INFORMATION

SYSTEM
RESEARCH
 INFORMATION
SYSTEM
RESEARCH
Fundamentals of Scientific
Research for the Consumer

DR. MATTHEW TAYLOR, PhD

MOMENTUM PRESS, LLC, NEW YORK

Information System Research: Fundamentals of Scientific Research for
the Consumer

Copyright Momentum Press, LLC, 2018.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored

in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means
electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any otherexcept for
brief quotations, not to exceed 400 words, without the prior permission
of the publisher.

First published by Momentum Press, LLC

222 East 46th Street, New York, NY 10017
www.momentumpress.net

ISBN-13: 978-1-94664-670-5 (print)

ISBN-13: 978-1-94664-671-2 (e-book)

Momentum Press Computer Science Collection

Cover and interior design by Exeter Premedia Services Private Ltd.,

Chennai, India

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Printed in the United States of America

 Abstract

This book explores how to conduct Information System (IS) research

using various approaches that are grounded in proven scientific methods.
It is primarily for consumers of IS research and for individuals involved
in any type of academic research across various disciplines. This book
is designed to enable IS researchers and consumers to make more
professional and scientific decisions about evaluating, locating, reading,
and critiquing the findings of scientific research. It has also been shown
that workable research problems, research purposes, methods, designs,
instruments, samples, population, data collection methods, and procedures
used in other fields are also applicable to research in IS field. Thus, each
stage of general scientific research from problem conception to analysis
and interpretation will be discussed and apply to the context of IS research.

KEYWORDS

analysis, computer science, data collection, design, hypothesis, inferential

statistics, information system, measurement, methodology, nonparamet-
ric, participants, population, problem, purpose, reliability, research ethics,
sample, source of knowledge, validity, variables
 Contents

List of Figures ix
List of Tables xi
Acknowledgments xiii
About the Author xv

1 Introduction to Research in Information Systems 1

1.1 Learning Objectives 1
1.2 The Field of Information System (IS) Research 2
1.3 Sources of Knowledge 4
1.4 Philosophical Assumptions 7
1.5 Characteristics of Scientific Inquiry 8
1.6 Characteristics of a Good Theory 10
1.7 Connecting Scientific Theory, Research, and Practice 11
1.8 Applying Scientific Inquiry to Information Systems 18
1.9 Comparison Between Research Methods 22
1.10 Study Questions 24
1.11 References 24
2 Research Problems, Purpose, Variables, and Hypotheses 27
2.1 Learning Objectives 28
2.2 Research Problems and Statements 28
2.3 Identifying a Research Problem 29
2.4 How to Evaluate Research Problems 31
2.5 Data Coding 34
2.6 Research Purpose, Aim, or Objective 37
2.7 Formulating Research Questions 38
2.8 Formulating Research Hypotheses 40
2.9 The Process of Formulating Hypotheses 42
2.10 Study Questions 45
2.11 References 46
3 Research Method and Design 47
3.1 Learning Objectives 48
viii Contents

3.2 The Research Design 48

3.3 Research Method 50
3.4 Justifying the Chosen Research Design and Method 58
3.5 Study Questions 60
3.6 References 60
4 Information System Research Instruments 61
4.1 Learning Objectives 62
4.2 The Validity of Measurement Instrument 66
4.3 The Reliability of Measurement Instrument 68
4.4 Selecting Measurement Instruments 72
4.5 Study Questions 79
4.6 References 79
5 Ethical Challenges in Is Research 81
5.1 Learning Objectives 82
5.2 Research Ethics and Standards 82
5.3 Study Questions 91
5.4 References 91
6 Population, Participants, and Sampling 93
6.1 Learning Objectives 94
6.2 Selecting and Locating Participants 94
6.3 Sampling Techniques or Procedures 96
6.4 Sample Size Determination 97
6.5 Sample Size Formula 102
6.6 Statistical Power Analysis 103
6.7 Study Questions 111
6.8 References 111
7 Data Collection and Processing 113
7.1 Learning Objectives 114
7.2 The Nature of Collection 114
7.3 Data Collection Techniques 115
7.4 Distribution of Data Collection Instrument 115
7.5 Qualitative Processing 122
7.6 Study Questions 125
7.7 References 125
8 Exploring Inferential Analysis 127
8.1 Learning Objectives 128
8.2 Study Questions 137
8.3 References 137
Index 139
 List of Figures

Figure1.1. Illustration of the relationships among theory,

research, and practice. 11
Figure1.2. General process framework for the IS research process. 18
Figure2.1. Relationship among various types of variables. 35
Figure3.1. Research method mapping with research question. 56
Figure4.1. Schematic representation of the relationship
among concept, variables, attributes, values, and
measurement scale. 65
Figure4.2. Graphical depiction of inter-rater reliability. 69
Figure4.3. Graphical depiction of Parallel-form reliability. 69
Figure4.4. Graphical depiction of test-retest coefficient. 69
Figure6.1. Family of statistical tests available in
G*Power version 3.1.9.2. 107
Figure6.2. Types of power analysis found in G*Power
version 3.1.9.2. 107
Figure6.3. Steps to perform a power analysis in G*Power 3.1.9.2. 108
Figure7.1. Major phases of qualitative analysis. 124
Figure7.2. Flow model of qualitative data analysis components. 125
Figure8.1. Inferences drawn from random sample. 129
Figure8.2. Normal distribution with bell-shaped curve. 131
Figure8.3. One-tail hypothesis for mobile advertising adoption
studies.132
Figure8.4. Two-tailed hypothesis graphical depicted. 132
Figure8.5. The general linear model (GLM) list of statistical
family.133
Figure8.6. The overall research process in the context of
IS research. 136
 List of Tables

Table 1.1. The virtues of good theory: Key features and

why they are important to good theory development 10
Table 1.2. A comparison of qualitative and quantitative research
methods characteristics 23
Table 3.1. Comparison between research method and
research design 51
Table 3.2. Matching research method with research questions 54
Table 4.1. Measurement scales in descending order of precision 65
Table 4.2. Source of validity evidences 67
Table 4.3. Validity versus reliability 72
Table 4.4. Resources to locate measurement instrument 73
Table 5.1. The American Psychological Associations five
general principles of ethical standards 84
Table 6.1. Categories of sampling techniques 96
Table 6.2. Sampling strategies and when to use them 98
Table 6.3. Classification of sampling size determination methods 101
Table 6.4. Errors in hypothesis testing (nondirection,
or Two-Tailed) 105
Table 6.5. Common statistical software packages 106
Table 7.1. List of data collection category and description 116
Table 7.2. Online survey distribution/invite methods 118
Table 7.3. Calculation of data collection response rate 121
Table 8.1. Interpreting the p-values 134
 Acknowledgments

First and foremost I would like to express my gratitude to God. On the

journey of writing this book, it was once again confirmed how truly I love
the science and arts. He has given me a heart for the sciences and arts,
tobelieve in my passion, and pursue my dreams.
To my wife Delon Taylor: I am grateful for your patience. The
University of Marriage is a school that does have a graduation date. Words
cannot express how thankful I am for her wisdom, love, and support that
she has given me.
To my children, Xavier and Zayn Taylor: What can I say? They are
the reasons for my pursuit of greatness. It is these kids who constantly
remind me to soar as the eagles do and in return lead them into the pursuit
of their purposes. They are the best things that have ever happened in
mylife!
I would like to thank my colleagues who I have consulted with, while
I put this book together. Last but not least, I would like to thank Joel Stein
and Lisa M. MacLean for their kindness and remarkable encouragement.
 About the Author

Dr. Matthew A. Taylor is a proven computer scientist with more than

20 years of verifiable IT experience across a broad spectrum of
technologies, industries, and sectors. Consequently, He understands need
for more w ritten literature and research in computer. Dr. Taylor holds a
doctor of philosophy degree in business administration and applied com-
puter science from Northcentral University, an MS in computer electronic
commerce from the University of Maryland University College (UMUC),
and a BSc in computer information systems from Andrews University.
Dr.Taylor is a US Navy veteran and brings to his research and w riting
a high level of discipline and thoroughness. He is also a Microsoft
Application Developer (MCAD) with a wide range of expert knowledge
in using Microsoft technologies in scientific research. He is the founder
and president of Taylors Institute for Science and Technology.
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction to Research
in Information Systems

