Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

While indigenous theorizing in information systems has clear merits, theory borrowing will not, and should not, be eschewed given its appeal and usefulness. In this article, we aim at increasing our understanding of modifying of borrowed theories in IT-rich contexts. We present a framework in which we discuss how two recontextualization approaches of specification and distinction help with increasing the IT-richness of borrowed constructs and relationships. In doing so, we use several illustrative examples from information systems strategy. The framework can be used by researchers as a tool to explore the multitude of ways in which a theory from another discipline can yield the understanding of IT phenomena.

Keywords

Theory borrowing IT artifact IT recontextualization specification distinction constructs relationships IS strategy research

Introduction

The role of information systems (IS)-specific theory and its contribution to the state and direction of the IS field remains a topic of extensive debate. A resounding constant within the debate is that IS theory development is essential, yet with little consensus on how this should be achieved (Hong et al., 2014). Indeed, IS is charged by its critics as engaging in habitual theory borrowing from other/allied disciplines at the expense of indigenous theory building; an abundance of middle-range theories at the expense of generalizable, grand theories, and persistent undertheorizing of the IT artifact (Grover and Lyytinen, 2015; Hassan and Lowry, 2015; Orlikowski and Iacono, 2001). In addition, the heavy reliance on theories not founded on IT-related constructs is deemed “distracting” (Benbasat and Zmud, 2003: 192). Accordingly, a strong and active stream of research encourages developing indigenous theories (Grover and Lyytinen, 2015) that are unlikely to be products of theory borrowing from other fields. Such theories will be “above and beyond the theories we import from other fields” (Markus and Saunders, 2007: iv).

While the merits of such theorizing are apparent, we argue that theory borrowing in IS will not, and should not, cease completely, particularly due to its appeal (Grover and Lyytinen, 2015) and potential usefulness (e.g. see Weber, 2003: x). Therefore, in addition to the searches for indigenous IS theories, attention to the nature and quality of borrowing is also crucial.

We build on the premise that theory borrowing is legitimate if constructs are owned and if borrowed theories are adapted appropriately to our distinctive subject matter (Hassan, 2011; Markus and Saunders, 2007). Drawing from the studies within (Hong et al., 2014) and outside IS (Oswick et al., 2011), such borrowing can be characterized as IS recontextualization. In demarcating our subject matter, we note the debates on whether and what constitutes the field’s intellectual core (King and Lyytinen, 2006; Whinston and Geng, 2004). While acknowledging critical commentaries (e.g. Galliers, 2003, 2006), in this article we consider what IS recontextualization would look like in cases where the borrowed materials are not silent about the IT artifact.

In establishing a foundation for our study, we note that three key modes of theory borrowing in IS have been articulated: instantiating, extending, and modifying (Grover and Lyytinen, 2015). By definition, instantiating is unlikely to provide a basis for offering much IS-related theoretical insights as theory is foreign to IS and the recontextualization efforts are only minor. Extending encourages theory development to go beyond the borrowed theory by adding new constructs and relationships that are IS-related. It is in modifying, where “The model modifies constructs, configurations, and/or logic from the borrowed theory to the IS context” (Grover and Lyytinen, 2015: 278), that IT-rich recontextualization becomes key.

In pursuing our aim, we build on the literature on theorizing the IT artifact (Benbasat and Zmud, 2003; Grover and Lyytinen, 2015; Orlikowski and Iacono, 2001; Straub, 2012), develop a framework of IT-rich recontextualized modifying of borrowed theories, and demonstrate this framework within the domain of IS strategy. The first dimension of the framework recognizes two approaches to IT-rich recontextualization: specification and distinction. Specification considers how the resulting theory can confer rich insights concerning the IT artifact, enabling non-nominal views of IT (Orlikowski and Iacono, 2001). Distinction involves how to make the borrowed instance uniquely different from other possible IS instances (internal distinction) and non-IS instances (external distinction) of the same borrowed theory. The second dimension of the framework recognizes that recontextualization can occur across two key elements of the borrowed theory:¹ constructs and relationships (Bacharach, 1989). Construct recontextualization is concerned with relabeling, redefining, redimensionalizing, and exemplifying constructs to offer rich insights about the IT artifact. Relationship recontextualization is chiefly about explaining theoretical mechanisms (namely, causal links, conceptual assumptions, and boundary assumptions) for the influence of one construct on another by explicitly referring to particular aspects of the IT artifact.

To illustrate the adoption of these IT-rich recontextualization approaches, we use several examples chiefly from IS strategy (ISS) research. Our focus on ISS has several motivations: there is much discourse around IS as a conglomerate of subtopics and more in-depth discussions of each subtopic can provide a rich understanding that can guide future research. ISS has been seen to be a top concern of Chief Information Officers (CIOs) over the decades (e.g. Luftman et al., 2015), and continues as a dominant concern with such ISS subtopics as alignment of IT with the business remaining a top concern for over 10 years (Kappelman et al., 2019). It is a particularly important topic in the current digital era in which many businesses are becoming increasingly digitally enabled and transformed (Barley et al., 2017; Davison and Ou, 2017; Vial, 2019). Moreover, ISS is generally recognized as adopting a nominal view to the IT artifact (see Grover and Lyytinen, 2015: 279; also, Orlikowski and Iacono, 2001: 128), so we seek examples of the capturing of IT in the ISS research.

Our contribution is twofold. First, we contribute to studies on embedding IT in IS research (e.g. Akhlaghpour et al., 2013; Grover and Lyytinen, 2015; Orlikowski and Iacono, 2001; Straub, 2012) by further clarifying and formalizing IT-rich recontextualized approaches of specification and distinction. Second, we contribute to ISS research by exploring several specific examples of how the IT artifact is embedded in it, demonstrating that IT is not always nominal in this domain. Overall, we add to the debate on theory borrowing within IS (Truex et al., 2006) and provide some further directions for moving away from nominal views of IT in ISS.

IT-rich recontextualization of borrowed theories—a framework

When theories from outside a reference discipline are borrowed, they are subject to recontextualization. As Oswick et al. (2011) put it, “Effectively, recontextualization involves a process of repackaging, refining, and repositioning a discourse (or text) that circulates in a particular community for consumption within another community” (p. 323). Researchers who have studied similar borrowing modes, including contextualization (Hong et al., 2014), domestication (Oswick et al. 2011), and modifying (Grover and Lyytinen, 2015), consider that some core constructs and relationships might be added or removed from the borrowed theory. What we mean by IT-rich recontextualization is much narrower, however. Here, we delve into how unique IS insights can be infused in the constructs and relationships of the borrowed theory.

