceptualizing Information Technology Identity and its
Supporting the Next Generation of IS Use Research,” MIS Implications,” MIS Quarterly (39:4), pp. 931-957.
Quarterly (45:1), pp. 315-341. Chang, R. M., Kauffman, R. J., and Kwon, Y. O. 2014.
Barrett, M., and Orlikowski, W. 2021. “Scale Matters: Doing “Understanding the Paradigm Shift to Computational Social
Practice-Based Studies of Contemporary Digital Phenomena,” Science in the Presence of Big Data,” Decision Support Systems
MIS Quarterly (45:1), pp. 467-472. (63), pp. 67-80.
Baskerville, R. L., Baiyere, A., Gregor, S., Hevner, A. R., and Choudhury, V., Hartzel, K., and Konsynski, B. 1998. “Uses and
Rossi, M. 2018. “Design Science Reesarch Contributions: Consequences of Electronic Markets: An Empirical Investigation
Finding a Balance between Artifact and Theory,” Journal of the in the Aircraft Parts Industry,” MIS Quarterly (22:4), pp.
Association for Information Systems (19:5), pp. 358-376.
471-507.
Benbasat, I., and Weber, R. 1996. “Rethinking ‘Diversity’ in
Cook, T. D., and Campbell, D. T. 1979. Quasi-Experimentation:
Information Systems Research,” Information Systems Research
Design & Analysis Issues for Field Settings, Boston: Houghton
(7:4), pp. 389-399.
Mifflin.
Berente, N., Lyytinen, K., Yoo, Y., and Maurer, C. 2019. “Insti-
Davison, R. M., and Martinsons, M. G. 2016. “Context Is King!
tutional Logics and Pluralistic Responses to Enterprise Systems
Considering Particularism in Research Design and Reporting,”
Implementation: A Qualitative Meta-Analysis,” MIS Quarterly
Journal of Information Technology (31:3), pp. 241-249.
(43:3), pp. 873-902.
Davison, R. M., Martinsons, M. G., and Ou, C. X. J. 2012. “The
Berente, N., Seidel, S., and Safadi, H. 2019. “Research
Roles of Theory in Canonical Action Research,” MIS Quarterly
Commentary—Data-Driven Computationally-Intensive Theory
(36:3), pp. 763-786.
Development,” Information Systems Research (30:1), pp. 50-64.
Bernstein, R. J. 1983. Beyond Objectivism and Relativism: Dennis, A. R. 2019. “An Unhealthy Obsession with Theory,”
Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxis, Philadelphia: University of Journal of the Association for Information Systems (20:9), pp.
Pennsylvania Press. 1406-1411.
Bharadwaj, A., El Sawy, O. A., Pavlou, P. A., and Venkatraman, N. Dennis, A. R., Fuller, R. M., and Valacich, J. S. 2008. “Media,
2013a. “Digital Business Strategy: Toward a Next Generation Tasks, and Communication Processes: A Theory of Media
of Insights,” MIS Quarterly (37:2), pp. 471-482. Synchronicity,” MIS Quarterly (32:3), pp. 575-600.
Bharadwaj, A., El Sawy, O. A., Pavlou, P., and Venkatraman, N. Dennis, A. R., Wixom, B. H., and Vandenberg, R. J. 2001. “Under-
2013b. “Visions and Voices on Emerging Challenges in Digital standing Fit and Appropriation Effects in Group Support Systems
Business Strategy,” MIS Quarterly (37:2), pp. 633-661. via Meta-Analysis,” MIS Quarterly (25:2), pp. 167-193.
Birks, D. F., Fernandez, W., Levina, N., and Nasirin, S. 2013. Dubin, R. 1978. Theory Building (rev. ed.), New York: The Free
“Grounded Theory Method in Information Systems Research: Its Press.
Nature, Diversity, and Opportunities,” European Journal of Einav, L., and Levin, J. 2014. “Economics in the Age of Big Data,”
Information Systems (22:1), pp. 1-8. Science (346:6210), 1243089.
Boell, S. K. 2017. “Information: Fundamental Positions and Their Emery, J. C. 1973. “An Overview of Management Information
Implications for Information Systems Research, Education, and Systems,” The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems
Practice,” Information and Organization (27), pp. 1-16. (5), pp. 1-15.

