European Journal of Information Systems (2014) 23, 593599

2014 Operational Research Society Ltd. All rights reserved 0960-085X/14

www.palgrave-journals.com/ejis/

EDITORIAL

Insufficient theoretical contribution:

a conclusive rationale for rejection?

Pr J. gerfalk
Department of Informatics and Media,
Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
E-mail: par.agerfalk@im.uu.se

European Journal of Information Systems

(2014) 23(6), 593599.
doi:10.1057/ejis.2014.35

Have you ever received a rejection letter that goes something like this?
The manuscript presents an exciting empirical study of an important
and timely phenomenon. However, the reviewers, who are all experts in
the area, fail to recognize a theoretical contribution on a par with what
one would expect from an article in a premier journal such as EJIS.
If you have, you are not alone. In fact, one of the most common reasons
for rejecting submissions at EJIS and other prestigious journals in our eld is
insufcient theoretical contribution (Venkatesh, 2006; Straub, 2009). It
seems as though reviewers and editors sometimes use a vague reference to
insufcient theoretical contribution as an indisputable reason for rejecting a
submission that they do not like when they cannot quite put their nger on
why they dislike it; a polite brush-off for papers with various kinds of
shortcomings as Hambrick (2007) eloquently puts it.
To some extent, theoretical contribution, or, rather, lack thereof, seems to
trigger a gut reaction it has become a mentality rather than a quality
criterion. Certainly, prospective authors have the right to know the reasons
for rejection and editors and reviewers could be better at detailing their specic
concerns in a developmental spirit. This is indeed an important area for
improvement at many journals. However, what I will address in this editorial is
not how better to explain why a certain paper is lacking in the theoretical
department, but rather to question the idea that insufcient theoretical
contribution is always a bad thing, and a conclusive rationale for rejection.
What if insufcient theoretical contribution could make room for something
else that allows a particular paper to shine something that would see it offer
truly signicant implications? Perhaps one could even expect to nd such
papers in a journal that explicitly welcomes submissions with a critical and
empirical view, as highlighted in the EJIS Instructions for Authors.
To qualify for publication in a top journal, a paper must make a
substantial contribution to knowledge. However, a contribution to knowledge is not necessarily a theoretical contribution. Actually, with the recent
introduction of Theory Development as a distinct submission category at
EJIS, a reasonable question to ask is to what extent we still expect theoretical
contributions from papers submitted under other categories.
In a typical research paper published in a top information systems (IS)
journal, one would expect to nd an explicit discussion about its theoretical
contribution, followed by implications for research and practice. Below I will
argue that for certain papers, what needs to be emphasized is, rather, a
discussion of the empirical contribution, followed by possible implications
for theory. Another hallmark of articles in top IS journals is that they
typically start with a literature review that focuses on theoretical contributions and theoretical models (Rowe, 2011). In addition to identifying a
research gap, such a review often results in the development of a research
model or theoretical framework. As I will show below, this approach may
seriously hamper strong empirical contributions. In the following, I make a

594

Editorial

deliberate distinction between theoretical implications in

relation to theoretical contributions on the one hand, and
in relation to empirical contributions on the other, and
explain why such a distinction can be useful. I also provide
tentative denitions of some central concepts that will be
helpful in articulating why less focus on the theoretical
contribution can be desirable. I do not claim these denitions to be correct beyond the scope of this editorial, and
other people may choose to use the concepts differently.

