Abstract

Fit is a common term used to describe things, such as fitting together pieces of a puzzle, fitting into clothing, staying physically fit, or finding the right fit when choosing a job or place to study. These examples reflect a different nuance of the word fit, highlighting its distinct meanings. In academia, “the concept of fit posits that some degree of alignment between multiple factors is necessary to produce outcomes” (Lin et al., 2023, p.3). Fit is widely applied across various disciplines, including Information Systems (IS). Within IS, central notions include Task Technology Fit (TTF), Cognitive Fit Theory (CFT), Strategic Fit (SF), Person Environment Fit (PEF), and Person Job Fit (PJF). Across these notions, fit is often conceptualised (i.e., theoretically described) using a range of synonymous yet contradictory terms such as align, assists, combination, compatibility, congruence, consistency, consistent, converge, correspondence, corresponds, facilitates, match, similar, and support. At the same time, fit is operationalised (i.e., measured) differently across studies, such as mediation, moderation or matching. Venkatraman’s (1989) framework outlines six types of fit to promote clearer linkage between conceptualisations and operationalisations of fit. By highlighting the importance of this correspondence, Venkatraman (1989) draws attention to the need for conceptual and operational clarity for theory-building and testing. However, in Venkatraman’s framework, conceptualisations and operationalisations are not placed on equal footing; instead, the types of fit are described by reiterating statistical terms. For example, fit as moderation was described as a third variable influencing the relationship between a predictor variable and an outcome variable. This perspective overlooks how a specific conceptualisation of fit informs a corresponding operationalisation of fit. This talk presents a review of fit scholarship in IS over the past decade, revealing persistent confusion hindering meaningful integration of findings across studies. Despite its influence, Venkatraman’s (1989) framework has not sufficiently aided correspondence between conceptualisations and operationalisations of fit. This talk presents an analysis of how discrepancies, such as conceptual inconsistency and operational ambiguity, contribute to this ongoing confusion through examples from various notions of fit within the IS literature. Conceptual inconsistency occurs when researchers use contradicting terms interchangeably to describe fit within a single study. Operational ambiguity arises when the conceptualisation is open to various interpretations (e.g., fit described used the word fit itself), creating a lack of clarity on the appropriate operationalisation/s. We demonstrate how these discrepancies hinder the development of a cumulative body of knowledge, thereby impeding the advancement of theory and limiting integration across studies. This study thus provides much-needed clarity by diagnosing the causes of confusion.

Comments

tpp1395

Download

Share

COinS