Nonexperimental (Observation)

Design
Experimental (Intervention)

Qualitative

Methods Quantitative

Mixed methods

Intuition

Authoritative

Information systems
Source of knowledge Scientific inquiry Characteristics
research

Rationalism Good theory

Empiricalism Research

Practice

Define Topic
Review literature Application
Develop problem
Select design
Consider ethics
9 Steps planning Collect data
Data analysis
Interpret findings
Conclusion and
Implicatation Respect

Ethics Justice

Beneficence

1.1LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After reviewing this chapter readers should:

Understand the functions of computer scientists in the technology

ecosystem.
2 INFORMATION SYSTEM RESEARCH

Understand the importance of the role of a computer scientist in

research.
Understand the need for using the most reliable source of knowledge.
Be able to identify five sources of knowledge.
Understand the influence of philosophical assumptions on the sci-
entific source of knowledge.
Be familiar with the nature of good scientific theory in the context
of IS research.
Understand the relationship among theory, research, and practice.
Be familiar with the application process of scientific inquiry to the
IS science research process.
Be familiar with the importance of performing research in an
ethical and safe way.
Understand the difference between the use of quantitative and
qualitative research methods.

1.2THE FIELD OF INFORMATION SYSTEM (IS)

RESEARCH

The Information Systems (IS) discipline has been widely criticized for
its lack of serious theory formulation and scientific research (Gholami,
Watson, Molla, Hasan, and Bjrn-Andersen 2016). Some researchers
have criticized IS literature as being rather verbose and make it diffi-
cult to form a global picture of the social phenomena being researched
(Klein and Huynh 1999, p. 79). If IS researchers are not enlightened in
scientific methods of how to perform research in the IS discipline, knowl-
edge in the IS field will continue to develop in the footsteps of other
disciplines such as social and behavioral sciences. In the light of this, a
guide on how to perform IS research is required to ensure the prospec-
tive and junior scholars design research studies from the IS consumers
community perspective. Information system (IS) research is the nucleus
of many ongoing, ever-evolving digital revolution, producing knowledge
in ways that contribute to entirely new information technology (IT) prac-
tices and dramatically improving the quality of life and organizational
performance.
IS research is a multidisciplinary field of study and new areas continue
to evolve as advances are made in technology, from algorithms, artificial
intelligence, the Internet of things (IoT), big data, and databases to wear-
able technology. While some IS research areas are theoretical in nature
 Introduction to Research in Information Systems3

and involve developing and analyzing new theoretical algorithms, theo-

ries, and computing techniques, other research is more applied, involving
the identification of certain technology concepts that can be used directly
in solving real-world problems. In every case, IS researchers seek to
improve the quality of society and organizational performance. IS inves-
tigators formulate and design new methods of computing technology and
find more innovative practices for existing innovations. Many compa-
nies and governments employ IS researchers to solve complex problems,
while laying the groundwork for better performance in business, science,
medicine, and other areas.
While some IS are at the cutting edge of new paradigms that advance
computing theories, enable new modes of thought, and ultimately are
available for application in the context of an organization, and within its
information systems; IS research advances our knowledge in the appro-
priate use of new technology to improve organizations performance and
ultimately the quality of life. IS researchers are aimed at solving large and
complex interdisciplinary problems. These go beyond the practical use
and application of new findings to our daily lives, IS research has become
central to almost every aspect of the survival of modern organizations. IS
research is frequently being used in silico experimentations that are car-
ried out within computer models rather than within the context of the real
world. For example, research in climate change where it is not practical
to design and carry out an experiment to evaluate the effects of carbon
emissions on the environment, computer-based models and approaches
are necessary. Another important use of findings from IS research is in the
field of biology.
Molecular and cellular experimental biologists generate large
amounts of data, which increasingly requires computational biology to
manage it. These models and the evidence they generate must offer robust
and rigorous solutions to problems faced by professional practitioners and
policymakers operating in a wide range of interdisciplinary fields. The
robustness and rigor in professional practice are inherited from the same
robustness of empirical IS research that might involve hypothesis testing
and falsifications. The guidance offered to the pragmatic world must not
only be robust and rigorous, but should also be reliable to qualify as useful
knowledge. Additionally, there is a renewed call for findings that are not
only supported by robust and rigorous processes, but also findings that
are reliable in terms of evidence. Accordingly, future IS research should
not only focus on rigor and robustness, but also reliability as qualifying
elements of new knowledge as well as source of knowledge.
4 INFORMATION SYSTEM RESEARCH

1.3SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE

Empirical knowledge is what most modern research in IS aims at estab-

lishing; to know requires a combination of beliefs and valid justification
to establish what is known as justified belief. Scientific propositions are
based on justified belief. Justified belief originates through reliable cog-
nitive processes and is based on the possession of creditable evidence.
Accordingly, to make good judgments based on reliable knowledge,
sources of knowledge must be sought that originate from reliable pro-
cesses and empirical evidence. Reliable knowledge comes from many dif-
ferent sources. The study of epistemology recognizes at least four sources
of knowledge: intuitive, authoritative, logical, and empirical. But are all
four of these sources equally reliable? The reply is yes in many respects,
but their reliability is not equal across all four.

1.3.1INTUITION

People describe intuition in numerous ways. For example, it may be

referred to as creativity, a direct knowledge, gut instincts, awareness,
sensory perception, natural knowledge without evidence, or may take the
form of a belief, faith, or instinct. Intuition, overall, is generally based
on feelings rather than hard facts. Nevertheless, whatever means our
knowledge may relate to a situation, an object, or an experience, the way
it immediately relates to them is generally referred to as intuition. Thus,
intuition in this sense is the association of an individuals experience with
a particular subject area. Further, intuition is a key characteristic in obtain-
ing expert knowledge in a specific subject area. A technologist can use
intuition to see relationships between innovations that no one else can see.
For example, in a situation whereby a programmer is led by gut instinct
to recognize that the value of an array might result in a program that is
semantically incorrect, that cannot be verbalized, or rather it is verbalized
with difficulty.
Nevertheless, intuition cannot be relied upon to consistently solve
complex real-world problems because it is difficult to share this source
of knowledge or explain it to others. There are several other limitations to
using intuition as a source of knowledge. However, intuition does allow
for the exploration of options because a gut feeling may result in a desire
to stick with the first idea, limiting the exploration of alternative options
and/or proceeding with impartiality.
 Introduction to Research in Information Systems5

1.3.2AUTHORITATIVE

For concepts or ideas that are difficult to know by intuition, people fre-
quently turn to authoritative sources. Individuals and institutions, such as
schools and universities with special knowledge, authoritative opinion,
decision, or precedent can provide knowledge. The concept of authority
as the source of knowledge involves trust and acceptance that something
is valid based on the credibility of the authority. If valid, then knowl-
edge can be expanded by using that authority as a baseline to build upon.
For example, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is
one of the globally recognized authorities on standards and guidelines for
cloud computing and the Cloud Security Alliance has developed a widely
adopted catalog of security best practices that are based on NIST cloud
computing models. Nevertheless, although knowledge can be expanded
by combining authorities, the disadvantage with using an authority as a
source of knowledge is that it is not always reliable. Closely related to
authority is tradition, which consists of the doctrines and practices trans-
mitted from one generation to another over a period of time. Tradition has
been a strong influence on many figure of authorities, including institu-
tions, church, and governments. However, research has shown that many
traditional practices of institutions and governments have been wrong
for years; thus, authority as a source of knowledge may not be nation-
ally accepted or may not be the most reliable information to solve todays
modern complex problems.

