The relative importance of context and generalizability (or particularism and universalism) has long been debated in scientific research. Recently, Davison and Martinsons raised valid concerns about the possibility of false universalism in IS research, discussed its negative consequences, and made a call for explicitly including particularism in research design and reporting. In this commentary, we generally agree with the notion that context should matter more in IS research; yet, the importance of generalizability in research should not be downplayed. Specifically, we posit that generalizability should be given higher position in the scientific process and be the ultimate goal for researchers. Still, researchers need to fully understand the research context, which, in combination and replication, can help to cautiously make generalizable knowledge claims. Therefore, we characterize the relationship between context and generalizability as that of a “King” (as an analogy of the local role of context) versus the “Emperor” (as an analogy of the global role of generalizability).
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdomaviciusG., SankaranarayananR., SenS., and TuzhilinA. (2005). Incorporating Contextual Information in Recommender Systems Using a Multidimensional Approach, ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS)23(1): 103–145.
2.
AronsonE., WilsonT.D., and SommersS.R. (2013). Social Psychology, Boston: Pearson.
3.
AtasoyH., BankerR., and PavlouP.A. (2016). Firm-Level Evidence of the Longitudinal Effects of IT Use on Employment, Information Systems Research27(1): 6–26.
4.
AvgerouC. (2001). The Significance of Context in Information Systems and Organizational Change, Information Systems Journal11(1): 43–63.
5.
BaS., and PavlouP.A. (2002). Evidence of the Effect of Trust Building Technology in Electronic Markets: Price Premiums and Buyer Behavior, MIS Quarterly26(3): 243–268.
6.
BarneyJ.B., and ZhangS. (2009). The Future of Chinese Management Research: A Theory of Chinese Management Versus a Chinese Theory of Management, Management and Organization Review5(1): 15–28.
7.
BarroR.J., and McClearyR.M. (2003). Religion and Economic Growth Across Countries, American Sociological Review68(5): 760–781.
8.
BoudreauM.-C., GefenD., and StraubD.W. (2001). Validation in Information Systems Research: A State-of-the-art Assessment, MIS Quarterly25(1): 1–16.
9.
BoydB.K., GoveS., and HittM.A. (2005). Construct Measurement in Strategic Management Research: Illusion or Reality?Strategic Management Journal26(3): 239–257.
10.
CalderB.J., PhillipsL.W., and TyboutA.M. (1982). The Concept of External Validity, Journal of Consumer Research9: 240–244.
11.
CampbellD.T. (1986). Relabeling Internal and External Validity for Applied Social Scientists, New Directions for Program Evaluation31: 67–77.
12.
CampbellD.T., and StanleyJ.C. (1967). Experimental and Quasi Experimental Designs for Research.Chicago: Rand Mc Nally and Co Inc.
ChristensonC. (1997). The Innovator's Dilemma.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
15.
DeatonA. (2010). Instruments, Randomization, and Learning About Development, Journal of Economic Literature48: 424–455.
16.
DimokaA. (2010). What Does the Brain Tell Us About Trust and Distrust? Evidence from a Functional Neuroimaging Study, MIS Quarterly34(2): 373–396.
17.
DimokaA., BankerR.D., BenbasatI., DavisF.D., DennisA.R., GefenD., GuptaA., IschebeckA., KenningP.H., PavlouP.A., Müller-PutzG., RiedlR., vom BrockeJ., and WeberB. (2012). On the Use of Neurophysiological Tools in is Research: Developing a Research Agenda for NeuroIS, MIS Quarterly36(3): 679–719.
18.
DimokaA., HongY., and PavlouP.A. (2012b). On Product Uncertainty in Online Markets: Theory and Evidence, MIS Quarterly36(2): 395–426.
19.
DimokaA., PavlouP.A., and DavisF.D. (2010). Research Commentary - NeuroIS: The Potential of Cognitive Neuroscience for Information Systems Research, Information Systems Research22(4): 687–702.