To increase our understanding of IT-rich recontextualized modifying of borrowed theories, we draw from past research on developing IS theories (Benbasat and Zmud, 2003; Grover and Lyytinen, 2015; Orlikowski and Iacono, 2001; Straub, 2012) to develop a 2 × 2 framework (Table 1). The first dimension, recontextualization approach, distinguishes specification and distinction. The second dimension, borrowed theory element, considers that specification and distinction can be applied to the borrowing of both the key components of a theory—constructs and relationships (Bacharach, 1989). Given our speculation that, when borrowing theories in IS, the IT artifact often remains nominal until the empirical part of a paper, this framework excludes recontextualized operationalizations to emphasize recontextualized theorizing. Below, we explain each dimension of the framework in detail.

Table 1.

A framework of IT-rich recontextualized modifying of borrowed theories.

		Recontextualization approach
		Specification	Distinction
Borrowed theory element	Construct recontextualization	1. Modifying the borrowed constructs for specific IS phenomena centered around the IT artifact.	3. Explaining how some aspects of the modified conceptualizations are unique to IS phenomena concerning specific IT artifacts.
	Relationship recontextualization	2. Modifying the borrowed relationships by drawing upon IS phenomena centered around the IT artifact.	4. Explaining how some aspects of the modified relationships are unique to IS phenomena concerning specific IT artifacts.

IS: information systems.

Specification

Specification refers to the efforts made to describe the IT artifact per se or that is embedded in the surrounding IS phenomena. Specification recognizes that, were the IT artifact absent in a theory, the study might be subject to the “error of exclusion” (Benbasat and Zmud, 2003: 189). From this perspective, a study might be criticized for having “no reference to any specific technology” (Orlikowski and Iacono, 2001: 128). Specification is therefore a necessary (but insufficient) condition for adopting the non-nominal views of IT (e.g. the ensemble view). While such specificity is recognized as a key characteristic of native IS theories (Straub, 2012), we explore specification in theory borrowing.

By considering the IT artifacts as technical objects (Markus and Silver, 2008: 625), we recognize six ways in which the IT artifact could be specified. Specifying the taxonomic nature of the IT artifact adopts a pluralistic view of the IT artifact (recognized as the IS artifact—Lowry et al., 2017) and explains how an IT artifact belongs to one taxon or a combination of taxa. When an IT artifact is labeled accordingly, attention is shaped to a particular (although often vaguely defined) subset of artifacts. Specifying the IT artifact as a specific IS product distinguishes two related but differing forms of technical objects: IT and IS (in terms of products not the research disciplines—Hassan, 2006). While IT can be any digital technology (e.g. the Internet), IS is a particular category of IT used by organizations to represent their business processes according to Weber (2003). Specifying key configurations within and across IT artifacts regards the IT artifact as an assemblage of key subcomponents. Orlikowski and Iacono (2001) explain that, “IT artifacts are usually made up of a multiplicity of often fragile and fragmentary components, whose interconnections are often partial and provisional and which require bridging, integration and articulation in order for them to work together” (p. 131). Furthermore, key configuration of multiple IT artifacts can be specified as a system of systems (e.g. in specifying enterprise architecture). Specifying holistic attributes of the IT artifact focuses on describing an IT artifact using some of its attributes or that of its key subcomponents. Specifying features/functionalities views the IT artifact as a collection of various interrelated features/functionalities² that, individually or taken together, could enable or support users to perform certain tasks. Decomposing an IT artifact into features/functionalities allows researchers to avoid having a black box view of technology (Benbasat and Zmud, 2003; Jasperson et al., 2005; Orlikowski and Iacono, 2001). The purposeful nonspecificity of the IT artifact recognizes that when research claims are generalizable to all IT artifacts, researchers might opt to justify the lack of IT specificity.

Table 2 provides several illustrative examples from the IS strategy context.

Table 2.

Specification approaches: illustrative examples from IS strategy research.

Approach	Description	ISS examples
Specifying the taxonomic nature of the IT artifact	The IT artifact could belong to one taxon or a combination of taxa (e.g. technical systems, information and data, digital products, techniques and methodologies, policies, certifications, standards, patents, communities and ecosystems).	IT infrastructure (Tallon and Pinsonneault, 2011), decision-making algorithms (Galliers et al., 2017; Newell and Marabelli, 2015), data warehouses (March and Hevner, 2007), data visualization dashboards (Zammuto et al., 2007), digital offering (Ross et al., 2019), enterprise systems (Tan et al., 2004), blockchain (Beck et al., 2018), business intelligence (Shollo and Galliers, 2016), data analytics techniques and methodologies (Chen et al., 2012; Günther et al., 2017), information security policies (Cram et al., 2017), security certifications (Hsu, 2009), data interchange standards (Zhu et al., 2006), software patents (Mykytyn et al., 2002).
Specifying the IT artifact as a specific IS product	The IT artifact can be any digital technology or IS which is a particular category of IT (Hassan, 2006) used by organizations to represent their business processes (Weber, 2003) and is often recognized by specific system types (Ein-Dor and Segev, 1993).	Interorganizational information systems (Johnston and Vitale, 1988; Saraf et al., 2007) including EDI (Mukhopadhyay et al., 1995), multisided platforms (Leong et al., 2019), customer relationship management (CRM) systems (Setia et al., 2013), knowledge management (KMS) systems (Joshi et al., 2010; Pavlou and El Sawy, 2006, 2010), enterprise software (Ceccagnoli et al., 2012; Tan et al., 2004), strategic decision support systems (March and Hevner, 2007; Sabherwal and Chan, 2001), and enterprise social media platforms (Baptista et al., 2017; Rode, 2016; Von Krogh, 2012).
Specifying key configurations within and across IT artifacts	The IT artifact can be regarded as a holistic package or an assemblage of key subcomponents (Orlikowski and Iacono, 2001) or multiple constituting IT artifacts (systems of systems).	Subcomponents: decomposing an ERP system into different functional modules (Benders et al., 2006). Configuration of multiple IT artifacts: integration is defined as “the extent to which the IS applications of a focal firm work as a functional whole in conjunction with the IS applications of its business partners” (Saraf et al., 2007: 324).
Specifying holistic attributes of the IT artifact	The IT artifact can be described by some of its holistic attributes (characteristics).	Customizability (Nevo and Wade, 2010), flexibility (Tallon and Pinsonneault, 2011), information quality and information completeness (Setia et al., 2013), complexity (Meyer and Curley, 1991), ubiquity (Carr, 2003), fragility and unreliability (Butler and Gray, 2006), scalability (O’Leary, 2013; Tallon and Pinsonneault, 2011), maturity (Karimi et al., 1996; Venkatesh et al., 2007), newness (Barki et al., 1993; Swanson and Ramiller, 2004), uniqueness (Piccoli and Ives, 2005), and representation (Weber, 2003).
Specifying features/functionalities of the IT artifact	The IT artifact can be viewed as a collection of various interrelated features/functionalities that could enable or support users to perform certain tasks. Features/functionalities can be distinguished as core versus optional (DeSanctis et al., 1994; Griffith, 1999; Neo Bui, 2017), autonomous versus user-controlled, enabling versus inhibiting (Leonardi and Barley, 2008), and functionalities versus dysfunctionalities (Jasperson et al., 2005).	Optional: customizability of the off-the-shelf IT artifacts (Nevo and Wade, 2010; Piccoli and Ives, 2005). Autonomous: automatic data anonymization (O’Leary, 2013). User-controlled: features of social software requiring an active use (Von Krogh, 2012). Inhibiting: access identifiability in the user interface to violating access policies (Vance et al., 2013). Functionalities: conveyance, presentation, and convergence as the three functionalities of collaborative work systems (Pavlou and El Sawy, 2010), predicting future states (March and Scudder, 2019). Dysfunctionalities: hindering the pursuit of meaningfulness in work using datafication to track worker activities (Stein et al., 2019).
Purposeful non-specificity of the IT artifact	The IT artifact might be intentionally unspecified, with the justification that research claims are generalizable to all IT artifacts.	A study on the strategic use of IT might argue that the findings would hold for any type of IT in organizations, hence IT non-specificity. We did not find an example of such argument in ISS, perhaps implying that most researchers consider their findings as simply generalizable, irrespective of the technology (blackboxing the IT).

