Abstract
Theory is a pivotal component in Information Systems (IS) research and no less so in Design Science Research (DSR) projects, which are typically expected to select and use kernel theories to develop theoretical contributions. However, the actual application and utilization of kernel theories remain challenging and heterogeneous – from producing theoretical outcomes in each project to using theory for the justification of design activities. This is problematic since academic journals have high expectations for selecting, using, and contributing to (kernel) theory. As a consequence, DSR researchers, especially novice ones, face challenges in navigating the high expectations of journals with a blurry research component. In this paper, we explore a set of tensions prevalent in the selection, use, and development of kernel theory to then elaborate on possible pathways to respond to them.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Lehnhoff, S., Staudt, P., Watson, R.T.: Changing the climate in information systems research. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 63(3), 219–222 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-021-00695-y
Iivari, J.: A critical look at theories in design science research. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 21(3), 502–519 (2020). https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00610
Möller, F., Schoormann, T., Strobel, G., Hansen, M.: Unveiling the cloak: kernel theory use in design science research. In: Proceedings of the 43rd International Conference on Information Systems, Kopenhagen, Denmark (2022)
Avison, D., Malaurent, J.: Is theory king?: Questioning the theory fetish in information systems. J. Inf. Technol. 29(4), 327–336 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2014.8
Markus, M.L.: Maybe not the king, but an invaluable subordinate: a commentary on avison and malaurent’s advocacy of ‘theory light’ is research. J. Inf. Technol. 29(4), 341–345 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2014.19
Mandviwalla, M.: Generating and justifying design theory. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 16, 314–344 (2015). https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00397
Rowe, F., Markus, M.L.: Against theoretical constraint: a commentary on Hirschheim’s “against theory—with apologies to Feyerabend”. In: Hovorka, D. (ed.) Scholarly Commentaries on Hirschheim’s “Against Theory” (2019). Journal of the Association for Information Systems
Hirschheim, R.: Against theory: with apologies to Feyerabend. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 20(9), 1340–1357 (2019). https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00569
Baskerville, R., Baiyere, A., Gregor, S., Hevner, A., Rossi, M.: Design science research contributions: finding a balance between artifact and theory. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 19(5), 358–376 (2018). https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00495
Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Niehaves, B.: Design science research genres: introduction to the special issue on exemplars and criteria for applicable design science research. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 27(2), 129–139 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2018.1458066
Ciriello, R.F., Mathiassen, L.: Dialectical inquiry in information systems research: a synthesis of principles. In: Proceedings of the 43rd International Conference on Information Systems, Kopenhagen, Denmark (2022)
Farjoun, M.: Beyond dualism: stability and change as a duality. Acad. Manag. Rev. 35(2), 202–225 (2010)
Straub, D.W.: Editor’s comments: why top journals accept your paper. MIS Q. Manag. Inf. Syst. 33(3), iii–x (2009). https://doi.org/10.2307/20650302
Fink, L.: The philosopher’s corner: the role of theory in information systems research. SIGMIS Database 52(3), 96–103 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3481629.3481636
Ågerfalk, P.J., Karlsson, F.: Artefactual and empirical contributions in information systems research. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 29(2), 109–113 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2020.1743051
Chatterjee, S.: Writing my next design science research master-piece: but how do i make a theoretical contribution to DSR? In: Proceedings of the 23rd European Conference on Information Systems, Münster, Germany (2015)
Ciriello, R.F., Thatcher, J.: Six inversion strategies for avoiding rejection in academic publishing: lessons from the IS discipline. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 53, 458–474 (2023)
Wiener, M., et al.: Information systems research: making an impact in a publish-or-perish world. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 43, 466–481 (2018). https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.04326
Sutton, R.I., Staw, B.M.: What theory is not. Adm. Sci. Q. 40(3), 371–384 (1995). https://doi.org/10.2307/2393788
Iivari, J.: Theory fetish, theory building and ideal types. In: Information Systems, Development Approaches and Qualitative Research: A Tribute to David Alison, pp. 115–129 (2018)
Oxford University Press: Definition of Tension (2022). https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/tension_1?q=Tension. Accessed 11 Nov 2022
Smith, W., Lewis, M.: Toward a theory of paradox: a dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Acad. Manag. Rev. 36(2), 381–403 (2011). https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2011.59330958
Paré, G., Trudel, M.-C., Jaana, M., Kitsiou, S.: Synthesizing information systems knowledge: a typology of literature reviews. Inf. Manag. 52(2), 183–199 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.08.008
Walls, J.G., Widmeyer, G.R., El Sawy, O.A.: Building an information system design theory for vigilant EIS. Inf. Syst. Res. 3(1), 36–59 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.3.1.36
Goldkuhl, G.: Design theories in information systems-a need for multi-grounding. JITTA: J. Inf. Technol. Theory Appl. 6(2), 59–72 (2004)
Gregor, S., Jones, D.: The anatomy of a design theory. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 8(5), 312–335 (2007). https://doi.org/10.17705/1JAIS.00129
Gregor, S., Hevner, A.R.: Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Q. Manag. Inf. Syst. 37(2), 337–355 (2013). https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.2.01
Gregor, S., Imran, A., Turner, T.: A ‘sweet spot’ change strategy for a least developed country: leveraging e-Government in Bangladesh. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 23(6), 655–671 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2013.14
Rogers, E.M.: Diffusion of innovations: modifications of a model for telecommunications. In: Stoetzer, M.-W., Mahler, A. (eds.) Die Diffusion von Innovationen in der Telekommunikation, vol. 17, pp. 25–38. Springer, Heidelberg (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-79868-9_2