1.3.3RATIONALISM

Acquiring knowledge through sources of deductive logical reasoning

involves rationalism. With this approach, the criteria of identifying truth
is not through intuitive or authoritative sources, but rather intellectual and
deductive reasoning. Rationalism postulates that reason is far superior to
any other way of acquiring knowledge and focuses on reason as the best
path to knowledge. Rational reasoning is frequently articulated in the form
of a syllogism, also known as a rule of inference, and is a formal logical
scheme used to draw a conclusion from a set of premises. For example,
technology is a product of peoples culture. A peoples culture is an emer-
gent factor of systems. Therefore, systems drive technology. The con-
clusion is logically derived from the minor and major premises in the
syllogism.
6 INFORMATION SYSTEM RESEARCH

However, there are issues with gaining knowledge through rational-

ism. Consider the syllogism: Computers are reliable. A Mac is a computer.
Therefore, a Mac computer is reliable. Although the syllogism is logically
sound, the content of both premises is not necessarily true. Logic in ratio-
nalism only deals with the form of the syllogism and not the content of the
syllogism. Clearly, both form and content must be valid to be a reliable
source of knowledge.

1.3.4EMPIRICAL

Acquiring knowledge through empirical sources involves gaining knowl-

edge through experience and observation, especially sensory perception,
such as touching, tasting, and hearing, smelling, and seeing. The limitation
of empirical sources of knowledge is that it only generates a long list of
facts collected. If empiricism is to be a reliable source of knowledge, the
list of facts will need to be organized and inductive or induction reasoning
applied, which would allow generalizations and predictions to be formed.
Some of the things rationalism has in common with empiricism are the
views that knowledge has a certain foundation. The methods of getting
knowledge, however, should be independent of the concepts, theories, and
points of view of the researcher. Rationalism and empiricism need not be
thought of as conflicting views. A combination of empirical and rational
sources of knowledge represents a much clearer and logical inquiry about
observations in the world around us.

1.3.5SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY

Scientific inquiry is a result of the perfect union between the sources of

rationalism and empiricism, which is presented as the scientific method.
It is critical that in scientific inquiry all hypotheses and theories are tested
against observations in the real world rather than basing them solely on a
priori reasoning, revelation, or intuition. A hypothesis is an explanation or
prediction about a set of observations that can be tested. Scientific inquiry
involves empirical activities that include the collection of data from real-
world events using empirical observations. Scientific inquiry is then
used to test the hypotheses against the data collected using rationalism.
Accordingly, scientific inquiry as a source of knowledge combines both
sources of rationalism and empiricism.
When scientific inquiry is used to carry out research, it lends credibil-
ity to any research and its findings. Research in IS uses scientific inquiries
 Introduction to Research in Information Systems7

that are based on empirical and measurable evidence that are subjected to
specific principles of reasoning and rationalism. Thus, a computer scien-
tist seeks to systematically investigate and study computer problems and
answer research questions to establish facts and reach new conclusions.
IS research is unlike more traditional sciences; it does not seek to discover
or explain the natural world, but instead, it seeks to investigate the prop-
erties of machines, computer software, and human interaction with com-
puters. In IS research, researchers apply principles of scientific inquiry
to answer theoretical questions as well as to solve real-world problems.
Since inquiry is, in part, a persons state of mind that leads curiosity out-
side oneself, it is worth examining how researchers expectations of the
world influence the process of generating scientific knowledge.

1.4PHILOSOPHICAL ASSUMPTIONS

The process of building scientific knowledge depends on several phil-

osophical assumptions that should be acknowledged. Before under-
taking research and expanding knowledge about IS, researchers need
to understand certain philosophical assumptions underlying various
research inquiry. These assumptions are an umbrella under which are
called worldviews or paradigms. A worldview is a persons subcon-
scious thought, their fundamental orientation of the thinking, basic
assumptions use to evaluate, and act upon reality (Johnson 2016).
In the process of performing scientific inquiry, researchers consciously
or subconsciously acknowledge certain philosophical assumptions.
A researchers worldview serves as a commitment that is expressed as a
set of presuppositions held about the basic nature of reality (ontology),
how knowing or learning occurs (epistemology), a function of val-
ues (axiology), and the methods chosen in the process (methodology)
obtaining true reality.
Research methodologies can be classified in various ways. One of
the most frequent distinctions used, however, is between quantitative and
qualitative research methods. The choice of research method influences the
underlying assumptions and expected research practices to be employed.
The underlying assumptions about how to understand and how to discover
what constitutes reality or truth for quantitative and qualitative research
methods differs. The main underlying perspectives that guide quantita-
tive research method include positivism, post-positivism, and empirical
paradigms. The paradigms or worldviews that guide qualitative research
methods include constructivism and interpretivism paradigms.
8 INFORMATION SYSTEM RESEARCH

1.4.1POSITIVISM/POST-POSITIVISM/CRITICAL REALISM

Positivism, post-positivism, and critical realism are based on the common

assumptions that the researchers experiences should be separate from
the phenomena being researched; thus, objective reality exists beyond
the human mind. Positivism is a realist ontology paradigm about scien-
tific theory that assumes that there is an objective reality, which consists
of real-world objects apart from the person endeavoring to know or
discover truth. Empirical evidence, which takes the form of numerical
data, is used to justify the truth or falsity of a claim. Numerical data is
used to quantify the problem. This approach of determining reality has
been widely used in the fields of IS and social sciences and is labeled as
a quantitative method of study. The quantitative method uses measurable
data to quantify predefined variables (e.g., behavior) and uncover patterns.
Although the positivistic paradigm continued to influence IS research for
decades, it has been often criticized because of its lack of subjectivity,
which gave rise to constructivism and the interpretivist method of inquiry
wherein subjectivity is critical to the research process.

1.4.2CONSTRUCTIVIST/INTERPRETIVIST

Both the constructivist and interpretivist approaches of inquiry are con-

ducted with the intention of understanding phenomena in the light of the
researchers lived experience. The interpretivist/constructivist approach of
identifying reality is to rely upon the views of participants for the phenom-
ena being studied. In other words, subjectivity is described, not reduced
because there are multiple realities projected by the participants. Data
collected is descriptive in nature and describes something. Accordingly,
this approach of identifying reality has come to be known as a qualitative
method of research. The qualitative method is used to uncover trends in
thought and opinions, and dive deeper into the problem.

1.5CHARACTERISTICS OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY

The purpose of scientific inquiry is to provide reliable and valid knowl-

edge. Reliable knowledge is considered to be justified true belief.
Identifying reliable knowledge as such is done to distinguish it from other
types of beliefs. Scientific inquiry is reliable for explaining how observa-
tion works, but not necessarily for explaining for what purpose or why
 Introduction to Research in Information Systems9

what we observed exist. For example, scientific inquiry cannot explain

why the universe exists. Knowledge acquired through scientific inquiry
using either quantitative or qualitative methods can be the most reliable
source of knowledge because it exhibits five sound characteristics. These
characteristics when combined set scientific inquiry apart from all other
sources of knowledge previously discussed. These five characteristics are:

1. Empirical: The scientific method is realistic.

2. Replicable: Scientific experiments can be duplicated.
3. Provisional: The results obtained are open to question and debate.
4. Objectivity: Relies on facts rather than on beliefs to remove biases
when making observations.
5. Systematic: Follows a methodically fixed plan or procedure, which
guides scientific research.

The final goal of scientific inquiry is to produce sound scientific the-

ories. Scientific inquiry should be aimed at generating good systems
of interrelated explanations and predictions (scientific theory) that are
supported overwhelmingly by valid evidence. Scientific inquiry has the
power to be used to repeatedly explain and/or predict the outcome of a
specific event. A scientific theory is generally understood as a systematic
representation of a genuine problem, articulated as possible in mathemati-
cal terms in natural sciences or logically (or strictly linguistic terms) in the
life and social sciences (Stam 2010, p. 1). Research guided by scientific
method is expected to produce good theory.
There exists a symbiotic relationship between theory and research.
The development of theory relies on research and research relies on
the theory. Thus, the impetus for research is to develop, modify, and/or
confirm scientific theory.

