CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 3,306Information Systems Theories and ImplementationBusiness Strategies and Management ResearchScientific Research and Philosophical Inquiry

The Nature of Theory in Information Systems1

Open access
Gregor, Shirley·2006·MIS Quarterly
DOI 10.2307/25148742
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The aim of this research essay is to examine the structural nature of theory in Information Systems. Despite the importance of theory, questions relating to its form and structure are neglected in comparison with questions relating to epistemology. The essay addresses issues of causality, explanation, prediction, and generalization that underlie an understanding of theory. A taxonomy is proposed that classifies information systems theories with respect to the manner in which four central goals are addressed: analysis, explanation, prediction, and prescription. Five interrelated types of theory are distinguished: (1) theory for analyzing, (2) theory for explaining, (3) theory for predicting, (4) theory for explaining and predicting, and (5) theory for design and action. Examples illustrate the nature of each theory type. The applicability of the taxonomy is demonstrated by classifying a sample of journal articles. The paper contributes by showing that multiple views of theory exist and by exposing the assumptions underlying different viewpoints. In addition, it is suggested that the type of theory under development can influence the choice of an epistemological approach. Support is given for the legitimacy and value of each theory type. The building of integrated bodies of theory that encompass all theory types is advocated.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/25148742

Cites

104 of 104 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The SQB perspective allows shifting theory development from analysis towards explanation and, ideally, design and action.

    “This perspective allows for shifting theory development from analysis towards explanation and, ideally, design and action (Gregor 2006).”

    From How to measure the status quo bias? A review of current literature (2023) · cites this paper as Gregor 2006

  • The contribution this framework makes to IS research can be classified according to Gregor's (2006) taxonomy as theory for explanation and understanding (Type II).

    “The nature of the contribution this framework makes to IS research can be classified according to Gregor's (2006) taxonomy as theory for explanation and understanding (Type II).”

    From An Explanatory Framework for Achieving Business Benefits from ERP Systems (2012) · cites this paper as Gregor's (2006)

  • In Gregor's (2006) landmark typology of theories, our study contributes a Type II theory.

    “In Gregor’s (2006) landmark typology of theories, our study contributes a Type II theory.”

    From Content Creators Between Platform Control and User Autonomy: The Role of Algorithms and Revenue Sharing (2023) · cites this paper as Gregor (2006)

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 106 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. Achinstein, P. The Nature of Explanations, Oxford University Press, New York, 1983.
  2. Audi, R. (ed.). The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (2nd ed..), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1999.
  3. Avison, D., Gregor, S., and Wilson, D. "Managerial IT Uncon sciousness," Communications of the ACM (49:7), July 2006, pp. 88-93.
  4. Goode, S. "Organizational Size Metrics in IS Research: A Critical Survey of the Literature 1989-2000," in Proceedings of the 12th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, G. Finnie, D. Cecez-Kecmanovic, and B. Lo (eds.), Coffs Harbour, Australia, December 4-7, 2001, pp. 257-268.
  5. Gregor S., and Jones, D. "The Formulation of Design Theories," in Constructing the Infrastructure for the Knowledge Economy: Methods and Tools, Theory and Practice, H. Linger, J. Fisher, W. Wojtkowski, J. Zupancic, K. Vigo, and J. Arold (eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 2004, pp. 83-93.
  6. Huber, G., and Van de Ven, A. (eds.). Longitudinal Field Research Methods, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1995.
  7. Orlikowski, W. J., and Iacono, C. S. "Research Commentary: Cambridge, MA, 1996.
  8. Sommerville, I. Software Engineering (6th ed.), Addison-Wesley, Harlow, England, 2001.
  9. Watson, R. "Research in Information Systems: What We Haven't Learned," MIS Quarterly (25:4), 2001, pp. v-xv.
  10. Weber, R. "Toward a Theory of Artifacts: A Paradigmatic Base for Information Systems Research," Journal of Information Systems (1:2), Spring 1987, pp. 3-19.
  11. Weber, R. "Editor's Comments," MS Quarterly, (27:2), 2003, pp. iii-xi.
  12. Weber, R. "Editor's Comments," MS Quarterly, (28:1), 2004, pp. iii-xii.
  13. Yin, R. K. Case Study Research Design and Methods (2nd ed.), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA 1994.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Gregor, S.
Affiliations
Australian National University (AU)
Corresponding author
Gregor, Shirley
ORCID
Gregor, Shirley
Venue
MIS Quarterly
Publisher
MIS Quarterly
Published
2006-09-01
Volume
30
Issue
3
Pages
611-642
ISSN
  • 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
  • 2162-9730
DOI
10.2307/25148742
OpenAlex
W2151020819
Cited by
3,306
References
106
Citations by year
2026: 158 · 2025: 142 · 2024: 137 · 2023: 171 · 2022: 208 · 2021: 208 · 2020: 184 · 2019: 189 · 2018: 178 · 2017: 163 · 2016: 153 · 2015: 229 · 2014: 207 · 2013: 209 · 2012: 195
FWCI
288.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • MIS Quarterly (publishedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
  • Journal of the Association for Information Systems (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Business Strategies and Management Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Scientific Research and Philosophical Inquiry
Keywords
information systems theory, nature of theory, causality, explanation, prediction, generalization, epistemology

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