Association for Information Systems

AIS Electronic Library (AISeL)

International Conference on Information Resources
CONF-IRM 2008 Proceedings
Management (CONF-IRM)

5-2008

The Case for Conceptual Research in Information

Systems
Manuel Mora
Autonomous University of Aguascalientes, [email protected]

Ovsei Gelman
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, [email protected]

David Paradice
Florida State University, [email protected]

Francisco Cervantes
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/confirm2008

Recommended Citation
Mora, Manuel; Gelman, Ovsei; Paradice, David; and Cervantes, Francisco, "The Case for Conceptual Research in Information
Systems" (2008). CONF-IRM 2008 Proceedings. 52.
http://aisel.aisnet.org/confirm2008/52

This material is brought to you by the International Conference on Information Resources Management (CONF-IRM) at AIS Electronic Library
(AISeL). It has been accepted for inclusion in CONF-IRM 2008 Proceedings by an authorized administrator of AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). For
more information, please contact [email protected].
 76F. The Case for Conceptual Research in Information
Systems

Manuel Mora Ovsei Gelman

Autonomous University of CCADET, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de
Aguascalientes México
[email protected] [email protected]

David Paradice Francisco Cervantes

Florida State University CCADET, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de
[email protected] México
[email protected]

Abstract
Conceptual Research - a non-empirical research method- is among the three most used research
methods in the discipline of Information Systems. However, its principles and foundations are
implicitly used by researchers. Thus, its importance for advancement and development of the IS
discipline is underestimated when it is compared with empirical research methods. In this
research article, we develop the case for conceptual research. For this aim, we first review the
main IS research method taxonomies reported in IS literature, and an integrative framework of IS
research methods, based on Theory of Systems is developed. Second, we explain the place and
relevance of the conceptual research method in this new framework. Finally, we illustrate the
framework’s usefulness with four exemplary research papers reported in top IS journals.

Keywords
Conceptual research, research methods, research frameworks, interdisciplinary research,
systems approach.

1. Introduction
According to Ackoff et al (1962) and Popper’s (2002) ideas, the scientific process can be defined
as systematic, rational, verifiable/falsifiable process for: (i) answering questions on a natural,
artificial or social situation, (ii) solving, resolving or dissolving a problematic well-structured or
messy natural, artificial or social situation and/or (iii) developing better instruments and methods
for doing (i) and (ii). In pursuing these three core aims, the research process can limit its scope
and effect on the reality (based in Midgley (2000), who interprets Habermas (1972)) to: (i) study
it without modifying it or (ii) intervene in it in order to purposefully modify or control it.

In the first instance, the research process can be sub-classified according its purpose of: (i)
developing an initial scheme of a few explored situation of interest, (ii) developing of a
quantitative and/or qualitative description of the situation of interest, (iii) developing and testing
of a predictive theory or model of the situation of interest, (iv) developing and testing of an
explanatory theory or model of the situation of interest, or (v) developing (designing and testing)
of a conceptual instrument for measuring constructs of the of the situation of interest. In the
second instance, the research process purposes can be formulated as: (i) developing (designing,
building and testing/evaluating) of a physical artifact for measuring physical properties of other
physical artifacts, or (ii) controlling purposefully the application of a designed policy or another
treatment (conceptual or physical), seeking some expected effects of interest in the situation.
While in the early scientific epochs, the natural sciences (e.g. physics, chemistry and biology)
were limited to the first scope, and the sciences of the artificial (e.g. all engineering-based
sciences) to the second one, in nowadays, an interdisciplinary approach suggests both research
purposes (with the exception at present of some sciences such as History and Astronomy). In the
case of management sciences, an ethical-oriented belief is of pursuing only the first scope (e.g.
the Critical Systems view (Flood and Room, 1996)). However, given the emergence of new
human-based social and system sciences rooted both in sciences of the artificial and management
sciences (e.g. information systems), the debate on research scopes can still be considered open.
Thus, while it is completely accepted that software information systems are artificially and
purposefully designed with a functional testable effect, the achieving of a purposefully designed
information systems (including the modification and controlling of the socio-political, and the
context-environment sides, besides the technological issues) can still be considered an open
research question, as well as the achieving of artificially purposeful designed social situations.