1.5.1RESEARCH

Research is guided by the systematic process of scientific inquiry. Research

is a systematic inquiry used to explain, interpret, describe, predict, and
control the observed phenomenon. Research involves researchers using
qualitative and/or quantitative methods to inquire or seek answers to ques-
tions or solve problems. Research is a systematic method that is used to
create new knowledge. The end results of systematic and effective research
should most likely generate, modify, or confirm a theory. Effective research
with good verification results in the development of a good theory.
10 INFORMATION SYSTEM RESEARCH

1.6CHARACTERISTICS OF A GOOD THEORY

Any scientific theory that is unique, parsimonious, conservative, general-

izable, fecund, possesses internal consistency, empirically refutable, and
is abstractive in nature can be considered superiorly good compared to
other theories (Wacker 1998). It is important that researchers understand
the criteria of identifying a superior theory because researchers must eval-
uate the relative implication of opposing theories. Theory is dialectically
related to practice, and the overall goal of theory development is to get as
close as is scientifically possible to the truth. On the other hand, a theory
that violates one of the virtues of good theory (see Table 1.1) is difficult
to refute. Consequently, bad theory hinders the development of science
and in turn, the proposal of innovation in the IS field.

Table 1.1. The virtues of good theory: Key features and why they are
important to good theory development
Virtue Key feature
Uniqueness There is no other theory that could explain, make
sense, or predict the phenomena.
Parsimony Theory should be parsimonious; that is, other things
being equal, the fewer the assumptions, the better.
Conservation The existing theory cannot be replaced unless the new
theory is superior in its virtues.
Generalizability The theory must be usable in multiple areas and/or
discipline and makes the theory a better theory.
Fecundity A theory that is more fertile in generating new models
and hypotheses is better than a theory that has fewer
hypotheses.
Internal Internal consistency means the theory has identified
consistency all relationships and gives adequate explanation.
Empirical Any empirical test of a theory should be risky.
Riskiness A refutation must be very possible if the theory is to
be considered a good theory.
Abstraction The abstraction level of theory means it is indepen-
dent of time and space. It achieves this independence
by including more relationships.
Source: Data adapted from (Wacker 1998).
 Introduction to Research in Information Systems11

1.7CONNECTING SCIENTIFIC THEORY,

RESEARCH, AND PRACTICE

There are strong, symbiotic, interlinked relationships among research, sci-

entific theory, and the practice based on the contribution each makes to
the other (see Figure 1.1). These interdependent relationships vary across
different research disciplines. A scientific theory is a methodical, coher-
ent, classified description about an observed or experienced phenomenon
that can be used to explain, predict, and understand a particular subject.
Research is the systematic investigation into and study of particular phe-
nomena with the aim of discovering new knowledge. Practice is the actual
application of a method, process, idea, concept, or rule within the prag-
matic world. Science without theory and research would be like witch-
craft or astrology (Gelso 2006, p. 3). Theory generates research, and the
refutation of theoretical claims by research generates more theories, which
provide the framework for analysis, predictions, and explanations for the
pragmatic world.

1.7.1CONTRIBUTION OF THEORY TO RESEARCH

Researchers have all agreed that theory is truly the currency of scholarly
research. Thus, theory is the glue that holds scientific research together.
According to Gelso (2006), research and theory are critical components
of sound science because with them, empirical research would consist of
only untested ideas and biases. On the other hand, research without the-
ory would consist of a list of disconnected observations. These assertions,
when taken together, mean that theory generates research and research

Scientific theory Research

Practice

Figure1.1. Illustration of the relationships among theory, research, and practice.

12 INFORMATION SYSTEM RESEARCH

in turn refines theory to produce empirical science. Stated another way,

without theory to explain the why or how a specific concept or construct
within any proposition relates to each other, the findings of the research
would be meaningless.
Theory and research are interlinked through the testing process of
assertions and theoretical claims. In other words, research generates the-
ory by testing the assertions and theoretical claims a theory may have
made. Hypothesis testing results in either a modification of an existing
theory to produce a new theory or it may result in the advancement of a
new theory. Moreover, theory promotes research by providing cohesion,
efficiency, and structure to research. In essence, theory performs the func-
tions of setting the boundaries for the relationships established within the
research, bridging gaps, and dictating under what circumstance research
should be undertaken.

1.7.2CONTRIBUTION OF RESEARCH TO THEORY

Research contributes to theory through what is known as a theoretical

contribution. A theoretical contribution based on scientific research is
the generation of new and interesting insights or explanation of some-
thing that was poorly or imperfectly explained. The three main ways in
which research can contribute to theory are by (a) original contribution,
(b) useful contribution, and (c) incremental contributions. As a researcher,
it is possible to make a theoretical contribution to theory by producing
knowledge that is primarily original, insightful, surprising, and revelatory
(Corley and Gioia 2011). The contribution of originality and usefulness
can be further broken down into subcategories. With regard to original
contribution, this can be broken down into incrementally advancement
and revelatory advancement, while the useful contribution can be broken
down into scientifically useful and practically useful. Research that con-
tributes to theory under the banner of originality will extend knowledge
and provide new unique insights. An original theoretical contribution
constitutes ideas or knowledge that is well articulated and connected to
the scientific community in a way that suggests new directions for both
theorists and researchers.
Research also contributes to theory incrementally by building on
extant literature and theory as its foundation with increments demon-
strating value-added, and the identification of increments affecting the
previously accepted relationships. Incremental addition to established
research domains and building up is a more common way of incrementally
 Introduction to Research in Information Systems13

contributing (Harlow 2009). Another method to incrementally advancing

existing theory would be to undertake research that tests new hypotheses
or propositions against existing theory and then using the results to revise
or extend the original theory. However, any alteration in a theory results in
a modified work, which is a different theory. Thus, testing new hypotheses
against existing theory would also be considered an incremental theoreti-
cal contribution to theory.
Research that is designed to make contributions to theory should
be both scientific and practically useful. This means that any sound
theoretical contributions should advance the current research practice of
knowledgeable researchers. When research refines existing theory, each
refinement should bring us closer to the truth. Thus, any useful research
that is intended to be conducted should extrapolate the observation of
real-life phenomena, not from scholars struggling to find holes in the lit-
erature (Hambrick 2007, p. 142). In other words, a gap in the literature is
not sufficient enough to undertake research; it is necessary to identify an
existing practical problem in the real world that is without a comprehen-
sive solution.

1.7.3COMPARISON OF QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE

CONTRIBUTIONS

According to Corley and Gioia (2011), both qualitative and quantitative

research can make a theoretical contribution to theory through original
(originality) and scientifically useful (utility) inquiries. In other words,
whether qualitative or quantitative, research must add to theory through the
combination of revelatory and useful theoretical contributions. However,
theoretical contributions that are made by quantitative-based studies are
more generalizable because of the extensive hypotheses testing that are
performed, thereby, contributing more explanatory and predictive pow-
ers to the studies (Gay and Weaver 2011). On the other hand, qualitative
research contributions are narrower in scope, more focused on complex
social situations, and grounded in social reality. It can be concluded from
analyzing the various types of theoretical contributions that each type of
research made over the years has the respective researchers paradigmatic
root (e.g., positivity or interpretive, etc.), and indeed influenced the con-
tents and nature of what was contributed.
Moreover, qualitative research contributes to theory in areas of com-
plex phenomena that do not lend themselves to quantitative methods of
formal hypothesis testing. However, after a detailed and well-connected
14 INFORMATION SYSTEM RESEARCH

argument is crafted, which is supported by scientific literature, it should

produce an original contribution of knowledge that is comprehensible
and acceptable to the community. Nevertheless, Harlow (2009) argued
that in contrast to quantitative research, qualitative studies, such as case
studies, can make critical contributions to theory by affirming existing
or developing new theories that can be generalized or relocated to other
settings.

1.7.4CONTRIBUTION OF THEORY TO PRACTICE

Some 62 years ago Lewin (1951) remarked, There is nothing so practical

as a good theory (p. 169). Even though elegantly stated, Lewins asser-
tion meant that using a good theory is tantamount to employing a good
practice. However, some researchers do not subscribe to this view because
scientific theories, even though generated from research, by virtue of their
very purpose and structure are not appropriate to provide immediate guid-
ance to practitioners. Nevertheless, the implicit rejection of scientific the-
orizing may have a deeper component that is rooted to prior paradigmatic
commitment of practitioners.
Theories guide or inform practice by providing explanations, some
specific predictions, and by providing a frame of reference for practice.
Theory has a practical and revealing relationship to practice in biology,
chemistry, medicine, physics, and other life sciences because it provides
useful practice, discovery, explanations, and predictions. The systematic
nature of theory is aimed at providing explanatory leverage. This means
that the very structure of theory, as found in its operationalization of
definitions, is designed with the intention of providing an explanation.
Furthermore, the process of operationalization of constructs during the-
ory building connects the scientific theory world with the real prag-
matic world. Consequently, theory contributes to practices by offering
explanatory powers, predictive powers, and a frame of reference for
practitioners.