MIS Quarterly Vol. 45 No. 1/March 2021 311

Burton-Jones et al./Special Issue: Introduction

Goes, P. 2013. “Editor’s Comments,” MIS Quarterly (37:1), pp. Huber, G. P. 1983. “Cognitive Style as a Basis for MIS and DSS
iii-vii. Design: Much Ado About Nothing?,” Management Science
Gregor, S. 2006. “The Nature of Theory in Information Systems,” (29:5), pp. 567-579.
MIS Quarterly (30:3), pp. 611-642. Jaccard, J., and Jacoby, J. 2010. Theory Construction and
Gregor, S., and Jones, D. 2007. “The Anatomy of a Design Model-Building Skills, New York: Guilford Press.
Theory,” Journal of the Association for Information Systems Johnson, S. L., Gray, P., and Sarker, S. 2918, “Revisiting IS
(8:5), pp. 312-335. Research Practice in the Era of Big Data,” Information and
Gregory, R. W., and Muntermann, J. 2014. “Heuristic Theorizing: Organization (29), pp. 41-56.
Proactively Generating Design Theories,” Information Systems Jordan, M. I., and Mitchell, T. M. 2015. “Machine Learning:
Research (25:3), pp. 639-653. Trends, Perspectives, and Prospects,” Science (349:6245), pp.
Griffith, T. L., Sawyer, J. E., and Neale, M. A. 2003. “Virtualness 255-260.
and Knowledge in Teams: Managing the Love Triangle of Kane, G. C., Young, A. G., Majchrzak, A., and Ransbotham, S.
Organizations, Individuals, and Information Technology,” MIS 2021. “Avoiding an Oppressive Future of Machine Learning: A
Quarterly (27:2), pp. 265-287. Design Theory for Emancipatory Assistants,” MIS Quarterly
Grover, V., and Lyytinen, K. 2015. “New State of Play in (45:1), pp. 371-396.
Information Systems Research: The Push to the Edges,” MIS Keen, P. G. W. 1980. “MIS Research: Reference Disciplines and
Quarterly (39:2), pp. 271-296. a Cumulative Tradition,” in Proceedings of the First Conference
Hambrick, D. C. 2007. “The Field of Management's Devotion to on Information Systems, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 9-18.
Theory: Too Much of a Good Thing?,” Academy of Management King, J. L. 2021. “Who Needs Theory,” MIS Quarterly (45:1), pp.
Journal (50:6), pp. 1346-1352. 495-498.
Hasan, N. R., Mingers, J., and Stahl, B. 2018. “Philosophy and Kitcher, P. 1982. Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism,
Information Systems: Where are We and Where Should We Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Go?,” European Journal of Information Systems (27:3), pp. Kitchin, R. 2014. “Big Data, New Epistemologies and Paradigm
263-277. Shifts,” Big Data and Society (1:1), pp. 1-12.
Hassan, N. R., Mathiassen, L., and Lowry, P. B. 2019. “The Pro- Klein, H. K., and Myers, M. D. 1999. “A Set of Principles for
cess of Information Systems Theorizing as a Discursive Practice,” Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in
Journal of Information Technology (34:3), pp. 198-220. Information Systems,” MIS Quarterly (23:1), pp. 67-93.
Haveman, H. A., Mahoney, J. T., and Mannix, E. 2019. “Call for Kling, R., and Scacchi, W. 1982. “The Web of Computing:
