The role of theory and method 122

Venable (2006) states that theory should be a primary output of research. Eisenhardt (1989) identifies theory development is a central activity in organisational research. Gregor (2006) argues that developing theory is what separates academic researchers from practitioners and consultants. In creating and validating knowledge, scientists rely on a clear and succinct statement of theory, theory that embodies statements of the knowledge that has been developed (Venable, 2006). For Van de Ven (1989), good theory is useful because it

advances knowledge in a scientific discipline and guides research towards crucial questions. Gregor (2006) agrees and suggests that theories enable knowledge to be accumulated in a systematic manner and the use of this knowledge can inform practice (Gregor, 2006).

As observed by Baskerville (2008), however, there has been a long-running search for the meaning of “theory.” DiMaggio (1995) identifies at least three views of what theory should be and suggests that each has some validity and

limitations. Sutton and Staw (1995) describe disagreements about: whether a model and a theory are different; whether or not a typology is a theory; and, other questions about theory. This uncertainty may be one factor behind Gregor’s (2006) observation that many information systems researchers use the word theory, but fail to give any explicit definition. More broadly, Sutton and Staw (1995) suggest that this uncertainty about what theory is, may explain why it is difficult to develop strong theory. This section seeks to describe the view of theory adopted within this work. Furthermore, it seeks to describe the relationship between theory and research methods.

Types of theory

Part of the confusion around theory centres on its purpose and around whether or not there are different types of theory. Within the Information Systems field there have been several different approaches to identifying theory types. Walls et al. (1992) see science as the process of designing theories. Consequently they view the differences between design and descriptive research as differences between types of theory. Iivari (1983) described three levels of theorising: conceptual, descriptive and prescriptive. A number of authors (Kuechler & Vaishnavi, 2008; Nunamaker et al., 1991; Walls et al., 1992) have used the distinction of kernel and design theories. Taking a broad view of theory, Gregor (2006) identified five inter-related categories of theory based on the primary type of question at the foundation of a research project. These five categories and their question of interest are summarised in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1. Gregor’s (2006) taxonomy of theory types in Information Systems research.

Theory type Distinguishing attributes

I. Analysis Says “what is.”

The theory does not extend beyond analysis and description. No causal relationships among phenomena are specified and no predictions are made.

II. Explanation Says “what is,” “how,” “why,” “when,” “where.”

The theory provides explanations but does not aim to predict with any precision. There are no testable propositions. III. Prediction Says “what is” and “what will be.”

The theory provides predictions and has testable propositions but does not have well-developed justificatory causal

explanations. IV. Explanation

and prediction (EP)

Says “what is,” “how,” “why,” “when,” “where,” and “what will be.”

Provides predictions and has both testable propositions and causal explanations.

V. Design and action

Says “how to do something.”

The theory gives explicit prescriptions (e.g., methods, techniques, principles of form and function) for constructing an artefact.

Note: Adapted from “The nature of theory in information systems”, by S. Gregor, 2006, MIS Quarterly, 30(3), p. 620.

The taxonomy presented in Table 3.1 is relatively novel and there exists opportunities for further work and improvement (Gregor, 2006). There also remains some disagreement about the designation of design theory to Theory type V (Venable, 2006). It does seem, however, to provide a foundation on which to build sound, cumulative, integrated and practical bodies of theory within the information systems discipline (Gregor, 2006).

Relationship between theory and method

Gregor (2006) suggests that research begins with a problem to be solved or a question of interest. The type of theory that is to be developed or tested depends on the nature of this problem and the questions the researcher wishes to address (Gregor, 2006). This connection is made on the basis of the primary goals of theory (Gregor, 2006). Assuming this image of the research process it seems

logical that, after the identification of which theory type is of interest, the next step is the selection of research methods most appropriate for the selected theory type. Such a practice does not suggest that there is a one-to-one correspondence between a particular theory type and a particular method or paradigm. Gregor (2006) argues that none of the theory types necessitate a specific method however, proponents of specific paradigms do favour certain types of theory over others. While there is no necessary correspondence between theory types and

methods/paradigms, it is suggested that certain methods/paradigms are better suited to certain types of theory, research problems and researchers.

Recognising different types of theory makes it possible to see the differences as complementary and consequently enable integration into a larger whole (Gregor, 2006). It is possible for research to make a contribution to more than one type of theory. Baskerville (2008) argues that there is clearly more to design research than design theory alone. Kuechler and Vaishnavi (2008) show how a design research project contributes to both design theory (Gregor’s Type V) and kernel theory (Gregor’s other types). The possibility for a research project to make

contributions to different types of theory suggests that a research project may draw upon several different methods or paradigms.