ED: Electronic Data Interchange; IS: information systems; ISS: information systems strategy; ERP: enterprise resource planning.

Distinction

Distinction refers to efforts dedicated to delineating the various instances of borrowed constructs and relationships by highlighting what is unique to the particular IT artifact (or its surrounding IS phenomena) under study. Distinction leverages specification, for example, in order to differentiate features and functionalities of two IT artifacts. We discuss two approaches of internal and external distinction and their subcategories.

Internal distinction is within IS and builds on the idea that “Information technologies differ with respect to their intrinsic characteristics” (Piccoli and Ives, 2005: 760). To make an internal distinction, specification can be used to capture the variations between different ITs rather than adopting a homogeneous view of IT. Internal distinction can also be used to theorize, for example, varying perceptions, abilities, and actions about similar IT artifacts.

External distinction can be made between the IS and non-IS versions of the borrowed theories, recognizing that “we should look to how uniquely the theory base applies to IS” (Straub, 2012: v). Giving the example of the replaceability of “IS” with “marketing” in some IS strategy theories, Orlikowski and Iacono (2001) suggest that the IS and non-IS distinction made in a theory must be evident. We identify four external distinction approaches. Distinguishing IT from non-IT instances of the same theories involves explaining what is unique to an IS take on the borrowed theory. Distinguishing IT from non-IT technologies explains how the way a theory is borrowed to examine an IT artifact can be distinguished from such borrowing for a non-IT. Recognizing the similarity (hence the concurrent value added) to non-IT technologies, in contrast to the other external distinction strategies, involves explicitly acknowledging and explaining the generalizability of the modification of a non-technology-related theory to IS to the understanding of non-IT technologies (e.g. manufacturing technologies). Distinguishing the IS angle from other angles for the same IT artifact recognizes that various cognate disciplines, such as computer science, have a vested interest in the IT artifact (Hassan and Will, 2006). The last approach is purposeful non-distinction, which pairs with the purposeful non-specificity approach explained above. Table 3 summarizes the above and provides several examples from the IS strategy context.

Table 3.

Distinction: illustrative examples from IS strategy research.

Approach	Description	ISS examples
Internal—technology variance	Adopting a heterogeneous view of IT, hence attempting to capture the variations between different IT artifacts (or concepts centering on IT artifacts) across different recontextualized versions of the same theory.	Oh and Pinsonneault (2007: 249) capture how different IT applications in the manufacturing industry are associated with different strategic values; Scott and Vessey (2002) distinguish the way in which two companies managed similar IT artifacts (variants of SAP R/3 ERP) with contrasting outcomes; Mata et al. (1995) suggest that managerial IT skills are heterogeneously distributed across firms; Ray et al. (2005) distinguish between tacit and explicit IT capabilities.
External—distinguishing IT from non-IT technologies	Explaining how the recontextualized version of the borrowed theory is different from the non-IT instances of the same theory. In simpler cases, one can speak of certain characteristics of the IT artifact that make the unmodified instances of a borrowed theory inadequate for understanding IS phenomena (Grover and Lyytinen, 2015). In extreme cases, one can “identify a set of generic characteristics of information technology that cause the existing theories about technology fail” (Weber, 2003: vii).	Wade and Hulland (2004) offer a theoretical “basis for comparison between IS and non-IS resources, and thus can facilitate cross-functional research” (p. 109); an ISS study can discuss the specific strategic purposes only associated with IS, but no other technological assets, such as manufacturing and R&D facilities.
External—recognizing the similarity to non-IT technologies	Explaining how the borrowing of the theory to IT concurrently adds value to understanding non-IT technologies.	We did not find any examples in the ISS context. The two key antecedents in TAM (Davis, 1989)—perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use—developed by modifying the theory of reasoned action, are useful not only for examining IT adoption but also for understanding the adoption of other technologies.
External—distinguishing the IS angle from other angles to the same IT artifact	Explaining how borrowing the theory to IS increases our understanding of an IT beyond what is learned about it in other fields of research (Hassan, 2006).	We did not find any examples in the ISS context. As Hassan (2006) suggests, by building on the business and social aspects of the specified IT artifact, an ISS study can specify how the adopted view of an IT artifact is linked to, but departs from, the examination of similar IT artifacts from a computer science viewpoint.
Purposeful non-distinction	Explaining how the borrowing would apply to any technology, in conjunction with purposeful non-specificity.	We did not find any examples in the ISS context. To complement purposeful non-specificity, by referring to the similarities across different IT artifacts, an ISS study can explain why recontextualizing the borrowed theory would not be different for other IT artifacts.

IS: information systems; ISS: information systems strategy; TAM: technology acceptance model; ERP: enterprise resource planning.

Having discussed the specification and distinction approaches, we next take a closer look at how these approaches can be applied in recontextualizing constructs and relationships.

Construct recontextualization using specification and distinction

Constructs refer to “conceptual abstractions of phenomena that cannot be directly observed” (Suddaby, 2010: 346). To recontextualize borrowed constructs for use in an IT-rich context, one should “adapt them to reflect a unique IT or IS component” (Benbasat and Zmud, 2003) with a view to “clarifying the IS nuances involved” (p. 193). Construct recontextualization considers that the specification of an IT artifact can appear in four complementary forms: construct labels, definitions, dimensions, and exemplifications. Recontextualizing construct labels involves revising the labels of borrowed constructs with the specified IT artifact in mind.