Fischer, C., Winter, R., Wortmann, F.: Design theory. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 2(6), 387–390 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-010-0128-2
Hevner, A.: A three cycle view of design science research. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 19(2), 87–92 (2007)
Kuechler, B., Vaishnavi, V.: On theory development in design science research: anatomy of a research project. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 17(5), 489–504 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2008.40
Iivari, J.: A paradigmatic analysis of information systems as a design science. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 19(2), 39–64 (2007)
Simon, H.A.: The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)
Viljoen, A., Hein, A., Przybilla, L., Krcmar, H.: Striving for global optima in digital transformation: a paradox theory approach. In: Proceedings of the 43rd International Conference on Information Systems, Kopenhagen, Denmark (2022)
Hick, W.E.: On the rate of gain of information. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 4(1), 11–26 (1952). https://doi.org/10.1080/17470215208416600
Schwartz, B.: The paradox of choice. In: Positive Psychology in Practice, pp. 121–138 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118996874.ch8
Lim, S., Saldanha, T., Malladi, S., Melville, N.: Theories used in information systems research: insights from complex network analysis. J. Inf. Technol. Theory Appl. 14, 5–46 (2013)
Dennis, A.: An unhealthy obsession with theory. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 20(9), 1406–1411 (2019). https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00572
Arazy, O., Kumar, N., Shapira, B.: A theory-driven design framework for social recommender systems. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 11(9), 455–490 (2010). https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00237
Markus, M.L., Rowe, F.: Guest editorial: theories of digital transformation: a progress report. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 22(2), 273–280 (2021)
Kurien, R., Paila, A.R., Nagendra, A.: Application of paralysis analysis syndrome in customer decision making. Procedia Econ. Finance 11, 323–334 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00200-7
Callon, M., Latour, B.: Unscrewing the big Leviathan: how actors macro-structure reality and how sociologists help them to do so. In: Advances in Social Theory and Methodology, pp. 277–303. Routledge, Kegan Paul, Londres (1981)
Teece, D., Pisano, G., Shuen, A.: Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg. Manag. J. 18(7), 509–533 (1997)
Laufer, R.S., Wolfe, M.: Privacy as a concept and a social issue: a multidimensional developmental theory. J. Soc. Issues 33(3), 22–42 (1977). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1977.tb01880.x
Schön, D.: The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books (1983)
Kuechler, W., Vaishnavi, V.: A framework for theory development in design science research: multiple perspectives. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 13(6), 395–423 (2012). https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00300
Sein, M.K., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., Lindgren, R.: Action design research. MIS Q. Manag. Inf. Syst. 35(1), 37–56 (2011). https://doi.org/10.2307/23043488
Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M.A., Chatterjee, S.: A design science research methodology for information systems research. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 24(3), 45–77 (2007). https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302
Field, B.: Self-Sabotaging: Why Does It Happen (2023). https://www.verywellmind.com/why-people-self-sabotage-and-how-to-stop-it-5207635
Hevner, A., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design science in information systems research. MIS Q. Manag. Inf. Syst. 28(1), 75–105 (2004). https://doi.org/10.2307/25148625
Goldkuhl, G., Sjöström, J.: Design science theorizing: the contribution of practical theory. In: Hassan, N.R., Willcocks, L.P. (eds.) Advancing Information Systems Theories. TWG, pp. 239–273. Springer, Cham (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64884-8_7
Simon, H.A.: Problem forming, problem finding and problem solving in design. Des. Syst. 3, 245–257 (1995)
Ågerfalk, P.J.: Insufficient theoretical contribution: a conclusive rationale for rejection? Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 23(6), 593–599 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2014.35
Ågerfalk, P.J., Conboy, K., Myers, M.D.: Information systems in the age of pandemics: COVID-19 and beyond. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 29(3), 203–207 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2020.1771968
Adalian, J.: Inside netflix’s quest to end scrolling how the company is working to solve one of its biggest threats: decision fatigue (2021). https://www.vulture.com/article/netflix-play-something-decision-fatigue.html. Accessed 02 Feb 2024
Laurent, S.: Netflix vs. decision fatigue: how to solve the paradox of choice (2021). https://uxdesign.cc/netflix-vs-decision-fatigue-how-to-solve-the-paradox-of-choice-888ca56db4b. Accessed 02 Feb 2024
Meilich, O., de Pillis, E.: “But it’s so random!”: a versatile constrained creativity exercise for application of business topics. Manag. Teach. Rev. 8(1), 8–21 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1177/23792981211032565
Gawade, A.: Netflix syndrome—a UX/UI case study on the paradox of choice (2023). https://medium.com/@aryagawade2001/netflix-syndrome-a-ux-ui-case-study-on-the-paradox-of-choice-410a062cc403. Accessed 02 Feb 2024
Eppalapally, S.: Netflix: the paradox of choice (2015). https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/netflix-paradox-choice-santosh-eppalapally. Accessed 02 Feb 2024
MISQE: MISQE - Mission Statement (2023). https://aisel.aisnet.org/misqe/aimsandscope.html. Accessed 08 Jan 2024
Schoormann, T., Möller, F., Chandra Kruse, L., Otto, B.: BAUSTEIN—a design tool for configuring and representing design research. Inf. Syst. J. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12516
Sandberg, J., Alvesson, M.: Meanings of theory: clarifying theory through typification. J. Manag. Stud. 58(2), 487–516 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12587
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Ethics declarations
The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Möller, F., Schoormann, T., Ciriello, R., Hansen, M.R.P. (2024). Dialectical Tensions in Design Theorizing: Exploring the Selection, Use, and Development of Kernel Theory. In: Mandviwalla, M., Söllner, M., Tuunanen, T. (eds) Design Science Research for a Resilient Future. DESRIST 2024. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 14621. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-61175-9_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-61175-9_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-61174-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-61175-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)