Nevertheless, the research endeavor’s aim can be summarized as the search of the best set of
truths (e.g. congruency to reality and testable/falsifiable statements) of a conceptual system (e.g.
the scientific knowledge system) for understanding and purposeful –when possible- modifying
such a reality under study through its associated conceptual knowledge system. For this general
aim, several taxonomies of research methods have been developed. According to Vogel and
Wheterbe (1984, quoted by Järvinen, 2003, p. 124): “taxonomies help to focus research, clarify
representation in the literature, define standards and spot trends or gaps in the research”.
Furthermore, according to Järvinen (2003), the same authors suggest comprehensiveness,
parsimony and usefulness as criteria to assess taxonomies. Thus, a high-quality research method
taxonomy must be complete, be non-redundant -with minimal overlaps- and must provide a
practical value for researchers. We consider that a taxonomy (as an organized hierarchical
classification of concepts) is also useful as far as it permits to establish the relevance of every
method to the needs of its application. Moreover, we have found out that the lack of principles
and procedures on how to apply the conceptual research method (the focus of this paper) have
concealed its value, despite of its extensive use in the IS discipline. That is why, we have
reviewed the main taxonomies of IS research methods reported in IS literature, and are showing
that there are still some critical knowledge gaps. Then, we introduce an integrative framework
(e.g. a taxonomy augmented with the concepts’ interrelationships and descriptions) of IS
research methods, to accommodate, harmonize and accumulate valuable knowledge generated by
previous taxonomies. A case of conceptual research is elaborated and we explain its relevance
and correct role in the arsenal of IS discipline research methods. Finally, we illustrate the
framework’s usefulness with four exemplary research papers reported in top IS journals. A set of
initial principles derived from this framework and the exemplary papers for doing high-quality
conceptual research in the IS discipline are recommended for a subsequent research.
2. Review of Related Studies in IS Research Methodological
Taxonomies
Taxonomies for IS research methods have been developed either directly (e.g. the focus was such
a classificatory scheme) (Galliers & Land, 1987; March & Smith, 1995; Järvinen, 2000;
Hevner,March, Park & Ram, 2004; Gonzalez & Dahanayake, 2007) or indirectly (e.g. the
taxonomy was developed for reviewing IS research that was conducted during a period,
introducing a new research method or explaining what is the discipline of study) (Denning et al,
1989; Nunamaker, Chen & Purdin, 1991; Orlikowski & Baroudi, 1991; Lending & Wheterbe,
1992i; Alavi & Carlson, 1992; Glass, Ramesh & Vessery, 2004). These reported taxonomies
(Table 1) have used the following main classificatory criteria: (i) the real or conceptual existence
of the unit of study (e.g. empirical method vs non-empirical methods), (ii) the hierarchical
analysis level of the object of study (society, organization, group/project, individual, system, or
component), (iii) the type of research outcome (construct, model, method or instantiation) and/or
(iv) the underlying philosophy in the research method (positivist, interpretative, critical, or
critical realism).

Taxonomy Real vs Level of unit Type of Underlying

conceptual of analysis research philosophy
unit of study outcome
Galliers & Land (1987) √ √ no considered implicit use
Denning et al (1989) √ no considered no considered implicit use
Nunamaker at al (1991) implicit use no considered no considered implicit use
Orlikowski & Baroudi (1991) √ √ no considered √
Lending & Wheterbe (1992) √ no considered no considered no considered
Alavi & Carlson (1992) √ √ no considered no considered
March & Smith (1995) implicit use no considered √ √
Jarvinen (2000) √ no considered no considered no considered
Hevner et al (2004) implicit use √ √ implicit use
Glass at al (2004) implicit use √ implicit use no considered
Gonzalez & Dahanayake (2007) √ no considered no considered √