Papers: AMR Special Topic Forum: The Role of Theory in Computer Technology as Social Organization,” Advances in
Management Research,” Academy of Management Review, pp. Computers (21), pp. 1-90.
1-3. Kuhn, T. S. 1996. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (3rd ed.),
Hirschheim, R. 2019. “Against Theory: With Apologies to Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Feyerabend,” Journal of the Association for Information Systems Lamb, R., and Kling, R. 2003. “Reconceptualizing Users as Social
(20:9), pp. 1340-1357. Actors in Information Systems Research,” MIS Quarterly (27:2),
Hirschheim, R., and Klein, H. K. 2012. “A Glorious and pp. 197-235.
Not-So-Short History of the Information Systems Field,” Journal Langefors, B., and Samuelson, K. 1975. Information and Data in
of the Association for Information Systems (13:4), pp. 188-235. Systems, New York: Petrocelly/Charter.
Hirschheim, R., Klein, H., and Lyytinen, K. 1995. Information Lee, A. S. 1991. “Integrating Positivist and Interpretive Ap-
Systems Development and Data Modeling: Conceptual and proaches to Organizational Research,” Organization Science
Philosophical Foundations, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge (2:4), pp. 342-365.
University Press. Lee, A. S. 1999. “Inaugural Editor’s Comments: The MIS Field,
Hitt, L. M., and Brynjolfsson, E. 1996. “Productivity, Business the Publication Process, and the Future Course of MIS
Profitability, and Consumer Surplus: Three Different Measures Quarterly,” MIS Quarterly (23:1), pp. v-xi.
of Information Technology Value,” MIS Quarterly (20:2), pp. Lee, A. S. 2001. “Editor’s Comments: Research in Information
121-142. Systems: What We Haven’t Learned,” MIS Quarterly (25:4), pp.
Hong, W., Chan, K. Y., Thong, J. Y. L., Chasalow, L., and v-xv.
Dhillon, G. 2014. “The Role of Context in Theory Devel- Lee, A. S., and Baskerville, R. 2003. “Generalizing Generali-
opment: A Framework and Guidelines for Context-Specific zability in Information Systems Research,” Information Systems
Theorizing in Information Systems Research,” Information Research (14:3), pp. 221-243.
Systems Research (25:1), pp. 111-136. Lee, B., Barua, A., and Whinston, A. B. 1997. “Representation of
Hovorka, D., Rowe, F., Markus, M. L., Jarvenpaa, S., Swanson, Causal Relationships in MIS Research: A Methodological
E. B., Lacity, M., Burton-Jones, A., Venkatesh, V., and Framework,” MIS Quarterly (21:1), pp. 109-136.
Hirschheim, R. 2019. “Scholarly Commentaries on Hirsch- Leidner, D., and Tona, O. 2021. “The CARE Theory of Dignity
heim’s ‘Against Theory,’” Journal of the Association for Infor- Amid Personal Data Digitalization,” MIS Quarterly (45:1), pp.
mation Systems (20:9), pp. 1358-1389. 343-370.
Hovorka, D. S., and Peter, S. 2021. “Speculatively Engaging Levina, N. 2021. “All Information Systems Theory Is Grounded
Future(s): Four Theses,” MIS Quarterly (45:1), pp. 461-466. Theory,” MIS Quarterly (45:1), pp. 489-494.