Research contributions and implications

In a comprehensive treatment of what constitutes a theoretical contribution, Corley & Gioia (2011) draw on Sutton
& Staw (1995) to dene theory as a statement of concepts
and their interrelationships that shows how and/or why a
phenomenon occurs. It follows that a theoretical contribution is something that advances our understanding of
such concepts and interrelationships. Corley & Gioia
(2011) further suggest that in order to be seen as signicant, a theoretical contribution needs to show both originality and utility.
The originality, or novelty, of a theoretical contribution
is closely related to its theoretical implications, and the
two are often discussed in conjunction. To wit, a theoretical contribution must be discussed in relation to existing
theory in order to be established as a contribution. Thus,
theoretical implications can be seen as a required rationale
for the theoretical contribution. However, the theoretical
implications of a theoretical contribution are also related
to the scientic usefulness of the contribution, and thus
to its more wide-ranging implications for research, for
example, to what extent the new understanding prompts
further theoretical elaboration beyond the current
research context. Although scientic usefulness is often
regarded as the most prominent aspect of a theoretical
contribution, it must also show utility for practice (Corley
& Gioia, 2011). Elaborating such implications for practice
is especially critical in an applied eld such as IS.
A commonly agreed-upon denition of an empirical
contribution is hard to nd. I suggest that it can be
understood in light of the above denition of a theoretical contribution. An empirical contribution can then be
thought of as a novel account of an empirical phenomenon that challenges existing assumptions about the
world or reveals something previously undocumented
(cf. Rowe, 2011). Here, novel refers to either the phenomenon or the account, or both. An empirical contribution thus reveals insights into a phenomenon, and does
not have to rely explicitly on any a priori conceptualizations although it typically does to some extent (Thomas
& James, 2006). Similar to a theoretical contribution, an
empirical contribution needs to show both originality
and utility, and give rise to implications for both research
and practice.
As opposed to a theoretical contribution, the originality
of an empirical contribution is not intrinsically tied to
possible theoretical implications. One can, at least in

European Journal of Information Systems

Pr J. gerfalk

principle, provide a rich account of an empirical phenomenon without theorizing about the ndings. Instead,
theoretical implications of an empirical contribution
materialize outside of the immediate research context,
and thus cannot be specied in full detail; they are effects
that are beyond the control of the researcher, and depend
on how the research is subsequently taken up by others. A
piece of research can be theoretically interesting even if it
is not theory-driven (Baker & Pollock, 2007, p. 305).
Consequently, it is certainly possible to speculate about
potential theoretical implications in the sense of implications for research by pointing out future research directions. Notably, an empirical contribution is not the same
as an implication for practice, although an implication for
practice can be enacted, observed and treated as new
empirical data, and thus constitute an additional empirical
contribution. This is a typical pattern of action research,
for example.
It follows from this that implications for research and
practice (as typically detailed in IS research papers) should
not be confused with theoretical implications of theoretical and empirical contributions. An implication for
research may be an identied need to investigate a phenomenon further. An implication for practice may be an
identied need to address an identied practical problem.

The problem
The relationship between theory and empirical facts is
often described in terms of generalization from empirically
observable facts to theoretical statements, validation of
theoretical statements through observation of empirical
facts, or some combination of the two. Theory and empirical facts thus go hand in hand. On the one hand, theories
help to organize our thoughts, explain phenomena,
ensure consistent explanations, improve our predictions
and inform design. On the other hand, empirical data is
required to develop and validate theory and to motivate
and evaluate designs. However, there is no intrinsic reason
for each piece of published research to go full circle and
claim a substantial theoretical contribution. On the contrary, there are strong arguments for theory-light papers
(Avison & Malaurent, 2014) that focus on empirical contributions and defer claims to theoretical contribution
until later, possibly by other researchers (Hambrick, 2007).
For good reasons, theory and theorizing are at the heart
of the scholarly enterprise (Weick, 1995). Theory development has even been characterized as what sets us [academics] apart from practitioners and consultants (Gregor,
2006, p. 613). However, a one-sided focus on theory may
downplay possibly signicant implications of empirical
contributions. For example, emphasizing the theoretical
contribution effectively precludes pretheoretical research,
that is, empirical research that reports ndings for which
no existing theory can account (Miller, 2007). Such facts
could potentially stimulate the search for an explanation
(Hambrick, 2007), and thus eventually lead to signicant theoretical implications. The quest for a theoretical