Table 1: Classification Criteria for Main IS Research Methodological Taxonomies

We can infer –from the Table 1- that a comprehensive taxonomy with the main criteria used is
missing. Furthermore, the implicit differentiation of the conceptual or real domain of the objects
of study in several taxonomies suggests a well-understood relevance and value for both kinds of
research approaches. However, while that some studies do that (e.g. assign a similar scientific
value to both approaches) others report a biased negative view of non-empirical approaches. For
example, Galliers & Land (1987) quoting Vogel & Wheterbe (1984) and Alavi & Carlson (1984)
point out that the conceptual research (e.g. subjective/argumentative) is based on speculations
rather than systematic data collecting procedures. Orlikowski & Baroudi (1991, p. 3) also
consider that research is not conducted through conceptual methods. Since these papers are very
relevant in the IS literature, these statements convey a less scientific value to the conceptual
approach and potentially are forming a bias toward its non-utilization (e.g. according them the
dominant paradigm must be empirical methods and scientific research is only conducted via
empirical methods). However, despite the conceptual method is less used in the IS discipline
(Straub at al, 1994) than the survey and case study empirical methods, in other disciplines it is
considered of high value (Blalock, 1969; Whetten, 1989; Denning at al, 1989; Counelis, 2000).
For instance: (i) in Education domain, Counelis (2000, p. 54) reports the conceptual (review)
research as conducted on the ideas of real subjects or objects rather than on themselves (similar
to the approach of empirical methods) , (ii) in Sociology, Blalock (1969, p. 3), while encouraging
the ideal of transforming any verbal theory/model in a mathematical theory/model, also proposes
that the complex social reality limits (at first) the elaboration of simple verbal models that will be
extended lately, (iii) in Management Science, Whetten (1989) develops a set of seven criteria to
assess the quality of conceptual research papers, and (iv) in Computer Sciences, Denning et al
(1989) propose the abstraction approach (e.g. the design of conceptual models) as a research
method among the three most adequate methods for this discipline. Furthermore, several IS
studies (Orlikowski & Baroudi, 1991; Lending & Wheterbe, 1992; Alavi & Carlson, 1992; Glass
at al, 2004) report it among the first three approaches used. The Table 2 shows a distribution of
percentage utilization of the five main IS research methods or the study’s acknowledgement (√)
of the research method as feasible to be used in IS research.

Study

Mathematical
Conceptual

Engineering

Experiment
Case study

methods
Survey

Others
Galliers & Land (1987) √ √ √ - √ √ √
Denning et al (1989) - √ - √ √ √ -
Nunamaker at al (1991) √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Orlikowski & Baroudi (1991) 49.1 - 13.5 - 29.7 - 7.7
Lending & Wheterbe (1992) 28.9 21.1 16.0 14.1 10.9 4.8 4.2
Alavi & Carlson (1992) 16.0 49.0 4.0 - 9.0 - 21.0
March & Smith (1995) √ √ √ √ √ √ -
Järvinen (2000) √ √ √ √ √ √ -
Hevner et al (2004) √ √ √ √ √ √ -
Vessey at al (2002) 26.8 14.8 13.7 - 19.1 12.3 13.3
Glass at al (2004) 24.5 14.7 12.5 - 17.8 12.3 18.2
Gonzalez & Dahanayake (2007) √ √ √ √ √ - -

Table 2: Utilization Percentages or Acknowledgements of IS Research Methods

The categories and data shown in Table 2 require additional remarks. The survey category
corresponds to the quantitative empirical studies of a population sample examination. However,
some authors include Literature Survey in this category (Lending & Whetherbe, 1992), but we
consider such studies to belong to a different category. The Conceptual category corresponds to
the non-empirical study of ideas related to real objects including as well original Conceptual
studies (designing a new conceptual artifact: a construct, a framework/modelii, a method/process
or a system/component) and scholastic studies (reviews, tutorials and normative writing
(Gonzalez & Dahanayake, 2007)). The Case Study category corresponds to the qualitative
empirical examination of organizations. The Engineering category corresponds to the study of
purposeful design of physical artifactsiii. The Experiment category corresponds to the empirical
controlled study of subjects in a laboratory or the field setting. Mathematical methods are non-
empirical studies on mathematical structures using formal mathematical procedures (theorem
proof, mathematical analysis). In the Others category are grouped less frequent research methods
such as action research, ethnography, historical method, and grounded theory. The development
of psychometric instruments using survey techniques is included in the Survey category. In turn,
the development of physical instruments is included in the Engineering category. Hence, we can
claim that the conceptual research method(s) is(are) relevant and commonly used in IS
discipline. However, there is a knowledge gap on the principles and procedures for conducting it
with high-quality parameters in the IS literature. An initial proposal for addressing this
problematic situation follows in the remainder of this article.