312 MIS Quarterly Vol. 45 No. 1/March 2021

 Burton-Jones et al./Special Issue: Introduction

Longshore Smith, M. 2006. “Overcoming Theory–Practice Incon- Nan, N. 2011. “Capturing Bottom-Up IT Use Processes: A Com-
sistencies: Critical Realism and Information Systems Research,” plex Adaptive Systems Model,” MIS Quarterly 2011, pp.
Information and Organization (16), 2006, pp. 191-211. 505-532.
Lukyanenko, R., Parsons, J., Wiersma, Y., and Maddah, M. 2019. Ngwenyama, O. K., and Lee, A. S. 1997. “Communication
“Expecting the Unexpected: Effects of Data Collection Design Richness in Electronic Mail: Critical Social Theory and the
Choices on the Quality of Crowdsourced User-Generated Contextuality of Meaning,” MIS Quarterly (21:2), pp. 145-167.
Content,” MIS Quarterly (43:2), pp. 623-647. Orlikowski, W. J. 1993. “CASE Tools as Organizational Change:
Maas, W., Parsons, J., Purao, S., Storey, V. C., and Woo, C. 2018. Investigating Incremental and Radical Changes in Systems
“Data-Driven Meets Theory-Driven Research in the Era of Big Development,” MIS Quarterly (17:3), pp. 309-340.
Data: Opportunities and Challenges for Information Systems
Orlikowski, W. J., and Baroudi, J. J. 1991. “Studying Information
Research,” Journal of the Association for Information Systems
Technology in Organizations: Research Approaches and
(19:12), pp. 1253-1273.
Assumptions,” Information Systems Research (2:1), pp. 1-28.
Majchrzak, A., Markus, M. L., and Wareham, J. 2016. “Designing
Orlikowski, W. J., and Iacono, C. S. 2001. “Desperately Seeking
for Digital Transformation: Lessons for Information Systems
Research from the Study of ICT and Societal Challenges,” MIS the ‘IT’ in IT Research—A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact,”
Quarterly (40:2), pp. 267-277. Information Systems Research (12:2), pp. 121-134.
Majchrzak, A., Rice, R. E., Malhorta, A., King, N., and Ba, S. Orlikowski, W. J., and Scott, S. V. 2008. “Sociomateriality:
2000. “Technology Adaptation: The Case of a Computer- Challenging the Separation of Technology, Work and Organi-
Supported Inter-Organizational Virtual Team,” MIS Quarterly zation,” The Academy of Management Annals (2:1), pp. 433-474.
(24:4), pp. 569-600. Paré, G., Bourdeau, S., Marsan, J., Nach, H., and Shuraida, S. 2008.
Makadok, R., Burton, R., and Barney, J. 2018. “A Practical Guide “Re-examining the Causal Structure of Information Technology
for Making Theory Contributions in Strategic Management,” Impact Research,” European Journal of Information Systems
Strategic Management Journal (39:6), pp. 1530-1545. (17:4), pp. 403-416.
Markus, M. L., Majchrzak, A., and Gasser, L. 2002. “A Design Parker, G., Van Alstyne, M., and Jiang, X. 2916, “Platform
Theory for Systems that Support Emergent Knowledge Ecosystems: How Developers Invert the Firm,” MIS Quarterly
Processes,” MIS Quarterly (26:3), pp. 179-212. (41:1), pp. 255-266.
Markus, M. L., and Robey, D. 1988. “Information Technology and Peat, G., Rodriguez, A., and Smith, J. 2019. “Interpretive