A good practice in theorizing is ensuring construct clarity according to Barki (2008) and Suddaby (2010), especially by offering formal definitions (Wacker, 2004). Thus, recontextualizing construct definitions concerns modifying construct definitions by making explicit reference to the specified IT artifact (per se or embedded in surrounding IS phenomena). General rules for offering a formal conceptual definition (Wacker, 2004) apply. A multidimensional construct can be modeled in different ways, including the latent (higher order) and aggregate (multiplicative or additive) approaches (Law et al., 1998). Thus, recontextualizing construct dimensions of a borrowed multidimensional construct can involve adding or removing dimensions. Furthermore, we note that exemplification via providing concrete examples is vital for developing theoretical ideas (Jaccard and Jacoby, 2009). Accordingly, recontextualization by exemplification complements recontextualized construct labels and definitions and provides a further opportunity for specification. Examples can also be used to make a distinction between various takes on the same construct.

Table 4 summarizes the above and provides several examples from the IS strategy context.

Table 4.

Construct recontextualization using specification and distinction approaches: examples from IS strategy research.

Locus	Description	ISS examples
Recontextualized construct labels	Using specification and/or distinction to increase the IT-richness of the borrowed construct labels.	Grover and Lyytinen (2015) observe that “a construct like ‘asset specificity’ (AS) in transaction cost economics (TCE) is used to study outsourcing but modified to ‘system specificity’” (p. 278). More specific references to an IT artifact are feasible.
Recontextualized construct definitions	Using specification and/or distinction to increase the IT-richness of the borrowed construct definitions. A construct can be linked to a specified IT artifact in at least five ways: by focusing on the IT artifact per se, by referring to its properties, by referring to the functional affordances (Markus and Silver, 2008; Volkoff and Strong, 2013), and perceptions, and abilities/actions surrounding the artifact (Benbasat and Zmud, 2003). These approaches are means to implementing the material, socio-material, and social views of the IT artifact.	Conceptualizing the IT artifact (or its properties) on its own: digital design, defined as information quality for a customer service unit, is theorized to influence customer service capabilities (information quality and completeness) (Setia et al., 2013), internal distinction of flexible IT infrastructures by describing them as “scalable, adaptable, compatible and modular” (Levallet and Chan, 2018: 3). Conceptualizing the functional affordances of the IT artifact: core IT affordances in firms (namely, collaborative affordance, organizational memory affordance, and process management affordance) (Chatterjee et al., 2015). Conceptualizing the IT artifact as an object of actions and abilities: Examples of various actions follow. Planning the specified IT artifact—planning approaches (Earl, 1993), strategizing (Galliers, 2011), strategic planning (Lederer and Hannu, 1996), exploration, and exploitation of the IT artifact (Marabelli and Galliers, 2017). Acquiring the specified IT artifact(s): outsourcing (Lacity et al., 2009) such as outsourcing logistics systems (Willcocks et al., 1999). Implementing the specified IT artifact(s): aligning (Karpovsky and Galliers, 2015), the misalignment resulting from the implementation and use of a KMS (Dulipovici and Robey, 2013). Using the specified IT artifact(s): system use as strategy practice (Arvidsson et al., 2014). Structuring the/by the specified IT artifact(s): reshaping the structure of value networks (Pagani, 2013), the interpretive flexibility of technology (Orlikowski, 1992). Governing the specified IT artifact(s): linking IT governance to organizational performance via strategic alignment (Wu et al., 2015). Protecting (or protection from) the specified IT artifact(s): difficulties in maintaining a competitive advantage via patenting or secrecy (Mata et al., 1995); network security as key IS competencies (Cragg et al., 2011).
Recontextualizing construct dimensions	Specification and distinction can be used to redefine, add, or remove IT-rich dimensions to borrowed constructs.	The adaptation of the notion of shared domain knowledge in the examination of the social dimension of alignment by Reich and Benbasat (2000) is reconceptualized to consider the two dimensions of “IT-knowledgeable business managers and business-knowledgeable IT managers” (p. 84).
Recontextualization by exemplification	Providing specific real-world and concrete examples of constructs.	Piccoli and Ives (2005) blend in several examples in defining IT concepts. For instance, in defining the visibility of IT, they refer to two specific IT artifacts: “The visibility dimension can be conceptualized as a continuum spanning from internal systems (e.g. Harrah’s Entertainment’s engine for data analysis) to public systems (e.g. Lands’ End Live: Web-based chat with customer service agents)” (p. 760).

IS: information systems; ISS: information systems strategy; KMS: knowledge management systems.

Relationship recontextualization using specification and distinction

From a variance view to theory, relationships are construed as propositions at more generalizable (abstract) levels and hypotheses at less generalizable (concrete) levels (Bacharach, 1989). Relationships refer to the explanations of what constructs are related, as well as how and why they are related (Whetten, 1989). We suggest that borrowed relationships can be recontextualized by applying specification and distinction to four elements of a relationship: constructs in various structural positions, causal links, assumptions, and boundaries.

Recontextualizing the constructs in various structural positions of a theory considers different roles that constructs play in a proposition, namely, being independent, dependent, and path-modifying variables and explains the implications of making these IT-rich. For example, exercising distinction to a path-modifying variable can illustrate how a relationship would be different for different IT artifacts. While the views on causality in IS research are several, our focus on recontextualizing causal links stems from our causal ontology of mechanisms: the “real physical, psychological, and/or social processes that connect inputs and outputs under certain conditions” (Markus and Rowe, 2018: 1263). For brevity, we particularly focus on a subset of these processes: causal links as a common practice in specifying such process. We view causal links as hidden mediators and consider them subject to IT recontextualization. Conceptual assumptions are made to explain why there is a relationship between two constructs (Whetten, 2002). For example, when proposing that A influences B, including a causal link (C) usually means that two theoretical assumptions (that A impacts C, and C influences B) are described but are taken-for-granted as being true. When theories are borrowed without being challenged, their underlying assumptions are inherited (Alvesson and Sandberg, 2011). The borrowed assumptions can be relaxed, denied, and revised, however (Rivard, 2014). Boundary assumptions involve the assumptions about values, time, and space within which a theory works as specified (Bacharach, 1989). In recontextualizing such assumptions, one can build on the nature of the specified IT artifact, suggesting why a particular causal link does not hold or works differently in the IT context.

Table 5 summarizes the above and provides several examples from the IS strategy context.

Table 5.

Relationships recontextualization using specification and distinction.