3. A New Framework for IS Research Methods

According Jackson (1990, p. 12) –interpreting to Checkland and Howell (1998)- an inquiry
research process is a systemiv of theoretical frameworks (F’s), methodologies (M’s) and
situational areas (A’s) under the study. We argue, then, that based on the findings and knowledge
gaps identified in Tables 1 and 2, a new and integrative IS research methodological framework
for IS research is necessary and could be elaborated by using the Theory of Systems. This new IS
methodological research framework must relate the situational areas under study (A’s), the
knowledge known in such situations (F’s) and the knowledge about the methodological issues
(M’s) that are permitting to study the A’s, with valuable assertions reported in the previous
frameworks. The Figure 1 shows the proposed framework. Two core criteria are used to
elaborate this framework: (i) the conceptual vs reality dimension and (ii) the natural/behavioral
vs purposeful design dimension. The conceptual dimension accounts for the subsystem of
organized and verifiable/falsifiable knowledge on the reality as well as the conceptual things per
se. The reality dimension (Bhaskar, 1975; Mingers, 2000) accounts for the domain of observable
events (the empirical domain), the domain of non-observable events (the actual domain) and the
stratified domain of the deep physical and social product-producer generative structures and
mechanisms (the whole reality). According Bhaskar (1975), the reality exists independently of
the human beings. However, the scientific knowledge and the conceptual domain are socially
generated by human beings in concordance with the reality (the truth criteria) and are space-
temporal related. The second criterion contrasts the study of conceptual and empirical events and
things generated by nature and social structures and mechanisms without an
intervening/modifying purpose (e.g. to explore, describe, predict or explain) from those with the
intervening/modifying and creating purpose of concrete and abstract artifacts (e.g. to design,
build and test/evaluate new artifacts or policies) (based on Hevner et al, 2004). These two criteria
divide the research process into the following four quadrants: (i) the conceptual behavioral
research, (ii) the conceptual design research, (iii) the empirical behavioral research and (iv) the
empirical design research.

The first quadrant (the conceptual behavioral research) accounts for the explorative, descriptive
(review) and scholastic (tutorial) research purposes on conceptual entities related with real
things. This research is performed through four general activities: CB.1 knowledge gap
identification, CB.2 research purpose and method selection from conceptual exploratory,
descriptive or tutorial review, CB.3 conceptual data collection, and CB.4 conceptual analysis and
synthesis, where an exploratory, descriptive or tutorial conceptual outcome is generated. In these
studies the researcher uses a conceptual framework or model previously designed (through
conceptual design research) to conduct the review. The analysis level of the entities under study
is knowledge of: society, organizations, individuals and/or technology/systems. The underlying
philosophies supported are positivist, interpretative, critical and critical realism.

Conceptual Domain Methodological CD.2: methodological

CB.2: methodological Knowledge knowledge
knowledge
N-B KNOWLEDGE D-KNOWLEDGE
CD.5:
CB.3: conceptual new design &
data collecting F’s CD.4: knowledge
CB.4: conceptual design data CD.1: a k-gap
analysis collection is identified
CB.1: a k-gap K-gap K-gap CD.3: Design process
K-gap
is identified
K-gap
M’s M’s
EB.4: data EB.1: a k-gap ED.1: a k-gap ED.5:
analysis is identified is identified new design/build &
knowledge
EB.2: methodological A’s ED.4:
knowledge design/building ED.2:
EB.3: empirical
data collecting data collection methodological
knowledge
Given Expected artificial
natural/social reality ED.3:
reality design/building
process