1.7.4.1Theory Informs through its Explanatory Power

Scientific theory informs practice by providing a comprehensive, yet spe-

cific, explanation to why systems are not working effectively. Therefore,
one of the goals during theory design is to create the capability to gener-
ate useful explanations of events through the interrelation of propositions.
 Introduction to Research in Information Systems15

Thus, one of its functions is to explain. When theory provides a useful

explanation, it has accomplished one of its goals. Moreover, Gelso (2006)
found that explanatory power provides fuller descriptions (p. 658).
Theories accumulate their explanatory powers from providing a clear
description about the operation to be performed in a specific domain for
a specific problematic area within the real world. As a result, the explan-
atory power of theory should guide practice by providing generalized
descriptions of what treatment works and what treatment would not work.
Theories inform practice by offering an explanation of what criteria to
use for inclusion or exclusion of certain remedies in the real world, along
with the impact of prescribed solutions. Given the appropriate theory, it
narrows the scope of possible options based on the explanation provided.
This allows practitioners to better understand what might cause more
problems, discourage customers, or encourage new clients when working
with various phenomena.

1.7.4.2Theory Guides through Predictive Power

Theories guide practice by providing predictions because the power to

explain, involves the power of insight and anticipation, and that this is
very valuable as a kind of distance-receptor in time (Craik 1967, p. 7).
This statement implies that the predictive powers of theories are rooted in
their explanatory powers. Thus, all adequate explanations offered by theo-
ries must also be potentially predictive, which means theories that explain
must also predict. Consequently, by definition, a theory must have the
quality of predictions (factual claims) and the predictions must be appli-
cable to practical real-world problems. Take, for example, Daviss (1989)
theory of technology acceptance model (TAM). This theory predicts that
users will embrace a new technology when they perceive that it is easy
to use and useful (Davis 1989). Loiacono (2009) employed the theory in
IT practice and found that not only did it explain why perceived ease of
use impacted users intention to adopt technology, but it also predicted
users attitudes toward a specific technology that was not yet developed.
Thus, the theory of TAM guided IT developers in the prediction of users
expectations before the users even interacted with an existing system. The
results from TAMs prediction then allowed the system developers to build
the system with certain user-friendly characteristics (Loiacono 2009). In
addition, combining the capability of a theorys function to explanation
with its functions to predict, theories can be used by practitioners to inter-
vene in real-world phenomena.
16 INFORMATION SYSTEM RESEARCH

1.7.4.3Theory Provides Theoretical Framework

A good theory guides practitioners by providing them with a frame of ref-

erence for the analysis of a real problem. Stated differently, a theory pro-
vides set of criteria or systematic frame to help organize the data, which
implies that theory can provide practice with a framework with which to
formulate practical assessments that are based on clear definitions, and
in some cases, that which is directly related to real-world problems. For
example, theory can provide a framework for thinking about acquiring
new technology and the risk factors for implementation. Therefore, the-
ories can place limits on what practical things should be looked at and
actions to be performed. Moreover, theories can provide practitioners with
a border demarcation of clear boundaries and systematic ways of ques-
tioning, observing, and interpreting the real-world phenomena. Therefore,
theories guide practice by providing an infrastructure for practitioners to
operate and to perform work with a systematic approach. The frame of ref-
erence offered by theories establishes a theoretical framework of further
research to generate more theories.

1.7.5ISSUES INVOLVED IN TRANSLATINGTHEORY

INTO PRACTICE

The process of translating the guidance theory offer to practice is chal-

lenging and complex. Additionally, practitioners may have limited interest
in applying scientific theories to their daily practice because of translation
issues, applicability issues, theoretical generalization issues, and reflection
issues. The language of a theory includes observational and theoretical
terms along with analytic and synthetic statements. Accordingly, theories
are not constructed using simple cookbook recipe type languages, but
rather researchers employ theoretical terminologies to denote the prop-
erties of measurement and those things that cannot be observed, but can
only be inferred from direct observations. Many theories are drenched in
theoretical language, are very contextual, and expressed through predeter-
mined meanings, even when they are geared toward guiding a particular
practice. Although a necessary approach, the language of scientific theory
hinders its translation into real-world practice. In essence, more often than
not, the construction theory happens in isolation of the practice it targets.
Moreover, many theories are often murky for the practitioner to apply
to their practice. It is common knowledge that practitioners have a set
of specialized vocabularies that is much different from IS investigators
 Introduction to Research in Information Systems17

who develop theories. Furthermore, practitioners complain about theo-

ries as being virtually unintelligible, resulting in theories being underused
(Christiansen 2012).
The optimistic nature of theories can also become a hindrance for
implementation in the real world. Many theories are conceptualized
based on the most favorable conditions. Scientific theory is constructed
as a group of interrelated relationships working together as a cohesive
whole. Consequently, it becomes difficult to dissect, parse, and apply only
those parts of the theory that have consideration of real-world phenom-
ena, environmental factors, and variables. Landers and Kretchmar (2008)
documented the difficulty of dissecting theories related to activity and
cognitive functioning. They discovered that turning relationships into ped-
agogical values, perceptions, strategies, and other pedagogical arts was
impractical because of the gap between theoretical proposition and the
artful behaviors proposed.

1.7.6RELEVANCE AND APPLICABILITY ISSUES

Scientific theories lack relevance and application to practice. In other

words, some practitioners have reported that theories designed for their
specific practice were irrelevant and remote from reality of what was
going on in the field. For example, Christiansen (2012) found that some
practitioners rejected theories as impractical because those theories were
not applicable to their daily practice. Thus, many academic theories have
failed to translate into practice because practitioners have failed to per-
ceive any usefulness of theories because the theory might be disconnected
from the practitioners realities.

1.7.7THEORETICAL GENERALIZATION ISSUES

A theory may face a theoretical generalization issue when that theory fails
to identify in its generalization principles how a philosophical transition
can be made from theoretical generalization to practice. In other words,
when there is a methodological problem of moving from theoretical
generalization to practice, there exists a theoretical generalization issue.
However, to successfully apply theoretical generalization to practice, prac-
titioners must be committed to the values espoused by that theory and to a
greater extent, the paradigm upon which the theory is based. Moreover, an
organization may be confronted with internal as well as external political
18 INFORMATION SYSTEM RESEARCH

pressure if practitioners and employees do not support the underlying par-

adigm that the theory is based on.

1.8APPLYING SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY TO

INFORMATION SYSTEMS

This section is organized around the main process steps outlined in

Figure 1.2 and presents the necessary skills and knowledge for marketers,
students, and researchers who conduct IS research. Throughout this book,
the concepts presented in this chapter, will be further elaborated. The steps
presented in Figure 1.2 show how the students, researchers, and scholars
go about planning their research projects. Since the objective of research
is to produce new knowledge or deepen our understanding of a subject or
issue, the entire process is presented in a systematic view. The systematic
approach presented here also guides researchers as they go about seek-
ing answers to research questions and solutions to real-world problems
in a systematic way.
The research process, whether it is quantitative or qualitative, will
consist of stages or sequences that may overlap or occur in a different
order depending on the nature of the research. However, a framework of

Conclusion/
START Define topic
implications

Interpret Review
findings literature

9 Steps in the computer science

research process

Develop
Data analysis problem

Select
Collect data
design
Consider
ethics

Figure1.2. General process framework for the IS research process.