Approach	Description	ISS examples
Recontextualizing the constructs in various structural positions (independent, dependent, and path-modifying variables)	Specification and distinction of the IT-rich concept as the source of change, as the modifier of change (path modifier), or as the recipient of change. The specification of the IT artifact (or its properties) on its own as an independent variable can lead to having IT-pure constructs that stem from a technology imperative view (Markus and Robey, 1988; Orlikowski and Iacono, 2001), yet it is possible to distinguish the material and social without implying determinism (Leonardi and Barley (2008), for example, conceiving affordances to have causal potential but not being deterministic (Markus and Silver, 2008: 622).	Source of change: Ray et al. (2005) hypothesize that the flexibility of IT infrastructure influences customer service performance; Mata et al. (1995) explain how the heterogeneous distribution of managerial IT skills across firms influences sustained competitive advantage; Shaping strategy (McFarlan, 1984) such as IT is a digital option generator (Sambamurthy et al., 2003).
Recontextualizing causal links	Using specification and distinction to consider how the IT artifact (or its associated concepts) transfer change in the independent variable to the dependent variable. In simple terms, if a variance proposition stipulates that construct A influences construct B, construct C might be used as the causal link (see Mahoney, 2001). The borrowed causal link(s) can be recontextualized using the specified IT artifact/IS phenomena. Causal links could be explicit about the role of the specified IT artifact, or the perceptions, affordances, actions/abilities surrounding it.	In explaining the path between possessing certain resources and superior firm performance through resource scarcity, Bharadwaj (2000) refers to the IT infrastructure resources “that enable firms to (1) identify and develop key applications rapidly, (2) share information across products, services, and locations, (3) implement common transaction processing and supply chain management across the business, and (4) exploit opportunities for synergy across business units” (p. 173); Peppard and Ward (2004) discuss how IS competencies underlying IS capability can lead to firm performance: “The underlying IS competencies will determine the extent to which IT opportunities are incorporated in business strategy, the effectiveness of business operations through systems and technology support, how well the IT infrastructure is designed and resourced, the level of performance achieved by IT operations and the quality of its services, and the ability of an organization to deliver specific, measurable business benefits from IS/IT investment and deployment” (p. 187); Mata et al. (1995) make an internal distinction between the technical and managerial IT skills and argue that, among various IT attributes “only IT managerial skills are likely to be a source of sustained competitive advantage” (p. 500).
Recontextualizing conceptual assumptions	Using specification and distinction to revisit (challenge or refute) the assumptions in borrowed theories. Particularly, one can achieve distinction by challenging the borrowed relationship using the specification of the IT artifact.	Mata et al. (1995) use distinction to suggest that due to the susceptibility of IT artifacts to reverse engineering and difficulties in patenting them, the assumed relationship of resourceinimitability by patenting competitive advantage that works for some other resources and technologies does not work for IT applications as they are difficult to patent, and patents do not protect enough against imitation.
Recontextualizing theoretical boundaries	Using specification and distinction to redefine the boundary assumptions (Bacharach, 1989) about the values, time, and space to which the borrowed relationship applies, hence redefining the generalizability of the theory.	Kettinger et al. (1994) implicitly apply distinction to argue that RBV applies to strategic IS, not all technologies, arguing that “a strategic IS should reduce cost, add value, and create significant switching costs that result in financial benefit before the system is copied by competitors” (p. 39).

ISS: information systems strategy; IS: information systems; RBV: resource-based view.

In conclusion

In this article, we build on the literature that theorizes the IT artifact and develop a 2 × 2 framework for IT-rich recontextualized modification of borrowed theories in IS. The framework considers implementing specification and distinction to make the borrowed constructs and relationships IT-rich. It provides some pathways of embedding more IT in IS research, with particular reference to examples from the IS strategy literature.

We make two contributions. First, through formalizing specification and distinction, we provide a deeper appreciation of embedding the IT artifact in borrowed theories in IS. This has important implications for how IS scholars adapt theories from other disciplines. It renders visible a wide range of options available to IS researchers. The addition of elements within specification and distinction provides a language to describe and how borrowed theory is constructed. Indeed, enabling researchers to “own” borrowed theory through specification or distinction unlocks—and stratifies—different ways to develop theory.

The framework enables us to appreciate how some recontextualized theories are “IT-light,” while others are “IT-rich.” IT-rich studies are specific about unique aspects of IT/IS phenomena and demonstrate a deep engagement with the IT artifact (Orlikowski and Iacono, 2001). For example, a study on IT investment that focuses only on a general dollar amount (the “proxy-capital” view in Orlikowski and Iacono, 2001) is IT-light. Yet it can be more IT-rich if, rather than just reporting an aggregated value, it uses specification and examines the value invested in various system types such as security and cloud systems, corresponding to the top concerns of IT leaders (Kappelman et al., 2019).

Furthermore, we suggest that, whether a theory is instantiated, modified, or extended (Grover and Lyytinen, 2015) or provides a light or rich understanding of the IT artifact, are separate (although interrelated) matters. On the one hand, even an extension of a borrowed theory might not be IT-rich as it might extend with constructs remote from the IT artifact and its surrounding phenomena. The extension is an IT-rich contribution if it enriches our understanding of IT/IS phenomena; otherwise, the contribution is likely to have significant overlaps with other disciplines. On the other hand, even instantiation can be IT-rich. The true difference between being IT-rich or IT-light is in implementation (i.e. the extent to which construct conceptualizations and theoretical assumptions are enriched with IT-related phenomena).

It is noteworthy that, as specification involves a tradeoff between too narrow and too broad IT artifact descriptions, we acknowledge the specificity dilemma. Like any other system, which is composed of subsystems that can be decomposed into lower level subsystems, IT artifacts (and their attributes) can be decomposed into more detailed elements—an issue referred to as the repeating decomposition problem (DeSanctis and Poole, 1994; Markus and Silver, 2008). The specificity dilemma is also visible in the argument that while IT is usually unspecified in IS studies (Orlikowski and Iacono, 2001), when it is specified, it often provides “overly narrow views of technology” (p. 122). The specificity dilemma escalates into challenges in specifying the nomological network surrounding the IT artifact. In the ISS context, for example, Wade and Hulland (2004) explain the challenges in defining IT resources: “Broadly defined resources have the advantage of being readily generalized beyond a specific research situation but can lose their explanatory value when applied to overly narrow or specific situations” (p. 128). Yet, “Narrow definitions help to fine-tune our understanding of specific resources and their effect on competitive position and performance in given settings” (Wade and Hulland, 2004: 129). While acknowledging this dilemma, our view is that it should not stop all research from attempting to be specific about the IT artifact being studied. Specification will enable researchers to demonstrate which aspects are salient, and without it, “we have no language for making clear distinctions between types of constraints and affordances” (Leonardi and Barley, 2008: 166).

Our second contribution is to ISS research and this is achieved by exploring several specific examples of how the IT artifact has been captured from a non-nominal view. In doing so, while Orlikowski and Iacono (2001) (similarly Akhlaghpour et al., 2013; Grover and Lyytinen, 2015) were looking for how researchers have viewed the IT artifact, we have looked for “spelled-out” specifications of the IT artifact that clearly demonstrate how researchers have captured its material nature when linking it to social phenomena. Recognizing IT-light versus IT-rich borrowing enables us to note that, even when the same theories are borrowed, the level of IT-rich recontextualization can vary significantly. For example, we note that the same RBV theory has been borrowed in several different ways. In terms of constructs, asset capabilities and competencies have been specified on a range of nominal IT to attributes to specific systems, and distinction has been used for assets by mentioning six characteristics. Future studies could explore the variance in IT recontextualization by various studies that borrow the same theories.