Reality Domain

Figure 1: A Systemic IS Methodological Research Framework

The second quadrant (the conceptual design research) accounts for the explorative and
conceptual artifact design research purposes. This research follows the following five activities:
CD.1 knowledge gap identification, CD.2 research purpose and method selection from
conceptual exploratory design or conceptual artifact design, CD.3 conceptual design, CD.4
conceptual data collection for evaluating the designed artifact, and CD.5 analysis and synthesis
of findings where a new conceptual artifact outcome is generated among the following:
construct, framework/model/theory, method, or system/component (not instanced in a real
object). Constructs refer to new concepts. Framework/model/theory refers to conceptual
structures created to organize and classify knowledge as well as to descriptive, predictive or
explanatory theories and models of a reality when they are theoretically elaborated and not
obtained from empirical data. Methods include processes, algorithms and theorems.
System/components refer to the conceptual design of potentially real physical artifacts but
evaluated without the physical building (e.g. usually through a panel of experts, mathematical
analysis or simulation). Then, in this quadrant are included the research methods of mathematical
analysis, theorem proof and simulation. The main goal of the conceptual design research is the
purposeful design of conceptual artifacts. Such designs are contrasted with the generation of
models used in the empirical behavioral research (e.g. field surveys, case study or experiments
with human subjects) where the quantitative or qualitative methods suggest the best model that
fits the empirical data. Thus, the reality situation dictates the design. In contrast, in design
research, the designed artifact – which must satisfy a set of constrains and requirements- is
dictated by the design goals. An interesting case for debate is the conceptual instrument
development (e.g. to measure a construct). In the case where empirical data dictates how the
instrument must be designed (e.g. via exploratory factor analysis or PLS techniques) this
research is considered in the behavioral empirical research quadrant as a descriptive
measurement purpose. However, in the case of a conceptual design on the concepts required for
describe/measure a situation, this can be considered as a piece of conceptual research. The design
of a physical measurement instrument is empirical design research when the artifact is built. If
the instrument is not built and is only tested via a computer simulation, this research can be
considered as conceptual research. The analysis level of the entities under study is the knowledge
of: society, organizations, individuals or technology/systems. The underlying philosophies
supported are: positivist, interpretative, critical and critical realism. The third quadrant (the
empirical behavioral research) accounts for the study of observable and given real entities. This
research is conducted through the following activities: EB.1 knowledge gap identification, EB.2
research purpose and method selection from field survey, case study, experiments (laboratory or
field with human subjects), grounded theoryv, ethnography or historical methods, EB.3 empirical
data collection, and EB.4 data analysis with the generation of knowledge. This kind of research
develops and justifies constructs, models/theories from empirical data (Hevner et al, 2004). The
possible units of study are: society, organizations, individuals and technology/systems. The
underlying philosophies supported are: positivist, interpretative, critical and critical realism.

Finally, the fourth quadrant corresponds to the empirical design research. This research accounts
for the study of design methods and theories to build real artifacts. This research includes the
following five activities: ED.1 knowledge gap identification, ED.2 research purpose and method
selection from empirical exploratory design or empirical artifact design (e.g. the engineering
method), ED.3 empirical artifact design and building, ED.4 empirical data collection for
evaluating the designed artifact, and ED.5 analysis and synthesis where a new real artifact
outcome is generated from: construct, framework/model/theory, method, system/component (e.g.
the artifact is instanced or used in a real object or real situation). The analysis level of the entities
under study is a technology/system. Underlying supported philosophies are: positivist and critical
realism.

Hence, we claim that this new IS research methodological framework enables us to re-evaluate
the correct scientific value of the conceptual research methods and avoid the biased perception of
a less scientific value when it is considered as “speculative argumentation” (e.g. guessing
without data). We also claim that this new IS research framework (a piece of the conceptual
design research) integrates, harmonizes and accumulates valuable knowledge generated by
previous studies, and that it is comprehensive and parsimonious. Its usefulness is illustrated in
the next section.

4. IS Research Methodological Framework Illustration

The usefulness of this framework is illustrated with four exemplary research papers published in
top journals in the domains of knowledge management or decision support systems. Table 3
shows the core attributes according to the new IS research methodological framework.