Editorial

contribution may also lead to unhealthy behaviour in

which researchers are tempted to t their data into a
theoretical framework such that facts that may contradict
the theory are omitted so as not to expose gaps what
Sutton & Staw (1995, p. 381) refer to as hypocritical
writing. Strict adherence to a theoretical framework may
also distract researchers from identifying truly exciting
empirical phenomena in the rst place (Avison &
Malaurent, 2014). Such theoretical blinders may reduce a
brilliant research idea into something uninteresting with
obvious conclusions. In other words, applying a wellknown theory to a new phenomenon may serve only to
replicate already well-known ndings and prevent the
researcher from seeing things differently. Furthermore, in
an effort to convince reviewers of an important theoretical
contribution, authors may overreach by deriving sweeping
conclusions that outstrip the data (Geletkanycz & Tepper,
2012, p. 259). Treating theory as king (Straub, 2009;
Avison & Malaurent, 2014) at any cost can easily turn a
potentially strong empirical contribution into a contorted,
misshapen, inelegant product, in which an inherently
interesting phenomenon has been subjugated to an illtting theoretical framework (Hambrick, 2007, p. 1349).
A further example, at the heart of our own discipline, is
design science research (DSR). When Hevner et al (2004)
placed DSR rmly on the mainstream IS research agenda,
one of the basic tenets was that it would allow the publication of descriptions of innovative IT artefacts. Although
such artefacts were supposed to draw on existing kernel
theories, they were essentially envisaged as empirical contributions. To quote Hevner et al (2004, p. 87), Most often,
the contribution of design-science research is the artefact
itself. However, it has proven difcult to publish novel
design artefacts as purely empirical contributions without
substantial theoretical contribution (Gregor & Hevner,
2013; Goes, 2014). According to Pries-Heje & Baskerville
(2013), the resultant wrapping of new science in old science
may lead to confusion and identity reversal (p. 7). Reviews
that acknowledge a novel design artefact but, due to lack of
theoretical contribution, dismiss it as design practice rather
than design science are clear indicators of such confusion.
Notably, a theoretical DSR contribution does not require
the instantiation of any actual artefacts (Gregor & Jones,
2007). On the other hand, it is absolutely not a requirement of successful design science manuscripts to have an
explicit tie to theory (Goes, 2014, p. vi). It all seems to boil
down to whether one regards DSR as research that aims
at theoretical contributions through design or research
with design as the topic of investigation (Kuechler &
Vaishnavi, 2008; Iivari, 2014).
DSR involves the design of socio-technical artefacts
(Gregor & Hevner, 2013). Thus, to make a contribution, a
DSR artefact must be explored in relation to its organizational and social context and be understood as the result of
a creative process a purely technical focus would be
outside the scope of most major IS journals. Accordingly,
an empirical DSR contribution could, for example, be a
rich description of an artefact and its rationale in relation

Pr J. gerfalk

595

to anticipated use, a rich description of the design process

leading to such an artefact, or an empirical account of the
artefact in actual use. A theoretical DSR contribution, on
the other hand, would probably package prescriptive
principles as a design theory applied to a class of artefact
or develop a predictive theory of artefacts in use. Viewing
the role of IT artefact design only as a means towards
theoretical contribution is akin to the one-sided focus
on theory outlined above. Such a focus may result in lost
or poorly described design details. It may even effectively
prohibit the publication of potentially important DSR
artefacts.

A possible way forward

Interestingly, many scientic disciplines frequently publish studies that do not stress theoretical contributions at
the expense of empirical contributions. Medicine is perhaps the most signicant example in which, for example,
studies may report on how patients respond to a particular
drug or treatment. When several such studies have been
published, patterns begin to emerge, which may serve as a
foundation for theorizing (Egger & Smith, 1997). Fields
closer to our own also frequently publish papers with
primarily empirical contributions. We see, for example,
media studies reporting on the use of social media in
various contexts (e.g., Larsson & Moe, 2012) and software
engineering studies reporting on the use of particular
development practices (e.g., Kim et al, 2014) without
referring to any grand theory in order to explain ndings
or predict outcomes. A common denominator is that they
focus on describing interesting empirical phenomena that
may eventually have theoretical implications. Importantly, imposing a theoretical framework on such studies
may lead to at least two undesirable effects. First, the
empirical account would be unlikely to be as rich because
only facts relevant to the chosen theory would be reported.
Second, it may create a sense of theoretical belonging of
the ndings that may militate against the use of the
ndings in future studies with different theoretical afnities with low-inference descriptions, researchers will
agree more readily (Sandelowski, 2000).
Altogether this suggests that without disregarding the
importance of theoretical contributions, empirical contributions deserve to be acknowledged as important building
blocks in the scholarly enterprise. If we choose to regard
empirical contributions as being on a par with theoretical
contributions rather than as subordinate (in a given
study), then we can think of contributions as existing on
a continuum less emphasis on theoretical contributions
provides space for more elaborate empirical contributions,
and vice versa. One can also conclude that you cannot
have one without the other. A theoretical statement needs
to be validated through empirical observation (unless one
subscribes to a purely rationalist view). Conversely, a rich
empirical account would need to be somehow summarized
and abstracted in order to answer a research question with
precision, and is thus never devoid of theory. Empirical