Our study has some limitations that can be addressed by future research. First, in defining specificity, other ways of capturing the IT artifact, for example, based on context (e.g. manufacturing, healthcare), organizational level of use (e.g. interorganizational networks), or intended/realized user groups can be explored. Also, richer specifications can be provided by combining multiple approaches (e.g. by referring to specific features/functionalities of a particular system type). Second, while we attempted to provide examples of each approach from the IS strategy context, further systematic literature review is required to ensure certain approaches (such as distinction) are indeed less frequently used. Furthermore, we did not identify many applications of external distinction. This provides a partial explanation to the question of why IS struggles to position itself as a distinct field. As distinction plays a key role in highlighting how the contributions of a study are IT-related, wider and more explicit applications of that are warranted. Through owning borrowed theories, the IS field can reinforce its identity by addressing the (false) dichotomy of pure borrowing versus indigenous theorizing.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Leslie Willcocks, Lynne Markus, and Nik Hassan for their constructive comments on earlier versions of this paper.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Mohammad Moeini

Notes

Author biographies

Mohammad Moeini is an Assistant Professor in Information Systems at Warwick Business School, UK. He obtained his PhD from HEC Montreal, Canada, and his research is published in leading IS outlets including MIS Quarterly, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, and Journal of Strategic Information Systems.

Boyka Simeonova is a Lecturer in Information Management at Loughborough University, UK, and is the Director of the Knowledge and the Digital Economy Network and the Deputy Director of the Centre for Information Management. Boyka has published in leading Information Systems journals including Information Systems Journal and is a co-editor of the book, Strategic Information Management: Theory and Practice, Routledge.

Robert D Galliers is an Honorary Visiting Professor at Loughborough University; University Distinguished Professor Emeritus and former Provost, Bentley University, and Professor Emeritus and former Dean, Warwick Business. He received the AIS LEO Award for lifetime achievement in IS in 2012 and was the founding editor-in-chief of The Journal of Strategic Information Systems until December 2018. He has over 100 journal articles to his name and his work has been cited approximately 13,500 times according to Google Scholar.

Alex Wilson is Senior Lecturer in Strategy at the School of Business and Economics, Loughborough University, UK. He gained his PhD from the University of Warwick, UK. His research spans strategy, strategizing, and the use of information systems.

References

Akhlaghpour

Lapointe

, et al. (2013) The ongoing quest for the IT artifact: Looking back, moving forward. Journal of Information Technology 28: 150–166.

Alvesson

Sandberg

(2011) Generating research questions through problematization. The Academy of Management Review 36: 247–271.

Arvidsson

Holmström

Lyytinen

(2014) Information systems use as strategy practice: A multi-dimensional view of strategic information system implementation and use. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 23: 45–61.

Bacharach

(1989) Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. The Academy of Management Review 14: 496–515.

Baptista

Wilson

Galliers

, et al. (2017) Social media and the emergence of reflexiveness as a new capability for open strategy. Long Range Planning 50: 322–336.

Barki

(2008) Thar’s gold in them thar constructs. ACM SIGMIS Database 39: 9–20.

Barki

Rivard

Talbot

(1993) Toward an assessment of software development risk. Journal of Management Information Systems 10: 203–225.

Barley

Bechky

Milliken

(2017) The changing nature of work: Careers, identities, and work lives in the 21st century. Academy of Management Discoveries 3: 111–115.

Beck

Müller-Bloch

King

(2018) Governance in the blockchain economy: A framework and research agenda. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 19: 1020–1034.

10.

Benbasat

Zmud

(2003) The identity crisis within the IS discipline: Defining and communicating the discipline’s core properties. MIS Quarterly 27: 183–194.

11.

Benders

Batenburg

Van der Blonk

(2006) Sticking to standards; technical and other isomorphic pressures in deploying ERP-systems. Information & Management 43: 194–203.

12.

Bharadwaj

(2000) A resource-based perspective on information technology capability and firm performance: An empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly 24: 169–196.

13.

Bharadwaj

El Sawy

Pavlou

, et al. (2013) Digital business strategy: Toward a next generation of insights. MIS Quarterly 37: 471–482.

14.

Butler

Gray

(2006) Reliability, mindfulness, and information systems. MIS Quarterly 30: 211–224.

15.

Carr

(2003) IT doesn’t matter. Harvard Business Review 81: 41–49.

16.

Ceccagnoli

Forman

Huang

, et al. (2012) Cocreation of value in a platform ecosystem: The case of enterprise software. MIS Quarterly 36: 263–290.

17.

Chatterjee

Moody

Lowry

, et al. (2015) Strategic relevance of organizational virtues enabled by information technology in organizational innovation. Journal of Management Information Systems 32: 158–196.

18.

Chen

Chiang

Storey

(2012) Business intelligence and analytics: From big data to big impact. MIS Quarterly 36: 1165–1188.

19.

Cragg

Caldeira

Ward

(2011) Organizational information systems competences in small and medium-sized enterprises. Information & Management 48: 353–363.

20.

Cram

Proudfoot

D’Arcy

(2017) Organizational information security policies: A review and research framework. European Journal of Information Systems 26: 605–641.

21.

Davis

(1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13: 319–340.

22.

Davison

CXJ

(2017) Digital work in a digitally challenged organization. Information & Management 54: 129–137.

23.

DeSanctis

Poole

(1994) Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science 5: 121–147.

24.

DeSanctis

Snyder

Poole

(1994) Meaning of the interface: A functional and holistic evaluation of a meeting software system. Decision Support Systems 11: 319–335.

25.

Dulipovici

Robey

(2013) Strategic alignment and misalignment of knowledge management systems: A social representation perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems 29: 103–126.

26.

Earl

(1993) Experiences in strategic information systems planning. MIS Quarterly 17: 1–24.

27.

Ein-Dor

Segev

(1993) A classification of information systems: Analysis and interpretation. Information Systems Research 4: 166–204.

28.

Galliers

(2003) Change as crisis or growth? Toward a transdisciplinary view of information systems as a field of study: A response to Benbasat and Zmud’s call for returning to the IT artifact. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 4(6): 337–351.

29.

Galliers

(2006) ‘Don’t worry, be happy . . .’ A post-modernist perspective on the information systems domain. In: King

Lyytinen

(eds) Information Systems: The State of the Field (John Wiley Series in Information Systems). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 324–331.

30.