Quadrant I Conceptual Behavioral Research

Exemplary paper Alavi & Leidner (2001)
IS research domain knowledge management
Research outcome a tutorial and descriptive study on what is KM, what is known and what
are their research challenges
Research method conceptual descriptive and tutorial review
Unit of study multiple conceptual units
Underlying philosophy positivism
Quadrant II Conceptual Design Research
Exemplary paper Huber (1990)
IS research domain decision support systems
Research outcome a theory-model on the effects of advanced IT on the business intelligence
capability in organizations
Research method conceptual artifact (predictive model) design
Unit of study organization
Underlying philosophy positivism
Quadrant III Empirical Behavioral Research
Exemplary paper Kulkarni et al (2006)
IS research domain knowledge management
Research outcome a quantitative and explanatoryvi model on the plausible causal links
between the following constructs: quality of available knowledge,
quality of the built KM systems to share and reuse knowledge,
managerial support type, and knowledge management (KM) success.
Research method empirical behavioral research (field survey)
Unit of study individual
Underlying philosophy positivism
Quadrant IV Empirical Design Research
Exemplary paper Shane at al (1987)
IS research domain decision support systems
Research outcome A DSS for investment portfolio selection process
Research method empirical artifact (software system) design
Unit of study technology
Underlying philosophy positivism

Table 3: Exemplary Cases of IS Research Types Defined

in the IS Research Methodological Framework

This framework enables researchers of methodological issues to acquire a holistic view of the
research process perceived as an answering systematic system as well as a design-oriented
problem-solving system (Ackoff et al., 1962). The framework is also useful to re-assess the value
assigned to the conceptual research and to distinguish conceptual descriptive/scholastic from
conceptual design research. Since Hevner et al.’s study (2004) is one of the most current and
comprehensive IS research framework, we believe that our framework captures all essential
identified findings by them and enriches our understanding of the scientific process for doing
research in the domain of information systems. The design of this framework can be classified as
type II (conceptual design research) and the initial utilization with the four exemplary cases as
type I (conceptual behavioral (explorative) research).
5. Conclusions
In this paper, we have reviewed the main IS research methodological frameworks. We identify
knowledge gaps and design a new framework based in the Theory of Systems. The main
motivation was to clarify the value of conceptual research methods because some literature
considers such an approach of less scientific value than empirical methods. Through this new
framework, we define the characteristics of the conceptual research methods. Four exemplary
cases from top journals were used to illustrate the framework’s usefulness. Further research is
planned for improving the definition of the four quadrants reported in this framework, as well as
for defining a set of principles on how to conduct high-quality conceptual research in the IS
discipline. This research can be also classified as a piece of conceptual design research and
conceptual behavioral (exploratory) research. Hence, we claim that we have developed an initial
case for conceptual research.