20.
DipboyeR.L., and FlanaganM.F. (1979). Research Settings in Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Are Findings in the Field More Generalizable than in the Laboratory?American Psychologist34(2): 141.
21.
EttlieJ., and PavlouP.A. (2006). Technology-Based New Product Development Partnerships, Decision Sciences37(2): 117–148.
22.
GefenD., and PavlouP.A. (2012). The Boundaries of Trust and Risk: The Quadratic Moderating Role of Institutional Structures, Information Systems Research23(3): 940–959.
23.
GregorS. (2006). The Nature of Theory in Information Systems, MIS Quarterly30: 611–642.
24.
HeckmanT.T., and UrzuaS. (2010). Comparing IV with Structural Models: What Simple IV Can and Cannot Identify, Journal of Econometrics156(1): 27–37.
25.
HongW., ChanF.K., ThongJ.Y., ChasalowL.C., and DhillonG. (2013). A Framework and Guidelines for Context-Specific Theorizing in Information Systems Research, Information Systems Research25(1): 111–136.
26.
HongY., and PavlouP.A. (2014). Product Fit Uncertainty: Nature, Effects, and Antecedents, Information Systems Research25(2): 328–344.
27.
HongY., WangA., and PavlouP.A. (2015). Comparing Open and Sealed Bid Auctions: Evidence from Online Labor Markets, Information Systems Research (forthcoming).
28.
HubbardR., VetterD.E., and LittleE.L. (1998). Replication in Strategic Management: Scientific Testing for Validity, Generalizability, and Usefulness, Strategic Management Journal19(3): 243–254.
29.
ImbensG.W. (2010). Better LATE Than Nothing: Some Comments on Deaton (2009) and Heckman and Urzua (2009). Journal of the Economic Literature48(2): 399–423.
30.
IoannidisJ.P. (2005). Why Most Published Research Findings are False, Chance18(4): 40–47.
31.
JoshiA., and RohH. (2009). The Role of Context in Work Team Diversity Research: A Meta-Analytic Review, Academy of Management Journal52(3): 599–627.
32.
KingA.A., and BaatartogtokhB. (2015). How Useful is the Theory of Disruptive Innovation?MIT Sloan Management Review57(1): 77.
33.
LeeA.S., and BaskervilleR.L. (2003). Generalizing Generalizability in Information Systems Research, Information Systems Research14(3): 221–243.
34.
LeeA.S., and BaskervilleR.L. (2012). Conceptualizing Generalizability: New Contributions and a Reply, MIS Quarterly36(3): 749–761.
35.
LehrerJ. (2010). The Truth Wears Off, The New Yorker13: 52.
36.
LeidnerD.E., and KayworthT. (2006). Review: A Review of Culture in Information Systems Research: Toward a Theory of Information Technology Culture Conflict, MIS Quarterly30(2): 357–399.
37.
LiL., GaoP., and MaoJ. (2014). Research on IT in China: A Call for Greater Contextualization, Journal of Information Technology29(3): 208–222.
38.
LukkaK., and KasanenE. (1995). The Problem of Generalizability: Anecdotes and Evidence in Accounting Research, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal8(5): 71–90.
39.
LynchJ.G.Jr. (1982). On the External Validity of Experiments in Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research9: 225–239.
40.
LynchJ.G. (1983). The Role of External Validity in Theoretical Research, Journal of Consumer Research10: 109–111.
41.
LynchJ.G. (1999). Theory and external validity, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science27(3): 367–376.
42.
McGrathJ.E., and BrinbergD. (1983). External Validity and the Research Process: A Comment on the Calder/Lynch Dialogue, Journal of Consumer Research10(1): 115–124.
43.
MillerA., and DessG.G. (1993). Assessing Porter's (1980) Model in Terms of Its Generalizability, Accuracy and Simplicity, Journal of Management Studies30(4): 553–585.
44.