Organizational Change: Causal Structure in Theory and Phenomenological Analysis Applied to Healthcare Research,”
Research,” Management Science (34:5), pp. 583-598. BMJ: Evidence Based Nursing (22:1), pp. 7-9.
Markus, M. L., and Rowe, F. 2018. “Is IT Changing the World? Popper, K. 1980. The Logic of Scientific Discovery, London:
Conceptions of Causality for Information Systems Theorizing,” Unwin Hyman.
MIS Quarterly (42:4), pp. 1255-1280. Rai, A. 2017. “Editor’s Comments: Diversity of Design Science
Markus, M. L., and Saunders, C. 2007. “Looking for a Few Good Research,” MIS Quarterly (41:1), pp. iii-xviii.
Concepts…and Theories…for the Information Systems Field,”
Ram, S., and Goes, P. 2021. “Focusing on Programmatic High
MIS Quarterly (31:1), pp. iii-vi.
Impact Information Systems Research, Not Theory, to Address
Mason, R. O., and Mitroff, I. I. 1973. “A Program of Research on
Grand Challenges,” MIS Quarterly (45:1), pp. 479-483.
Management Information Systems,” Management Science (19:5),
Rivard, S. 2014. “The Ions of Theory Construction,” MIS
pp. 475-487.
McKinney, E. H., and Yoos, C. J. 2010. “Information about Quarterly (38:2), pp. iii-xiii.
Information: A Taxonomy of Views,” MIS Quarterly (34:2), pp. Robey, D. 1996. “Diversity in Information Systems Research:
329-344. Threat, Promise, and Responsibility,” Information Systems
Mingers, J., and Willcocks, L. (eds.). 2004. Social Theory and Research (7:4), pp. 400-408.
Philosophy for Information Systems, Chichester, UK: John Robey, D., Anderson, C., and Raymond, B. 2013. “Information
Wiley & Sons. Technology, Materiality, and Organizational Change: A Profes-
Moorman, C., van Heerde, H. J., Moreau, C. P., and Palmatier, sional Odyssey,” Journal of the Association for Information
R. W. 2019. “Challenging the Boundaries of Marketing,” Systems (14:7), pp. 379-398.
Journal of Marketing (83:5), pp. 1-4. Robey, D., and Boudreau, M.-C. 1999. “Accounting for the
Mousavi Baygi, R., Introna, L., and Hultin, L. 2021. “Everything Contradictory Organizational Consequences of Information Tech-
Flows: Studying Continuous Socio-Technological Transfor- nology: Theoretical Directions and Methodological Implica-
mation in a Fluid and Dynamic Digital World,” MIS Quarterly tions,” Information Systems Research (10:2), pp. 167-185.
(45:1), pp. 423-452. Sabherwal, R., and Robey, D. 1995. “Reconciling Variance and
Mueller, B., and Urbach, N. 2017. “Understanding the Why, What, Process Strategies for Studying Information Systems Devel-
and How of Theories in IS Research,” Communications of the opment,” Information Systems Research (6:4), pp. 303-327.
Association for Information Systems (41:17), pp. 349-388. Sambamurthy, V., Bharadwaj, A., and Grover, V. 2003. “Shaping
Mumford, E. 2003. “Information Systems Research and the Quest Agility through Digitial Options: Reconceptualizing the Role of
for Certainty,” Journal of the Association for Information Information Technology in Contemporary Firms,” MIS Quarterly
Systems (4:4), pp. 197-205. (27:2), pp. 237-263.