 Introduction to Research in Information Systems19

nine steps or stages in the application of scientific inquiry to IS research

should include defining a topic, reviewing the literature, developing
researchable questions, selecting a research design, ethical considerations,
data collection, data analysis, interpretation of results, and a conclusion
(see Figure 1.2). These nine steps might overlap or occur in a different
sequence depending on the method chosen for the research. For e xample,
when applying scientific inquiry to the field of IS research involving
emerging technology, a qualitative method may require the analysis of
some early data collected before developing the full article proposal or a
pilot study might be required first or not at all.
In the first step, before the investigator starts writing the research arti-
cle, paper, or dissertation, the investigator will need to (1) define a topic.
The general area of interest may already be known, which is probably
linked to a particular field or discipline of study. The topic must never be
too large in terms of not being feasible within the scope of an article or
dissertation, or too small that its findings are not substantive. Whether it
is a journal article, report, or dissertation, there are limits on how many
pages would be feasible for acceptance. Most professional journals pub-
lish manuscript guidelines which contain much useful information that
can help guide the preparation of an acceptable research manuscript. Once
the topic is established, a particular area of interest that is familiar to the
researcher and appropriate for research should be chosen. However, before
choosing an area of interest, it might useful to perform a brief literature
review that includes published articles, peer-reviewed reports, and similar
published dissertations. This process might require that one to go back
and forth within the existing literature in order to ensure that the area of
research interest has not yet been addressed in its entirety. Next, perform
a comprehensive (2) literature review. It might not be obvious from a
simple review of literature what is the problem that should be addressed,
but through a thorough review of the published peer-reviewed articles,
reports, and or dissertations, and engaging in discussions with peers,
experts, and other scholars in the area of interest, will help the problem to
progressively take shape in the researchers mind. At this stage, a review
specifically of the section entitled future study or recommendations of
published articles and dissertations should also be performed.
Many books, articles, graduate schools, and advisors have led readers
and students in the formulation of the research problem before having per-
formed a comprehensive literature review, this approach could be flawed.
The research worthy problem will consist of an existing current condition
or state of things and desired condition or state of things. A comprehen-
sive literature review will not always provide the complete picture of both
20 INFORMATION SYSTEM RESEARCH

sides of the proverbial coin. In most cases the desired state or condition
might have already been researched, but in a different field, domain, or
context. At this stage in the research process, a clear discrepancy must be
argued or documented based on recent literature between the two states
or condition of things or area of interest. Thus, a review of literature will
provide insights on the current state of ones area of interest, the identifi-
cation of experts in the area, the existence of any researchable questions
in the area, and the identification of the common methodology used in the
area of interest or similar area.
In the next stage, the (3) research problem should be formulated.
The research problem will be evolving throughout the comprehensive lit-
erature review and discussions with experts, scholars, and peers should
seek to discover something new about computer systems or the interaction
of computer systems in the social world. As stated previously, the prob-
lem should consist of the current state of the subject and the desired state,
which would involve clearly articulating a research gap. However, it must
be noted that not all research gaps are research worthy. The research prob-
lem should then be used as a basis in framing the research question(s) as a
series of testable hypotheses or questions for the research to answer. As the
paradigms of qualitative and quantitative inquiry differ, the questions and
hypotheses formulated in qualitative and quantitative methods also differ.
In employing a qualitative method, questions are designed as open-ended
and should reflect the nature of a qualitative paradigm. On the other hand,
when applying the quantitative method of inquiry, research questions as
well as hypotheses are employed and must be directly answerable, spe-
cific, and testable.

Example of quantitative research questions:

What is the relationship of A and B?
What is the difference in A based on B?
How well do Y1, Y2, and Y3 predict Y?

Example of qualitative research questions:

How do (participants) describe.?

In the next stage, the research design should be selected based on

the research questions identified in the previous stage. The research
design should always match the research method and the research
method should in turn match the research questions. The process of
matching the researchs method, design, and questions always matters
because the combination of some designs, methods, and questions work
 Introduction to Research in Information Systems21

better together for particular problems. For example, in the case where
a research question seeks to verify a causal relationship between spe-
cific variables, an experimental design should be used; whereas, if the
researcher seeks to find how two variables relate to one another, a non-
experimental design should be used. On the other hand, a researcher who
seeks to describe, understand, and analyze mental processes of individ-
uals learning to program cloud technology should conduct qualitative
descriptive research.

1.8.1RESEARCH ETHICS

Every researcher will most likely want to steer clear of ethical quanda-
ries. However, due to past ethical abuse of human subjects and unethical
reporting of scientific results, researchers are required to take cognitive
steps to ensure that all scientific research is conducted with care, integrity,
and within boundaries of acceptable professional behaviors. For the IS
researcher, issues of ethics is of great importance and must remain in the
forefront of the researchers mind when planning and conducting scien-
tific research. The five main reasons why it is important to follow ethical
norms of conduct when conducting IS research are:

1. It promotes the objective to generate knowledge.

2. It promotes the values that are essential to collaborative work.
3. It promotes public accountability.
4. It encourages public support for research.
5. It promotes social responsibility.

To ensure that all aspects of the research process meet the ethical
standards of scientific research, the research should be governed by eth-
ical principles articulated by the American Psychological Associations
(APA) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (here-
inafter referred to as the Ethics Code) and the National Academy of
Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine of
the National Academies.
The ethical principles of respect for persons, beneficence, and justice
should be used to guide the assessment of risks and benefits, informed
consent design, and the selection of the participants for any research
involving human subjects. In addition, any plagiarism, mistakes, or negli-
gence should be corrected in a manner that still maintains the truthfulness
of the original written record.
22 INFORMATION SYSTEM RESEARCH

In academic settings to guarantee that these ethical principles and

conduct are applied accurately to the research process, academic insti-
tutions in the United States have established what is known as an insti-
tutional review board (IRB) to review, approve, and monitor the research
process. The IRB was established based on regulations promulgated by
the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (DHEW) that have
been effective since May 30, 1974 for the protection of human subjects
of biomedical and behavioral research (Nichols 2016). Therefore, all
researchers have a professional and legal responsibility to ensure that
their research conduct complies with these ethical standards and guide-
lines. Now that the research design has been chosen, the research method
selected, the questions and/or hypothesis identified, and consideration
about ethics have been made, and how to collect the appropriate data for
the chosen design must be decided during the research design stage. The
availability of subjects or participants, measures, and procedures will be
used in data collection.
After the method of data collection has been selected, it is neces-
sary to decide how the data collected will be analyzed and interpreted,
which will depend on whether the research method chosen was qualitative
or quantitative. The analysis of qualitative research involves a different
approach from that of quantitative, which will be discussed later.
The section presenting the researchs findings should only consist of a
summary of the results without any analysis or interpretation. Interpretation
and analysis should be made of what the findings mean within the context
of prior research on the topic in another section. The conclusion, impli-
cations for theoretical contributions, and practical applications of the
research should also be made within the scope of the research results and
presented in its own section.

1.9COMPARISON BETWEEN RESEARCH

METHODS

In qualitative research, the goal is to uncover and/or understanding the

big picture, whereas the goal of quantitative research is to use data to
support any conclusions and would involve the application of statisti-
cal and numerical techniques to describe and evaluate the data collected
(see Table 1.2). However, both qualitative and quantitative analysis will
require labeling and coding of the data collected so that differences and
similarities can be recognized and identified.
 Introduction to Research in Information Systems23

Table 1.2. A comparison of qualitative and quantitative research

methods characteristics
Qualitative Quantitative
Purpose To understand To test hypotheses
Describes situation Measures magnitude
Makes interpretation Make predictions
Identify patterns Identify statistical relationship
Research Subjectivity is expected Objectivity is critical
Independence
Role of Intimately involved Distant
Researcher Bias known to participants Bias are not known
Participant characteristics Participants are deliberately not
may be known known
Data Words Specific variables
Images Measures/Instruments
Objects Numbers
Field notes Statistics
Observations Weights
Verbal description
Senses
Form of Data Open-ended responses Measurements
Collection Interviews Validated instruments
Observations Surveys
Field notes Structured observation
Reflections Experiments
Unstructured Quasi-experimental
Free-form Categories provided
Sample Small Large
In-depth Wide
Purposeful Stratified
Nonrepresentative Random
In natural settings Produce generalized results
Design Evolving Structured
No-predetermination Predetermined
Flexible Specific
Holistic Contrived
Data Analysis Deductive Interpretive
Statistical Inductive
Identify relationships Themes searching
Test hypotheses Text analysis
Draw out patterns
Results Illustrative explanatory Numerical aggregated summaries
Individual responses Clustered responses
24 INFORMATION SYSTEM RESEARCH

1.10STUDY QUESTIONS

1. What are the five reliable sources that can be obtained from IS
knowledge? What are the pros and cons of the four sources of
knowledge? Which is the most reliable source of knowledge?
2. Why is it important to use the most reliable source of knowledge?
3. What are two worldviews that have influenced the quantitative
method of inquiry?
4. What are three unique characteristics of scientific inquiry?
5. What are two characteristics of a good scientific theory?
6. Describe the relationships found among theory, research, and prac-
tice. Can theory exist without practice?
7. What are the nine stages of scientific inquiry in IS research?
8. Become familiar with the importance of performing research in an
ethical and safe way.
9. Understand the difference between the use of quantitative and qual-
itative research methods.