Galliers

(2011) Further developments in information systems strategizing: Unpacking the concept. In: Galliers

Currie

(eds) The Oxford Handbook of Management Information Systems: Critical Perspectives and New Directions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 329–345.

31.

Galliers

Newell

Shanks

, et al. (2017) Datification and its human, organizational and societal effects: The strategic opportunities and challenges of algorithmic decision-making. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 26: 185–190.

32.

Griffith

(1999) Technology features as triggers for sensemaking. The Academy of Management Review 24: 472–488.

33.

Grover

Lyytinen

(2015) New state of play in information systems research: The push to the edges. MIS Quarterly 39: 271–296.

34.

Günther

Mehrizi

MHR

Huysman

, et al. (2017) Debating big data: A literature review on realizing value from big data. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 26: 191–209.

35.

Hassan

(2006) The relationship of IT to IS: An inquiry into the technoscientific nature of the IS field. In: Proceedings of the association for information systems – 12th Americas conference on information systems, AMCIS 2006, Acapulco, Mexico, 4–6 August, pp. 3603–3609. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

36.

Hassan

(2011) Is information systems a discipline? Foucauldian and Toulminian insights. European Journal of Information Systems 20: 456–476.

37.

Hassan

Lowry

(2015) Seeking middle-range theories in information systems research. In: International conference on information systems, Fort Worth, TX, 13–18 December.

38.

Hassan

Will

(2006) Synthesizing diversity and pluralism in information systems: Forging a unique disciplinary subject matter for the information systems field. Communications of the AIS 17: 152–180.

39.

Hong

Chan

Thong

, et al. (2014) A framework and guidelines for context-specific theorizing in information systems research. Information Systems Research 25: 111–136.

40.

Hsu

(2009) Frame misalignment: Interpreting the implementation of information systems security certification in an organization. European Journal of Information Systems 18: 140–150.

41.

Jaccard

Jacoby

(2009) Theory Construction and Model-Building Skills: A Practical Guide for Social Scientists. New York: Guilford Press.

42.

Jasperson

Carter

Zmud

(2005) A comprehensive conceptualization of post-adoptive behaviors associated with information technology enabled work systems. MIS Quarterly 29: 525–557.

43.

Johnston

Vitale

(1988) Creating competitive advantage with interorganizational information systems. MIS Quarterly 12: 153–165.

44.

Joshi

Chi

Datta

, et al. (2010) Changing the competitive landscape: Continuous innovation through IT-enabled knowledge capabilities. Information Systems Research 21: 472–495.

45.

Kappelman

Torres

McLean

, et al. (2019) The 2018 SIM IT issues and trends study. MIS Quarterly Executive 18: 81–84.

46.

Karimi

Gupta

Somers

(1996) Impact of competitive strategy and information technology maturity on firms’ strategic response to globalization. Journal of Management Information Systems 12: 55–88.

47.

Karpovsky

Galliers

(2015) Aligning in practice: From current cases to a new agenda. Journal of Information Technology 30: 136–160.

48.

Kettinger

Grover

Guha

, et al. (1994) Strategic information systems revisited: A study in sustainability and performance. MIS Quarterly 18: 31–58.

49.

King

Lyytinen

(2006) Information Systems: The State of the Field. Chichester; Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

50.

Lacity

Khan

Willcocks

(2009) A review of the IT outsourcing literature: Insights for practice. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 18: 130–146.

51.

Law

Wong

C-S

Mobley

(1998) Toward a taxonomy of multidimensional constructs. The Academy of Management Review 23: 741–755.

52.

Lederer

Hannu

(1996) Toward a theory of strategic information systems planning. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 5(3): 237–253.

53.

Leonardi

Barley

(2008) Materiality and change: Challenges to building better theory about technology and organizing. Information and Organization 18: 159–176.

54.

Leong

Pan

Leidner

, et al. (2019) Platform leadership: Managing boundaries for the network growth of digital platforms. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 20: 1531–1565.

55.

Levallet

Chan

(2018) Role of digital capabilities in unleashing the power of managerial improvisation. MIS Quarterly Executive 17: 1–21.

56.

Lowry

Dinev

Willison

(2017) Why security and privacy research lies at the centre of the information systems (IS) artefact: Proposing a bold research agenda. European Journal of Information Systems 26: 546–563.

57.

Luftman

Derksen

Dwivedi

, et al. (2015) Influential IT management trends: An international study. Journal of Information Technology 30: 293–305.

58.

McFarlan

(1984) Information technology changes the way you compete. Harvard Business Review 62: 98–103.

59.

Mahoney

(2001) Beyond correlational analysis: Recent innovations in theory and method. Sociological Forum 16: 575–593.

60.

Marabelli

Galliers

(2017) A reflection on information systems strategizing: The role of power and everyday practices. Information Systems Journal 27: 347–366.

61.

March

Hevner

(2007) Integrated decision support systems: A data warehousing perspective. Decision Support Systems 43: 1031–1043.

62.

March

Scudder

(2019) Predictive maintenance: Strategic use of IT in manufacturing organizations. Information Systems Frontiers 21: 327–341.

63.

Markus

Silver

(2008) A foundation for the study of IT effects: A new look at Desanctis and Poole’s concepts of structural features and spirit. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 9: 609–632.

64.

Markus

Robey

(1988) Information technology and organizational change: Causal structure in theory and research. Management Science 34: 583–598.

65.

Markus

Rowe

(2018) Is IT changing the world? Conceptions of causality for information systems theorizing. MIS Quarterly 42: 1255–1280.

66.

Markus

Saunders

(2007) Looking for a few good concepts. . . and theories. . . for the information systems field, editor’s comments. MIS Quarterly 31: iii–vi.

67.

Mata

Fuerst

Barney

(1995) Information technology and sustained competitive advantage: A resource-based analysis. MIS Quarterly 19(4): 487–505.

68.

Meyer

Curley

(1991) An applied framework for classifying the complexity of knowledge-based systems. MIS Quarterly 15: 455–472.

69.

Mukhopadhyay

Kekre

Kalathur

(1995) Business value of information technology: A study of electronic data interchange. MIS Quarterly 19: 137–156.

70.

Mykytyn

Jr Bordoloi

, et al. (2002) The role of software patents in sustaining IT-enabled competitive advantage: A call for research. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 11: 59–82.

71.

Neo Bui

(2017) Evaluating enterprise architecture frameworks using essential elements. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 41: 6.

72.

Nevo

Wade

(2010) The formation and value of IT-enabled resources: Antecedents and consequences of synergistic relationships. MIS Quarterly 34: 163–183.

73.

Newell

Marabelli

(2015) Strategic opportunities (and challenges) of algorithmic decision-making: A call for action on the long-term societal effects of “datification.” The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 24: 3–14.

74.