European Journal of Information Systems

596

Editorial

ndings need to be interpreted and related to theoretical

concepts and previous research, but the aim does not have
to be a substantial theoretical contribution.
Two EJIS submission categories lend themselves particularly well to empirical contributions: Ethnography/Narrative and Empirical Research. In a sense, ethnographies and
narratives are perfectly suited to making empirical contributions because they can be seen as providing archetypes
for in-depth research, rich empirical description and
engagement in the eld (Myers, 1999; Rowe, 2012). However, empirical studies other than ethnographies and
narratives may also produce important empirical contributions. Interpretative case studies (Walsham, 1995; Avison
& Malaurent, 2014) spring to mind as an obvious example.
Another example is Yins (2014, p. 49) notion of the
revelatory case in which the case study is [] worth
conducting because the descriptive information alone will
be revelatory. DSR studies can present artefacts as substantial empirical contributions that can become building
blocks in a journey towards theoretical contribution that
goes beyond what can be achieved in a single paper
Demonstration of a novel artifact can be a research
contribution that embodies design ideas and theories yet
to be articulated, formalized, and fully understood
(Gregor & Hevner, 2013, p. 341, Footnote 4).
Most if not all of the relatively few existing publications in
IS that offer signicant empirical contributions employ
qualitative research approaches. Miltgen & Peyrat-Guillard
(2014) provide a recent example through their qualitative
assessment of attitudes towards privacy, personal data disclosure and protection, using focus groups across several
European countries. Although partly submitting to traditional theory contribution parlance, their study illustrates
well how an essentially descriptive study can challenge
existing assumptions and beliefs in a positive way without
elaborate theoretical accounts. However, as indicated above,
signicant empirical contributions are not restricted to
traditional qualitative research. On the contrary, DSR, surveys, experiments and randomized controlled trials are also
viable candidates. In an earlier editorial (gerfalk, 2013),
I pushed for the use of mixed methods and paradigms to
embrace diversity in IS research. In keeping with that spirit,
I would like to suggest that mixed research designs are
perhaps particularly well-suited to making signicant
empirical contributions because they allow for elaborate
combinations of rich empirical material and large data sets.

Conclusion
In this editorial, I set out to explore whether lack of a
theoretical contribution could actually be something positive for the development of our eld. My conclusion is that
it can. Importantly, though, I am not arguing that theoretical contribution is unimportant or that our top journals
should not foster theoretical development quite the
opposite. What I argue is that we should acknowledge
the value of strong empirical contributions, even at
the expense of theoretical contributions in the short term.

European Journal of Information Systems

Pr J. gerfalk

An important aspect of doing this is to distinguish

between theoretical contributions and theoretical implications. Empirical contributions may have more far-reaching
theoretical implications than many self-proclaimed theoretical contributions.
From an editors point of view, I would thus welcome a
future in which we spend more of our precious journal
pages on exploring original and useful empirical contributions than on arguing theoretical contributions that are
tenuous at best. After all, it is a critical role of top journals
to publish more enigmatic papers, as Rowe (2011, p. 492)
puts it. Paraphrasing Hambrick (2007, p. 1350), I would
like to suggest that instead of always looking for a strong
contribution to theory, reviewers and editors should be
promoting papers that are likely to stimulate future
research with the potential to alter IS theory and practice,
that is, papers with potential theoretical implications but
not necessarily already established theoretical contributions. Note that this is not to do with rigour vs relevance;
a signicant empirical contribution is always the result of
rigorous research.
To summarize, I would like to offer the following advice
to authors and reviewers/editors.
Authors: If your paper is making a truly signicant
empirical contribution, emphasize that contribution
rather than bolstering and over-selling a possibly contested theoretical contribution. Be careful not to confuse
empirical contribution with implications for practice.
However, make sure that you explore the theoretical
implications of your ndings. In doing so, refrain from
drawing far-reaching (and far-fetched) conclusions, as it
is likely they will only suggest a limited applicability for
future theory development based on your work. You do
not have to begin the paper with a literature review
section. Situating the empirical contribution in the
relevant scholarly discourse may be more effective
towards the end of the paper.
Reviewers and editors: Do not assume that the authors
should be aiming for a noteworthy theoretical contribution, even if they say they are. If the paper, in
your view, is making a strong empirical contribution
but lacks a theoretical contribution, help the author to
see this, and suggest how to reformulate a questionable theoretical contribution into potential theoretical
implications that can lay the groundwork for future
theory development by these authors and others.
One may argue that what I have created in this editorial
is nothing but a straw man; that we knew this already, and
all we need to do is to pay more attention to how we as
authors present, and as editors and reviewers appreciate,
research contributions. Nevertheless, I hope that what
I have proposed will help to increase awareness of these
issues and ideally trigger a discussion on possible implications for editorial policy. As for the question of whether or
not EJIS requires theoretical contributions from papers
submitted under categories other than Theory Development, the answer is yes, at least to some extent. It is hard
to think of a strong empirical contribution that has not