References
Ackoff, R. (in collaboration with Gupta, S., & Minas, J.) (1962). Scientific Method: Optimizing
Applied Research Decisions. New York: Wiley.
Alavi, M. & Leidner, D. (2001). Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management
Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136.
Bhaskar, R. (1975). A Realist Theory of Science. London: Leeds Books.
Blalock, H. (1969). Theory Construction: from Verbal to Mathematical Formulations.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Checkland, P. & Holwell, S. (1998). Information, Systems and Information Systems. Chichester:
Wiley.
Counelis, J. (2000). Generic Research Design in the Study of Education: a Systemic Typology.
Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 17, 51-63.
Denning, P., Comer D. E., Gries D., Mulder M. C., Tucker A., Turner A. J., Young P. R. (1989).
Computing as Discipline. Communications of the ACM, 32(1),.9-23.
Flood, R., & Room, N. (Eds). (1996). Critical Systems Thinking. New York: Plenum Press.
Galliers, R., & Land, F. (1987). Choosing an Appropriate Information Systems Research
mMethodology. Communications of the ACM, 30(11), 900-902.
Gelman, O., & Garcia, J. (1989). Formulation and Axiomatization of the Concept of General
System. Outlet IMPOS (Mexican Institute of Planning and Systems Operation), 19(92), 1-81.
Gelman, O., Mora, M., Forgionne, G. & F. Cervantes (2005). Information Systems and Systems
Theory. In: M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology,
Vol. 3, Idea Group: Hershey, PA,1491-1496.
Glass, R., Ramesh, V. & Vessey, I. (2004). An Analysis of Research in Computing Disciplines.
Communications of the ACM, 47(6), 89-94.
Gonzalez, R. & Dahanayake, A. (2007). A Concept Map of Information Systems Research
Approaches. In: M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2007 IRMA International
Conference. Vancouver, Canada, May 11-14, 845-848.
Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and Human Interests. London: Heinenmann.
Hevner, A., March, S., Park, J. & Ram, S. (2004). Design Science in Information Systems
Research. MIS Quarterly, 21(8), 75-105.
Huber, G. (1990). A Theory of the Effects of Advanced Information Technologies on
Organizational Design, Intelligence, and Decision Making. The Academy of Management
Review, 15(1), 47-71.
Jackson, M. (1990). Systems Approaches to Management. New York: Kluwer Academic.
Kulkarni, U., Ravindran, S., & Freeze, R. (2006). A Knowledge Management Success Model:
Theoretical Development and Empirical Validation. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 23(3), 309-347.
Järvinen, P. (2000). Research Questions Guiding Selection of an Appropriate Research Method.
In: Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Information Systems, Vienna, Austria, July
2-5, 124-131.
Lending, D. & Wetherbe, J. (1992). Update on MIS Research: a Profile of Leading Journals and
U.S. Universities, ACM SIGMIS Database, 23(3), 5-11.
March, S. & Smith, G. (1995). Design and Natural Science Research on Information
Technology, Decision Support Systems, 15(4), 251-266.
Midgley, G. (2000). What is This Thing Called CST? In: R. Flood & N. Room (Eds), Critical
Systems Thinking: Current Research and Practice, Plenun: New York, 11-24
Mingers, J., (2000). The contributions of Critical Realism as an Underpinning Philosophy for
OR/MS and Systems. J. Op. Res. Soc. 51,1256-1270.
Mora, M., Gelman, O., Forgionne, G., Petkov, D., & Cano, J. (2007). Integrating the Fragmented
Pieces of IS Research Paradigms and Frameworks: a Systems Approach. Information
Resources Management Journal, 20(2), 1-22.
Nunamaker, J., Chen, M., and Purdin, T. (1991). Systems Development in Information Systems
Research, Journal of Management Information Systems, 7(3), 89-106.
Orlikowski, W., & Baroudi, J. (1991). Studying Information Technology in Organizations:
Research Approaches and Assumptions. Information Systems Research, 2(1), 1-28.
Popper, K. (2002). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. (1st. edition, 1959), London: Routledge.
Shane, B., Fry, M., & Toro, R. (1987). The Design of an Investment Portfolio Selection Decision
Support System Using Two Expert Systems and a Consulting System. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 3(4), 79-92.
Straub, D., Ang, S. y Evaristo, R. (1994). Normative Standards for IS Research. Database, 25(1),
21-34.
Vessey, I., Ramesh, V. & Glass, R. (2002). Research in Information Systems: an Empirical
Study of Diversity in the Discipline and its Journals. Journal of Management Information
Systems,19(2), 129-174.
Vogel, D. R. & Wetherbe, J. M. (1984) MIS Research: a Profile of Leading Journals and
Universities. Database, 16(3), 3-14.
Whetten, D. (1989). What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution? Academy of Management
Review, 14(4), 490-495.
i
This study updates the classic Vogel and Wheterbe’s (1984) study.
ii
Please note that a conceptual model can be a simulation model. We consider that to conduct experiments on such models are
not the most creative but methodic part. Thus, its creative theoretically-based design formulation is that justifies its inclusion
in the Conceptual category.
iii
Please note that conceptual research can also design artifacts but of conceptual nature.
iv
A system view of research process has been also reported by other authors (Gelman & Garcia, 1989; Gelman et al, 2005;
Mora et al, 2007).
v
Grounded theory could be also used with conceptual objects in a first stage of the overall process. However, its essential
focus is empirical due to the inductive way of generating a theory from qualitative data.
vi
Explanatory model is considered under the required theoretical assumptions of utilization of LISREL technique.