Paper ID
1497
Paper Type
full
Description
IS theory accounts have increased our understanding of scientific theories. However, many influential theory accounts in Information Systems (IS) are influenced by the Received View of scientific theory (RV), which flourished in the philosophy of science around 1930-1969. The RV has been widely rejected in the philosophy of science, as the theory ignored much of the actual scientific context, and it mischaracterized several important characteristics of scientific research and theories. Although RV ideas were crafted for philosophers’ philosophical purposes, and not for scientists’ use, several IS scholars seem to believe that some of the RV theses represent actual (good or strong) scientific theories. Mistaking problematic logical reconstructions by philosophers for “real” scientific theories may seriously impede IS research. Recognizing how some of the RV theses may mislead the IS research will hopefully help us to value other types of research contributions that may not meet the current ‘theory’ conventions.
Recommended Citation
Siponen, Mikko and Klaavuniemi, Tuula, "How and Why ‘Theory’ Is Often Misunderstood in Information Systems Literature" (2019). ICIS 2019 Proceedings. 3.
https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2019/research_methods/research_methods/3
How and Why ‘Theory’ Is Often Misunderstood in Information Systems Literature
IS theory accounts have increased our understanding of scientific theories. However, many influential theory accounts in Information Systems (IS) are influenced by the Received View of scientific theory (RV), which flourished in the philosophy of science around 1930-1969. The RV has been widely rejected in the philosophy of science, as the theory ignored much of the actual scientific context, and it mischaracterized several important characteristics of scientific research and theories. Although RV ideas were crafted for philosophers’ philosophical purposes, and not for scientists’ use, several IS scholars seem to believe that some of the RV theses represent actual (good or strong) scientific theories. Mistaking problematic logical reconstructions by philosophers for “real” scientific theories may seriously impede IS research. Recognizing how some of the RV theses may mislead the IS research will hopefully help us to value other types of research contributions that may not meet the current ‘theory’ conventions.