Editorial

made any attempt to interpret the ndings and position

them in relation to other studies. Similarly, a DSR artefact
typically has to be motivated and explained in relation to
kernel theories and a conceptualization of the problem
it addresses (Baskerville & Pries-Heje, 2010; Gregor &
Hevner, 2013).
I admit that this editorial has over-simplied complex
phenomena and deliberately avoided several possibly contentious issues. Nonetheless, I hope that the
intended message to authors, reviewers and editors has
been clear: try not to get too hung up on the theoretical
contribution (or lack thereof), and focus instead on
novel and useful ideas that can help advance our understanding of IS.

In this issue of EJIS

This nal 2014 issue of EJIS comprises seven articles. The

rst article Paradigm lost paradigm gained: a hermeneutical rejoinder to Banville and Landrys Can the
Field of MIS be Disciplined? by Nik R Hassan, University of Minnesota Duluth, revisits the seminal paper by
Banville & Landry (1989) and provides an updated view
of scientic progress for the IS eld. Drawing on Gadamerian hermeneutics, the author analyses Banville and
Landrys characterization of IS in the light of Kuhns
notion of the scientic paradigm and articulates a number of implications for our understanding of IS as a
contemporary scholarly eld. The article concludes that
IS need not be in a perpetual state of fragmentation.
However, this would require IS scholars to reach agreement on the basic elements that characterize the IS eld
and refrain from primarily dening ourselves in relation
to reference disciplines.
The second article, The competitive impact of information technology: can commodity IT contribute to
competitive performance?, is presented by Gabriele
Piccoli, University of Pavia, and Tsz-Wai Lui, Chinese
University of Hong Kong. The article reports an empirical study of 165 U.S. hotels utilizing self-service check-in
kiosks over a 2-year period and draws on data from 3465
self-service transaction records. The impact of this technology-enabled incremental channel on the competitive
performance of the hotels is analysed by testing the
interaction between IT resources and complementary
strategic resources. The results point to the importance of synergistic interaction between organizational
resources and IT assets in shaping the competitive
inuence of IT-dependent strategic initiatives, which
challenges the view of IT as a strategic commodity.
The study also demonstrates that sustained competitive
advantage is not to be found in any one single component of the IT-enabled strategic initiative, but instead in
the interactions among them.
The third paper, No time to waste: the role of timing
and complementarity of alignment practices in creating
business value in IT projects, is co-authored by Armin
Vermerris, Philips IT, Martin Mocker, MIT Sloan Center for