Pinsonneault

(2007) On the assessment of the strategic value of information technologies: Conceptual and analytical approaches. MIS Quarterly 31: 239–265.

75.

O’Leary

(2013) Exploiting big data from mobile device sensor-based apps: Challenges and benefits. MIS Quarterly Executive 12: 179–187.

76.

Orlikowski

(1992) The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science 3: 398–427.

77.

Orlikowski

Iacono

(2001) Research commentary: Desperately seeking the “IT” in IT research—a call to theorizing the IT artifact. Information Systems Research 12: 121–134.

78.

Oswick

Fleming

Hanlon

(2011) From borrowing to blending: Rethinking the processes of organizational theory building. The Academy of Management Review 36: 318–337.

79.

Pagani

(2013) Digital business strategy and value creation: Framing the dynamic cycle of control points. MIS Quarterly 37: 617–632.

80.

Pavlou

El Sawy

(2006) From IT leveraging competence to competitive advantage in turbulent environments: The case of new product development. Information Systems Research 17: 198–227.

81.

Pavlou

El Sawy

(2010) The “third hand”: IT-enabled competitive advantage in turbulence through improvisational capabilities. Information Systems Research 21: 443–471.

82.

Peppard

Ward

(2004) Beyond strategic information systems: Towards an IS capability. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 13: 167–194.

83.

Piccoli

Ives

(2005) IT-dependent strategic initiatives and sustained competitive advantage: A review and synthesis of the literature. MIS Quarterly 29: 747–776.

84.

Ray

Muhanna

Barney

(2005) Information technology and the performance of the customer service process: A resource-based analysis. MIS Quarterly 29: 625–652.

85.

Reich

Benbasat

(2000) Factors that influence the social dimension of alignment between business and information technology objectives. MIS Quarterly 24: 81–113.

86.

Rivard

(2014) Editor’s comments: The ions of theory construction. MIS Quarterly 38: iii–xiii.

87.

Rode

(2016) To share or not to share: The effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivations on knowledge-sharing in enterprise social media platforms. Journal of Information Technology 31: 152–165.

88.

Ross

Beath

Mocker

(2019) Creating digital offerings customers will buy. MIT Sloan Management Review 61: 64–69.

89.

Sabherwal

Chan

(2001) Alignment between business and IS strategies: A study of prospectors, analyzers, and defenders. Information Systems Research 12: 11–33.

90.

Sambamurthy

Bharadwaj

Grover

(2003) Shaping agility through digital options: Reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary firms. MIS Quarterly 27: 237–263.

91.

Saraf

Langdon

Gosain

(2007) IS application capabilities and relational value in interfirm partnerships. Information Systems Research 18: 320–339.

92.

Scott

Vessey

(2002) Managing risks in enterprise systems implementations. Communications of the ACM 45: 74–81.

93.

Setia

Venkatesh

Joglekar

(2013) Leveraging digital technologies: How information quality leads to localized capabilities and customer service performance. MIS Quarterly 37: 565–590.

94.

Shollo

Galliers

(2016) Towards an understanding of the role of business intelligence systems in organisational knowing. Information Systems Journal 26: 339–367.

95.

Stein

M-K

Wagner

Tierney

, et al. (2019) Datification and the pursuit of meaningfulness in work. Journal of Management Studies 56: 685–717.

96.

Straub

(2012) Editor’s comments: Does MIS have native theories? MIS Quarterly 36: iii–xii.

97.

Suddaby

(2010) Editor’s comments: Construct clarity in theories of management and organization. The Academy of Management Review 35: 346–357.

98.

Swanson

Ramiller

(2004) Innovating mindfully with information technology. MIS Quarterly 28: 553–583.

99.

Tallon

Pinsonneault

(2011) Competing perspectives on the link between strategic information technology alignment and organizational agility: Insights from a mediation model. MIS Quarterly 35: 463–486.

100.

Tan

Lim

ETK

Pan

, et al. (2004) Enterprise system as an orchestrator of dynamic capability development: A case study of the IRAS and TechCo. In: Kaplan

Truex

Wastell

, et al. (eds) Information Systems Research (IFIP International Federation for Information Processing), vol. 143. Boston, MA: Springer, pp. 515–534.

101.

Truex

Holmström

Keil

(2006) Theorizing in information systems research: A reflexive analysis of the adaptation of theory in information systems research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 7: 797–821.

102.

Vance

Lowry

Eggett

(2013) Using accountability to reduce access policy violations in information systems. Journal of Management Information Systems 29: 263–290.

103.

Venkatesh

Bala

Venkatraman

, et al. (2007) Enterprise architecture maturity: The story of the veterans health administration. MIS Quarterly Executive 6: 79–90.

104.

Vial

(2019) Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 28: 118–144.

105.

Volkoff

Strong

(2013) Critical realism and affordances: Theorizing IT-associated organizational change processes. MIS Quarterly 37: 819–834.

106.

Von Krogh

(2012) How does social software change knowledge management? Toward a strategic research agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 21: 154–164.

107.

Wacker

(2004) A theory of formal conceptual definitions: Developing theory-building measurement instruments. Journal of Operations Management 22: 629–650.

108.

Wade

Hulland

(2004) The resource-based view and information systems research: Review, extension, and suggestions for future research. MIS Quarterly 28: 107–142.

109.

Weber

(2003) Still desperately seeking the IT artifact. MIS Quarterly 27: 183–183.

110.

Whetten

(1989) What constitutes a theoretical contribution? The Academy of Management Review 14: 490–495.

111.

Whetten

(2002) Modelling-as-theorizing: A systematic methodology for theory development. In: Partington

(ed.) Essential Skills for Management Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publishing, pp. 45–71.

112.

Whinston

Geng

(2004) Operationalizing the essential role of the information technology artifact in information systems research: Gray area, pitfalls, and the importance of strategic ambiguity. MIS Quarterly 28: 149–159.

113.

Willcocks

Lacity

Kern

(1999) Risk mitigation in IT outsourcing strategy revisited: Longitudinal case research at LISA. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 8: 285–314.

114.

SP-J

Straub

Liang

T-P

(2015) How information technology governance mechanisms and strategic alignment influence organizational performance: Insights from a matched survey of business and IT managers. MIS Quarterly 39: 497–518.

115.

Zammuto

Griffith

Majchrzak

, et al. (2007) Information technology and the changing fabric of organization. Organization Science 18: 749–762.

116.

Zhu

Kraemer

Gurbaxani

, et al. (2006) Migration to open-standard interorganizational systems: Network effects, switching costs, and path dependency. MIS Quarterly 30: 515–539.

Theory borrowing in IT-rich contexts: Lessons from IS strategy research

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

IT-rich recontextualization of borrowed theories—a framework

Specification

Distinction

Construct recontextualization using specification and distinction

Relationship recontextualization using specification and distinction

In conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Notes

Author biographies

References