MingersJ. (2001). Combining IS Research Methods: Towards a Pluralist Methodology, Information Systems Research12(3): 240–259.
45.
MookD.G. (1983). In Defense of External Invalidity, American Psychologist38(4): 379.
46.
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science, Science349(6251): aac4716.
47.
PangM.-S., TaftiA., and KrishnanM.S. (2014). Information Technology and Administrative Efficiency in US State Governments: A Stochastic Frontier Approach, Management Information Systems Quarterly38(4): 1079–1101.
48.
PavlouP.A. (2011). State of the Information Privacy Literature: Where are We Now and Where Should We Go?MIS Quarterly35(4): 977–988.
49.
PavlouP.A., and DimokaA. (2006). The Nature and Role of Feedback Text Comments in Online Marketplaces: Implications for Trust Building, Price Premiums, and Seller Differentiation, Information Systems Research17(4): 391–412.
50.
PavlouP.A., and El SawyO.A. (2006). From IT Leveraging Competence to Competitive Advantage in Turbulent Environments: The Case of New Product Development, Information Systems Research17(3): 198–227.
51.
PavlouP.A., and FygensonM. (2006). Understanding and Predicting Electronic Commerce Adoption: An Extension of the Theory of Planned Behavior, MIS Quarterly30(1): 115–143.
52.
PolitD.F., and BeckC.T. (2010). Generalization in Quantitative and Qualitative Research: Myths and Strategies, International Journal of Nursing Studies47(11): 1451–1458.
53.
RaiA., PavlouP.A., ImG., and SteveD. (2012). Inter-firm IT Capability Profiles and Communications for Co-Creating Relational Value: Evidence from the Logistics Industry, MIS Quarterly36(1): 233–262.
54.
RosenzweigP.M. (1994). When can Management Science Research be Generalized Internationally?Management Science40(1): 28–39.
55.
RousseauD.M., and FriedY. (2001). Location, Location, Location: Contextualizing Organizational Research, Journal of organizational behavior22(1): 1–13.
56.
ScanduraT.A., and WilliamsE.A. (2000). Research Methodology in Management: Current Practices, Trends, and Implications for Future Research, Academy of Management Journal43(6): 1248–1264.
57.
SeddonP.B., and ScheepersR. (2012). Towards the Improved Treatment of Generalization of Knowledge Claims in IS Research: Drawing general Conclusions from Samples, European Journal of Information Systems21(1): 6–21.
58.
SeddonP.B., and ScheepersR. (2015). Generalization in IS Research: A Critique of the Conflicting Positions of Lee & Baskerville and Tsang & Williams, Journal of Information Technology30(1): 30–43.
59.
ShadishW.R., CookT.D., and CampbellD.T. (2002), Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference.Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
60.
ShortJ.C., KetchenD.J., and PalmerT.B. (2002). The Role of Sampling in Strategic Management Research on Performance: A Two-Study Analysis, Journal of Management28(3): 363–385.
61.
SmithH.J., DinevT., and XuH. (2011). Information Privacy Research: An Interdisciplinary Review, MIS Quarterly35(4): 989–1016.
62.
TsuiA.S. (2006). Contextualization in Chinese Management Research, Management and Organization Review2(1): 1–13.
63.
VenkatramanV., DimokaA., PavlouP.A., VoK., HamptonW., BollingerB., HershfieldH.E., IshiharaM., and WinerR.S. (2014). Predicting Advertising Success Beyond Traditional Measures: New Insights from Neurophysiological Methods and Market Response Modeling, Journal of Marketing Research52(4): 436–452.
64.
WilliamsJ., and TsangE. (2012). Generalization and Hume's Problem of Induction: Misconceptions and Clarifications, Management Information Systems Quarterly36(3): 729–748.
65.
YinR. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
66.
YoungC. (2009). Model Uncertainty in Sociological Research: An Application to Religion and Economic Growth, American Sociological Review74(3): 380–397.