Pr J. gerfalk

597

Information Systems Research and Eric van Heck, Erasmus

University. The study focuses on operational practices that
facilitate business and IT alignment in IT projects and the
impact of such practices timing and complementarity on
achieving alignment. The study cross-analyses six IT projects in three telecommunications companies. The results
suggest that achieving high level of IT business value
requires high levels of communication, shared understanding, management commitment and IT investment
evaluation in each phase of the IT project value creation
process. The results also point to complementarity among
the alignment practices in the different phases and to the
critical importance of adopting such practices at the early
phases of IT projects.
The fourth article, A sweet spot change strategy for
a least developed country: leveraging eGovernment in
Bangladesh, is presented by Shirley Gregor, Australian
National University, Ahmed Imran, University of New
South Wales and Tim Turner, University of New South
Wales. Springing from the need to design and carry out
an intervention that would assist Least Developed Countries (LDC) adoption of e-government, the study investigates the sweet spot change (SSC) strategy for LDCs,
that is, the point of maximum leverage and focus of
change efforts. Using an action design approach, the
researchers worked with AusAID and partner organizations in Bangladesh in a multi-phased project that
aspired to reduce knowledge gaps among key decision
makers. The study brings forward four key SSC strategy
principles: (1) identifying and acting on the sweet spot,
(2) engaging inuential stakeholders, (3) embedding
local knowledge and (4) tailoring the intervention to
suit the particular LDC.
The fth article, An empirical investigation of technology readiness (TR) among medical staff based in
Greek hospitals, is contributed by Christos Melas, Technological Educational Institute of Crete, Leonidas
Zampetakis, Technical University of Crete, Vassilis Moustakis, Technical University of Crete and Anastasia Dimopoulou, Penteli General Paediatric Hospital of Athens.
The study examines the level of technological readiness
(TR) for information and communication technology
(ICT) usage among medical staff by formally identifying
TR proles, and modelling preference TR variations
relating to computer use, computer knowledge and computer feature demands. On the basis of a nationwide
Greece study with 604 responses from physicians and
nurses, the survey results show that TR proles of medical staff in clinical settings match the TR proles of the
general population. The study suggests important managerial implications, such as targeting the introduction
of technological innovations rst towards explorers to
avoid discomfort and insecurity.
John Veiga, Univeristy of Connecticut, Marcus Keupp,
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Steven Floyd,
University of Massachusetts and Franz Kellermanns,
University of North Carolina bring us the sixth article
of this issue, The longitudinal impact of enterprise

European Journal of Information Systems

598

Editorial

system users pre-adoption expectations and organizational support on post-adoption procient usage.
Through a survey of nancial analysts self-reported
pre- and post-adoption procient usage, the article
examines why some Enterprise System (ES) users become
procient utilizing most of the ES features while some do
not. The study shows that new system users who are
internally motivated by stronger intentions to use the ES
do so in ways that enhance their cumulative knowledge
acquisition and increase their usage prociency. Beyond
internal motivation, users external motivation, driven
by performance outcome expectations, also plays a role
in enhancing usage prociency. Intention to systematically integrate a system into work routines was also
found to have a signicant role in enhancing procient
post-adoption usage. Finally, when system adopters
encounter higher levels of organizational support, the
indirect inuence of pre-adoption expectations on procient usage is signicantly higher. When actual usage is
low, higher levels of organizational support lead to even
lower levels of prociency.
Internet adoption by the elderly: employing IS technology acceptance theories for understanding the age-related
digital divide is the nal article of this issue, authored by
Bjrn Niehaves, Hertie School of Governance and Ralf

Pr J. gerfalk

Plattfaut, University of Muenster. Drawing on UTAUT

and MATH, the article tackles the issue of age-related
underutilization of IT by exploring which existing model
best explains Internet adoption for the elderly. A multichannelled survey was instrumented to collect data from
65+ year old in Germany, with 150 usable responses. The
study concludes that both UTAUT and MATH can explain
Internet adoption by the elderly. However, MATH has a
slightly higher explanatory power while UTAUT has
greater feasibility (lower number of measured items).
Extending these two models with the four socio-demographic variables of gender, income, education and age
can increase the explanatory power of both UTAUT and
MATH.

Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Kieran Conboy, Ravi Dar, Mats Edenius, Alan
Hevner, Frantz Rowe, Mark Silver, Jonas Sjstrm, Claes
Thorn and Robert Winter for helpful comments on this
editorial. I would also like to thank Myriam Raymond for
assisting with the article summaries for this issue of EJIS.
Finally, I would like to thank the associate editors of this issue
for their most appreciated support: Rgis Meissonier, Aurelio
Ravarini, Andrew Sears, Bernd Stahl, Xiaofeng Wang, Robert
Winter, Ryan Wright.