MIS Quarterly Vol. 45 No. 1/March 2021 313

Burton-Jones et al./Special Issue: Introduction

Sarker, S., Chatterjee, S., Xiao, X., and Elbanna, A. 2019. “The Wacker, J. G. 1998. “A Definition of Theory: Research Guidelines
Sociotechnical. “Axis of Cohesion” for the IS Discipline: Its for Different Theory-Building Research Methods in Operations
Historical Legacy and its Continued Relevance,” MIS Quarterly Management,” Journal of Operations Management (16:4), pp.
(43:3), pp. 695-719. 361-385.
Schutz, A. 1962. “Concept and Theory Formation in the Social Walsham, G. 1993. Interpreting Information Systems in Organi-
Sciences,” in Collected Papers, M. Natanson (ed.), The Hague: zations, Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Martinus Nijhoff, 1962, pp. 48-66. Wang, J., Veugelers, R., and Stephan, P. 2017. “Bias Against
Sein, M. K., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., and Lindgren, R. Novelty in Science: A Cautionary Tale for Users of Bibliometric
2011. “Action Design Research,” MIS Quarterly (35:1), pp. Indicators,” Research Policy (46), pp. 1416-1436.
35-56. Wang, P. 2010. “Chasing the Hottest IT: Effects of Information
Sidorova, A., Evangelopoulos, N., Valacich, J. S., and Rama- Technology Fashion on Organizations,” MIS Quarterly (34:1),
krishnan, T. 2008. “Uncovering the Intellectual Core of the pp. 63-85.
Information Systems Discipline,” MIS Quarterly (32:3), pp. Wang, P. 2021. “Connecting the Parts with the Whole: Toward an
467-482. Information Ecology Theory of Digital Innovation Ecosystems,”
Stahl, B. C., and Markus, M. L. 2021. “Let’s Claim the Authority MIS Quarterly (45:1), pp. 397-422.
Weber, R. 1987. “Toward a Theory of Artifacts: A Paradigmatic
to Speak Out on the Ethics of Smart Information Systems,” MIS
Basis for Information Systems Research,” Journal of Information
Quarterly (45:1), pp. 485-488.
Systems (1:2), pp. 3-19.
Star, S. L., and Ruhleder, K. 19996. “Steps Towards an Ecology of
Weber, R. 2003. “Editor’s Comments: Theoretically Speaking,”
Infrastructure: Design and Access for Large Information
MIS Quarterly (27:3), pp. iii-xii.
Spaces,” Information Systems Research (7:1), pp. 111-134.
Weber, R. 2012. “Evaluating and Developing Theories in the
Steadman, I. 2013. “Big Data and the Death of the Theorist,”
Information Systems Discipline,” Journal of the Association for
Wired, January 25 (https://www.wired.co.uk/article/big-data-
Information Systems (13:1), pp. 1-30.
end-of-theory). Weick, K. E. 1995. “What Theory is Not, Theorizing Is,”
Straub, D. W., Ang, S., and Evaristo, R. 1994. “Normative Administrative Science Quarterly (40:3), pp. 385-390.
Standards for IS Research,” DataBase for Advances in Weische, M., Jurisch, M., Yetton, P., and Krcmar, H. 2017.
Information Systems (25:1), pp. 21-34. “Grounded Theory Methodology in Information Systems
Tadajewski, M. 2004. “The Philosophy of Marketing Theory: Research,” MIS Quarterly (41:3), pp. 685-701.
Historical and Future Directions,” The Marketing Review (4:3), Williams, M. L. 2007. “Perpetually Contemporary,” NPR News,
pp. 307-340. July 25 (https://www.npr.org/2007/07/25/11904062/ mary-lou-
Tourish, D. 2020. “The Triumph of Nonsense in Management williams-perpetually-contemporary).
Studies,” Academy of Management Learning & Education (19:1), Wilson, E. O. 1998. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, New
pp. 99-109. York: Vintage Books.
Tremblay, M. C., Kohli, R., and Forsgren, N. 2021. “Theories in Winter, S., Berente, N., Howison, J., and Butler, B. 2014. “Beyond
Flux: Reimagining Theory Building in the Age of Machine the Organizational ‘Container’: Conceptualizing 21st Century
Learning,” MIS Quarterly (45:1), pp. 455-459. Sociotechnical Work,” Information and Organization (24:4), pp.
Truex, D., Holmström, J., and Keil, M. 2006. “Theorizing in 250-269.
Information Systems Research: A Reflexive Analysis of the Wood, R. E. 1986. “Task Complexity: Definition of the Con-
Adaptation of Theory in Information Systems Research,” Journal struct,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
of the Association for Information Systems (7:12), pp. 797-821. (37:1), pp. 60-82.
Urquhart, C., and Fernandez, W. 2013. “Using Grounded Theory Yoo, Y. 2010. “Computing in Everyday Life: A Call for Research
Method in Information Systems: The Researcher as Blank Slate on Experiential Computing,” MIS Quarterly (34:2), pp. 213-231.
and Other Myths,” Journal of Information Technology (28), pp. Zeithaml, V. A., Jaworski, B. J., Kohli, A. K., Tuli, K. R.,
224-236. Ulaga, W., and Zaltman, G. 2020. “A Theories-in-Use Approach
Urquhart, C., Lehmann, H., and Myers, M. D. 2010. “Putting the to Building Marketing Theory,” Journal of Marketing (84:1), pp.
‘Theory’ Back into Grounded Theory: Guidelines for Grounded 32-51.
Theory Studies in Information Systems,” Information Systems Zhang, M., and Gable, G. G. 2017. “A Systematic Framework for
Journal (20), pp. 357-381. Multilevel Theorizing in Information Systems Research,” Infor-
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., and Davis, F. D. 2003. mation Systems Research (28:2), pp. 203-224.
“User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified Zuboff, S. 1988. In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of
View,” MIS Quarterly (27:3), pp. 425-478. Work and Power, New York: Basic Books.

314 MIS Quarterly Vol. 45 No. 1/March 2021

Copyright of MIS Quarterly is the property of MIS Quarterly and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.