1.11REFERENCES

Christiansen, C.R. 2012. Theory to Practice: Are We Talking Only to Ourselves?

Administrative Theory & Praxis 34, no. 3, pp. 47782.
Corley, K.G., and D.A. Gioia. 2011. Building Theory About Theory Building:
What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution? Academy of Management
Review 36, no. 1, pp. 1232.
Craik, K.J.W. 1967. The Nature of Explanation, 445. CUP Archive.
Gay, B., and S. Weaver. 2011. Theory Building and Paradigms: A Primer on
the Nuances of Theory Construction. American International Journal of
Contemporary Research 1, no. 2, pp. 2432.
Gelso, C.J. 2006. Applying Theories to Research: The Interplay of Theory and
Research in Science. In The Psychology Research Handbook: A Guide for
Graduate Students and Research Assistants, 2nd ed., 45564. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc. doi:10.4135/9781412976626.n32
Gholami, R., R.T. Watson, A. Molla, H. Hasan, and N. Bjrn-Andersen. 2016.
Information Systems Solutions for Environmental Sustainability: How Can
We Do More? Journal of the Association for Information Systems 17, no. 8,
pp. 52136.
Hambrick, D.C. 2007. The Field of Managements Devotion to Theory: Too Much
of a Good Thing? Academy of Management Journal 50, no. 6, pp. 134652.
Harlow, E. 2009. Contribution, Theoretical. Encyclopedia of Case Study
Research, pp. 23739.
 Introduction to Research in Information Systems25

Johnson, J. 2016. Neglect One, Neglect the Other. Global Missiology English
4, no. 13.
Klein, H.K., and M.Q. Huynh. 1999. The Potential of the Language Action
Perspective in Ethnographic Analysis. In New Information Technologies in
Organizational Processes, 7995. New York: Springer.
Landers, D., and S. Kretchmar. 2008. Focus and Folk Knowledge. Journal of
Physical Education, Recreation & Dance 79, no. 6, pp. 5156.
Lewin, K. 1951. Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers.
Edited by Dorwin Cartwright.
Stam, H.J. 2010. Theory. In Encyclopedia of Research Design, ed. N.J. Salkind,
1499502. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. doi:10.4135/97814
12961288.n458
Wacker, J.G. 1998. A Definition of Theory: Research Guidelines for Different
Theory-Building Research Methods in Operations Management. Journal of
operations management 16, no. 4, pp. 36185.
 Index

A coding. See data coding

acceptable response rate, data
collection, 120121
active variables, 63
alternative hypothesis. See
research hypothesis
The American Psychological
Associations (APA) ethical
principles of psychologists and
code of conduct, 84
Arwood, T., 86
assumptions. See philosophical
assumptions
attribute variables, 63
authoritative sources, 5
availability of data, research
method, 57
axial coding, 34
axial level coding, 122
B credibility, response rate, 119
balanced in scope, research
problem, 32
behavioral intent (BI), 4445
Belmont report, 8587
C defined, 34
calculation, response rate, 120
categorical variable, 35
central question, 39
Christiansen, C.R., 17
Church, A.H., 121
cluster sampling, 99
Collaborative Institutional
Training Initiative (CITI), 89
committee, research ethics, 8990
comparison questions, 39
composite reliability (CR), 6970
computer science research process,
1819
conclusion drawing and
verification, qualitative
analysis, 124
confidence interval, 135
confounding variable, 36
constructivist/interpretivist
approaches, 8
convenience sampling, 98
Corbin, J., 121
Corley, K.G., 12
correlational/ regression analyses,
research method, 55
critical realism, 8
Cronbach alpha (a), 6970
D
data coding
levels of, 34
variables, 3437
data coding, data collection,
121122
data collection, 114115
distribution (see distribution)
140 Index
qualitative analysis, 123
techniques, 116117
data display, qualitative analysis,
123
data handling and reporting, 87
data reduction, qualitative
analysis, 123
data requirements, research
method, 57
data screening, data collection, 122
Daviss theory, 15
deductive hypothesis, 41
dependent variable, 36
descriptive-qualitative research
method, 54
descriptive-quantitative research
method, 54
descriptive questions, 39
descriptive statistics, inferential
analysis, 130
distribution, data collection, 115,
117119
acceptable response rate,
120121
calculation, response rate, 120
data coding, 121122
data screening, 122
nonresponse, reasons for, 120
qualitative analysis, 122125
response rate, 119120, 121
types, 118
documents and records, data
collection, 117
E formatting hypotheses, 43
educational attainment, ordinal
variable of, 64
effect size, statistical power
analysis, 105
email invitation, distribution type,
118
empirical, scientific inquiry, 9
empirical sources, 6
estimation research methods, 101
ethics and standards, 8283
Belmont report, 8587
committees, 8990
data handling and reporting, 87
mentors, 8889
mistakes and negligence, 88
origin, 83
plagiarism, 8788
principles of the Nuremberg
Code, 8384
responsibility, 90
Ethics Review Boards (ERBs), 89
ethnographies, oral history, and
case studies, data collection,
117
evaluation, research problem,
3133
experiences, research problem,
2930
experimental design, 49
experimental research design, 50
experimental research method, 55
experiments/clinical trials, 52
external validity, 68
extraneous variable, 37
F
Facebook Messenger, distribution
type, 118
face-to-face data gathering, 52
feasibility, research problems, 33
final proposed hypothesis, 42
focus groups, 51
data collection, 117
formulation
research hypotheses, 4042
research questions, 3840
framework matrix methods,
qualitative analysis, 123
G
Gelso, C.J., 11, 15
Gioia, D.A., 12