References
GERFALK PJ (2013) Embracing diversity through mixed methods research.
European Journal of Information Systems 22(3), 251256.
AVISON D and MALAURENT J (2014) Is theory king? Questioning the theory
fetish in information systems. Journal of Information Technology, advance
online publication, 6 May, doi:10.1057/jit.2014.8.
BAKER T and POLLOCK TG (2007) Making the marriage work: the benefits of
strategys takeover of entrepreneurship for strategic organization.
Strategic Organization 5(3), 297312.
BANVILLE C and LANDRY M (1989) Can the field of MIS be disciplined?
Communications of the ACM 32(1), 4860.
BASKERVILLE RL and PRIES-HEJE J (2010) Explanatory design theory. Business &
Information Systems Engineering 2(5), 271282.
CORLEY KG and GIOIA DE (2011) Building theory about theory building:
what constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management
Review 36(1), 1232.
EGGER M and SMITH GD (1997) Meta-analysis: potentials and promise. BMJ
315, 13711374.
GELETKANYCZ M and TEPPER BJ (2012) From the editors: publishing in
AMJ Part 6: discussing the implications. Academy of Management
Journal 55(2), 256260.
GOES PB (2014) Editors comments: design science research in top
information systems journals. MIS Quarterly 38(1), iiiviii.
GREGOR S (2006) The nature of theory in information systems. MIS
Quarterly 30(3), 611642.
GREGOR S and HEVNER AR (2013) Positioning and presenting design science
research for maximum impact. MIS Quarterly 37(2), 337355.
GREGOR S and JONES D (2007) The anatomy of a design theory. Journal of
the Association of Information Systems 8(5), 312335.
HAMBRICK DC (2007) The field of managements devotion to theory: too much
of a good thing? Academy of Management Journal 50(6), 13461352.
HEVNER AR, MARCH ST, PARK J and RAM S (2004) Design science in
information systems research. MIS Quarterly 28(1), 75105.
IIVARI J (2014) Distinguishing and contrasting two strategies for design
science research. European Journal of Information Systems, advance
online publication, 7 January, doi: 10.1057/ejis.2013.35.

European Journal of Information Systems

KIM M, ZIMMERMANN T and NAGAPPAN N (2014) An empirical study of

refactoring challenges and benefits at Microsoft. IEEE Transactions on
Software Engineering 40(7), 633649.
KUECHLER W and VAISHNAVI V (2008) The emergence of design research in
information systems in North America. Journal of Design Research 7(1),
116.
LARSSON AO and MOE H (2012) Studying political microblogging: Twitter
users in the 2010 Swedish election campaign. New Media & Society
14(5), 729747.
MILLER D (2007) Paradigm prison, or in praise of atheoretic research.
Strategic Organization 5(2), 177184.
MILTGEN CL and PEYRAT-GUILLARD D (2014) Cultural and generational influences on privacy concerns: a qualitative study in seven
European countries. European Journal of Information Systems 23(2),
103125.
MYERS MD (1999) Investigating information systems with ethnographic
research. Communications of the AIS 2(23), 120.
PRIES-HEJE J and BASKERVILLE R (2013) Discovering the significance of
scientific design practice: new science wrapped in old science? In
Electronic Proceedings of the SIG Prag Workshop on IT Artefact Design &
Workpractice Improvement, 5 June, Tilburg, the Netherlands. [WWW
document] http://www.vits.org/?pageId=407 (accessed 24 August
2014).
ROWE F (2011) Towards a greater diversity in writing styles, argumentative
strategies and genre of manuscripts. European Journal of Information
Systems 20(5), 491495.
ROWE F (2012) Toward a richer diversity of genres in information systems
research: new categorization and guidelines. European Journal of Information Systems 21(5), 469478.
SANDELOWSKI M (2000) Whatever happened to qualitative description?
Research in Nursing & Health 23, 334340.
STRAUB DW (2009) Editors comments: why top journals accept your
paper. MIS Quarterly 33(3), iiiix.
SUTTON RI and STAW BM (1995) ASQ forum: what theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly 40(3), 371384.

Editorial

THOMAS G and JAMES D (2006) Reinventing grounded theory: some

questions about theory, ground and discovery. British Educational
Research Journal 32(6), 767795.
WALSHAM G (1995) Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and
method. European Journal of Information Systems 4(2), 7481.
WEICK KE (1995) What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science
Quarterly 40(3), 371384.

Pr J. gerfalk

599

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), 497518.
YIN RK (2014) Case study Research: Design and Methods, 5th edn, Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

European Journal of Information Systems