Seeking Middle-Range Theories in Information Systems Research

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/283011028
Seeking middle-range theories in information systems research
Conference Paper · November 2015
CITATIONS READS
22 15,813
2 authors:
Nik Rushdi Hassan Paul Benjamin Lowry

University of Minnesota Duluth Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
39 PUBLICATIONS 374 CITATIONS 274 PUBLICATIONS 8,073 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Physical Internet View project
Scientometrics View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Paul Benjamin Lowry on 20 October 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This material is presented to ensure timely dissemination of scholarly and technical work.
Copyright and all rights therein are retained by authors or by other copyright holders. All
persons copying this information are expected to adhere to the terms and constraints
invoked by each author's copyright. In most cases, these works may not be reposted
without the explicit permission of the copyright holder.
This version of the referenced work is the post-print version of the article—it is NOT the
final published version nor the corrected proofs. If you would like to receive the final
published version please send a request to any of the authors and we will be happy to
send you the latest version. Moreover, you can contact the publisher’s website and order
the final version there, as well.
The current reference for this work is as follows:
Nik Hassan and Paul Benjamin Lowry (2015). “Seeking middle-range theories in
information systems research,” International Conference on Information Systems
(ICIS 2015), Fort Worth, TX, December 13–18 (accepted September 16, 2015).
If you have any questions, would like a copy of the final version of the article, or would
like copies of other articles we’ve published, please email Nik (nhassan@d.umn.edu)
or Paul (Paul.Lowry.PhD@gmail.com)
Paul also has an online system that you can use to request any of his published or
forthcoming articles. To go to this system, click on the following link:
https://seanacademic.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_7WCaP0V7FA0GWWx
Page 1 of 26
Seeking Middle-Range Theories
Seeking Middle-Range Theories in

Information Systems Research
Completed Research Paper
Nik Rushdi Hassan Paul Benjamin Lowry
University of Minnesota Duluth City University of Hong Kong
1318 Kirby Drive, LSBE 335Q 88 Tat Chee Avenue
Duluth, MN, USA Kowloon, Hong Kong, P. R. China
nhassan@d.umn.edu pblowry@cityu.edu.hk
Abstract
The information systems (IS) research community continues to raise questions about
the characteristics and role of theory in IS. Some suggest the preeminence and
misplaced emphasis on theory distorts and limits IS research, while others suggest the
manner in which theory is borrowed and adapted impedes creative and innovative
theorizing. This essay describes an established mode of theorizing that results in middle-
range theories, which are abstract enough to allow for generalizations and useful
conclusions, but close enough to observed data to be empirically validated. Theorizing in
this manner holds the potential to produce novel and exciting theories, far removed
from the formulaic, endless rearrangement of variables that are derived from grand
theories, typically found in the bulk of IS research. After elaborating on the differences
between grand theories and middle-range theories, this essay suggests several
guidelines on how to build middle-range theories.
Keywords: Information systems theory, middle-range theory, grand theory, concepts,

propositions, theory construction
Introduction
Debates about the information systems (IS) field's identity and intellectual core (Benbasat and Zmud
2003; Gray 2003; King and Lyytinen 2004; Lyytinen and King 2004; Lyytinen and King 2006; Weber
2003; Weber 2006) have sparked a growing interest within the IS community in building and evaluating
IS theory (Gregor 2006; Gregor and Jones 2007; Grover et al. 2008; Weber 2012). Questions are being
raised about the characteristics and role of theory in IS. Do we really have our own native theories (Grover
et al. 2012; Straub 2012)? How can we enhance theories and theorizing in the IS field (Kuechler and
Vaishnavi 2012; Mueller and Urbach 2013)? Can the arguably small impact of the IS field—compared to
other business disciplines (Agarwal and Lucas Jr. 2005)—be attributed to IS theory or lack thereof? Is the
emphasis on theory to be blamed for this apparent triviality and restrictiveness of IS research? Or do we
need, as Avison and Malaurent (2014) propose, a lesser emphasis on theory in the form of research that is
theory light to bring IS out its doldrums? A panel of senior IS researchers at the International Conference
for Information Systems-Special Interest Group on Philosophy (ICIS-SIGPhil) workshop (Lee 2014;
Willcocks et al. 2014) discussed this notion of research that is theory light and concluded that theory is
still "king"; however, much work is still required to engender better theorizing and epistemological
maturity in research practices. In a provocative article in MIS Quarterly, Grover and Lyytinen (2015)
suggest that the scripted manner in which IS researchers adapt and borrow from grand theories and their
abstract constructs results in mid-range theories that are neither original nor exciting. They find at least
70% of research in MIS Quarterly and Information Systems Research borrowing directly from theories of
reference disciplines, with minor or no changes in constructs, configurations, or logic.
Thirty Sixth International Conference on Information Systems, Fort Worth 2015 1

Page 2 of 26
The concerns raised by both Avison and Malaurent (2014) and by Grover and Lyytinen (2015) have to do
with theory, its characteristics, and role in IS research. They are closely related because the former article
suggests that the preeminence of theory distorts and limits the research itself; whereas, the latter suggests
that IS researchers borrow theory too closely, and the manner in which the theory is borrowed impedes
creative and innovative research. These concerns are also about the relationship between theory and
empirical data in research, and about the range and scope of theories—both which are superficially
discussed in the IS field. What are grand theories, and which theories in IS research can be considered
“grand”? How are or should such theories be adapted if at all into IS research? If strictly following the
restrictive formulaic research process does not produce original and valued research, how should IS
research proceed?
This essay proposes a solution to the IS field’s theoretical doldrums by leveraging a specific mode of
theorizing that has served all other established disciplines well. Merton (1968) traces this mode of
theorizing, which results in theories that he terms middle-range, back to Francis Bacon's Novum
Organum (1620) and Plato (369 BC/1988). After describing the history of middle-range theories in the
sciences, we distinguish between grand theories and middle-range theories and explain why and how the
IS field will benefit from middle-range theories. We also describe the link between theory and empirical
data in research and how such a mode of theorizing will impact current research practices in the IS field.
So What are Theories Anyway?

Drawing from Runkel and Runkel (1984), Weick (1995b, p. 386) notes that “theory belongs to the family
of words that includes guess, speculation, supposition, conjecture, proposition, hypothesis, conception,
explanation, [and] model.” Thus, he continues, “if everything from a ‘guess’ to a general falsifiable
explanation has a tinge of theory to it, then it becomes more difficult to separate what theory is from what
isn’t.” Notwithstanding such difficulties in arriving at an agreed-upon definition for theories, we need to
establish a tentative definition from which we can build our arguments for middle-range theories. Among
the most cited definitions is that of Bacharach (1989, p. 496) who defines theory as "a statement of
relations among concepts within a set of boundary assumptions and constraints. It is no more than a
linguistic device used to organize a complex empirical world." Stinchcombe (1987) describes this notion of
theory best when he explains how great researchers invent explanations when they are confronted with
phenomena and data that they cannot explain. Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, and Karl Marx did not
develop and test "theories" in the same sense we do today; instead, they worked on explaining the
occurrence of suicide, growth of capitalism, or class conflict, and as a result, applied a wide variety of
theoretical strategies. Popper (1959, p. 59) reflects this understanding of theory when he says that
"theories are nets cast to catch what we call 'the world': to rationalize, to explain, and to master it. We
endeavor to make the mesh ever finer and finer." These definitions imply that theories consist of related
propositions or statements. In this sense, unlike facts, which are known truths, theories are conjectural.
Also, unlike practices or actions, theories are contemplative and abstract. Using such terms, Kaplan
(1964) defines theories as a system of laws that are being explained, reinterpreted, and reformulated for a
purpose. Thus, if laws can be defined as generalized propositions, Kaplan's definition is consistent with
the notion that theories are a closed system of propositions. Dubin (1969) broadens these definitions to
include any similar terms, such as model that stands for "a closed system from which are generated
predictions about the nature of man's world—predictions that, when made, the theorist agrees must open
to some kind of empirical test" (p. 9). All of these definitions agree with Merton's (1968) definition of
theory as "logically interconnected sets of propositions from which empirical uniformities can be derived"
(p. 39).
These definitions provide us with the two main constituents of theory: (1) concepts, and (2) propositions,
which help clarify what theory is. It is interesting to note that these two constituents are arguably the least
discussed in the IS field. It is not surprising that the IS field is struggling with theory for there are few in-
depth studies on IS concepts (Markus and Saunders 2007) and IS propositions. For example, Lee and
Baskerville (2003) lament how IS research restricts itself to statistical, sample-based generalizations
instead of applying other forms of generalizations such as building propositions that generalize within the
context, or building empirical propositions from theoretical propositions.

Page 3 of 26
What are Concepts?

Research that theorizes IS concepts and propositions is sorely lacking. This state of affairs is unfortunate
because the shape of the concepts and propositions determine the constructed theory. As Nobel Laureate
Sir George Thomson (1961, p. 4) noted:
[S]cience depends on its concepts. These are the ideas that receive names. They
determine the questions one asks, and the answer one gets. They are more fundamental
than the theories, which are stated in terms of them.
Sartori (1984) defines concepts as the basic unit of thinking and an abstraction of an object of study in the
same way that Dubin (1969) defines them as units or things about which a science tries to make sense.
These concepts are given attributes or transformed into variables that end up in the familiar box-arrow
diagrams. Kaplan (1964) defines them as a family of meanings appropriated for a particular use. They are
as Kaplan puts it, "important terms of any science [that] are significant because of their semantics . . .
[reaching] out to the world which gives the science its subject matter" (p. 50). Concepts, therefore, are as
inseparable from the subject matter of the research field as they are from the theories that they constitute
(Willer and Webster 1970).
Kaplan (1964) further defines four types of concepts depending on their level of abstraction: (1)
observational terms (concepts that are mostly concrete and recognized without complications, e.g., a
response to a psychometric survey); (2) indirect observables (a concept that requires inference and not
direct observation; e.g., the concept of perceived usefulness is not observed but inferred from a
psychometric survey); (3) constructs (invented terms that can neither be directly or indirectly observed
but may be fully defined on the basis of observables; e.g., the concept of technology acceptance or
volitional use of technology is a construct that is defined on the basis of indirect observables such as
perceived usefulness measured by a psychometric survey); and (4) theoretical terms (concepts that
cannot be in principle defined by observables; in this case, the observables can only mark the occasion for
its application, and the term itself does not make sense unless it is part of a theory, e.g., system success
only makes sense in relation to a specific theory that defines what constitutes success). Notwithstanding
this classification, Kaplan (1964) cautions that the distinction between them may not be so clear, and thus
they should not be construed ontologically. The classification is instrumentally applied to serve the
purpose of the inquiry.
Because of the critical role concepts play in building theory and shaping the subject matter of the
discipline, many theorists and scholars recommend that research focus on its concepts rather than its
methods (Bal 2002; Fawcett 1998; Hanson 1958; Hempel 1956; Sartori 1984; Sartori et al. 1975; Schön
1963; Schutz 1971). By focusing on concepts, the research community will be able to view its work from a
broader perspective and evaluate the value of their research in light of stakeholder and societal needs. A
lack of focus on concepts may take researchers down a questionable path, as was the case with the
technology acceptance model (TAM), which originally sought to improve the understanding of the user
acceptance process. In particular, TAM was designed "to provide the theoretical basis for a practical 'user
acceptance test methodology” (Davis 1986, p. 2), commonly performed at the end of the systems
development life cycle. As a result of adapting the Fishbein and Ajzen (1977) attitude and belief model, the
study's goal morphed into finding better measures for predicting and explaining system use. At the same
time, references were also made towards developing improved measures for assessing systems quality
(Davis 1989). Already three arguably distinct concepts became the target of the same research study: user
acceptance testing, system use, and systems quality. Although these concepts are related in the context of
information technology, it is conceivable that different types of data will need to be collected and different
theories could result from studies focusing on any one particular concept. Indeed, follow up research
began exploring other cognate concepts such as usage (Taylor and Todd 1995), adoption (Karahanna et al.
1999), and continuance (Bhattacherjee 2001), all of which were the result of following up on TAM.
Additionally, when these concepts take the form of intentions instead of actual use, adoption, or
continuance, they connote different notions and threaten to confound results.
The relationship between theory, concepts, and the empirical data required of these studies make for a
complicated and not necessarily parsimonious mix of theoretical claims. For example, adoption-based
research relies on Rogers' (1983) diffusion of innovations theory (DIT), whereas TAM is based on
Fishbein and Ajzen's (1977) theory of reasoned action (TRA). These theories describe two different

Page 4 of 26
theoretical models. DIT comes from the communication field and describes adoption as the flow of
information. Thus, flow-related analogies, such as channels that carry the information flows, time taken
for the rate of adoption, and the social system that is engaging the flow, provide a specific set of concepts
and constructs for research. TRA is a theory of behavior predicated on the individual’s behavioral
intention, which in turn is affected by the individual’s attitude. Because DIT includes a time element, it is
able to describe the logistic curve of the adoption of innovations, which is not possible when using TRA.
Conversely, TRA’s focus on attitude is only tangentially addressed by DIT. Such nuances are rarely
incorporated into IS research that applies these two theories.
A focus on the concepts uncovers the restrictive nature of the decades of IS research in applying,
extending, and validating TAM (Lee et al. 2003). Despite thousands of hours of research and hundreds of
pages in the most prestigious IS journals, the apparent productivity of TAM-related research has only
covered a narrow set of cognate concepts surrounding acceptance, use, adoption, and continuance. When
compared with the numerous information- and system-related issues that businesses, society, and the
world faces, such as security and privacy, health and economic development, global terrorism, illiteracy,
sustainability, energy consumption and distribution—all of which opens doors to studying a broader
variety of concepts—one can sense of the limitations of such efforts. This lack of focus on concepts in the
history of IS research supports the negative view that TAM research may have distracted IS researchers
from other areas of study that could have progressed the field further and contributed more to society
than its current approach (Benbasat and Barki 2007; Niederman et al. 2012).
What are Propositions?

Foucault (1972) defines propositions as forms of statements within a field of study that logically describe
one or more referents. A statement is the result of the enunciating function specific to a discipline and is
not the same as a sentence or a proposition. The table of elements in Chemistry contains no sentences, but
contains numerous statements about chemical elements. The nature of the elements can be described in
propositions such as "No other element besides gold has the atomic number 79" and "It is true that gold
has 79 protons in its atom." These sentences describe concepts that are meaningful following the rules set
down by the discipline of Chemistry. They contain the same logical proposition, but are two different
sentences grammatically and modally. The sentence “The streets of London are paved with gold” does not
qualify as a proposition because it has no physical referent in reality, but is meaningful as a statement in
literature and poetry. Propositions are therefore specific subsets of statements in a discipline that describe
or link its concepts and because there are a variety of concepts, the possible combinations allow for
numerous propositions. Since theories are closed systems of propositions, the manner by which these
propositions are logically constituted determines the kind of theory being constructed. With at least four
different kinds of concepts described earlier, researchers can construct many types of propositions,
depending on the kinds of concepts they contain. Fawcett (1998) describes at least 10 different kinds of
non-relational and relational propositions that could be constructed using concepts. Nonrelational
propositions can either be existential or definitional propositions, which support the construction of
descriptive theories. Existential propositions exert the existence or level of existence of a concept.
Relational propositions express associations, connections, patterns of covariance, or a correlation
between two or more concepts. These relational propositions could vary depending on whether the
proposition claims an existence of a relation between two concepts, suggests a positive or negative
relation, or asserts a certain shape or pattern of relations between several concepts. Thus, in IS the
construct of self-efficacy (Bandura 1982), which is borrowed from psychology, is adapted to make the
following proposition that claims: (1) the more encouragement a person gets, the more the person's
reference group uses the technology, and the more support is provided, the higher is that person's
computer self-efficacy.
A classic example of propositions that are highly cited in IS explain why people resist technological
implementations. Markus (1983) categorizes these propositions into three theoretical perspectives:
factors internal to the group or the people cause them to resist, factors inherent in the application or the
system cause people to resists, or the interaction between the characteristics related to the people and the
characteristics related to the system cause people to resist. The propositions then could take the form of
“people with analytic cognitive styles accept systems, while intuitive thinkers resist them” (p. 431), or
“systems that are ergonomically deficient increases resistance” or “organizations that are decentralized
will resist systems that increase centralization.” Each of these propositions contains concepts that are

Page 5 of 26
arguably IS-specific (“acceptance”, “cognitive style,” “resistance,” “centralization,” “decentralization”),

linked in a meaningful logical way, and they are in turn supported by their own traditions of research in
IS.
Since concepts can take numerous forms, numerous types of propositions can be constructed using
different concepts. The level of abstraction of the concepts determines the level of abstraction of the
propositions they constitute. In the earlier example of self-efficacy, survey instruments indirectly observe
the encouragement a person receives, the reference group’s use of technology, and the amount of support.
Self-efficacy itself is a construct that these observables seek to measure. In this way, relational
propositions combine observables with constructs to make a claim concerning an individual judgment of
one's capability to use a computer. In formal theory construction (Gibbs 1972), if all the concepts in the
proposition were highly abstract, taking the shape of either constructs or theoretical terms, such a
proposition would be called an axiom because there is no possibility that its claim can be tested.
Informally, axioms are self-evident (or widely accepted) propositions that do not require proof. Axiomatic
expressions are replete in IS theory development but rarely noted. Although formalized axioms are not
common in IS literature, an example can be seen in Briggs et al. (2008). Either way, the level of
abstraction of the concepts in the proposition determines whether a proposition can become an axiom. In
the case of self-efficacy, because its relational propositions do contain observables, they can be tested;
thus, they are formally called postulates (Gibbs 1972). The existence of some empirical basis in
propositions forms the check and balance in science that protects them from any foolish subjectivity
wishing to claim its own private perspectives (Kaplan 1964). Formalized propositions are not used widely
in IS theory development, but they are increasingly being leveraged as “pure theory” articles are being
produced. Examples of testable formalized, falsifiable propositions in the IS literature include relational
propositions in Yield Shift Theory by Briggs et al. (2008), Media Synchronicity Theory by Dennis et al.
(2008), and the Selective Organizational Rule Violations Model (SORVM) (Wall et al. 2015).
Regardless of the nature of the propositions, researchers use them to construct theories that have the
same goals, depending on the research objective. However, each research approach accepts specific kinds
of propositions and epistemology points to the type of empirical basis that the research rests on. What is
often debated and argued is the interpretation and meaning of any empirical finding. This is where
research goals and research methods often conflict. Hence logical positivists only accept propositions as
meaningful when they can be verified. Faith-based and metaphysical propositions are therefore rejected
as unscientific since they cannot be empirically verified. However, quantum physics showed that such
absolute and direct observations of simple scientific concepts are impossible. These developments
changed how science viewed propositions. Post-positivists like Popper found solutions in falsifiable
propositions. Other post-positivists like Kuhn saw discontinuity in the incremental growth of science
pointing out that no propositions are constructed without a prior theory or set of beliefs. Kuhn's findings
highlight the close connection between propositions and theory leading to the conclusion that science
grows only when bold propositions challenge existing theory and beliefs.
On the other side of the spectrum are propositions that view the object of study ontologically as different
from that of the natural sciences. These interpretivist propositions do not seek general laws but instead
seek individual phenomena, and unique cultural and historical development—in other words to
understand (verstehen) rather than to explain. To undertake such research, hermeneutical,
phenomenological, and symbolic interactionist propositions are constructed. Sometimes theorists call this
genre of propositions constructionist (Crotty 1998) in the sense that the propositions seek to construct
meaning from social actions and symbols. There are many other types of propositions that can be built
including those following the critical school of thought, the pragmatic school, and the post-modernist
school. Regardless of their emphasis on explaining and predicting or on interpreting and understanding,
they all agree that the more empirically validated propositions are, the better the resulting theories
organize, understand, explain, or predict. For example, qualitative research can answer the why questions
by investigating and building relational propositions based on the empirical what and how (Charmaz
2014) of social and technical phenomena. Markus’ (1983) classic on power, politics and implementation is
an excellent example of theory building using interpretivist case research, and the IS field is itself building
a strong, emerging tradition of theorizing using interpretivist case research (Walsham 1995; Walsham
2006). Occasionally, this approach yields formalized propositions (Davison et al. 2013; Macredie and
Mijinyawa 2011). More often, this approach yields rich conceptualizations and general relational findings
that can serve as foundation for further theory building and empirical testing (e.g., Sarker et al. (Flynn

Page 6 of 26
and Du 2012; 2009)). In building theory, the goal is to get propositions to the point where their claims can
be fully tested empirically, therefore completing the link between the theory and its empirical content. In
summary, the more abstract the concepts and subsequent propositions, the less conducive the theory is to
testing.
Essentially there are two kinds of languages used in theory construction: theoretical and empirical.
Theoretical language consists of concepts, constructs, and theoretical formulas that researchers may
invent to describe, explain, or predict phenomena. Empirical language consists of observables such as
groups, countries, age groups, occupation, and data that are collected or calculated based on theory. To
test theories, both languages need to be connected and such is the role of a special kind of proposition that
Gibbs (1972) calls the epistemic statement. When epistemic statements make assertions about data, they
are called hypotheses. That is, hypotheses are formally derived propositions based on a theory that are
being tested to be true or false. These are also called statistical hypotheses, defined as assumptions
"concerning the frequency functions of observable random variables" (Kaplan 1964, p. 244). This formal
version of the hypothesis should not be confused with what is commonly referred to as the working
hypothesis, which is a hunch or a theoretical assertion about what is happening. Statistical hypotheses
and working hypotheses are used in both positivist and interpretive research, but often in different roles.
Although many scholars claim that interpretive or qualitative research is best suited to develop
hypotheses whereas positivist and quantitative research seek to test hypotheses (Creswell 2003;
Eisenhardt 1989), such characterizations are simplifications of the nature of research. Flyvbjerg (2006)
argues that interpretive case study research is equally amenable to hypotheses testing as positivist case
study research. Grounded theorists (Glaser and Strauss 1967; Strauss and Corbin 1990) describe the
process of building theory as a dialectic between induction and deduction, with hypotheses testing
forming the deductive process. To demonstrate that both positivist and interpretive research share the
same formal-logic argument, Lee and Hubona (2009) derive the mathematical logic behind the testing
procedure. Because qualitative research is also amenable to hypotheses testing, its strength in clarifying
and sharpening concepts and relations makes it better suited for both generating and testing hypotheses
(Silverman 2006).
What are Middle-Range Theories?

Given our elaboration of the constituents of theory, we can define middle-range theories as logically
interconnected sets of propositions that lie between concrete hypotheses and all-inclusive systematic
efforts to explain all observed phenomena. The latter is commonly referred to as grand theories. Middle-
range theories are intermediate to these grand theories, which are too abstract and remote to account for
what is observed, and operate above the detailed orderly descriptions of data that are not generalized at
all (Merton 1968). In other words, middle-range theories are abstract enough to allow for generalizations,
but close enough to observed data in order to be incorporated into propositions that can be empirically
validated. Merton (1968) argues that middle-range theories have always been the principle material of
science since the time of Plato, Aristotle, and Francis Bacon. Quoting Plato, Bacon (Montagu 1852) writes,
"And Plato in his Theaetetus, notest well: 'That particulars are infinite, and the higher generalities give no
sufficient direction;' and that the pith of all sciences, which maketh the artsman differ from the inexpert,
is in the middle propositions, which in every particular knowledge are taken from tradition and
experience." In Novum Organum, Bacon is even more descriptive of the "middle axioms" in science:
For the lowest axioms differ but slightly from bare experience, while the highest and most
general (which we now have) are notional and abstract and without solidity. But the
middle are the true and solid and living axioms, on which depend the affairs and fortunes
of men.
Merton (1968) cites other theorists and scholars who support the notion of theories of the middle range
including philosopher and political economist John Stuart Mill, linguist and political scientist George
Cornewall Lewis, sociologist Karl Manheim, mathematician/philosopher Bertrand Russell, and
anthropologist Arthur K. Davis. The next section further describes theories of the middle range by
explaining grand theories and showing how the two differ.

Page 7 of 26
Grand Theories
Grand theories are all embracing, unified theories in which observation about every aspect of the
phenomena find their preordained place. Because of society's popular opinion of science, scientists are
under pressure to discover general theories or total systems theories—grand theories—that could explain
and meet every possible demand. The medical field underwent such an experience only to be disappointed
when it realized how inadequate medical knowledge was at the time (Merton 1968). Drawing from a brief
mention in Bacharach (1989), Gregor (2006, p. 616) defines grand theories as theories "with sweeping
generalizations that are relatively unbounded in space and time." They are akin to all-encompassing
philosophical systems attributed to Aristotle, Kant, Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel. Each of these systems
sought to provide a definitive view of the world. Kant had claimed that Aristotle's system would leave no
room for any further advances (Kaplan 1964), but in his Critiques, Kant himself offered a philosophical
system that provided an all-encompassing explanation for the human experience. The more known
researched items can be placed into a theoretical system, the grander it becomes. When Koontz (1964)
called for a unified theory of management, he was asking for a "systematic conceptual framework upon
which the major ideas and findings of management can be arranged" (p. 18). He was concerned about the
different schools of management creating a jungle of theory (Koontz 1961) that had become unwieldy and
often contradictory, much to the frustration of both researchers and practitioners. He was asking for what
Merton (1968, p. 45) calls an all-embracing total system of management theory that could make sense of
the different schools of thought. In the natural sciences, such efforts have produced several candidates
such as the Theory of General Relativity, Quantum Field Theory and more recently String Theory that
purportedly explained the contradicting findings in previous theories.
Table 1: Differences between Grand and Middle-Range Theories

Grand Theories Middle-Range Theories
Unbounded, all encompassing Bounded by subject matter (i.e., heavily
contextualized)
Constituted from mostly axioms containing Constituted from propositions containing
constructs and theoretical terms observables (or easily tested as such)
Low on the falsifiability scale and passes High on the falsifiability scale and may
most tests easily fail tests
Differentiated by philosophy itself (i.e., Differentiated by specialization (i.e.
rejecting other competing philosophies) accepting of other theories)
Primarily a means of establishing Legitimacy is evidenced by scope,
legitimacy precision, and variety of investigative tools
May be developed by sheer genius, fully Requires great mass of basic observations
formed from the mind of the theorist, and and grows by increasing knowledge and
may grow as a result of discussion experience of its scientists and researchers
Does not require data, generalization is Requires data, but is abstract enough to
based on the paradox of induction provide generalization
Starts from the outside with a total system Starts from the inside and possibly builds a
and imposes on derived theories unified system across different domains
What distinguished the grand theories was their philosophy, which naturally rejected other philosophies;
in contrast, middle-range theories are the result of in-depth specialization in a specific subject matter.
Often grand theories provide solutions and a sense of legitimacy for scholars and researchers in struggling
disciplines that compete against other more mature disciplines that already demonstrate great scope and
precision in their research. They are often fully formed from the contemplation, experience, and
speculation of their brightest researchers, without necessarily amassing any data or observations. In most

Page 8 of 26
cases because they are constructed from axioms, or are essentially axiomatic, grand theories are
notoriously difficult to test and are not as falsifiable as Popper (1959) would encourage. Because of its
level of abstraction, the theory is effectively protected from empirical validation and passes most tests
carried out on it. Even if they are tested and they attract the attention of other researchers, much
discussion would ensue, and the theory might even grow as a result of these efforts, but ultimately, there
is often little evidence of growth in knowledge or maturity in thought. What happens is the theory will
eventually give way to yet another grand theory or philosophical system that is highly likely to repeat the
same cycle. In the end, its ground for generalization comes from "a splitting of Concepts and their endless
rearrangement" (Mills 1959, p. 23). Finally, because the entry point of the research is the total system, it
naturally imposes itself on any future theory that is derived from it and restricts any form of innovative
research. These distinguishing features of middle-range theories are summarized in Table 1.
Parson's (1949) general theory of action is an example of grand theory. Its proponents (Parsons and Shils
1962, p. 1) write about the need for "the establishment of a general theory in the social sciences . . . by
unifying discrete observations under general concepts . . . providing generalized hypotheses for the
systematic reformulation of existing facts and insights. Furthermore, they urge researchers to "fix our
attention on the points where further work must be done . . . as a point of departure for specialized work
in the social sciences." Mills (1959), who was among its detractors and the first to coin the term grand
theory, considers it counterproductive to construct a systematic theory for all possible phenomena and
relations. This was the same argument that Banville and Landry (1989) correctly made in a seminal piece
on disciplining MIS where they pointed out that IS researchers were preoccupied with finding a total
theoretical system to define MIS. Whether or not a single theory is capable of addressing all possible
phenomena is not the issue here. What Mills renounced was the "logical style of thinking represented by
grand theory" (p. 33), the mode of theorizing. The first problem with grand theory is its elevated level of
abstraction—a level of thinking so general that practitioners cannot get down to observation and if that
cannot be done, the theory itself cannot be tested. The second problem has to do with how the theory is
constructed. Grand theory is verbose and "drunk on syntax, blind to semantics" (p. 34). What Mills is
referring to is the tendency to easily adopt concepts and to associate and disassociate them without truly
understanding the real meaning behind those applied concepts. In the end, research becomes an arid
game of concepts rather than a genuine effort to systematically define the problem. Mills’ description of
grand theory is not very far from the kind of research that inundates the management field (Oswick et al.,
2011). The grand theorist is preoccupied with this activity and loses sight of the significance of the
research and its relationship with practice. This quest for grand theories is a poignant commentary on the
gap between research and practice in IS. One of the consequences of the preoccupation with grand
theories is the fixation on methodology. Instead of placing faith in the ingenuity of the researcher, faith is
placed on the method, and if properly applied, the scientific method is supposed to somehow miraculously
resolve all research problems. The problem is this fixation on methodology relegates scholarly knowledge
to a supporting role in research behind the method. As a result, significant events and observations in the
research are passed over and obscured.
Middle-Range Theories
Whereas grand theories are all encompassing, middle-range theories are bounded by their subject matter
and therefore offer the kind of detail that can only come from an in-depth focus on contextualized
research. Each middle-range theory is differentiated by specialization not by philosophy; therefore, it is
accepting of other theories and open to cross-disciplinary and theoretical cross-fertilization with other
disciplines and middle-range theories. As the constellation of these middle-range theories mature, they
quickly cover different areas of study, increasing in their scope, precision, and the variety of tools that are
applied in their investigation. Middle-range theorists are not so absorbed with enhancing the power and
beauty of their theory that they lose sight of the core concerns. Instead they focus on what Kaplan (1964)
calls their logic-in-use, not their reconstructed logic, the after-the-fact, explicit formulation and
idealization of the research process. What is important is neither how elegant the grand theory looks, nor
the intrinsic values of the reconstructed logic, but its usefulness in illuminating the logic-in-use.
The concept of the theories of the middle range should not be confused with the range or level of analysis
of a theory commonly using the terms macro vs. micro or meso. Because theories put known or
investigated things into a system, we are able to define the inclusiveness or the radius of that system or its
explanatory shell (Kaplan 1964). Macro or molar level theories have a wider radius compared to micro or

Page 9 of 26
molecular level theories. This distinction impacts the range of the laws occurring in the theory as well as
the things or individual they refer to. Thus, when we talk about macroeconomics, the wider workings of
the economy and industry, in much more aggregated manner, is distinguished from microeconomics,
which considers the behavior or impact on individual participants. Similarly, molar versus molecular
behavior analogizes the level of analysis targeted by that theory on group versus individual behaviors.
Presumably, the wider the range of the theory’s application, the more generalizability it offers and the
stronger the theory. However, because the theory may be forced beyond its intended scope, it may lose
some characteristics such as parsimony and richness (Weick 2007). This level of analysis of theories is not
to be confused with the quest for grand theories or the building of middle-range theories.
An area of intersection between micro and macro theories, which are often confused, is the notion of field
theories. As Kaplan (1964) explains, field theories give preference to the relations among the individuals,
as opposed to explaining the relations between attributes of those individuals. In this way, a micro theory
can be a field theory. Previous studies on IS theory also mention meta-theories, which is not the same as
grand theories. As the name suggests, meta-theories are theories about theories. Metatheorizing became
popular in sociology in the 1980s as a means of understanding and resolving theory's problems and
producing better theories (Ritzer 1990). In effect, this essay is an exercise in metatheorizing with the
following goals: attainment of better understanding of theory; the creation of new theory; and the creation
of an overarching, theoretical perspective or metatheory.
Consequently, the theories of the middle range avoid the obscuring, overreaching abstraction of grand
theories, but at the same time contain abstractions that are close enough to observed data to allow for
generalizations. These theories are applicable to limited conceptual ranges and then potentially evolve to
progressively include more general conceptual schemes and other special theories. In this way, the theory
will not remain mutually inconsistent with other efforts. Examples of this kind of theorizing are plentiful
in most disciplines. In the social sciences, Durkheim's theory of suicide is a classic example. It is limited to
a subject matter—the prevalence of suicide between two different societies with different belief systems—
that allows for both empirical observations and generalizations to be made. Its systematicity allowed
Durkheim to analyze the data at both the micro-individual level as well as at the macro-collective level,
moving between the two levels effortlessly—a skill that only the best theorists are capable of
accomplishing. Another famous example of middle-range theory is Weber's (1930) The Protestant Ethic
and the Spirit of Capitalism. It deals with a phenomenon happening to a particular group in a particular
historical period but is generalizable to other times and for other societies. It proposes the counter-
intuitive but powerful theory that religious commitment is intimately connected with economic pursuit.
The benefit of these two middle-range theories is that they were not derived from any grand theory or
borrowed from any reference discipline. Like many middle-range theories, both of these theories were
developed from simple observations, metaphors, or models. From the simple idea, observation, or model,
inferences are made that suggest several hypotheses that can be empirically tested. In the case of
Durkheim, the model of societal equilibrium that needed to be maintained inspired inferences about
different groups in society, each with its own collective consciousness, social norms, and associated
support systems. If these social norms and support systems break down, the societal equilibrium is
disturbed and produces anomie, a situation that could be empirically tested by observing both individual
and group behavior (Durkheim 1895). Like Durkheim, who was puzzled by the relatively lower suicide
rates among Catholic societies versus Protestant societies, Weber was also intrigued by the development
of capitalism and economic prosperity among Protestants, which led him to study the moral language
applied to justify the "sacred calling" of mundane professions in that society. In other instances, middle-
range theories are constructed by modifying the rules of discourse of existing theories. Merton's theory of
role set is an example of a middle-range theory that challenge the rules of discourse of an earlier social
role theory of Linton, George Herbert Mead, and Jacob Moreno. Instead of subscribing to the social role
concept in which behaviors are based on people’s single roles in society, the role-set concept suggests that
people behave based on an array of associated roles, thereby giving rise to distinctive problems,
hypotheses, and novel inquiries. For example, the individual doctoral student doesn't just have to deal
with the role of being a student. That student needs to face the expectations of the members of that role
set, which includes the faculty, the university administration, other doctoral students, undergraduate
students and a whole array of social mechanisms that are often in conflict with each other. These two ways
in which theories of the middle range are formulated demonstrate how original concepts and theories are
invented.

Page 10 of 26
A Brief Analysis of Theories Applied in IS

Now that we have described and provided examples of compelling middle-range theories, we briefly
review major theories that have been applied in IS in view of our analysis to find out what kind of theories
IS researchers use and how they have been adapted into the IS field. Using the framework that compares
grand theories with theories of the middle range, we are able to uncover the mode of theorizing
undertaken in the formulation of these theories. As an illustration, media richness theory (MRT) (Daft
and Lengel 1986) combines two related discourses: Galbraith's (1977) information processing model and
Weick's (1979) sensemaking, both in the effort of reducing uncertainty and equivocality. Galbraith's (1977)
information processing model focuses on how organizations could be designed based on the simple but
powerful proposition that the greater the uncertainty of a task, the greater the amount of information that
needs to be processed for the execution of that task. Based on this proposition and numerous data
collected from prior research (Lawrence and Lorsch 1967; March and Simon 1958; Simon 1957; Simon
1955), Galbraith constructs several propositions on how an organization could be designed to cope with
that uncertainty. The bounded nature of the theory, the choice to specialize in how uncertainty impacts
organizational forms, and its source of inspiration in a simple model and set of observables makes it a
middle-range theory. Interestingly, Weick approaches the notion of organizational design (which he calls
"organizing") from the perspective of social psychology, not information processing, but nevertheless
draws from the similar sources such as Herbert Simon. Weick seeks to understand the process of
organizing, and using numerous studies, focuses on several common misconceptions surrounding how
organizations emerge. One of his propositions suggests that organizing had to do with removing
equivocality from the informational environment, "toward the establishment of a workable level of
certainty" (p. 40). The bounded nature, grounding the theory in observable individual actions, and its
specialization in the specific processes of organizing qualifies it as a middle-range theory. How these two
theories not only engage a single limited subject matter, but also enrich the understanding of that subject
matter from different perspectives without excluding one another, describes the potential of middle-range
theories to extend themselves and be consonant with grand theories.
By adapting and inferring from these two discourses, MRT qualifies as a theory of the middle range within
the domain of decision support systems (DSS). MRT builds the existential proposition of "richness" of the
electronic medium and suggests that the more equivocal the communication, the richer the media needs
to be. Although more recent studies (Vickery et al. 2004) find support for this theory, many other studies
(Burke and Chidambaram 1999; Dennis and Kinney 1998; Ngwenyama and Lee 1997) did not—showing
how high it is on the falsifiability scale. But this is not the point. The point is that this middle-range theory
helped increase knowledge within the domain of computer-mediated communications and decision
making in complex situations using novel theorizing (e.g., critical social theory in Ngwenyama and Lee
(1997), instead of an endless rearrangement of variables. It also triggered the construction of several new
theories such as a theory on the effects information technology has on organizational decision making
(Huber 1990) and media synchronicity theory (Dennis et al. 2008) and helped refine Weick's (1995a)
theory of sensemaking in organizations.
The most cited, discussed, and extended IS theory is Davis' (1989; 1989) TAM. TAM is derived from the
TRA, which is designed to "organize and integrate research in the attitude area" (Fishbein and Ajzen 1977,
p. 13). Although TRA was developed as a result of many decades of conflicting research on attitude, "in
contrast to most contemporary theory and research in the attitudes area" (Fishbein and Ajzen 1977, p.
510), the authors claim to provide a better alternative that can incorporate and integrate all other theories,
and they seek to explain human behavior in a general sense. Consequently, it is closer to being a grand
theory. TAM adapted the same structure with some modifications, in particular, taking out subjective
norms and specifying two constructs that determined attitude: perceived usefulness and perceived ease-
of-use. Restricting TAM to these constructs points to the first problem with deriving from grand
theories—researchers are forced to select from a large constellation of possible constructs and concepts
that would work best for their chosen subject matter, increasing the risk of reductionism and loss of
adequacy and utility without necessarily increasing the empirical validity of the theory. Each of the three
constructs of TRA leading to behavior (beliefs, attitudes, and intentions) is not only highly abstract but
also has a bewildering number of ways in which it is formed. For example, Fishbein and Ajzen (1977)
describes at least three major kinds of beliefs: descriptive beliefs, inferential beliefs, and informational
beliefs—each with its own particular processes. Anyone wishing to extract a usable theory will need to

Page 11 of 26
discard or disregard a number of candidate concepts that could potentially be useful for theorizing. In
part, based on previous research in IS, two were selected. The issue is, were those two chosen constructs
adequate and representative enough as not to violate the original Fishbein and Ajzen model? Based on
numerous follow-up studies that restored many constructs to TAM (Venkatesh 1999; Venkatesh 2000;
Venkatesh and Morris 2000; Venkatesh et al. 2003), it is likely a certain level of reductionism had taken
place.
The Delone and McLean (1992) model of IS success demonstrates many years of effort by IS researchers
to define a core concern of the field—its dependent variable (Keen 1980). It is modeled after a process
view (Steers 1976) that considers three major components instead of separate independent criteria for the
highly abstract concept of organizational effectiveness. Based on content analysis of more than 180 IS
studies and the authors' evaluation of the most parsimonious model, DeLone and McLean settled on six
major components of effectiveness, which interdependently represent IS success. It can be argued,
therefore, that numerous observations helped develop the model. Because of its highly abstract nature, it
is extremely difficult to agree on a single measure of IS success; hence, the "IS Success Model" proposes
that success is possible through the interaction of system quality, information quality, use, user
satisfaction, individual impact, and organizational impact. Arguably, the model is bounded by the subject
matter of system effectiveness. The authors claim that the model "must incorporate and organize all of the
previous research in the field" (Delone and McLean 1992, p. 87), which suggests they are building an all-
encompassing theory. Surprisingly, despite its high profile, very few studies have directly and
independently tested this model (Iivari 2005; Rai et al. 2002; Seddon et al. 1994) raising doubts about its
extent of falsifiability. Nevertheless its propositions do contain observables. On the one hand, it partially
qualifies as a middle-range theory, while on the other hand, it suggests an attempt to become a general
theory. Thus, we place it between being a grand theory and a middle-range theory.
A similar argument can be made for two other common IS theories: structuration theory and task
technology fit. Both push into such a high level of abstraction that they are difficult to falsify or to use as a
foundation for building cumulative research. Research leveraging these theories has thus yielded a
bewildering array of constructs. Hence, we conclude these are theories that lean toward grand theory.
Given these commonly used theories in IS, we conclude that too much IS theoretical work is based on
grand theory or an awkward point between middle-range and grand theory. The state of theorizing in IS is
similar to how Geels (2007) describes the state of theorizing in science studies (citing Pinder and Moore
(1980):
[A]n overemphasis on methodological rigor and hypothesis testing at the expense of
hypothesis construction. “We have become preoccupied with measurement precision,
with the creation and internal validation of new instruments” (p. 7). Much work was seen
as narrowly based, extending existing hypotheses and relying on previously accepted
assumptions.
Although, much maligned, MRT is the kind of middle-range theory that IS researchers should be striving
toward, so that IS research is better contextualized, more focused, and more easily falsified and built
upon.
Building Theories of the Middle Range

The described differences between grand theories and theories of the middle range, as well as the analysis
of the most popular theories in the IS field, raises several questions: If we wish to follow this path and
mode of theorizing, how do we go about developing such theories? If these theories are not derived from
established grand theories or are not borrowed in part or in toto from reference disciplines, then what
resources do we have that can help guide the process of theorizing middle-range theories? If we are not
supposed to follow what Oswick et al. (2011) refers to as the "domesticated pattern of theory building,"
simplifying and repackaging the original theory into the borrowing discipline, what processes of
adaptation or reconstruction should we follow if any? We posit that the process of theorizing for middle-
range theories goes beyond just adapting theories critically and reflexively (Truex et al. 2006). It requires
an understanding of the theory's originality, how it modifies the rules of discourse in the field, what
hidden assumptions underlie the theory, what new concepts are being introduced and how they impact

Page 12 of 26
the discourse, what laws will be affected or constructed as a result, and the range and scope the theory is
expected to cover.
Both Avison and Malaurent (2014) and Grover and Lyytinen (2015) address similar questions. Avison and
Malaurent list six concerns that could arise as a result of the inappropriate emphasis on theory. Among
them, they note the tendency to invent patterns from data that might not exist in order to fit existing
theory, and the dangers of theories obscuring the core concerns of the research. Both studies make the
point that the vast majority of IS research follows a scripted way of research that borrows and adapts
theories without significant modification and extension from the reference disciplines. Grover and
Lyytinen call this scripted approach mid-range theorizing, producing "reference" or mid-range theories
that not only places IT exogenous to the concerns of the theory, but also relies on a series of proxies of the
constructs from the borrowed theories resulting in familiar and unexciting research. To progress forward,
Avison and Malaurent propose a theory light approach while Grover and Lyytinen propose a "push to the
edges" of research, focusing on the two edges: (1) data-driven, inductive research striving to discover
empirical regularities, inventing new constructs, and creating surprises from data, without necessarily
depending on a heavy dose of theory; and (2) blue ocean theorizing without necessarily grounding the
research in data.
In using the term "mid-range theorizing," Grover and Lyytinen (2015) are careful to note that this term is
not the same in content as Merton's "theories of the middle range." We agree with both papers on the
general assessment of the state of theorizing in IS, and equally eschew the excessive and uncritical
borrowing taking place; however, we believe that because we are scholars of science—not consultants or
practitioners—theory remains our focus (Gregor 2014; Lee 2014) and without empirical grounding from
which research relevance is derived, research will be at risk from solipsism and trivial erudition (Merton
1968). Thus, any productive and socially relevant research need not dispense with either theory or data,
and should remain, in terms of level of abstraction, in the middle-range, deriving benefit from both
elements of research. The following outline summarizes how this form of theorizing is possible without
the negative connotations described by Avison and Malaurent (2014) and Grover and Lyytinen. To ground
our argument, we apply our outline to the example Avison and Malaurent used in their illustration of
research that is theory light, which was Schultze 's (2000) confessional account of knowledge work. We
chose this example to demonstrate that the study is rich in theorizing despite its apparent lack of
reference to theories.
1. Focus on solving a problem or addressing a question within a limited domain instead of logically
deriving from a single all embracing theory (grand theory)
Although it is entirely possible for middle range theories to be logically derived from grand theories, doing
so limits the source of inspiration for such theories and constrains the derived theories to the context,
logic and model of the grand theory. Instead of being derived from grand theories, the ideas that are
contained in established and classical theories have always been characteristically simple and limited to a
specific subject matter: In the natural sciences, Gilbert's theory on magnetism began with the conception
of the earth as a magnet and concerns only magnetism; Boyle's theory of atmospheric pressure is inspired
from the simple idea that the atmosphere is a "sea of air" and focuses on air pressure. By doing so the
logic of the analysis is developed wholly from relevant disciplinary concerns, not of other discipline's
concerns. Limiting the domain engenders cumulative tradition within the field of study. In the social
sciences, the theory of reference group began with the idea that the magnitude of loss is not based on
absolute measures but dependent on comparing their situation with others (Merton 1968). Max Weber's
theory of bureaucracy began with the simple idea that a bureau or position defines the work and
authority, rather than the person, the work itself (as in piece-meal work) or the family, as was common in
feudalistic times (Weber 1946). He believed that it was this structure that allowed civilizations like ancient
Egypt, the Roman Empire and great leaders like Napoleon to manage their empires and armies.
In the case of Schultze's (2000) confessional account, the problem is the mystery of knowledge itself and
how it is produced in the context of people who perform what is called knowledge work. The term itself is
problematic because if knowledge itself is poorly defined, how can we define anything associated with it
like knowledge work? At this point of the research, speculation and previous studies about knowledge are
introduced (e.g., The inadequacy of the data-information-knowledge hierarchy and Nonaka's work on
knowledge) but no propositions are logically derived from any of them. The notion that knowledge is
closely related to practice is introduced as a guiding principle in the research.

Page 13 of 26
2. Begin with a general idea (or metaphor) and imagery that generates novel questions and hypotheses
Thus middle range theories began with the simple concept or idea that generates an imagery or metaphor
of how it might work. Often the concept or idea is inspired from observations or series of empirical
studies, which grounds the idea in data. Sometimes these ideas are intuitively derived. These ideas raise
interesting and novel questions that result in counter-intuitive propositions. For example, even before
Hyman and Singer (1968, p. 147) coined the term reference group in 1949 to define the subjective status
of "a person's conception of his own position relative to other individuals," Cooley (1967, p. 184) had
introduced the classic looking-glass metaphor in 1909 to describe how the idea of a reference group
works. Numerous studies extended the idea (e.g. the theory of non-conformity, anomie and deviance) that
among others, refined the familiar concept of social mobility (Merton and Rossi 1958; Sorokin 1927).
Social mobility has been and is currently studied across countless domains, and remains a major
economic and sociological concern. This example demonstrates how middle range theories not only
begins with a simple concept linked to a limited number of facts, but also how it suggests further
observations, hypotheses and how it contributes to the growth of knowledge in a bounded subject matter.
The simple idea in Schultze's (2000) confessional account is to view knowledge not as what they know but
as what they do. Based on this simple idea the questions that are raised will surround the worker's routine
practices especially "socially situated, meaningful and intentional actions that follow certain general
principles of procedure" (p. 4). Novel questions like "How is information produced in practice?" and
"How is this informing practice related to knowledge work," are raised and leads to a reexamination of the
relationship between information and knowledge. Contrary to Avison and Malaurent's (2014) claims
about the minimal theory applied in this study, many theories, among others, Bourdieu's (1977) practice
theory, Nonaka's (1994) theory of knowledge, and Machlup's (1980) information flow theory, are drawn
from to help guide the research. But as stated earlier, Schultze's propositions are not logically derived
from these theories.
3. Create intermediate concepts and propositions that operate between general unified theories (grand
theories) and minor working hypotheses
The concepts and propositions that are developed as a result of the theorizing process are abstract enough
to be generalized, but at the same time, they contain observables that are close enough to data and can be
empirically tested. Studies of the American soldier after the Second World War revealed levels of relative
deprivation experienced by the soldiers. This concept became part of the theory of reference groups
allowing the creation of theoretically grounded propositions that could be empirically tested (Merton
1968). For example, the proposition, "Older or married men exhibited more resentment towards
induction into the military than younger or unmarried men" (pp. 281-283) contains observables such as
age, marital status and numbers inducted, and at the same time hinged on the construct of relative
deprivation—the perception that induction demanded greater sacrifice from older or married men from
those younger or unmarried. The comparison undertaken by older or married soldiers against those
younger or unmarried applies the theory of reference groups.
The results from Schultze's (2000) confessional account produce propositions that could equally be
characterized as middle range. For example, the propositions that, knowledge workers create information
by (1) ex-pressing, the "converting [of]… subjective insights into informational objects … self-reflexive
documenting of events … [but] distancing the writing self from both the experiencing self and the scene,"
and (2) translating defined as, "manipulating and ferrying it across multiple realms until a coherent
meaning emerges" (p. 27), are both abstract and empirical at the same time. Using these propositions,
Schultze concludes that information and knowledge can indeed be stored separately from the individual
or group. Such propositions can be empirically validated using various observables such as individual
people and groups, and informational objects that are easily recognized.
4. Develop and refine the concepts and propositions
The propositions developed in building theories in the middle range are not fixated on any philosophy;
instead, they focus on the specific subject matter regardless of whether the goal is to generalize
(nomothetic) or to describe unique instances for purposes of understanding (idiographic). In fact, the
process assumes that even in describing unique instances, the researcher is already generalizing since
unique descriptions cannot proceed without the researcher generalizing with respect to the other units in
the research (Kaplan 1964). Hence, the propositions transcends the oft-repeated distinction between

Page 14 of 26
nomothetic and idiographic research. These propositions also cut across the commonly depicted nature of
science as a smooth progression of findings and discoveries, to the reality of science as a messy, often
conflicting discontinuities of reported successes and failures, what Merton (1968) calls the distinction
between the history and systematics of science. Such was the case with the growth of the reference group
theory. It began with proposals from esteemed researchers like Cooley, but was never impactful until the
mid-1950s after America experienced two world wars and the suffering of the American soldier, and their
inability to integrate into society after the wars was theorized as a phenomenon of reference group. The
study of the phenomenon itself can be described as idiographic research, but could be generalized for all
soldiers experiencing wars at all times.
The kinds of concepts and propositions offered by Schultze (2000) are also not fixated on any philosophy,
instead they focus on the domain of knowledge work. Nevertheless, by refining them, the propositions can
be generalized across other domains. For example, although the research is limited to the practice of
computer systems administrators, competitive intelligence analysts, and librarians at specific locations,
the research contributes to the general concept of informing practice, which describes the process of
creating information as the result of extracting knowledge and experiences from the person, and
balancing both objective and subjective elements. This concept implies that information and knowledge is
in a dialectic, mutually constitutive relationship, a refinement based on an understanding of the practices
taking place in the study. These refined propositions are obtained by abstracting general conclusions from
the observations and by comparing the practices of the subjects of the research and the practices of the
ethnographer.
5. Evaluate the originality and novelty of the concepts and propositions
At each stage of the development of the concepts and propositions, the researcher needs to evaluate the
originality and novelty of the concepts and propositions. Although, the issue of originality requires a
separate treatise on its own and is outside the scope of this paper, several brief observations might be
useful to guide the researcher. One way of assessing originality and novelty is to conceive and explore
alternatives to current ways of thinking. Originality demands understanding, identifying and challenging
the assumptions underlying the research (Slife and Williams 1995). Understanding the assumptions is
important not because we want to avoid those assumptions, or avoid using assumptions, but because we
cannot avoid using them, resulting in research that is unoriginal, sterile and unexciting. Kaplan's (1964)
remarks about theory summarizes the discussion on originality well: "In particular, a new theory requires
its own terms and generates its own laws: the old concepts are not merely reorganized but reconstituted,
the old laws not just corrected but given new meaning" (p. 297). Theories that are derived from grand
theories tend to be limited to the well-thought out and familiar framework of that theory, giving readers
the uneasy feeling we are not getting to the heart of the matter. Instead, original theory excites and
inspires and often provides counter intuitive or novel discoveries (Grover and Lyytinen 2015; Lee et al.
2014).
The theory of reference groups challenges several existing assumptions. First, the long-established
concept of group determined behavior, which views perception from the standpoint of the group the
individual is a member of, is challenged. Reference group theory introduces a different view, which
suggests that individuals orient themselves to groups other than their own in determining perception and
behavior. This novel view changes the rules and introduces other novel issues of membership and non-
membership group orientations that had not been previously discussed. Schultze (2000) also proposes
several counter-intuitive claims. Among others, the traditional view of knowledge as stock of substances
that are accumulated once created, is challenged. And the traditional data-information-knowledge
hierarchy is also challenged, replaced with the novel idea that information is not only derived from
knowledge, it is situational and is transformed in the routine practice of knowledge workers. These
observations lead the researcher down several interesting research options.
6. Don't wait to make bold propositions or suggest tentative theories that are ready to be tested.
Theories of the middle range grow organically with empirical data and avoid prematurely creating unified
theoretical systems before accumulation of basic observations. Physicists did not wait for the theory of
everything before proceeding with their own different theories of limited range. This approach does not
mean that the many specific theories of the middle range cannot eventually be integrated into more
general conceptual schemes capable of understanding and predicting a broader scope of phenomena.

Page 15 of 26
What it does engender is the continuous process of testing available theories of the middle range,
generating numerous original concepts that the discipline can claim to be their own, and producing novel
insights within the discipline that build a coherent body of knowledge.
The theory of reference groups suggests that, "under specified conditions, families suffering serious losses
will feel less deprived than those suffering smaller losses if they are in situations leading them to compare
themselves to people suffering even more severe losses" (Merton 1968, p. 40). Thus, such a theory can be
tested empirically by asking people who are in the area of the greatest disasters, who though deprived
themselves, view their deprivation as less severe. Such a theory can also be applied and tested in public
communications and media strategies by focusing on the most extreme suffering groups so others may
compare themselves more favourably. Schultze's (2000) study is primarily a methodological paper
focused on research methods and best practices for ethnographical research in IS, thus, did not address or
discuss at length the process of theory building per se. Nevertheless, we can extract at least one theory
that we can call a theory of the middle range from the study. The study produces a descriptive theory that
depicts the informing practice in knowledge area as consisting of ex-pressing, monitoring and
translation. However, despite being very highly cited (the study received 485 citations at the time of the
writing of this paper), most of the follow-up research citing the paper is focused on methodology rather
than on testing or extending the theory. One notable study that applies Schultze's theory of informing
practices is McKinney and Yoos (2010) who theorize their adaptation theory of information based on
Schultze's account.
Many might be tempted to say this lack of theory building research is evidence that theories of the middle
range is counter-productive. We believe that this evidence points towards the increasingly counter-
productive dependence of IS research on grand theories, and a systemic weakness on the part of IS
research in building cumulative tradition by extending research of others in a theoretically meaningful
and substantive manner.
Conclusion
This essay challenges and extends existing efforts in advancing theories and theorizing in IS by
elaborating on a definition of theories and mode of theorizing that have has not been adequately
researched, both of which have major implications for the progress of the IS field. We also describe two
central constituents of theory that have not received much attention from the IS field: concepts and
propositions. Using these descriptions, we distinguish between grand theories, meta-theories, particular
empirical observation, and conceptual formation, and we propose the IS community consider and engage
theories of the middle range. We provide evidence for the significance of middle-range theories in the
history of science and demonstrate the usefulness of this research for IS by analyzing the most widely
applied theories in IS to show how the common mode of IS theorizing tends to gravitate towards grand
theories. By proposing several guidelines on how to build middle-range theories, we demonstrate how
such a mode of theorizing places a premium on the ingenuity and creativity of the researcher rather than
relying on the research method. Instead of repeating the familiar formulaic, endless rearrangement of
variables derived from grand theories typically found in the bulk of IS research, we see theorizing in this
manner holding the future for novel and exciting theories.
Reference
Agarwal, R., and Lucas Jr., H.C. 2005. "The Information Systems Identity Crisis: Focusing on High-Visibility and
High-Impact Research," MIS Quarterly (29:3) pp. 381-398.
Avison, D., and Malaurent, J. 2014. "Is Theory King?: Questioning the Theory Fetish in Information Systems,"
Journal of Information Technology (29:4), May 6 pp. 327-336.
Bacharach, S.B. 1989. "Organizational Theories: Some Criteria for Evaluation," Academy of Management Review
(14:4) pp. 496-515.
Bacon, F. 1620. Novum Organum, London:
Bal, M. 2002. Travelling Concepts in the Humanities: A Rough Guide, Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
Bandura, A. 1982. "Self-Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency," American Psychologist (37:2) pp. 122-147.
Banville, C., and Landry, M. 1989. "Can the Field of MIS Be Disciplined?," Communications of the ACM (32:1) pp.
48-60.

Page 16 of 26
Benbasat, I., and Barki, H. 2007. "Quo Vadis TAM?," Journal of the Association for Information Systems (8:4) pp.
211-218.
Benbasat, I., and Zmud, R. 2003. "The Identity Crisis within the IS Discipline: Defining and Communicating the
Discipline's Core Properties," MIS Quarterly (27:2) pp. 183-194.
Bhattacherjee, A. 2001. "Understanding Information Systems Continuance: An Expectation-Confirmation Model,"
MIS Quarterly (25:3) pp. 351-370.
Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Briggs, R.O., Reinig, B.A., and Vreede, G.J.d. 2008. "The Yield Shift Theory of Satisfaction and Its Application to
the IS/IT Domain," Journal of the Association for Information Systems (9:5) pp. 267-293.
Burke, K., and Chidambaram, L. 1999. "How Much Bandwidth Is Enough? A Longitudinal Examination of Media
Characteristics and Group Outcomes," MIS Quarterly (23:4) pp. 557-580.
Charmaz, K. 2014. Constructing Grounded Theory, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Cooley, C.H. 1967. Human Nature and the Social Order, New York, NY: Schocken Books.
Creswell, J.W. 2003. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches, Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications.
Crotty, M. 1998. The Foundations of Social Research, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Daft, R.L., and Lengel, R.H. 1986. "A Proposed Integration among Organizational Information Requirements,
Media Richness, and Structural Design," Management Science (32:5) pp. 191-233.
Davis, F.D. 1989. "Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology,"
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., and Warshaw, P.R. 1989. "User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of
Two Theoretical Models," Management Science (35:8) pp. 982-1003.
Davis, F.D., Jr. 1986. "A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User Information
Systems : Theory and Results," PhD Dissertation, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Davison, R.M., Ou, C.X., and Martinsons, M.G. 2013. "Information Technology to Support Informal Knowledge
Sharing," Information Systems Journal (23:1) pp. 89-109.
Delone, W.H., and McLean, E.R. 1992. "Information System Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable,"
Information Systems Research (3:1) pp. 60-95.
Dennis, A.R., Fuller, R.M., and Valacich, J.S. 2008. "Media, Tasks, and Communication Processes: A Theory of
Media Synchronicity," MIS Quarterly (32:3) pp. 575-600.
Dennis, A.R., and Kinney, S.T. 1998. "Testing Media Richness Theory in the New Media: The Effects of Cues,
Feedback, and Task Equivocality," Information Systems Research (9:3) pp. 256-274.
Dubin, R. 1969. Building Theory, New York, NY: The Free Press.
Durkheim, E. 1895. Les Règles De La Méthode Sociologique (the Rules of the Sociological Method), Paris: F. Alcan.
Eisenhardt, K.M. 1989. "Building Theories from Case Study Research," Academy of Management Review (14:4) pp.
532-551.
Fawcett, J. 1998. The Relationship of Theory and Research, Philadelphia, PA: F. A. Davis.
Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. 1977. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Flynn, D., and Du, Y. 2012. "A Case Study of the Legitimation Process Undertaken to Gain Support for an
Information System in a Chinese University," European Journal of Information Systems (21:3), May 2012
pp. 212-228.
Flyvbjerg, B. 2006. "Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research," Qualitative Inquiry (12:2) pp. 219-245.
Foucault, M. 1972. The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language,Translated by A.M.S. Smith,
New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
Galbraith, J.R. 1977. Organization Design, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Geels, F.W. 2007. "Feelings of Discontent and the Promise of Middle Range Theory for Sts Examples from
Technology Dynamics," Science, Technology & Human Values (32:6) pp. 627-651.
Gibbs, J.P. 1972. Sociological Theory Construction, Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Press, Inc.
Glaser, B.G., and Strauss, A.L. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, New
York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Gray, P. 2003. "Introduction to the Debate on the Core of the Information Systems Field," Communications of the
AIS (12:1) p. Art. 42.
Gregor, S. 2006. "The Nature of Theory in Information Systems," MIS Quarterly (30:3) pp. 611-642.
Gregor, S. 2014. "Theory -- Still King but Needing a Revolution!," Journal of Information Technology (29:4), May
6 pp. 337-340.

Page 17 of 26
Gregor, S., and Jones, D. 2007. "The Anatomy of a Design Theory," Journal of the AIS (8:5) pp. 312-335.
Grover, V., and Lyytinen, K. 2015. "New State of Play in Information Systems Research: The Push to the Edges,"
Grover, V., Lyytinen, K., Srinivasan, A., and Tan, B.C.Y. 2008. "Contributing to Rigorous and Forward Thinking
Explanatory Theory," Journal of the AIS (9:2) pp. 40-47.
Grover, V., Lyytinen, K., and Weber, R. 2012. "Panel on Native IS Theories," Special Interest Group on Philosophy
and Epistemology in IS (SIGPHIL) Workshop on IS Theory: State of the Art, Orlando, FL.
Hanson, N.R. 1958. Patterns of Discovery: An Inquiry into the Conceptual Foundations of Science, London:
Cambridge University Press.
Hempel, C.G. 1956. "Fundamentals of Concept Formation in Empirical Science," in International Encyclopedia of
Unified Science, O. Neurath (ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Huber, G.P. 1990. "A Theory of the Effects of Advanced Technologies on Organizational Design, Intelligence and
Decision Making," Academy of Management Review (15:1) pp. 47-71.
Hyman, H.H., and Singer, E. (eds.). 1968. Readings in Reference Group Theory and Research. New York, NY: Free
Press.
Iivari, J. 2005. "An Empirical Test of the Delone-Mclean Model of Information System Success," Data Base (36:2)
pp. 8-27.
Kaplan, A. 1964. The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for Behavioral Science, San Francisco, CA: Chandler.
Karahanna, E., Straub, D.W., and Chervany, N.L. 1999. "Information Technology Adoption across Time: A Cross-
Sectional Comparison of Pre-Adoption and Post-Adoption Beliefs," MIS Quarterly (23:2) pp. 183-213.
Keen, P.G.W. 1980. "MIS Research: Reference Disciplines and a Cumulative Tradition," 1st International
Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 1980), E. McLean (ed.), Philadelphia, PA: ACM Press pp. 9-18.
King, J.L., and Lyytinen, K. 2004. "Reach and Grasp," MIS Quarterly (28:4) pp. 539-552.
Koontz, H. 1961. "The Management Theory Jungle," The Journal of the Academy of Management (4:3) pp. 174-
188.
Koontz, H. (ed.) 1964. Towards a Unified Theory of Management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kuechler, W., and Vaishnavi, V. 2012. "A Framework for Theory Development in Design Science Research:
Multiple Perspectives," Journal of the Association for Information Systems (13:6) pp. 395-423.
Lawrence, P., and Lorsch, J. 1967. Organization and Environment, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.
Lee, A., and Baskerville, R. 2003. "Generalizing Generalizability in Information Systems Research," Information
Systems Research (14:3) pp. 221 - 243.
Lee, A.S. 2014. "Theory Is King? But First, What Is Theory?," Journal of Information Technology (29:4), May 6 pp.
350-352.
Lee, A.S., and Hubona, G.S. 2009. "A Scientific Basis for Rigor in Information Systems Research," MIS Quarterly
(33:2) pp. 237-262.
Lee, J.K., Park, J., and Gregor, S. 2014. "Axiomatic Theories in Information Systems," Working Paper KCB-WP-
2014-028, KAIST College of Business.
Lee, Y., Kozar, K.A., and Larsen, K.R. 2003. "The Technology Acceptance Model: Past, Present, and Future,"
Communications of the Association for Information Systems (12:Art 50) pp. 752-780.
Lyytinen, K., and King, J.L. 2004. "Nothing at the Center? Academic Legitimacy in the Information Systems Field,"
Journal of the AIS (5:6) pp. 220-246.
Lyytinen, K., and King, J.L. 2006. "The Theoretical Core and Academic Legitimacy: A Response to Professor
Weber," Journal of the AIS (7:11) pp. 714-721.
Machlup, F. 1980. Knowledge, Its Creation, Distribution, and Economic Significance, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press.
Macredie, R.D., and Mijinyawa, K. 2011. "A Theory-Grounded Framework of Open Source Software Adoption in
Smes," European Journal of Information Systems (20:2), Mar 2011 pp. 237-250.
March, J.G., and Simon, H.A. 1958. Organizations, New York: Wiley.
Markus, M.L. 1983. "Power, Politics, and MIS Implementation," Communications of the ACM (26:6) pp. 430-444.
Markus, M.L., and Saunders, C.S. 2007. "Editorial Comments: Looking for a Few Good Concepts...And
Theories...For the Information Systems Field," MIS Quarterly (31:1) pp. iii-vi.
McKinney, E.H., Jr., and Yoos, C.J. 2010. "Information About Information: A Taxonomy of Views," MIS Quarterly
(34:2) pp. 329-344.
Merton, R.K. 1968. Social Theory and Social Structure, New York: Free Press.
Merton, R.K., and Rossi, A.S. 1958. "Reference Group Theory and Social Mobility," in Social Theory and Social
Structure, R.K. Merton (ed.). New York, NY: Free Press, pp. 316-325.

Page 18 of 26
Mills, C.W. 1959. The Sociological Imagination, New York: Oxford University Press,.
Montagu, B. (ed.) 1852. The Works of Francis Bacon. Philadelphia: A. Hart, Late Carey & Hart.
Mueller, B., and Urbach, N. 2013. "The Why, What, and How of Theories in IS Research," International
Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2013), Dec 15-18, Milan, Italy from
http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2013/proceedings/ResearchMethods/8/, pp. 1-25.
Ngwenyama, O.K., and Lee, A.S. 1997. "Communication Richness in Electronic Mail: Critical Social Theory and
the Contextuality of Meaning," MIS Quarterly (21:2) pp. 145-167.
Niederman, F., Lyytinen, K., Ahuja, M., and Tan, B. 2012. "Senior Scholars Panel," International Conference on
Information System (ICIS 2012), Orlando, FL, Dec 16-19.
Nonaka, I. 1994. "A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation," Organization Science (5:1) pp. 14-
37.
Oswick, C., Fleming, P., and Hanlon, G. 2011. "From Borrowing to Blending: Rethinking the Processes of
Organizational Theory-Building," Academy of Management Review (36:2) pp. 318-337.
Parsons, T. 1949. The Structure of Social Action, New York: Free Press.
Parsons, T., and Shils, E.A. (eds.). 1962. Toward a General Theory of Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Pinder, C.C., and Moore, L.F. (eds.). 1980. Middle Range Theory and the Study of Organizations. Boston, MA:
Martinus Nijhoff.
Plato. 369 BC/1988. Plato's Theaetetus,Translated by D. Bostock, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Popper, K.R. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery, New York: Basic Books.
Rai, A., Lang, S.S., and Welker, R.B. 2002. "Assessing the Validity of IS Success Models: An Empirical Test and
Theoretical Analysis," Information Systems Research (13:1) pp. 50-69.
Ritzer, G. 1990. "Metatheorizing in Sociology," Sociological Forum (5:1) pp. 3-15.
Rogers, E.M. 1983. Diffusion of Innovations, (3rd ed.) New York, NY: The Free Press.
Runkel, P.J., and Runkel, M. 1984. A Guide to Usage for Writers and Students in the Social Sciences, Totowa, NJ:
Rowman & Allanheld.
Sarker, S., and Sarker, S. 2009. "Exploring Agility in Distributed Information Systems Development Teams: An
Interpretive Study in an Offshoring Context," Information Systems Research (20:3) pp. 440-461.
Sartori, G. (ed.) 1984. Social Science Concepts: A Systematic Analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Sartori, G., Riggs, F.W., and Teune, H. 1975. Tower of Babel : On the Definition and Analysis of Concepts in the
Social Sciences, Pittsburgh, PA: International Studies Association, University of Pittsburgh.
Schön, D.A. 1963. The Displacement of Concepts, London: Tavistock.
Schultze, U. 2000. "A Confessional Account of an Ethnography About Knowledge Work," MIS Quarterly (24:1) pp.
3-41.
Schutz, A. 1971. "Concept and Theory Formation in the Social Sciences," in Collected Papers I: The Problem of
Social Reality. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, pp. 48-66.
Seddon, P., Kiew, M.-Y., and Patry, M. 1994. "A Partial Test and Development of the Delone and Mclean Model of
IS Success," International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 1994), Dec 14-17, Vancouver, BC pp.
99-110.
Silverman, D. 2006. Interpreting Qualitative Data, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Simon, H. 1957. Administrative Behavior, New York: Free Press.
Simon, H.A. 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," Quarterly Journal of Economics (69:1) pp. 99-118.
Slife, B.D., and Williams, R.N. 1995. What's Behind the Research: Discovering Hidden Assumptions in the
Behavioral Sciences, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Sorokin, P.A. 1927. Social Mobility, New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.
Steers, R.M. 1976. "When Is an Organization Effective? A Process Approach to Understanding Effectiveness,"
Organizational Dynamics (5:2) pp. 50-63.
Stinchcombe, A.L. 1987. Constructing Social Theories, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Straub, D. 2012. "Editorial: Does MIS Have Native Theories," MIS Quarterly (36:2) pp. iii-xii.
Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques,
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Taylor, S., and Todd, P.A. 1995. "Understanding Information Technology Usage - a Test of Competing Models,"
Information Systems Research (6:2) pp. 144 -176.
Thomson, G.P. 1961. The Inspiration of Science, London: Oxford University Press.
Truex, D.P., Holmström, J., and Keil, M. 2006. "Theorizing in Information Systems Research: A Reflexive Analysis
of the Adaptation of Theory in Information Systems Research," Journal of the AIS (7:12) pp. 797-821.

Page 19 of 26
Venkatesh, V. 1999. "Creation of Favorable User Perceptions: Exploring the Role of Intrinsic Motivation," MIS
Quarterly (23:2) pp. 239-260.
Venkatesh, V. 2000. "Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and
Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model," Information Systems Research (11:4) pp. 342-365.
Venkatesh, V., and Morris, M.G. 2000. "Why Don't Men Ever Stop to Ask for Directions? Gender, Social Influence,
and Their Role in Technology Acceptance and Usage Behavior," MIS Quarterly (24:1) pp. 115-139.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., and Davis, F.D. 2003. "User Acceptance of Information Technology:
Toward a Unified View," MIS Quarterly (27:3) pp. 425-478.
Vickery, S.K., Droge, C., Stank, T.P., Goldsby, T.J., and Markland, R.E. 2004. "The Performance Implications of
Media Richness in a Business-to-Business Service Environment: Direct Versus Indirect Effects,"
Management Science (50:8) pp. 1106-1119.
Wall, J.D., Lowry, P.B., and Barlow, J. 2015. "Organizational Violations of Externally Governed Privacy and
Security Rules: Explaining and Predicting Selective Violations under Conditions of Strain and Excess,"
Journal of the Association for Information Systems (forthcoming).
Walsham, G. 1995. "The Emergence of Interpretivism in IS Research," Information Systems Research (6:4) pp. 376-
394.
Walsham, G. 2006. "Doing Interpretive Research," European Journal of Information Systems (15:3) pp. 320-330.
Weber, M. 1930. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism,Translated by T. Parsons and R.H. Tawney,
London: G. Allen & Unwin.
Weber, M. 1946. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology,Translated by H.H. Gerth and C.W. Mills, New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Weber, R. 2003. "Editor's Comments: Theoretically Speaking," MIS Quarterly (27:3) pp. iii-xii.
Weber, R. 2006. "Reach and Grasp in the Debate over the IS Core: An Empty Hand?," Journal of the AIS (7:10) pp.
703-713.
Weber, R. 2012. "Evaluating and Developing Theories in the Information Systems Discipline," Journal of the AIS
(13:1) pp. 1-30.
Weick, K.E. 1979. The Social Psychology of Organizing, (2nd ed.) New York, NY: Random House.
Weick, K.E. 1995a. Sensemaking in Organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Weick, K.E. 1995b. "What Theory Is Not, Theorizing Is," Administrative Science Quarterly (40:3) pp. 385-390.
Weick, K.E. 2007. "The Generative Properties of Richness," Academy of Management Journal (50:1) pp. 14-19.
Willcocks, L., Gregor, S., Hendfridsson, O., and Chatterjee, S. 2014. "Panel on 'Is Theory King? Questioning the
Theory Fetish in Information Systems.'," Special Interest Group on Philosophy and Epistemology in IS
(SIGPHIL) Workshop on IS Theory: Whence Cometh, Whither Goeth?, Auckland, NZ, Dec 14-15.
Willer, D., and Webster, M., Jr. 1970. "Theoretical Concepts and Observables," American Sociological Review
(35:4) pp. 748-757.
View publication stats

Seeking Middle-Range Theories in Information Systems Research

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seeking Middle-Range Theories in Information Systems Research

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Seeking middle-range theories in information systems research

Conference Paper · November 2015

Nik Rushdi Hassan Paul Benjamin Lowry

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Physical Internet View project

Scientometrics View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The current reference for this work is as follows:

Seeking Middle-Range Theories

Seeking Middle-Range Theories in

Keywords: Information systems theory, middle-range theory, grand theory, concepts,

Thirty Sixth International Conference on Information Systems, Fort Worth 2015 1

Seeking Middle-Range Theories

So What are Theories Anyway?

Thirty Sixth International Conference on Information Systems, Fort Worth 2015 2

Seeking Middle-Range Theories

What are Concepts?

Thirty Sixth International Conference on Information Systems, Fort Worth 2015 3

Seeking Middle-Range Theories

What are Propositions?

Thirty Sixth International Conference on Information Systems, Fort Worth 2015 4

Seeking Middle-Range Theories

arguably IS-specific (“acceptance”, “cognitive style,” “resistance,” “centralization,” “decentralization”),

Thirty Sixth International Conference on Information Systems, Fort Worth 2015 5

Seeking Middle-Range Theories

What are Middle-Range Theories?

Thirty Sixth International Conference on Information Systems, Fort Worth 2015 6

Seeking Middle-Range Theories

Table 1: Differences between Grand and Middle-Range Theories

Thirty Sixth International Conference on Information Systems, Fort Worth 2015 7

Seeking Middle-Range Theories

Thirty Sixth International Conference on Information Systems, Fort Worth 2015 8

Seeking Middle-Range Theories

Thirty Sixth International Conference on Information Systems, Fort Worth 2015 9

Seeking Middle-Range Theories

A Brief Analysis of Theories Applied in IS

Thirty Sixth International Conference on Information Systems, Fort Worth 2015 10

Seeking Middle-Range Theories

Building Theories of the Middle Range

Thirty Sixth International Conference on Information Systems, Fort Worth 2015 11

Seeking Middle-Range Theories

Thirty Sixth International Conference on Information Systems, Fort Worth 2015 12

Seeking Middle-Range Theories

Thirty Sixth International Conference on Information Systems, Fort Worth 2015 13

Seeking Middle-Range Theories

Thirty Sixth International Conference on Information Systems, Fort Worth 2015 14

Seeking Middle-Range Theories

Thirty Sixth International Conference on Information Systems, Fort Worth 2015 15

Seeking Middle-Range Theories

Thirty Sixth International Conference on Information Systems, Fort Worth 2015 16

Seeking Middle-Range Theories

Thirty Sixth International Conference on Information Systems, Fort Worth 2015 17

Seeking Middle-Range Theories

Thirty Sixth International Conference on Information Systems, Fort Worth 2015 18

Seeking Middle-Range Theories

Thirty Sixth International Conference on Information Systems, Fort Worth 2015 19

View publication stats

You might also like