The DOI matches its Crossref record; 71 of the 79 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluating and Developing Theories in the Information Systems Discipline
Open accessAbstract
This paper articulates a framework and criteria that can be used to evaluate the quality of theories. While the framework and criteria have general applicability, my focus is the evaluation of theories within the information systems discipline. To illustrate the usefulness of the framework and criteria, I show how they can be employed to pinpoint the strengths and weaknesses of a theory which, based upon citation evidence, has had a significant impact on other researchers within the information systems discipline. Because the evaluation of existing theories often provides the basis for refining existing theories or building new theories, I also show how the framework and criteria can be used to inform the development of high-quality theory.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Understanding managers ' perceptions of using AI would, thus, require a ' net valence approach that considers both benefits and concerns ' (Breward et al., 2017, p.760) thereby being able to examine and explain the attributes of a whole rather than attributes of its parts (Venkatesh et al., 2016; Weber, 2012).”
From Understanding managers’ attitudes and behavioral intentions towards using artificial intelligence for organizational decision-making (2021) · cites this paper as Weber, 2012
Citations
Cites
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2095101 · Cited by 38,435
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Kuhn, T. S., & Schlegel, R. (1963) · Physics Today · doi:10.1063/1.3050879 · Cited by 35,538
DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. W. (2004) · Advances in strategic management · doi:10.1016/s0742-3322(00)17011-1 · Cited by 25,973
The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.
Miller, G. A. (1994) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.101.2.343 · Cited by 17,559
Building Theories from Case Study Research
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258557 · Cited by 17,455
Building theories from case study research
Eisenhardt, K. M. (2009) · STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI · doi:10.3280/so2008-002004 · Cited by 11,403
Social Theory and Social Structure
Ross, E. J., & Merton, R. Κ. (1958) · The American Catholic Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/3709394 · Cited by 10,318
The Logic of Scientific Discovery
Bhaskar, R. (2013) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203090732-9 · Cited by 7,765
The Logic of Scientific Discovery.
Hutchison, T. W., & Popper, K. R. (1959) · Economica · doi:10.2307/2550489 · Cited by 7,629
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Positioning and Presenting Design Science Research for Maximum Impact1
Gregor, S. D., & Hevner, A. R. (2013) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2013/37.2.01 · Cited by 3,462
Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology: A Synthesis and the Road Ahead
University of Arkansas, Venkatesh, V., Thong, J., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Xu, X., & The Hong Kong Polytechnic University (2016) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00428 · Cited by 2,513
Perski, O., Blandford, A., West, R., & Michie, S. (2017) · Translational Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/s13142-016-0453-1 · Cited by 1,193
Tamilmani, K., Rana, N. P., Wamba, S. F., & Dwivedi, R. (2021) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102269 · Cited by 660
Majchrzak, A., Markus, M. L., & Wareham, J. D. (2016) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2016/40:2.03 · Cited by 600
Metadata
- Authors
- Monash University, & Weber, R.
- Affiliations
- CPA Australia (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Weber, Ron
- ORCID
- Weber, Ron
- Venue
- Journal of the Association for Information Systems
- Publisher
- Association for Information Systems
- Published
- 2012-01
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-30
- ISSN
- 1536-9323 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W110163661
- Cited by
- 344
- References
- 79
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 97.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of the Association for Information Systems (publishedVersion)
- Journal of the Association for Information Systems (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Australian National University
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Business Strategies and Management Research
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Keywords
- theory evaluation, theory development, information systems theory, evaluation criteria, citation analysis, theory refinement, research quality
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
