Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Theoretical, Empirical, and Artefactual Contributions in Information Systems Research: Implications Implied*

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Advancing Information Systems Theories

Part of the book series: Technology, Work and Globalization ((TWG))

Abstract

In this chapter, we explore different types of research contributions and research implications. We explain why such a distinction can be useful when discussing research outcomes both when crafting and when evaluating manuscripts for publication. By taking an incremental view of knowledge development, we identify three types of research contributions: theoretical, empirical, and artefactual. Because an implication always exists in relation to a contribution, we explore what implications these contributions lead to in research practice and domain practice. This leads us to propose an analytical framework that we hope can help increase the quality of researchers’ discussions about research contributions and implications, enabling researchers to pinpoint these aspects with higher accuracy. In addition, understanding the implications of research can provide guidance to reviewers and editors in their efforts to scrutinize and develop manuscripts evaluated for journals and conferences.

*An earlier version of this chapter appeared as Ågerfalk, P. J., & Karlsson, F. (2020). Artefactual and empirical contributions in information systems research. European Journal of Information Systems, 29(2), 109–113.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ågerfalk, P. J. (2014). Insufficient theoretical contribution: A conclusive rationale for rejection? European Journal of Information Systems, 23(6), 593–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ågerfalk, P. J., & Wiberg, M. (2018). Pragmatizing the normative artefact: Design science research in Scandinavia and beyond. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 43(4), 68–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avison, D., & Malaurent, J. J. (2014). Is theory king? Questioning the theory fetish in information systems. Journal of Information Technology, 29(4), 327–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baskerville, R. (2004). An editor’s values. European Journal of Information Systems, 13(1), 1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baskerville, R., & Wood-Harper, A. T. (1998). Diversity in information systems action research methods. European Journal of Information Systems, 7(2), 90–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benbasat, I., & Zmud, R. W. (1999). Empirical research in information systems: The practice of relevance. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 3–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. E. (2011). Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 12–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronen, V. (2001). Practical theory, practical art, and the pragmatic-systemic account of inquiry. Communication Theory, 11(1), 14–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davison, R. M., Martinsons, M. G., & Kock, N. (2004). Principles of canonical action research. Information Systems Journal, 14(1), 65–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geletkanycz, M., & Tepper, B. J. (2012). Publishing in AMJ-Part 6: Discussing the implications. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 256–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Germonprez, M., Hovorka, D. I., & Collopy, F. (2007). A theory of tailorable technology design. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(6), 21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldkuhl, G., & Röstlinger, A. (2003). Towards an integral understanding of organizations and information systems: Convergence of three theories. In H. W. M. Gazendam, R. J. Jorna, & R. S. Cijsouw (Eds.), Dynamics and change in organizations (pp. 133–161). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gregor, S. (2006). The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 611c642.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregor, S., & Baskerville, R. (2012). The fusion of design science and social science research. Paper presented at the Information Systems Foundation Workshop, Canberra, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassan, N. R., Mathiassen, L., & Lowry, P. B. (2019). The process of information systems theorizing as a discursive practice. Journal of Information Technology, 34(3), 198–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karlsson, F., & Hedström, K. (2013). Evaluating end user development as a requirements engineering technique for communicating across social worlds during systems development. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 25(2), 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolkowska, E., Karlsson, F., & Hedström, K. (2017). Towards analysing the rationale of information security noncompliance: Devising a Value-Based Compliance analysis method. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 26(1), 39–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, A. S. (1999). Rigor and relevance in MIS research: Beyond the approach of positivism alone. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 29–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, A. S., & Baskerville, R. (2003). Generalizing generalizability in information system research. Information Systems Research, 14(3), 221–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, K. (1943). Psychology and the process of group living. Journal of Social Psychology, 17(1), 113–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, K. (1945). The research centre for group dynamics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Sociometry, 8, 126–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morschheuser, B., Hassan, L., Werder, K., & Hamari, J. (2018). How to design gamification? A method for engineering gamified software. Information and Software Technology, 95(March), 219–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muntermann, J. (2009). Towards ubiquitous information supply for individual investors: A decision support system design. Decision Support Systems, 47(2), 82–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niederman, F., & March, S. (2019). The “theoretical lens” concept: We all know what it means, but do we all know the same thing? Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 44(1), 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (1998). Evaluating the usefulness of design rationale in CASE. European Journal of Information Systems, 7(3), 185–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riemer, K., & Vehring, N. (2010). It’s not a property! Exploring the sociomateriality of software usability. Paper presented at the 31st International Conference of Information Systems (ICIS 2010), St. Louis, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schatzki, T. R. (2001). Introduction: Practice theory. In T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina, & E. von Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 1–14). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultze, U., & Leahy, M. M. (2009). The avatar-self relationship: Enacting presence in second life. Paper presented at the 30th International Conference of Information Systems (ICIS 2009), Phoenix, AZ, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sein, M. K., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., & Lindgren, R. (2011). Action design research. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 37–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1961). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siponen, M., & Vance, A. (2014). Guidelines for improving the contextual relevance of field surveys: The case of information security policy violations. European Journal of Information Systems, 23(3), 289–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smolander, K., Lyytinen, K., Tahvanainen, V. P., & Marttiin, P. (1991). MetaEdit – A flexible graphical environment for methodology modelling. In R. Andersen, J. A. Bubenko, & A. Sølvberg (Eds.), Advanced information systems engineering. CAiSE 1991. Lecture notes in Computer Science, vol 498 (pp. 168–193). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straub, D. W. (2009). Editor’s comments: Why top journals accept your paper. MIS Quarterly, 33(3), iii–ix.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). ASQ forum: What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 371–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsang, E. W. K. (2013). Case study methodology: Causal explanation, contextualization, and theorizing. Journal of International Management, 19(2), 195–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Nothing is quite so practical as a good theory. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 486–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van de Ven, A. H., & Johnson, P. E. (2006). Knowledge for theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 802–821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walls, J. G., Widmeyer, G. R., & El Sawy, O. A. (1992). Building information system design theory for vigilant EIS. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 36–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsham, G. (1995). Interpretive case studies in IS research: Nature and method. European Journal of Information Systems, 4(2), 74–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsham, G. (2006). Doing interpretive research. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(3), 320–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1995). What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 371–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, T.-M., & Maxwell, T. A. (2011). Information-sharing in public organizations: A literature review of interpersonal, intra-organizational and inter-organizational success factors. Government Information Quarterly, 28(2), 164–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

    Pär J. Ågerfalk

  2. Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden

    Fredrik Karlsson

Authors
  1. Pär J. Ågerfalk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fredrik Karlsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pär J. Ågerfalk .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management Studies, University of Minnesota Duluth, Duluth, MN, USA

    Nik Rushdi Hassan

  2. Department of Management, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK

    Leslie P. Willcocks

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Ågerfalk, P.J., Karlsson, F. (2021). Theoretical, Empirical, and Artefactual Contributions in Information Systems Research: Implications Implied*. In: Hassan, N.R., Willcocks, L.P. (eds) Advancing Information Systems Theories. Technology, Work and Globalization. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64884-8_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation