Advancing Information Systems

Theories: Rationale and Processes 1st

Edition Nik Rushdi Hassan
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/advancing-information-systems-theories-rationale-an
d-processes-1st-edition-nik-rushdi-hassan/
Edited by
Nik Rushdi Hassan ∙ Leslie P. Willcocks

Advancing
Information Systems
Theories
Rationale and Processes
 Technology, Work and Globalization

Series Editors
Leslie P. Willcocks
Department of Management
London School of Economics and Political Science
London, UK

Mary C. Lacity
Sam M. Walton College of Business
University of Arkansas
Fayetteville, AR, USA
The Technology, Work and Globalization series was developed to provide
policy makers, workers, managers, academics and students with a deeper
understanding of the complex interlinks and influences between techno-
logical developments, including information and communication tech-
nologies, work organizations and patterns of globalization. The mission
of the series is to disseminate rich knowledge based on deep research
about relevant issues surrounding the globalization of work that is
spawned by technology.

More information about this series at

http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14456
Nik Rushdi Hassan • Leslie P. Willcocks
Editors

Advancing
Information Systems
Theories
Rationale and Processes
Editors
Nik Rushdi Hassan Leslie P. Willcocks
Department of Management Studies Department of Management
University of Minnesota Duluth London School of Economics and
Duluth, MN, USA Political Science
London, UK

ISSN 2730-6623     ISSN 2730-6631 (electronic)

Technology, Work and Globalization
ISBN 978-3-030-64883-1    ISBN 978-3-030-64884-8 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64884-8

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2021
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Contents

1 Introduction: Why Theory? (Mis)Understanding the

Context and Rationale  1
Nik Rushdi Hassan and Leslie P. Willcocks

2 Theoretical, Empirical, and Artefactual Contributions in

Information Systems Research: Implications Implied 53
Pär J. Ågerfalk and Fredrik Karlsson

3 Theoretical Diversity in IS Research: A Causal Structure

Framework 75
Frantz Rowe and M. Lynne Markus

4 Theory Building: Neither an Art nor a Science, But a

Craft131
Suzanne Rivard

5 The Process of Information Systems Theorizing as a

Discursive Practice161
Nik Rushdi Hassan, Lars Mathiassen, and Paul Lowry

v
vi Contents

6 Theorizing Digital Experience: Four Aspects of the

Infomaterial219
David Kreps

7 Design Science Theorizing: The Contribution of

Practical Theory239
Göran Goldkuhl and Jonas Sjöström

8 Pathways to IT-Rich Recontextualized Modifying of

Borrowed Theories: Illustrations from IS Strategy275
Mohammad Moeini, Robert D. Galliers, Boyka Simeonova,
and Alex Wilson

9 Pluralist Theory Building: A Methodology for

Generalizing from Data to Theory309
Sune Dueholm Müller, Lars Mathiassen, and Carol Saunders

10 Revitalizing Thoughts on Theory, Theorizing, and

Philosophizing in Information Systems363
Amir Haj-Bolouri

11 Reviving the Individual in Information Systems

Theorizing397
Lars Taxén

Index449
 Notes on Contributors

Pär J. Ågerfalk is a professor at Uppsala University, Uppsala, and Visby,

Sweden, where he holds the Chair in Information Systems. He received
his PhD in Information Systems Development from Linköping University
and has held full-time positions at Örebro University, University of
Limerick, Jönköping International Business School, and Lero—The Irish
Software Engineering Research Centre. His work has appeared in many
leading journals and conferences in the information systems field, such as
MIS Quarterly and ICIS. Currently, he is Editor-in-Chief of the European
Journal of Information Systems, a member of the Journal of Information
Technology editorial board, and a member of the Distinguished Editorial
Advisory Board of the International Journal of Information Management.
He is involved in many national and international organizations and net-
works, such as the Academy of Management, the OR Society, and the
Association for Information Systems (AIS). He was the founding chair of
the AIS Special Interest Group on Pragmatist IS Research (SIGPrag).
Robert D. Galliers is the University Distinguished Professor Emeritus,
formerly Provost at Bentley University, USA, Honorary Visiting Professor
in the University of Loughborough’s School of Business & Economics,
UK, and Professor Emeritus, formerly Dean of Warwick Business School,
UK. He is also an Associate Director of the European Foundation for
Management Development (EFMD) Quality Services, Belgium. He was

vii
viii Notes on Contributors

the founding editor-in-chief of the Journal of Strategic Information Systems

up until the end of 2018. He received the Association for Information
Systems (AIS) LEO Award for exceptional lifetime achievement in IS in
2012. He has published 100 articles in many leading international jour-
nals in IS and management (e.g., MISQ, JAIS, JMIS, ISJ, EJIS, JIT, JMS,
BJM, LRP), and has authored or co-­authored 13 books.
Göran Goldkuhl is Professor in the Department of Management and
Engineering, Linköping University, Sweden, also associated to Campus
Gotland, Uppsala University, Sweden. He holds an honorary doctorate
from Örebro University, Sweden. He serves on the AIS SIGPRAG Board.
His research interests cover areas such as qualitative and pragmatic
research methodologies, practice research, design science, action research,
innovation and change management, IS theorizing, practice theory, work
and IT co-design, business process modelling, communication analysis,
digital service design, user-interface design, IS evaluation, egovernment,
values and law in digitalization. He has published in conference proceed-
ings of ALOIS, ECIS, DESRIST, ICIS, ISD, LAP, POEM, among oth-
ers. He has published in journals like Australasian Journal of Information
Systems, Business Process Management Journal, Communications of ACM,
Communications of the Association for Information Systems, European
Journal of Information Systems, Government Information Quarterly,
Information and Organization, International Journal of Qualitative
Methods, Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application,
Semiotica, Transforming Government, among others.
Amir Haj-Bolouri holds a Ph.D. in Informatics with a specialization on
work-integrated learning at the Department of Informatics at University
West in Sweden. His research interests comprise philosophy, information
systems design, Design Science Research, and Action Design Research.
He has published in the European Journal of Information systems,
International Journal of E-Learning and presented at major IS conferences
such as the Hawaiian International Conference on Systems Sciences
(HICSS), International Conference on Design Science Research in
Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST) and the European
Conference on Information Systems (ECIS).
 Notes on Contributors ix

Nik Rushdi Hassan is Associate Professor of Information Systems (IS)

at the Labovitz School of Business and Economics (LSBE), University of
Minnesota Duluth, USA. He is currently Associate Editor for the History
and Philosophy Department of the Communications of the AIS and Senior
Editor of Data Base Advances in Information Systems. He has served as
President of the Association of Information Systems (AIS) Special Interest
Group on Philosophy in Information Systems (SIGPhil) and was one of
the editors of a recent special issue of the European Journal of Information
Systems on Philosophy and the Future of the IS Field. His research areas
include the philosophical foundations of the IS field, theorizing and the-
ory building, IS development, business analytics, social network analysis
and complexity science. He has published in the Journal of the Association
for Information Systems, Journal of Information Technology, European
Journal of Information Systems, Data Base Advances in Information Systems,
Information Systems Management Journal, Communications of the AIS,
Journal of IS Education, Informing Science Journal, Review of Accounting
and Finance, Journal of Documentation, Journal of Business Analytics and
The 2018 Routledge Companion to Management Information Systems.
Fredrik Karlsson is a professor in Informatics at Örebro University
School of Business, Örebro, Sweden. He received his PhD in Information
Systems Development from Linköping University. His research on infor-
mation security, tailoring of systems development methods, system devel-
opment methods as reusable assets, CAME-tools, requirements
engineering, method rationale, and electronic government has appeared
in a variety of information systems journals and conferences including
European Journal of Information Systems, Journal of Strategic Information
Systems, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, Government
Information Quarterly, and various information systems conferences.
Karlsson is currently Associate Editor of the European Journal of
Information Systems and research leader of the research ­environment
Centre for Empirical Research on Information Systems (CERIS).
David Kreps is philosopher in information systems at National University
of Ireland, Galway. Formerly he was Interim Associate Dean of Research
and Innovation, Salford Business School, University of Salford, Manchester,
United Kingdom. He is chair of the International Federation for
x Notes on Contributors

Information Processing’s Technical Committee 9 on ICT and Society and

was a British Academy Mid-Career Fellow in 2018. For decades David has
been an ‘early adopter’, pioneering thinker and commentator, with a fasci-
nation for technology and its impact upon society. A web developer since
1995 (making probably the first Arts Centre Website in the UK), he did
his PhD thesis on Cyborgism, and has become an expert in Web
Accessibility and explorer into the philosophy of Virtuality, and Cultural
Identity in the Socially Networked society. He was formerly Director of
Information Systems, Organisations and Society Research Centre (ISOS)
2009–12. His books include Understanding Digital Events: Bergson,
Whitehead, and Experiencing the Digital (Routledge); Against Nature: The
Metaphysics of Information Systems (Routledge); Bergson, Complexity and
Creative Emergence (Palgrave); Gramsci and Foucault: A Reassessment
(Routledge); This Changes Everything: ICT and Climate Change – What We
Do? (Springer); and Technology and Intimacy: Choice or Coercion (Springer).
Paul Lowry Ph.D. is the Suzanne Parker Thornhill Chair Professor and
Eminent Scholar in Business Information Technology at the Pamplin
College of Business at Virginia Tech where he serves as the BIT Ph.D. and
graduate programs director. He is a former tenured Full Professor at both
City University of Hong Kong and the University of Hong Kong. He
received his Ph.D. in Management Information Systems from the
University of Arizona and an MBA from the Marriott School of
Management. He has published 235+ publications, including 130+ jour-
nal articles in MIS Quarterly (MISQ), Information Systems Research (ISR),
Journal of Management Information Systems (JMIS), Journal of the
Association for Information Systems (JAIS), Information Systems Journal
(ISJ), European Journal of Information Systems (EJIS), Journal of Strategic
Information Systems (JSIS), Journal of Information Technology (JIT),
Decision Sciences Journal (DSJ), various IEEE Transactions, and others. He
is on the senior editorial board of Journal of Management Information
Systems (JMIS). He also is a Senior Editor (SE) at Journal of the Association
for Information Systems (JAIS) and Information Systems Journal (ISJ) and
an Associate Editor (AE) at the European Journal of Information Systems
(EJIS). His research interests include (1) organizational and behavioral
security and privacy; (2) online deviance, online harassment, and com-
 Notes on Contributors xi

puter ethics; (3) HCI, social media, and gamification; and (4) business
analytics, decision sciences, innovation, and supply chains.
M. Lynne Markus is the John W. Poduska, Sr. Professor of Information
and Process Management at Bentley University and an associated
researcher at MIT’s Center for Information Systems Research. She is
coauthor (with Daniel Robey) of “Information Technology and
Organizational Change: Causal Structure in Theory and Research”
(Management Science, 1988), the paper that inspired the current work.
She has published extensively in the areas of digital business and interor-
ganizational governance, enterprise systems and business processes, elec-
tronic communication and knowledge reuse, and organizational change
management. Her current research interests include digital innovation in
the financial and health sectors, the responsible use of data and algo-
rithms, and the changing nature of work. Markus was named a Fellow of
the Association for Information Systems in 2004 and received the AIS
LEO Award for Exceptional Lifetime Achievement in Information
Systems in 2008.
Lars Mathiassen is Georgia Research Alliance Eminent Scholar,
Professor at the Computer Information Systems Department, and co-­
Founder of The Center for Digital Innovation at Georgia State University.
His research focuses on digital innovation, IT development and manage-
ment, and the use of IT for health services. He has published extensively
in major information systems and software engineering journals and co-
authored several books on the subject, such as Professional Systems
Development, Computers in Context: The Philosophy and Practice of Systems
Design, Object Oriented Analysis and Design, and Improving Software
Organizations: From Principles to Practice. He has served as senior editor
for MISQ, and he currently serves as senior editor for Information and
Organization and for the Journal of Information Technology.
Mohammad Moeini is an Assistant Professor in Information Systems at
Warwick Business School, UK. Prior to this role, he was a Senior Lecturer
at the University of Sussex Business School. He obtained his PhD from
HEC Montreal, Canada. His research is published in leading IS outlets
including MISQ, JAIS, JSIS, and JIT. He is the recipient of two Best
xii Notes on Contributors

Reviewer Awards from AIS SIGITProjMgmt (2013/14), an Outstanding

Associate Editor award for ICIS 2019, the Prix La Relève (a recognition
prize for upcoming professionals in project management) from PMI-
Montréal (2015), and the Research Excellence Award for Emerging
Scholars from the University of Sussex Business School (2019).
Sune Dueholm Müller is Associate Professor in the Department of
Management, School of Business and Social Sciences, Aarhus University,
Denmark where he teaches at both the graduate and undergraduate levels
in IS strategy, IT and Organizations and Business Process Management.
His research areas are in digital innovation, process innovation and busi-
ness process management. He is published in the Journal of the Association
for Information Systems, Business Process Management Journal,
Communications of the Association for Information Systems,
International Journal of Electronic Governance, Information Technology
& People, Journal of Systems and Software, IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management and presented at major IS conferences such as
the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), the
Hawaiian International Conference on Systems Sciences (HICSS),
Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS) and the
European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS).
Suzanne Rivard is a professor of information technology (IT) at HEC
Montreal and is the HEC Montreal endowed chair in strategic
­management of information technology. She is a fellow of the Royal
Society of Canada and a fellow of the Association for Information Systems.
She received her Ph.D. from the Ivey School of Business, the University
of Western Ontario. Her research pertains to IT project risk manage-
ment, outsourcing of IT services, and user-related issues such as user
resistance to IT implementation. A former senior editor of the Theory
and Review department of the MIS Quarterly, she is currently senior edi-
tor with the Journal of Strategic Information Systems. Her work has been
published in journals such as Journal of the Association for Information
Systems, Journal of Information Technology, Journal of Management
Information Systems, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, MIS
Quarterly, and Organization Science.
 Notes on Contributors xiii

Frantz Rowe is a professor at the Université de Nantes and SKEMA

Business School. His research interests revolve around the philosophy of
information systems, IS-enabled organizational transformation, interor-
ganizational systems, and the effects of IT. He believes that our research
should illuminate the complexity of the phenomena we study so that we
better understand action consequences and design technology accord-
ingly. He has published in 40 different peer-­reviewed journals, has coed-
ited five books, including Innovation and IT in an International Context
(Palgrave Macmillan, 2014) with Dov Te’eni, and coauthored three
books, two of which were awarded the FNEGE and the EFMD prize in
2016. He is Emeritus Editor of the European Journal of Information
Systems and Board member of the International Journal of Information
Management and of Systèmes d’Information et Management. He is an AIS
fellow and is preparing ECIS 2021 in Marrakech as cochair of the
conference.
Carol Saunders is a Professor Emeritus of Management at the University
of Central Florida. Dr. Saunders has received lifetime accomplishment
awards from two disciplines: the LEO award in the Information Systems
(IS) discipline and the Lifetime Achievement Award from the OCIS
Division of the Academy of Management. She is an Association of
Information Systems Fellow, a Schöller Senior Fellow and the 2020
Distinguished Educator. She served on a number of editorial boards,
including a three-year term as Editor-in-Chief of MIS Quarterly. She
served as General Conference Chair of the premier IS conference, ICIS
and as the Program Co-chair of AMCIS 2015. She was Vice President of
Publications for the Association of Information Systems from 2016–2019.
Carol helped found the Organization Communication and Information
Systems (OCIS) division of the Academy of Management and served in
a variety of positions including its program chair and division chair. She
was the Distinguished Fulbright Scholar at the Wirtschafts Universität—
Wien (WU) in Austria and earlier held a Professional Fulbright with the
Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute. She has
held research chairs in Germany, New Zealand, Singapore, and the
Netherlands. Her current research interests include overload, sourcing,
xiv Notes on Contributors

virtual teams, business models and control. She has published in top-
ranked management, IS, computer science and communication journals.
Boyka Simeonova is an Assistant Professor in Information Management
at Loughborough University, UK, and is the Director of the Knowledge
and the Digital Economy Network and Deputy Director of the Centre
for Information Management. Boyka has published in leading
Information Systems journals including Information Systems Journal,
Journal of Information Technology and is a co-editor of the book, Strategic
Information Management: Theory and Practice (Routledge).
Jonas Sjöström is associate senior lecturer in the Department of
Informatics and Media, at Uppsala University Campus Gotland, Sweden.
Jonas does research in software engineering and information systems. His
current work includes design issues related to online psychosocial sup-
port, IS curriculum and IS didactics, and design science methodology; he
has published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research and various
DESRIST conferences. He is currently president of the Association for
Information Systems Special Interest Group on Pragmatist Information
Systems Research (AIS SIGPrag).
Lars Taxén is an associate professor from Linköping University, Sweden.
In addition to his academic career, he has more than 30 years’ experience
from the telecom industry, where he worked with system development
methods, processes, information modelling, and information systems.
His research interest has from the outset centered around the dialectical
constitution of the individual and the social, both from a practical and
theoretical point of view. Currently, his research is focused on the interac-
tion between specialized disciplines in general, and between information
systems and neuroscience in particular. He has published a book, several
book chapters, and various journal and conference articles.
Leslie P. Willcocks is Professor of Work, Technology and Globalisation,
Department of Management, London School of Economics, UK. His
research areas include automation, digital business, the future of work,
IT and business process outsourcing, organisational change, manage-
ment, and global strategy. As well as being a professor in the Information
Systems and Innovation Faculty Group, he is a Fellow of the British
 Notes on Contributors xv

Computer Society. For the last 30 years he has been Editor-in-Chief of

the Journal of Information Technology. He is co-author of 67 books,
including most recently Robotic Process and Cognitive Automation: The
Next Phase, Dynamic Innovation Through Outsourcing Service Automation
Robots and The Future of Work (2016, www.sbpublishing.org) and Global
Business: Strategy In Context (2021). He has published over 240 refereed
papers in journals such as Harvard Business Review, Sloan Management
Review, California Management Review, MIS Quarterly, MISQ Executive
and Journal of Management Studies.
Alex Wilson is Senior Lecturer in Strategy in the School of Business and
Economics, Loughborough University, UK. Previously he was a Research
Fellow in strategic management at Warwick Business School. He has held
visiting positions as Lim Kim San Research Fellow and Visiting Professor
at Singapore Management University. He was Chartered Association of
Business Schools (UK) Research Fellow (2017 and 2018). He is research-
ing the use of technologies in open strategy and continues to study the
strategic development of business schools and management education.
He has published in Long Range Planning, Journal of Strategic Information
Systems, Journal of Information Technology, British Journal of Management,
and Accounting Auditing and Accountability Journal.
 List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 The epistemological continuum (Reproduced from

Alexander (1982) with permission from the author) 10
Fig. 3.1 Causal Ontology positions: directional association, causal
mechanism, constitutive causality. (Illustrations by Nicolas
Antheaume)89
Fig. 3.2 Causal Trajectory positions: cross-boundary change,
indwelling change, evolving interlinkage. (Illustrations by
Nicolas Antheaume) 101
Fig. 3.3 Causal Autonomy positions: human sovereignty, technology
autonomy, relational synergy. (Illustrations by Nicolas
Antheaume)110
Fig. 4.1 A Spiral Model of Theory Building 134
Fig. 5.1 IS theorizing as discursive practices 169
Fig. 7.1 A design science study as an alternation between situational
design inquiry and theorizing (from Goldkuhl & Sjöström,
2018)249
Fig. 7.2 A situational model of social/regulatory interaction in the
assistance case (from Sjöström & Goldkuhl, 2009;
Goldkuhl, 2011) 256
Fig. 7.3 The Generic Regulation Model (from Goldkuhl, 2011) 257
Fig. 8.1 A framework of IT-rich recontextualized modifying of
borrowed theories 279

xvii
xviii List of Figures

Fig. 9.1 Generalization framework. (Source: Adapted from Lee &

Baskerville, 2003, p. 233) 315
Fig. 9.2 Iterative steps in Pluralist Theory Building 319
Fig. 10.1 Spaces for theory development projects in IS 381
Fig. 11.1 The morphogenetic sequence. Adapted from “Realism and
morphogenesis” by M.S. Archer, 1998. In M. Archer,
R. Bhaskar, A. Collier, T. Lawson, A. Norrie (Eds.) Critical
Realism: Essential Readings, p. 375. With permission 403
Fig. 11.2 A guitar quartet in concert 407
Fig. 11.3 Anchoring a musical activity 408
Fig. 11.4 General architecture of an individual functional system.
Solid lines mark internal functions, while dotted lines
indicate functions that depend on external sensations.
Adapted from A. Toomela “Biological Roots of Foresight
and Mental Time Travel” (2010). Integrative Psychological
and Behavioral Science, 44, p. 115. With permission 412
Fig. 11.5 TFS and Archer’s morphogenetic sequence. Adapted from
“Realism and morphogenesis” by M.S. Archer (1998). In
M.S. Archer, R. Bhaskar, A. Collier, T. Lawson, A. Norrie
(Eds.) Critical Realism: Essential Readings, p. 375. With
permission413
Fig. 11.6 The layered modular architecture of the Matrix IT system.
With permission from Technia™ 418
Fig. 11.7 The information model in 1997. Adapted from Taxén
(2003), p. 131. With permission from Ericsson™ 419
Fig. 11.8 Project data loaded in Matrix 1998. Adapted from Taxén
(2003), p. 132. With permission from Ericsson™ 420
Fig. 11.9 The mainstream communication model in IS 423
Fig. 11.10 A digitized score 431
 List of Tables

Table 2.1 Contributions and theories (based on Gregor 2006) 58

Table 2.2 Types of contributions and their implications 64
Table 3.1 Three critical dimensions of theoretical causal structure 80
Table 3.2 Positions on Dimension I, Causal Ontology 88
Table 3.3 Positions on Dimension II, Causal Trajectory 100
Table 3.4 Positions on Dimension III, Causal Autonomy 110
Table 4.1 Literature review methods 137
Table 5.1 Summary of discursive theorizing practices 197
Table 6.1 Grover’s ‘Four Fundamental Aspects’ 228
Table 6.2 Grover’s ‘Four Fundamental Aspects’ and Infomateriality 231
Table 8.1 Summary of the discussed IT-rich recontextualized
modifying approaches 297
Table 9.1 Deliverables in pluralist theory building 320
Table 9.2 Guidelines for Pluralist Theory Building 323
Table 9.3 Data analysis guide 342
Table 9.4 Coding scheme 343
Table 9.5 Example of single perspective account 344
Table 9.6 Example of data on pluralist politics in Alpha 353
Table 9.7 Sample evidence of interpretive politics in Alpha 354
Table 9.8 Explanatory power of political perspectives 355
Table 9.9 Four perspectives on process-innovation behaviors and
outcomes in Alpha 355
Table 9.10 Four cases of process innovation at the case company 356

xix
xx List of Tables

Table 10.1 Three views on theory (adapted from Winther 2016) 367
Table 10.2 Definition of different theory types (adapted from Gregor
2006)370
Table 10.3 Samples of using kernel philosophies in IS research 385
 1
Introduction: Why Theory? (Mis)
Understanding the Context
and Rationale
Nik Rushdi Hassan and Leslie P. Willcocks

Prelude
Writing an introduction to the highly discussed and most misunderstood
topic of theory in information systems (IS) research circles can be chal-
lenging. The IS field has been debating the nature and role of theories for
some time with intense debates regarding whether or not a theoretical
core is necessary (Weber, 2003, 2006; Lyytinen & King, 2004, 2006)
and disagreements concerning whether or not the field can speak of
native theories (Grover, Lyytinen, & Weber, 2012; Weber, 2012), and
what constitute IS theory and the role of theories in IS (Holmström,

N. R. Hassan (*)
Department of Management Studies, University of Minnesota Duluth,
Duluth, MN, USA
e-mail: nhassan@d.umn.edu
L. P. Willcocks
Department of Management, London School of Economics and Political
Science, London, UK
e-mail: l.p.willcocks@lse.ac.uk
1
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021
N. R. Hassan, L. P. Willcocks (eds.), Advancing Information Systems Theories,
Technology, Work and Globalization, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64884-8_1
2 N. R. Hassan and L. P. Willcocks

2005; Gregor, 2006; Gregor & Jones, 2007; Holmström & Truex, 2011;
Bichler et al., 2016; Markus & Rowe, 2018). It is therefore premature to
write an integrative summary of all these discussions in this introduction.
What is not up for debate is how the field undertakes its research using
theories from its “reference disciplines.” By borrowing from these refer-
ence disciplines “the theories and methods of these disciplines serve to set
the standards by which the quality and maturity of IS research should be
measured” (Baskerville & Myers, 2002, p. 1). Whether it is the theory of
reasoned action (TRA) or its derivative, the theory of planned behavior
from social psychology, resource based view (RBV) and absorptive capac-
ity theory from strategic management, game theory and transaction cost
theory (TCT) from Economics, innovation diffusion theory (IDT) from
communications, or social cognitive theory and activity theory from psy-
chology, the IS field has consistently borrowed (Lim, Saldanha, Malladi,
& Melville, 2013), often uncritically (Markus & Saunders, 2007; Hassan,
2011), to legitimize its research. Given the background of the history of
theories in the IS field, the goal of this series of volumes is to advance IS
research beyond this form of borrowed legitimization and derivative
research toward fresh and original research that naturally comes from its
own theories—information system theories. It is inconceivable for a field
so relevant to the era of the hyper-connected society, disruptive technolo-
gies, Big Data, social media, and “fake news” to not be brimming with its
own theories. That is why the title of this series of volumes, “Advancing
Information Systems Theories,” is phrased in such way as to emphasize its
intended goal. The focus of this series of volumes is on “information sys-
tems theories” and not just “theories in the information systems field.”
Any advancement of theory has to begin with some form of agreement
with regard to IS theories from thought leaders of the IS community.
Although much progress has been made, many questions remain unan-
swered. The major questions that will be addressed include the following:
What can we agree on with regard to theories? What constitutes theories
and what doesn’t? Why do we need theories? How can one go about
developing theories? What does an IS theory look like? Therefore, the
approach in this series of volumes is to solicit from the field’s thought
leaders of all levels and accomplishments how they each address these
questions. For a field as diverse in its content and approaches as the
 1 Introduction: Why Theory? (Mis)Understanding the Context… 3

IS field, such a goal will be challenging but not insurmountable. The

symptoms stemming from the ambiguity surrounding theories in the IS
field manifest in various forms. It is omnipresent in panels at major IS
conferences since the inception of the IS field (Keen, 1980; Mumford,
Hirschheim, Fitzgerald, & Wood-Harper, 1985; Klein, Hirschheim, &
Nissen, 1991; Nissen, Klein, & Hirschheim, 1991; Karahanna et al.,
2002). It can be seen in editorials and special issues of major IS journals
(Weber, 2003, 2006; Hirschheim, 2006; Lyytinen & King, 2006; Straub,
2012; Avison & Malaurent, 2014; Gregor, 2014; Lee, 2014; Markus,
2014). It also manifests itself in how authors often hedge their prose
when introducing the theory portion of their submissions with the phrase
“toward a theory” or “building theory.” And it emerged as a title in the
2019 International Conference for Information Systems (ICIS): “How and
Why ‘Theory’ Is Often Misunderstood in Information Systems” (Siponen
& Klaavuniemi, 2019).
Much of the discussion on theory in the IS field mirrors the debates in
the management research surrounding theory, and these continue
unabated (Bacharach, 1989; Weick, 1989, 1995, 1999; Whetten, 1989;
van de Ven, 1989; Doty & Glick, 1994; Sutton & Staw, 1995; Colquitt
& Zapata-Phelan, 2007; Hambrick, 2007; Whetten, Felin, & King,
2009; Corley & Gioia, 2011; Suddaby, Hardy, & Huy, 2011; Byron &
Thatcher, 2016; Shepherd & Suddaby, 2017). Often the misunderstand-
ing about theories in IS and the management fields has to do with how
the notion is framed. For example, both Hirschheim (2019) and
Hambrick (2007), in criticizing their respective field’s obsession with
theory, traced its origins to the historical period when business schools
were under pressure to draw its scholarly methods from the more estab-
lished social sciences, such as psychology and economics, in order to
enhance rigor and raise its level of scholarship. In the IS field, this phe-
nomenon of drawing from the “natural science model” (March & Smith,
1995) built a tradition labeled “behavioral IS research” (Hevner, March,
Park & Ram, 2004; Goes, 2013). These kinds of derivative research either
prominently cite their sources of theory from these reference disciplines,
or in the absence of such theories, will as Hambrick (2007) laments, pep-
per their articles with enough words like “theory,” “theoretical
4 N. R. Hassan and L. P. Willcocks

framework,” or “theorizing” to persuade reviewers that the article has

enough theory in it. Kaplan (1964), over half a century ago, wrote about
how authors would resort to similar strategies of augmenting their
research with words suggesting theory, albeit in essence treating theory
only as an afterthought.
One reason why researchers resort to these strategies has to do with a
sense of insecurity about whether or not their research has “enough” the-
ory to satisfy journal editors, and this insecurity is in turn exacerbated by
a misunderstanding of what theory means. If the researcher is unclear
whether or not the research contains theory, and is under pressure to
demonstrate theory, the researcher is very likely to overcompensate and
may even find instances of some theory to latch on to regardless of how-
ever strained its relevance. This phenomenon is neither a twenty-first-­
century tendency nor is it limited to the IS field and management. The
confusion with regard to theory should not come as a surprise because
even the experts on philosophy of science disagree on what exactly scien-
tific theories look like (Suppes, 1967; Suppe, 1977, 2000; Swedberg,
2014). It is no surprise that IS and its allied management fields also expe-
rience confusion. The goal of this introduction is to begin the engage-
ment with theories in a substantive fashion by addressing the question as
to why theories are needed in the first place. We use the Aristotelian
approach documented in his Posterior Analytics to answer this “Why
Theory?” question. To Aristotle, answers to the why questions comes
from answering the question about the meaning and essence of the
explananda (Charles, 2000); that is, to answer the why question, one
needs to answer the what question. The “Why theory?” question requires
a clear response to the “What is theory?” question because, much like
everything else, why we need something is dependent on a clear defini-
tion of that something which is needed. We need air because air contains
life-giving oxygen and other elements that help us breathe and therefore
live. So, this introduction sets the stage for our engagement with theory
by answering two questions: What is theory and why do we need it?
 1 Introduction: Why Theory? (Mis)Understanding the Context… 5

What Is Theory?
Interestingly, Gregor (2006) acknowledges that the nature of theory itself
has not received much attention within the IS field. This observation
coincides with the struggles the field has with theory. We begin our
engagement by reviewing major discussions about the definition of the-
ory within the IS field and compare those discussions with those outside
the IS field.

Theory from the IS Field

As Gregor (2006) notes, IS researchers who use “theory” in their research

topics fail to give any explicit definition of theory itself and therefore
work within their limited scope of their understood version of theory. For
instance, when Sarker and Lee (2002) test three competing theories of
business process redesign—the technocentric theory of redesign, the
sociocentric, and sociotechnical theories of redesign—their version of
theory follows from Markus and Robey’s (1988) focus on the causal
structure of theory. Their work, therefore, is restricted to a subset of theo-
ries that discusses cause and effect, which do not encompass all that could
be said about theory. Gregor (2006, p. 616) defines theory in a way that
is not limited to causality, but as “abstract entities that aim to describe,
explain, and enhance understanding of the world and, in some cases, to
provide predictions of what will happen in the future and to give a basis
for intervention and action.” Gregor’s definition favors a more inclusive
form of theory that could describe, explain, or predict. This definition
also implies that although prediction is one of the goals of theories, it is
not the only goal. Weber (2012), on the other hand, prefers to align with
the definition of theory limited only to Gregor’s Type-IV theory—theory
for explanation and prediction—because only this category of theory sat-
isfies his requirement for precision in defining theory’s components, asso-
ciations, states, and events.
Lee (2014) addresses the question of “What is Theory?” by suggesting
that theory cannot be separated from science, and like science the nature
6 N. R. Hassan and L. P. Willcocks

of theory differs across the different terrains of science. According to Lee

(2014), the dominance of the natural sciences has colored the conception
of theory to mean the science of description and explanation, which may
not be suited for the IS field. IS falls into the category of applied sciences
that describe how to innovatively create better information systems to
meet human needs that do not now exist or have not yet existed. For Lee,
this conception of theory excludes both the definition of theory within
the positivistic sciences and the interpretive kind. In summary, although
Gregor (2006, p. 614) favors the more inclusive definition of theory that
includes “conjectures, models, frameworks, or body of knowledge,” her
sentiment is not shared across the community (Hirschheim, Dennis, &
Willcocks, 2019).

Theory from the Management Field

Much of the discussion about theory in the IS field is guided by discus-

sions in the management field that continue unabated. The first wave of
these discussions in 1989 defined theory, what constitutes theory, and
what theoretical contribution looks like. Introducing the forum on the-
ory, van de Ven (1989, p. 486) lauded good theory because it “advances
knowledge in a scientific discipline, guides research toward crucial ques-
tions, and enlightens the profession of management.” Bacharach (1989,
p. 498) offers a definition of theory that is repeated by many IS research-
ers (Mueller & Urbach, 2017) as “a statement of relationships between
units observed or approximated in the empirical world …[with the goal
of answering the] how, when, and why.” He made it clear that descrip-
tions (such as categorization of data, typologies, and metaphors) do not
qualify as theories because they only answer the “what” question. To this,
Whetten (1989) adds that models are indistinguishable from theories.
Thus, a theoretical model qualifies as a theory. To him a “complete the-
ory” must contain four essential elements that address the what, how, and
why of the theory and a fourth element consisting of who, where, and
when. The what and the how elements define the domain of the theory
as well as the model that could be tested, while the why element explains
the logic and justification for the theory.
 1 Introduction: Why Theory? (Mis)Understanding the Context… 7

The second wave of discussion among management theorists also

addressed what theory is, by discussing what theory is not (Sutton &
Staw, 1995; Weick, 1995). They emphasize that theory has to do with
answering the why question, and since literature reviews, data, and
hypotheses do not address the why question, they do not qualify as rep-
resentations of theory. They recommend lessening the expectations for
strong theory to allow researchers to focus on data and empirical findings
without necessarily demanding theory to be constructed. This argument
about accepting papers that may have strong theory but not empirical
data, or papers with empirics but not strong theory, is picked up in the IS
field by Avison and Malaurent (2014) and by Grover and Lyytinen
(2015). Weick (1995, p. 385) adds that “most products that are labelled
theories actually approximate theories,” so, half-done frameworks, pre-
liminary hypotheses and discussion of concepts qualify as means to
develop theory and should be at least valued as such. For Weick, the term
theory should not be restricted to just good theory or grand theories and
should include the interim struggles, just like how physicians theorize
about what is wrong with the patient from data and symptoms without
necessarily introducing any theory. In this example, equally important to
the theory (or diagnosis) is the context in which the theory lives, and,
thus, the theorizing process itself becomes critical because it points to the
depth of the theoretical analysis provided by the researcher. Theory there-
fore is much richer, multidimensional, and much more nuanced than
most would like it to be, and that is why “good theories” are hard to come
by (DiMaggio, 1995)
The third wave of discussions on theory in management was marked
by Hambrick’s (2007) complaint of concerning the management field’s
obsession with theory at the expense of interesting empirical discoveries.
In response, Corley and Gioia (2011) laid out what theoretical contribu-
tions amount to, providing some practical guidance as to what original-
ity, utility, relevance, and prescient scholarship that influences the future
of management might look like. The conclusion of all that discussion
(Suddaby et al., 2011) was that by and large management researchers
failed to develop their own theories and that any theory they use fails to
capture the rich manifestations of organizations in society (Kilduff,
8 N. R. Hassan and L. P. Willcocks

Mehra, & Dunn, 2011; Oswick, Fleming, & Hanlon, 2011; Sandberg &
Tsoukas, 2011; Shepherd & Sutcliffe, 2011). One reason for this phe-
nomenon is that the management field neglected testing to whittle down
the morass of theories (Pfeffer, 2014) that had already cluttered the field
since its early history (Koontz, 1961).
It would take more than a decade after Hambrick’s (2007) complaint
for management theorists to consider that perhaps they have restricted
the meaning of theory too much, leaving no room for the varied knowl-
edge about management. Thus, Sandberg and Alvesson (2020) propose
an expansion of the meaning of theory in order to engender a more cre-
ative approach toward alternative, multidimensional, heterogenous views
of organizational phenomena. Their proposal includes structural ele-
ments specifying minimal requirements for “theory” without restricting
its meaning. Those structural elements specify a purpose for the theory,
direct the theory to a phenomenon, embody some conceptual order, pro-
vide insights beyond common sense, hold relevance that can be evalu-
ated, have empirical support, and are constrained by certain boundary
conditions. Using primarily purpose and the target phenomenon as crite-
ria, they build a typology of theory types very different from traditional
views of theory—theories that explain, comprehend, order, enact, and
provoke.

Theory from the Social Sciences

Before discussing what theory means to social scientists such as econo-

mists and sociologists, it is useful to understand what the term “theory”
means. The term “theory” itself is Greek from theoria, which means
“looking at, viewing, beholding” (Liddell & Scott, 1889), and histori-
cally, in this sense, theorists played the role of philosophers as the behold-
ers of society. Thus, in Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle saw the life of
contemplation (theoretikos) as the only activity that could be loved for its
own sake, compared to the lower lives of pleasure and politics (Liedman,
2013). Perhaps it was Francis Bacon (1620) and Isaac Newton (1687)
who changed how people viewed theory from the act of beholding to
understanding the precision of the universe and, ultimately, transforming
the hallmark of theory toward predictability. Their legacy would be later
 1 Introduction: Why Theory? (Mis)Understanding the Context… 9

carried by others who see theories as axiomatic systems containing sets of

propositions to be tested in experiments (Hallberg, 2013).
The original meaning of theory as the act of beholding was exemplified
by scholars such as Adam Smith (1776), one of the founders of present-­
day economics, who set out on An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of
the Wealth of Nations. Theory, to the classical economists, was not just
about utilitarian goals as depicted by models promoted by the neoclassi-
cal economists; it was also about understanding the workings of an econ-
omy based on both market transactions and requirements of moral
philosophy. Economists have always held competing views about what
constitutes economic theory, but this diversity of thought in economics
succumbed to positivist pressures, and in the end economic theory sub-
scribed to either post-positivist Popperian views of theory or its more
scientistic extremes (Blaug, 1997). Those following Popper (1959, p. 59)
saw theory as a means of explaining the world that’s out there since “theo-
ries 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.” Mainstream economics have largely followed this understanding
of theory. Others such as Duhem (1906) and Quine (1951) argue that
the world is not so deterministic and theory is necessarily under-­
determined. The human sciences schools of theory (Dilthey, 1883;
Gadamer, 1976) hold that social science theories differ in nature from
natural science theories. For Dilthey, theories are not just descriptions of
physical and natural phenomena. Our meaningful lives demand that
theory should also include descriptions of lived experiences and historical
statements, understanding (verstehen) of unique instances, and evaluative
judgments and practical rules, all of which are summed up in his pro-
posed science of the spirit (Geisteswissenschaften).
Going back to Greek origins that equate theory with philosophy and
the love of true knowledge, Gadamer (1975, p. 454) sees theory as the
highest form of practice, the “highest manner of being human.” Through
the act of beholding from a distance, theory gives what is being witnessed
its validity by being caught up in it. To Gadamer (1998), the researcher
who fulfills the intended goal of the research is not as impressive as one
who is sidetracked by a puzzling outcome and as a result beholds some-
thing new and unexpected. What that researcher stumbled on outside
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 "To think of Owley Cot!" murmured Jane. "Too good to be true in my
opinion. Its little windows catch the morning light, and the chimney's
covered with ivy. Great fir trees with red stems grow over it and there's an
upping-stock for horsemen outside the gate."

"You won't know it for roses now," answered Margery. "Poor dear
Mercy Marydrew—her heart used to sink when I came along with some
new flowers dug up from here. She was all for tidiness, and I do think
flowers gave her more pain than pleasure."

"I like them and I'll tend them well," promised Jane.

Her sister-in-law, regarding her with side glances, perceived that she
was possessed of childish charm. She was a pleading sort of girl—just the
type sure to win Jeremy's affections.

"My own impression is that it's going to mean big money from the
first," said the future huckster. "I'm itching to be at it; and I'm very hopeful
it may be possible to secure some of Miss Marydrew's furniture, so we can
go into Owley Cot as soon as Jacob likes. Father would help there."

"And we shan't fear to rough it neither," continued Jane. "We've said to

each other, scores of times, that we don't mind how hard life is, so we share
it together."

"Not hard for you, however," promised Jeremy. "I'm the one to bear the
battle and come between you and everything. That's what I'm here for."

Then they went to look at the kennels.

The family reassembled at tea, and Jacob, who had spent an hour with
Mr. Marydrew, declared that he was bearing up exceedingly well.

"Too sensible to lose his balance under any trouble," he said.

Bullstone found that Jeremy had already undertaken the new work in
spirit and was actually thriving at it, saving money and repaying his debts.
 "Trust me," he said, "and be sure of this, that I shall return good
measure well pressed down, Jacob. This is the chance of a lifetime, and
something tells me my foot is now firm on the ladder."

They parted presently, and while Auna and Avis accompanied them for
a mile on their return journey to Brent, Margery thanked her husband.

"It's like you; I'm sure I'm deeply obliged; and father and mother will
feel as grateful as I do," she said rather formally.

Jacob laughed.

"For you and yours I do it. But don't be too hopeful. Jeremy isn't built to
help on the world—only to be helped on by it."

"Perhaps now he's married——"

"Yes, yes, he'll try valiantly—a most well-meaning chap—but you can't
ask putty to take the place of lead. I'll push him and do what I may; and so
will you. If manners could make him, he'd be all right; but he's like your
rose-bushes—wants a lot of tying up and supporting."

CHAPTER III

BARTON GILL UNDER NOTICE

The mind of Barton Gill was exercised, for he had heard painful news
and suddenly learned the unsuspected opinion of another man concerning
him. He felt shocked and cast down, having never guessed that Jacob
Bullstone contemplated the possibility which now confronted Mr. Gill as a
fact.
 Barton was sixty-eight and, in his own opinion, as active and
apprehensive as ever. Looking back he perceived that he had actually
outgrown some weaknesses of middle age; while with respect to his
knowledge of dogs, no man could deny that it embraced everything of
importance.

Returning from Brent, the kennel-man fell in with Adam Winter and
revealed his troubles.

"Hast heard the black news, Adam?" he began. "But of course you have
not. It only burst upon me yesterday."

"Can it be bettered, or is it one of they fatal things beyond repair?"

asked Winter.

It was his solid custom on all occasions to help if harm might be

averted, but not to fret unduly at evil accomplished.

"Whether it's going to be fatal remains to be seen; but I don't feel an

ounce of hope," said Gill. "In a word—Jacob Bullstone. You know his way.
He'll store his thoughts, and smile, and hide what's moving in his head from
every eye but his Maker's; and then, when the deed is ripe, he'll do it. And
so half his actions come upon people as a great surprise, because they never
get a wink of what was leading up to 'em."

"He's always got his reasons, however," argued Adam.

"He may have, or he may not. And it's all one, anyhow, since he never
feels called to give 'em. But in my case there ain't a shadow of reason. He's
built up a very wrong and mistaken picture of me. He's watched me in
secret, which ain't a manly thing to do, and now, like a thunder planet, he's
fallen upon me and given me the sack!"

"My stars! You going?"

"Under notice; but never any warning in the rightful sense of the word,"
explained Barton Gill. "I've been doing my work in season and out at Red
House for half a century, and putting the dogs before everything but God
Almighty, and helping to make 'em the world-famous creatures they be.
And full of zeal for the family, and pouring my knowledge into young Peter.
And now to be flung out."

"Why for, Barton?"

"Well may you ax that. For no reason on earth but because I'm too old!
And only sixty-eight by this hand, and I wish I may die if a year more."

Adam was cautious. He felt very little doubt that Jacob Bullstone knew
his own business best. They had been neighbours for fifteen years and, so
far as Winter knew, Jacob regarded him as a good neighbour. They had
never quarrelled and not often differed. Indeed they met but seldom and
Adam saw Margery Bullstone far oftener than her husband. He had been
good to her children and regarded himself as an old friend of the family; but
his relations with Bullstone were not intimate.

"What you say about Bullstone's character is very interesting, Barton,"

he replied. "There are some men that do things on a sudden and hide the
reasons. But, if you look, you'll often find, after your surprise dies down,
that there's nothing much to be surprised about. I'm sorry if you wanted to
stop on. Perhaps, if you was to be content to sing second to a younger man
and just milk the goats and potter about for smaller money, he'd be content."

"You say that? Why, that's what he offered me!"

"Not the sack then? You told me you were flung out."

Gill shook his head impatiently.

"You don't know my character seemingly, though you ought to by now.

But Bullstone does know it, and well he knows I'd not bide under a younger
kennel-keeper. I stop as head man, else I don't stop. And this I say, that to
see your faithful life's work forgot is a sad sight. He did ought at least to be
decent and let me die in harness, before he talks of changes and new-
fangled notions. What the hell more do he want than first prizes again and
again, and four awards in the last ten years for the best dog in the show?"
 "Youth will be served," said Winter. "I see it more and more. I'm forty-
six and not done with yet; but it's no good pretending the younger men don't
know more than us. They've got what we can give them, because they're
always welcome to our knowledge; but they've got much more than that,
along of education, and I'll bet there's scores of men ten and fifteen years
younger than me, who know more about the latest in farming; and, of
course, there's scores know more than you about the latest in dogs."

"You're a very poor-spirited creature to say so then, and I don't think

none the better of you for it," replied Gill warmly. "I ban't one to throw up
the sponge before youth, I promise you. I understand the wilful ways of
youth a darned sight too well. Hot-headed toads—always dashing at things,
to show off their fancied cleverness, and then coming to us, with their tails
between their legs, to make good their mistakes. You might just so soon say
a puppy's wiser than his sire, than tell me the youths know more than us."

"It's nature," argued Winter. "When we stand still, the younger ones
have got to pass us by. And, to the seeing eye, that's the first thing middle
age marks—that the young men go past. We think we be trudging along so
quick as ever; but we are not. And as for your life's work, you've done your
duty we all know and done it very well. You was born to work and you've
worked honest and helped on the world of dogs in your time; but nothing
stands still and dogs will improve beyond your knowledge no doubt. So I
should be dignified about it and go. Nought lasts, and youth's the flood
that's always making to drown all."

Barton Gill considered these sentiments, but did not approve of them.

"I had it in mind to ax you to put in a word for me," he answered; "but I
see I can't.'

"Not very well, Barton. I don't know enough about it, and nobody has a
right to come between master and man."

"Everybody's got a right to throw light on another's darkness.

Bullstone's wrong. He might so soon give his right hand notice as me. He's
got to take me as an accepted law of nature, and he's worked himself into a
silly fancy that a younger man would be what I am, and even more. But it's
ignorance; and if I took him at his word and went, he'd be calling out for me
on his knees in a week."

"Then you ought to be hopeful," said Adam. "If that was to happen,
you'd come back with a flourish of trumpets."

"I don't want no flourish of trumpets and I don't want to go," declared
the other. "It's very ill-convenient and unchristian thing to fire me now, and
I hope Bullstone will see sense before it's too late."

Adam Winter had some experience of the tyranny of old servants and
perceived that the kennel-man was not going to leave Red House if he could
stop there.

"What does Mrs. Bullstone say?" he asked. "She's a very clever

woman."

"For a woman she is," admitted Gill; "and when she calls home what
I've been to her young people, I make no doubt she'll see that a very
improper thought have come to master. But I haven't sounded her as yet and
she may not have the pluck to take my side."

"What did you say to Bullstone?"

"Nothing so far. He burst it on me, as I tell you, and left me and my

stomach wambling with the shock. I couldn't let down my dinner after, for
the troubled mind tells upon the body instanter. I just axed him if I'd heard
aright, and he said I had; and since then I've been turning it over."

They had reached the gate of Shipley Farm on the east bank of Auna,
and Adam stood a moment before entering.

"Well, I dare say it will straighten out. Look all round it. You've only
got yourself to think of; and if you was to retire, you'd enjoy a restful time,
and the respect due to you, and not be sorry to find yourself idle with your
work well done."
 "I'm not going," answered Barton. "One word's as good as a thousand,
and unless the man uses force, I don't go. I've set the age of seventy-five for
retirement, and I don't break my word to myself for fifty Bullstones."

In this determined mood he crossed the bridge and proceeded sulkily

homeward. A thought struck him and he turned and shouted it back to
Adam.

"A man's home is his home, ain't it? And who the devil's going to turn
me out of my home?"

Adam did not answer, but laughed to himself. He was still laughing
when he entered his kitchen, where his aunt, Amelia Winter, and his
brother, Samuel, had just begun their tea.

"I didn't expect you back so soon, my dear," he said to the old woman.

"And I didn't expect to be home so soon," she answered, "and, what's

more, I came too soon for my peace, for if I hadn't gone up Church Lane
when I did, I shouldn't have seen a very sad sight."

Amelia had worn well. She was upright and stout and strong—the
youngest of the party, as Adam always declared. The men resembled each
other. Samuel was but a few years older than his brother and Adam stood to
him for divinity. He echoed his opinions and bestowed upon him absolute
trust. Nothing his younger brother could do was wrong. Sammy's mental
eccentricities were considered quite harmless and they had seldom as yet
made him a danger to the community. If he ever displayed a spark of
passion, it was at any adverse criticism of Adam, and this weakness on his
part—once actually manifested, when he fell tooth and nail upon another
labourer for laughing at his brother over some trifle—was now respected. In
person Samuel appeared a larger edition of Adam, but of gaunt expression
and already grey. He was very strong and laboured like a horse. Work kept
his mind sweet.

"And what might you have seen to shock you, Aunt?" asked the master
of Shipley.
 "A sorry sight," she answered. "You mind poor Miss Marydrew's
famous hat with the red squirrel's tail? It was a well-known feature—a
proper landmark round about; and to-day I've seen it on another woman's
head, and you might have knocked me down with a feather. That any
female could have the front to flaunt that well-known trophy! And such a
female! Sarah Saunders if you please. Properly indecent I call it."

"Her sale fetched very good prices," said Adam. "Old William kept a
few of the best things for his house; but they say he's cleared something
better than sixty pounds by it."

"He oughtn't to have sold her clothes, and I've told him so," answered
Amelia. "Clothes are sacred to the wearer in my opinion, and I'd so soon
have seen Mercy's ghost as her hat on that wicked head. It won't bring no
luck to anybody concerned."

Adam told how Barton Gill was under notice, and his aunt thought it a
hard thing. Samuel waited to hear his brother's opinion, and echoed it.

"Gill's worn out and did ought to make room for a younger man," he
said.

He spoke very slowly in a very deep voice.

"Did Mrs. Kingwell's cow come to 'Turk'?" asked Adam.

"She came," answered his brother.

Then the men went out to their evening labours.

No great prosperity marked the farm, but Adam was not ambitious and
his future hopes only extended to his brother. He desired to see Samuel
safely through life and never at the mercy of unfriendly or indifferent
hands. His own needs were of the simplest. He had abandoned any wish to
wed, or raise up a family. He was content and his life went uneventfully
forward, brightened by various friendships. He was well liked but not well
known. To more full-blooded and energetic men he seemed shadowy; yet
none ever heard him say a foolish thing. His neighbours knew him for a
capable farmer, but they wondered why he stopped on year after year at a
place which offered such small opportunity for enterprise as Shipley.
Others, however, explained this seclusion as accepted on Samuel's account.
Samuel was happier in loneliness.

CHAPTER IV

ON SHIPLEY BRIDGE

The subconscious work of grievances and the secret attrition of their fret
are dangerous. Margery Bullstone harboured such an ill, and it had wrought
inevitable modification of character, for sense of personal wrong, if
indulged, must mar quality. She was barely conscious of this buffet, and
when she thought upon her life, assured herself that its compensations and
disillusions were fairly balanced, for she loved her husband and tried to
keep his fine characteristics uppermost in her mind; but she liked him less
than of old and her grievance appeared in this: that he hindered her and
came between her and many innocent pleasures which would have made
her life fuller and happier. She did not understand Jacob save in flashes, and
was dimly aware of perils in his nature and chambers, hidden in his heart,
which held danger. He told her often that he held no secrets from her, and
perhaps he believed it. Regarding temporal matters—his success or failure,
his money, his possessions, his plans—it was emphatically true. He liked
her to know how he stood, to share his hopes, to sympathise in his
disappointments. But this was not all, and Margery knew that in the far
deeper secrets of character and conviction, she had not entered the depth of
her husband's mind and never would. He was a warm-hearted man and yet,
under the warmth, flowed currents hidden from every eye. Sometimes,
more by accident than intention, she had dipped for a moment into these
currents, been chilled and found herself glad to ascend into the temperate
region of their usual communion. She knew he was jealous, yet he seldom
said a word to prove it. But she understood him well enough to read his
silences and they were unspeakably pregnant. They would sometimes last
for several days and frighten her. She had known bitter weeks when Jacob
addressed no living thing but the dogs. Then the darkness would drift off
and his steadfast and not uncheerful self shine out. Sometimes she was able
to discover a reason for such eclipse; sometimes, puzzle as she might, no
cause occurred to her mind. If she approached him, expressed grief for his
tribulation and prayed to share it, he would put her off. Then she felt the
cause, if not the fault, was in herself.

"If you don't know the reason, then no doubt there's no reason," was a
cryptic answer he often made, and it left her dumb. She was conscious of a
strange sense that somebody beside her husband dwelt unseen at Red House
—somebody who watched and noted, but made no comment. The unseen
expressed neither pleasure nor displeasure, but concentrated upon her and
chronicled her actions and opinions. Jacob seemed to be two personalities,
the one obvious, trustworthy, affectionate, the other inscrutable, attentive,
vigilant. If one Jacob praised her and seemed to come closer, so that she felt
happy, then arose the consciousness of the other Jacob, concerning whom
she knew so little, and whose attitude to herself she could not feel was
friendly. Had she been able to put a name to it, or analyse her husband's
second self, she might have felt easier in some directions; but as yet she had
failed to understand. Nor could anybody help her to do so. Perhaps Judith
Huxam came nearest to explaining the obscurity. But she refused to give it a
name, though her suspicion found vent in cautions to Margery.

Jacob was not secretive in many things, and a habit of his, quite familiar
to his wife, might have helped towards elucidation had she been of a
synthetic bent. He would sometimes himself harbour grievances for days
and then plump out with them. They were generally of a trivial appearance
in Margery's eyes, and she often wondered at the difference between the
things that annoyed a woman and perturbed a man. He was obstinate and
had his own way as a matter of course. She never opposed him, and where
alternatives of action presented themselves, Jacob decided; but some things
happened that she felt were a permanent bruise to him. They grew out of
life and struck the man in his tenderest part. None was responsible for them
and they rose from material as subtle and intangible as heredity and
character. Margery granted that they were very real facts and would have
altered them for her husband's sake had it been possible to do so; but to alter
them was not possible, for they rooted in the souls of the four children now
swiftly growing up at Red House.

Jacob was a good father, and coming to paternity when already

advanced in manhood, he had devoted more personal time and attention to
his children, their nurture and formation of character, than a younger parent
might have done. From the first Margery perceived that the upbringing of
her brood would lie in the will of their father; and since she had cared for
him better and glorified him mere during the years when they were born
than now, she had not differed from his opinions, even when sometimes
prompted from her parents' home to do so. But chance, as though conscious
of Jacob's jealousy and his overmastering desire to dominate by love of his
children and his wife, had flouted this passion and denied him love.

At first the case centred with Margery herself, and while his boys and
girls were little children, he had almost resented the abundant worship they
bestowed upon her rather than him; but now the situation had developed,
though they were still too young to hide their predilections. Nor did they
turn to their father, as he expected the boys at least to do. They had declared
frank affection where least he expected it. Their mother was indeed first,
and then came in their regard not Jacob, but their grandparents; and he
found to his surprise that the Huxams attracted his sons and eldest daughter.
It puzzled him, even angered him; but he rarely exhibited his secret
annoyance and never to any but Margery.

He was scornful to her occasionally and she admitted, or professed, a

kindred astonishment. Indeed she did not know why the boys had not
naturally turned to their father, since there existed no reason in his treatment
of them to lessen natural affection. He was kind and generous. He supported
their youthful hopes and ambitions; he went further in that direction than
Margery herself; for she had desired higher education for John Henry and
Peter, while their father, to her disappointment, held it worthless, seeing the
nature of their hopes and abilities. In a year or two both would be free to
leave the secondary school at which they studied, and Jacob held that his
eldest son must then take up practical farming under experienced tuition,
while Peter was to join a veterinary surgeon for a time, then come back to
Red House and the Irish terriers. His decisions troubled Margery and
seemed, in her mind, a slight to her sons. For Jacob had been himself well
educated and knew the value of learning.

Thus husband and wife developed points of difference at this stage of

their united lives, though they lived placidly on the surface and were
exemplars of what marriage should be in the eyes of their neighbours. The
invisible friction was concealed and all ran smoothly in general opinion.

Jacob Bullstone was exacting in trifles, and Margery, while she had
waived certain pleasures that meant much to her in her early married days,
always hoped to gratify them when her children were grown out of
babyhood and life still beckoned. Now, in sight of their crucial years
together, it was too late, and having from the first fallen in with her
husband's solitary mode of life, she found it had become impossible to
make him more gregarious and sociable. She loved her fellow-creatures and
companionship; he preferred loneliness and found the company of his
family more than sufficient. She was ambitious to entertain a little and
loved to see friends at Red House, or visit them; he cared not for hospitality
and could seldom be prevailed upon either to accept it, or offer it. He was
always craving for peace, while she found so much solitude to be
melancholy, and often sighed for distraction. She was but thirty-four and
her cheerful nature and ready sympathy made her popular. He was fifty and
regarded the life he liked as more dignified and worthy of respect, excusing
his hermit instinct in this manner. She loved to talk of her own and praise
her children in the ears of other mothers. He deprecated this desire strongly
and was morbidly sensitive about praising anything that belonged to him.
At the same time he would grow silent if others took his own cue, or
ventured to criticise unfavourably so much as a dog that he esteemed.

Margery concentrated on Jacob's goodness, for she knew that he was

good; and at moments of depression, when life looked more grey than usual
and its promise but bleak, after her children should be gone, she would
remember many incidents to her husband's credit. He was very patient; he
worked hard; he helped many a lame dog over a stile; he forgave wrongs;
he was slow to think evil. He failed as a judge of character, which was
natural in a man of his temperament; but his disappointments bred neither
irony nor bitterness. She believed that he thought well of human nature, so
long as it did not intrude too much upon his privacy; and she perceived that
he took men at their own valuation until they proved that he was wrong to
do so.

There was one golden link, and sometimes Margery confessed to her
father, though not to her mother, that Auna, the baby of the family, held all
together and might be called the little saviour of the situation and the central
fact of the home. She was physically her mother again—more like Margery
when eighteen, than Margery herself now was. She had her mother's eyes
and hair, her long, slim legs, her sudden laugh. She was an attractive child,
but very shy with strangers. Yet her good nature made her fight this instinct
and she pleased better in her gentle way than her more boisterous sister. Her
brothers made Avis their heroine, since she could do all they could
themselves and play boys' games; but Auna found this no sorrow. Her father
was supreme in her affections and his own regard for her echoed her
adoration.

He made no favourites openly, yet the situation could not be hidden and
none was jealous of Auna, since none ever had any ground for grievance.
His regard for Auna surpassed that for the others, and she loved him far
better than they did. Margery would not quarrel with the fact, and Jacob
explained it in a manner which left her no cause for complaint.

"It's natural that, after you, she should come first with me," he told his
wife privately—indeed he often repeated the sentiment. "She's you over
again—you, to every trick and turn—you, even to the tiny fraction your
right eyebrow's higher than your left. In body she's you, and in mind she'll
be you and me rolled into one. And she loves me more than the others all
put together, just as you love me more than they do. So never wonder; and
never fear I'll do less than my whole duty to every child of mine."

She never did fear that and was only sorry for him, that life had drawn
this difference. With such a man it was inevitable that he would react
fiercely in heart, though not out of reason. He was sensitive and knew
himself not popular; and when he confessed as much and she told him that
the fault was his own, since he would not court his neighbours and give
them opportunity to learn his worth, he would laugh and say she was
doubtless right. Yet, of the few friends that he had, he was very jealous, and
when a man offered friendship and presently cooled off, as sometimes
happened, by accident rather than intent, Jacob suffered secretly and
puzzled himself to invent explanations, when often enough the other,
pressed by a harder life than his own, had merely let him slip a little from
force of circumstances, yet still imagined him a friend.

Margery regretted her mother-in-law very heartily, for she had been a
valued factor in the home and acted as anodyne of trouble on many
occasions. She had taught her son's wife some precious truths concerning
Jacob and made her feet firm in certain particulars. She had won the
affection of her grandchildren also and she always possessed an art to
satisfy Jacob himself. But she was gone and with her much that Margery
had only dimly appreciated, but now missed. The wife also tended to forget
a point or two that had been wiselier remembered.

Jacob broke out sometimes and said things that must have caused
Margery uneasiness, had she not assumed their insignificance. What he
spoke in rare fits of anger was always of the surface and unimportant to
Margery, yet in another ear, if any had heard him, these speeches might
have sounded ominous. Galled sometimes by thoughtlessness in his sons, or
at an answer lacking in respect, he would roar harmlessly and even threaten.
She had heard him say that, since Auna was the only one who cared a straw
for his opinions, and valued his fatherhood in her, she should be the only
one he should remember. But these things were summer thunder and
lightning to his wife. Whatever his offspring might do, short of open wrong,
would never influence Jacob. What was hidden she regarded, indeed,
fearfully for its mystery; but that it would ever rise into injustice, folly,
madness she denied. He was a man too forthright and fixed in honour and
justice to wrong any fellow-creature.

And this she felt despite difference in religious opinion. She had never
probed this matter, but was aware that Jacob did not share the convictions
she had won in her home. He seldom went to church and seldom, indeed,
discussed religion at all; but he never spoke of it without great respect and
reverence before his children, though sometimes, to her, he allowed himself
an expression that gave her pain.
 She did not doubt, however, that under his occasional contempt for her
mother's religious practices, Jacob remained a good Christian at heart.
Indeed he had never questioned the verities of Christian faith, or regarded
himself as anything but a religious man. But his plain dealing and
scrupulous honesty sprang from heredity and was an integral part of his
nature. He felt no vital prompting to religious observance in public, and his
dislike of crowds kept him from church-going save on very rare occasions.
Margery knew that he prayed morning and evening, and had indeed
reported the fact to her mother, who distrusted Jacob in this matter. For her
son-in-law himself Mrs. Huxam did not trouble; but she was much
concerned in the salvation of her grandchildren.

Margery wandered down the valley one afternoon when the leaves were
falling and the river making riot after a great rain in mid-moor. She always
liked these autumnal phases and loved to see the glassy billows of the water
roll, as they rolled when she came so near drowning in her marriage year.
She proceeded to meet Jacob, who would presently return from Brent,
whither he had been to despatch some dogs by train; and now she fell in
with Adam Winter, riding home on a pony over Shipley Bridge. She was
glad to see him, counting him among her first friends, and he welcomed her
and alighted.

"Haven't met this longful time," she said and shook hands. This they
never did, but for once the fancy took her and he responded.

"Leaf falling again," replied Adam, "and the autumn rain upon us. A
good year, however—middling hay and corn, good roots and good grazing."

"I'm glad then. Weather's nothing to us."

"It makes a difference to your feelings," he argued. "How's things?"

"All right. 'One day followeth another,' as the Book says. And they're all
mighty alike at Red House. We don't change half so much as the river. Auna
was rolling down like this when I went over the waterfall, and you got wet
on my account."
 "Sixteen year next month; I haven't forgotten."

"It's a long time to remember anything; but I've not forgot neither.
How's my brother, Jeremy, treating you?"

Adam laughed.

"New brooms sweep clean; but he's made a great start, and don't he look
a pretty picture in his trap? Up he comes, punctual as postman, every
Thursday afternoon for the butter and eggs. Long may it last."

"And Jane's suited too—so far. She gets off to Plymouth market on
Friday morning, and has done very clever indeed up to now."

"It was a great start in life for them, and like your husband to give it. A
wonderful good thing to do. Jeremy knows his luck I hope. But there—
Providence cares for the sparrows, though it over-looks the starlings in a
hard winter. Jacob's a good un, Margery."

"So he is then—good as gold."

"And heavy as gold—so a man answered, when I said that very thing
about Bullstone not a month ago. But I withstood him there. He's not heavy
—only a self-centred man. And why not? With a home and a wife and
children and a business, all packed up in the valley so snug and prosperous,
why shouldn't he be self-centred? Why does he want to be anything else?"

She shook her head.

"It's narrow for a man," she answered, "and I often wish he'd go in the
world more, and welcome the world at Red House for that matter."

"I'm looking at it from his point of view—not yours," replied Adam.

"For the minute I was seeing his side. He's not one for neighbouring with
people, and I say he don't lose much, because his business don't call for a
wide knowledge of humans. He's in clover. He's got a very fine strain of
dogs and the people know it and have to give a good price for a good
article. So he's not like a farmer, who must make the best he can of open
markets and competition. He's all right. But I quite grant it's not just the life
you'd choose, because you're a sociable creature. You like fresh faces and
new voices and new opinions and new gowns; and if I'd been your husband,
you'd have had most of those things anyway."

"I believe I might. You'd make a very good husband, Adam. A good
husband wasted. But why? It's not too late. Why don't you take a wife? I
should be glad, for it would mean another woman here, and new ideas."

"For your sake I would then," he said. "But the time's past, if it ever
came. I've got a bachelor nature and plenty to think upon without a wife."

"Lookers on see most of the game. I'm sure you're a lot cleverer and
more understanding than most married men."

"Not much in the way of cleverness, else I wouldn't be puzzled so oft."

"The open mind's a very good thing. I'd sooner be puzzled than always
think I knew. Such a lot always think they know; and always know wrong."

"It's the point of view," he said.

"If my Jacob could look at things from outside, same as you do; and not
always from inside, same as he does, then he'd see a lot clearer all round
life."

"He sees clear enough what he wants to see. He don't waste his time
looking at doubtful or uncertain things. What he does see, he sees; and so,
on his own ground, he can't be beat. I may see a bit farther and a bit more,
but my vision's cloudy. I'm not certain of anything."

"Yes, you are," answered Margery. "You're as certain in religion as I am,

or my mother herself. Now just there, in a vital thing like that, Jacob's foggy
I believe."

"The fog will lift if fog there is. No man can do the things he does and
lack for the Guide, I reckon."

"I'll tell him what you say. Belike it would please him."
 "Better not. He's not one to care what I might say. I'm a slight man in his
eyes. He might even think it was cheek my praising him."

"He likes praise really, though he'd never admit it."

"Depends where it comes from. We don't set no store on the praise of

small people and the humble-minded. The praise we ache for be most times
withheld. That is if you are ambitious, like Jacob is. A man spoke well of in
newspapers like him—what should he care for me?"

"He thinks well of you and says it's a fine thing the way you work."

"No, no—think twice, Margery. You're inventing now—to please me.

He's got a very good knowledge of what's worth praise; and a man that does
his own duty without flinching, like your man, isn't going to admire them
who only do the same. I do no more than that, and the time hasn't come yet
when we pat a man on the back for doing his duty; though perhaps it will be
a rare sight in the next generation."

"I wish we could look forward. There's some things I'd dearly like to
know," said Margery.

"Lord! What a lot we should do to fight for ourselves and them we care
about if we could do that," he answered. "If we could look on ten years
even and see how we had changed—how habits had grown up and fastened
on us, how faith in our neighbours had gone, perhaps, and how, with the
years, we'd got more cunning, and harder and more out for Number One—
how we'd set to work to fight ourselves—eh?"

"We ought to live so that we shouldn't be afraid to look on ten years,"

she assured him. "Why not so live that your heart will be bigger and your
hope higher and your faith purer in ten years?"

"That's your mother," he answered.

"It's you," she said. "It's you, Adam. You don't need to fear the years.
But I do. I'm different, because I've got children. It's for them I'd love to
look on, so as I might head off the dangers, if dangers showed!"
 "None have less to dread than you in that direction. Wonderful children
—healthy, hearty, sensible. You and Jacob have made a very good blend for
the next generation, and that's something to be thankful for. If marriage is a
lottery—then what are childer? Look at my family. Who'd have dreamed
that my fine mother and my good, sane father should have had Samuel, and
Minnie, now in her grave, and me—me—only better than Samuel by a hair,
and often quite as mad as him! But there it was. The poison was hid away in
my mother's family, and they never told father till after he was wedded. A
very wicked thing and ought to be criminal—eh? My mother went off her
head after Sam was born and had to be put away for a bit. But she recovered
and never got queer again."

"I'd like to see you on one of your mad days," she said. "But now it's
you telling fibs, not me. Never was a saner man than you; and if you weren't
so sane, you'd be sad. But if you're sad, you don't show it. When I'm sad, I
can't hide my feelings."

"Much pleasanter not to hide 'em, if you've got somebody close at hand
to understand 'em. That's one of the compensations of a good marriage—to
share sorrow and halve the weight of it."

She looked at him whimsically.

"Sounds all right," she said. "Perhaps, after all, there's some things we
married ones know better than you that bide single."

"For certain. Practice knocks the bottom out of a lot of fine theories."

"The things that you can share with another person don't amount to
much," she told him. "The sorrow that can be shared, and so lessened, is
only small. If one of my children was to die, would it make it better for me
because Jacob took on? No."

A child appeared at this moment and Auna approached from the abode
of Mr. Marydrew. Her father's movements were not often hidden from the
little girl and she was now about to plunge down the woody lane under
Shipley Tor by which he must soon return.
 "And how's old Billy, my duck?" asked Margery.

"His cough has gone," said Auna, "and he gave me this brave stick of
barley sugar."

She held the sweetmeat up to her mother.

"I haven't sucked it yet," she said. "I won't suck it till father's had a bit."

"He'll be along in a minute, my dinky dear, and give you a ride home."

Auna went her way.

"Billy's terrible fond of her, ever since she went in once, unbeknownst
to us, to cheer him up when poor Mercy died. She popped in like a mouse,
and sat beside him, and told him what she'd come for; and he liked it."

"A good old pattern of man and wise enough to care for childer about
him."

"And who cares for them better than you? A fine father you would have
been, and I tell you again it's not too late."

"I've got Sammy—and a very good child too, when he's not crossed.
But he can be ugly."

She was thoughtful.

"Small blame to you for not marrying," she said, "I chaff you, Adam;
but very well I know why for you didn't."

They relapsed into a lighter mood, and it happened that Winter had just
uttered a sharp comment on one of Margery's speeches, which made her
pretend to be angry. They were both laughing and she had given him a push
backwards, when Jacob came round the corner in his cart with Auna beside
him. He had seen the gesture and Margery perceived that he must have done
so; but Adam's back was turned and he did not know that Bullstone had
appeared.