good theory, 10
G*Power, statistical power
analysis, 106110
gratuity, response rate, 120
guidance theory, translation, 1617
H research to theory, 1213
Harlow, E., 13, 14
Hicks, L., 85
Huberman, A.M., 123
Hussain, S., 120
hypotheses. See also research
hypotheses
inferential analysis, 130132
hypothesis testing research, 101
I institution review board (IRB)
incremental contributions, 12
independent variable, 36
in-depth description, research
problem, 32
inductive hypothesis, 41
inferential analysis
conclusion, 134
confidence interval, 135
defined, 128129
descriptive statistics, 130
hypotheses, 130132
output, 134
p-value approach, 129130, 135
significance level (alpha), 133
test statistic, 133
information system, literature, 30
information system (IS) research,
23
constructivist and interpretivist
approach, 8
ethical norms to, 2122
good theory, 10
inferential analysis (see
inferential analysis)
instruments (see measurement
instruments)
literature review, 1920
Index 141
positivism, post-positivism, and
critical realism, 8
qualitative and quantitative
research, 1314, 23
relevance and application, 17
research problem, 2021
scientific inquiry, 89
scientific inquiry to, 1822
source of knowledge (see source
of knowledge)
theoretical generalization issue,
1718
theory to practice, 1417
theory to research, 1112
topic, defining, 19
process, 89
instruments. See distribution,
data collection; measurement
instruments
integration approach, 30
internal consistency reliability,
6970
internal validity, 68
interpretive methods, qualitative
analysis, 123
interpretivist/constructivist
approach, 8
inter-rater/observers reliability,
68, 69
interval variable, 64
interviews, data collection, 116
interview techniques, 51
intuition sources, 4
J
Johnson, J., 7
Joppe, M., 66, 68
judgmental sampling, 98
K
Kerlinger, F., 63
Kretchmar, S., 17
142 Index
L Nuremberg Code, 8384
Landers, D., 17
Lee, H., 63
Likert scales, 52, 6466
literature, information system, 30
literature review, 1920
M open level coding, 121
Mac computer, 6
manual data entry, distribution
type, 118
mapping, research method, 5456
Mathison, S., 71
McNutt, L.A., 120
measurement instruments
concept, 63, 65
defined, 62
purpose of, 62, 65
reliability (see reliability)
resources to locate, 7378
validity of, 6668
variable, 6366
mediator/intervening variable, 36
mentors, research, 8889
messages, response rate, 120
Miles, M.B., 123
MiniTab, 130
mistakes and negligence, 88
mobile SDK, distribution type, 118
moderator variable, 36
N population, participants, 9495
National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST), 5
negligence, mistakes and, 88
nominal variable, 64
nonexperimental design, 49
justification for, 5960
nonparametric techniques, 130
nonprobability sampling
technique, 96, 98
nonresponse, reasons for, 120
number of subjects, sample size,
100
O
objectivity, scientific inquiry, 9
observations, data collection, 116
online survey panels, 115, 117119
open coding, 34
operationalizing variables, 4345
ordinal variable, 64
original contribution, 12
P
Panicker, S., 86
parallel-forms reliability, 68, 69
participants, 9495
population, 95
sample for research, 9596
Perceived Ease-of-Use and
Behavioral Intention (statistical
power), 104
perceived ease-of-use (PEOU)
survey, 4445
philosophical assumptions, 7
constructivist and interpretivist
approaches, 8
positivism, post-positivism, and
critical realism, 8
plagiarism, 8788
population means, sample size for,
103
population proportion, sample size
for, 102103
positivism, 8
post-positivism, 8
power, statistical test, 104105
practice, 11
predictor variable, 3637
principle of beneficence, the,
8687
principle of justice, the, 87
principle of respect for others, the,
8586

principles, research method
availability of data, 57
data requirements, 57
purpose of study, 53, 56
sample size, 57
statistical significance, 5657
time constraints, 57
priori power analysis, 104
probability sampling technique,
96, 99
problem statement, 2829
provisional, scientific inquiry, 9
purpose of study, research method,
53, 56
purpose statement, research, 3738
p-value approach, 129130, 134,
135
Q quantitative researchers
qualitative analysis, 122123
approaches to, 123
stages of, 123124, 125
techniques in, 124
qualitative and quantitative
research, 1314, 23
qualitative method, 5051
qualitative problem statements, 29
qualitative purpose statements,
3738
qualitative questions
central question, 39
subquestioning, 39
qualitative research
sample size and, 100101
qualitative research designs, 4849
qualitative study, research
problems
balanced in scope, 32
feasibility, 33
in-depth description, 32
researchable, 3233
responsive to change, 32
significance, 33
quantitative inquiry, 33
Index 143
quantitative instruments
reliability in, 6870
quantitative method, 8, 52
justification for, 5859
quantitative methods, research
problems, 33
quantitative problem statements,
29
quantitative questions, 3940
comparison, 39
descriptive, 39
relationship, 39
quantitative research
measurement validity in, 6667
reliability, 70, 71
sample size and, 101
validity, 7071
quantitative research designs, 49
variables, 3437
quantitative validity
vs. quantitative reliability, 7172
quasi-experimental design, 49
quasi-experimental research
method, 55
quasi-statistical methods,
qualitative analysis, 123
questionnaires and surveys, data
collection, 116
quota sampling, 98
R
rationalism sources, 56
ratio variable, 64
rejection region approach,
129130
relationship questions, 39
relevance and application, 17
reliability, measurement
instrument, 68. See also
specific reliability
in qualitative research, 7071
in quantitative instruments,
6870
144 Index
quantitative validity vs.
quantitative reliability, 7172
reliable knowledge, 8
replicable, scientific inquiry, 9
replication, research problem,
3031
research, 11
purpose statement, 3738
quantitative purpose statements,
38
researchable, research problems,
3233
research contributes to theory,
1213
research design
chosen design, 4950
justification, 5860
qualitative research designs,
4849
quantitative research designs, 49
research method vs., 51
research ethics, 2122
research ethics and standards. See
ethics and standards
research ethics committee, 8990
Research Ethics Committees
(RECs), 89
research hypotheses, 40. See also
specific hypotheses
characteristics, 4041, 4243
classification, 4142
formatting hypotheses, 43
operationalizing variables, 4345
research hypothesis, 41
research method
chosen design, 5253
classification of, 50
justification, 5860
principles (see principles)
qualitative method, 5051
quantitative method, 52
research question, mapping with,
5456
vs. research design, 51
research methodology, 5253
research participant, 94. See also
participants
research problem, 2021, 2829
evaluation, 3133
experiences, 2930
information system literature, 30
matching, 3334
qualitative problem statements,
29
quantitative problem statements,
29
replication, 3031
social issues, 31
sources, 31
theoretical integration, 30
research questions
formulation, 3840
mapping with, 5456
research, response rate, 119120
research, scientific inquiry, 9
resources, measurement
instruments, 7378
response rate, data collection,
119120, 121
responsibility, society, 90
responsive to change, research
problem, 32
S
sample for research, participants,
9596
sample size
number of subjects, 100
for population proportion,
102103
and qualitative research,
100101
and quantitative research, 101
for two population means, 103
for unknown population mean,
102
sample size, research method, 57
sampling bias, 97

sampling error, 97
sampling methods
nonprobability sampling, 98
probability sampling, 99
sampling technique/procedure,
9699
sampling variance, 97
scientific inquiry
characteristics, 89
to information system (IS)
research, 1822
sources, 67
scientific theory, 11
selective coding, 34
selective level coding, 122
semi-structured interviews, 51
significance level/alpha, 104105
significance level (alpha),
inferential analysis, 133
significance, research problems, 33
simple random sampling, 99
simplicity and language, response
rate, 120
snowballing sampling, 98
social issues, research problem, 31
social media, distribution type, 118
sociolinguistic methods,
qualitative analysis, 123
software packages, statistical
power analysis, 105106
source of knowledge
authoritative, 5
empirical, 6
intuition, 4
rationalism, 56
scientific inquiry, 67
sources of validity evidences,
6768
SPSS, 130
statistical hypothesis, 42
statistical power analysis, 103104
effect size, 105
G*Power, 106110
significance level/alpha, 104105
Index 145
software packages, 105106
statistical significance, research
method, 5657
statistical testing, 42
Staw, B.M., 40
Stenbacka, C., 70
Stevens, S.S., 64
stratified random sampling, 99
Strauss, A., 121
Strauss, A.L., 121
structured interviews, 51, 52
subject. See research participant
subquestioning, 39
SurveyGizmo, 115
SurveyMonkey, 115, 117, 119
Sutton, R.I, 40
systematic sampling, 99
systematic, scientific inquiry, 9
T
targeted audience, distribution
type, 118
target population, 9495
technology acceptance model
(TAM), 15
telephone interviews, 52
test-retest reliability coefficient,
6869
theoretical integration, research
problem, 30
theory contributes to practice
explanatory power, 1415
framework, 16
predictive power, 15
theory contributes to research,
1112
time constraints, research method,
57
topic, defining, 19
translation, guidance theory, 1617
U
unknown population mean, sample
size for, 102
146 Index

unstructured interviews, 51 variables, 3435. See also specific

useful contribution, 12 variables

V W
validity Wacker, J.G., 10
evidences, sources of, 6768 web link, distribution type, 118
measurement instruments, website, distribution type, 118
6668 Wester, K.L., 85
vs. reliability, 72
variable, measurement Z
instruments, 6366 Zoomerang, 117, 119