Grover & Lyytinen (2015) urged to reassess the Information System (IS) field’s exclusive dependence on reference theories and to engage more in blue-ocean theorizing. From its inception, such need has been latent in the field, because it deals with novel, fast changing, complex, and systemic phenomena that is hard to account with received theory. We note in this essay that the need for innovative theorizing is heightened given the unprecedented, pervasive digitalization of contemporary society, accelerated by ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. In this essay, we scrutinize further the idea of blue-ocean theorizing and review the characteristics, impediments, and merits of developing innovative theory. We define endeavors toward such theory as collectively endorsed cognitive processes which increase variance and novelty of theoretical accounts of IS phenomena. These push to deviate from the field’s established theoretical (canonical) core by relaxing six assumptions that guide dominant, legitimate forms of the field’s theorizing. We identify and review institutional barriers that curb the development of innovative theory. In conclusion, we offer guidelines for how the field and its stakeholders can productively engage in developing and evaluating innovative theory.
AvisonDMalaurentJ (2014) Is theory king? questioning the theory fetish in information systems, Journal of Information Technology29: 327–336. DOI: 10.1057/jit.2014.8.
2.
BaiyereAGroverVLyytinenK, et al. (2021) Digital ‘x’ – Charting a Path for Digital-Themed Research. unpublished working paper.
3.
BaskervilleRLMyersMD (2002) Information systems as a reference discipline. MIS Quarterly26(1): 1–14.
4.
BenbasatIWeberR (1996) Research commentary: rethinking “diversity” in information systems research. Information Systems Research7(4): 389–399.
5.
BenbasatIZmudR (2003) The identity crisis within the is discipline: defining and communicating the discipline's core properties. MIS Quarterly27(2): 183–194.
6.
BerenteNSeidelSSafadiH (2019) Research Commentary --Data-Driven Computationally Intensive Theory Development. Information systems research30(1): DOI: 10.1287/isre.2018.0774.
7.
BennerMTushmanM (2015) Reflections on the 2013 decade award: “Exploitation, and process management: The productivity dilemma revised” ten years later. Academy of Management Review201540(4): 1–18. DOI: 10.5465/amr.2015.0042.
8.
BusseCKachAPWagnerSM (2017) Boundary conditions. Organizational Research Methods20(4): 574–609.
9.
Burton-JonesAMcleanERMonodE (2014) Theoretical perspectives in is research: from variance and process to conceptual latitude and conceptual fit. European Journal of Information Systems24(6): 664–679.
10.
CarlilePChristensenC (2005) The Cycles of Theory Building in Management Research.
11.
Cecez-KecmanovicDGalliersRDGalliersRD., et al. (2014) The sociomaterialty of information systems: current status, future directions. MIS Quarterly38: 809–830.
12.
ClemonsEKReddiSPRowMC (1993) The impact of information technology on the organization of economic activity: the "Move to the Middle" hypothesis. Journal of Management Information Systems10(2): 9–35.
13.
CohenWMLevinthalDA (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly35(1): 128–152. www.jstor.org/stable/2393553.
14.
ColquittJAZapata-PhelanCP (2007) Trends in theory building and theory testing: a five-decade study of theacademy of management journal. Academy of Management Journal50: 1281–1303.
15.
ConnerKRPrahaladCK (1996) A resource-based theory of the firm: knowledge versus opportunism. Organization Science7: 477–501.
16.
DavisMS (1971) That’s Interesting!Philosophy of the Social Sciences1(2): 309–344. DOI: 10.1177/004839317100100211.
17.
DennisAR (2019) An unhealthy obsession with theory. Journal of the Association for Information Systems20(9): 1404–1409.
18.
DennisARFullerRMValacichJS (2008) Media, tasks, and communication processes: a theory of media synchronicity. MIS Quarterly32(3): 575–600.
19.
De VaujanayFFominVHeafligerS, et al. (2018) Rules, practices and information technology (it): a trifecta of organizational regulation. Information Systems Research29(3): 755–773.
20.
DubinR (1969) Theory Building. New York, NY: Free Press.
GevaTOestreicher-SingerGOestreicher-SingerG, et al.Using Forum and Search Data for Sales Prediction of High-Involvement Projects. MIS Quarterly. 2017;41(1):65–82.
25.
GregorS (2006) The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quarterly30(3): 611–642.
26.
GroverVLindbergALindbergA, et al. (2020) The perils and promises of big data research in information systems. Journal of the Association for Information Systems21(2): 268–293.
27.
GroverVLyytinenKSrinivasanA, et al. (2008) Contributing to rigorous and forward thinking explanatory theory. Journal of the Association for Information Systems9(2): 40–47.
28.
GroverVLyytinenKLyytinenK (2015) New state of play in information systems research: the push to the edges. MIS Quarterly39(2): 271–296.
29.
HabermasJ (2015) Knowledge and Human Interests. Germany: Wiley.
30.
HansethOLyytinenK (2010) “Design theory for adaptive complexity in information infrastructures”. Journal of Information Technology25(1): 1–19.
HelfatCE (2007) Stylized facts, empirical research and theory development in management. Strategic Organization5(2): 185–192.
33.
HirschheimR (2019) Against theory: with apologies to feyerabend. Journal of the Association for Information Systems20(9): 1338–1355.
34.
HuiKLKimSHKimSH, et al. (2017) Cybercrime deterrence and international legislation: evidence from distributed denial of service attacks. MIS Quarterly41(2): 497–523.
KingJLyytinenK (eds) (2006) “Information Systems- the state of the discipline”Chichester, U.K.: John-Wiley & Sons.
37.
KeenP (1980) MIS Research: Reference Disciplines and Cumulative Tradition. Philadelphia: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Information Systems9–18.
38.
KuhnT (1996) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
39.
LevittMarchBJ (1988) Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology (14): 319–323.
40.
LuoJLyytinenKRoseG (2011) Internet computing as a disruptive information technology innovation in software firms: the role of strong order effects. Information System Journal21(1): 91–122.
41.
LyytinenKKingJL (2004) Nothing at the center?: academic legitimacy in the information systems field. Journal of the Association for Information Systems5(6): 220–246.
42.
LyytinenKYooYBolandRJJr. (2016) Digital product innovation within four classes of innovation networks. Information Systems Journal26(1): 47–75.
43.
MalhotraAMajrczhakALyytinenK (2021) Technology Use for Large-Scale Collaboration in Organizations”. Organization Science(forthcoming).
44.
MarchJG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science2: 71–87.
45.
MarkusL (2014) “Maybe not the king, but an invaluable subordinate: A commentary on Avison and Malaurent’s advocacy of ‘Theory Light’IS research”. Journal of Information Technology29(4): 341–345.
46.
MarkusMLRoweF (2018). “Is IT Changing the World? Conceptualizations of Causality for Information Systems Theorizing,” MIS Quarterly42(4), pp.1255–1280.
47.
NambisanS (2017) Digital entrepreneurship: toward a digital technology perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory And Practice41(6): 1029–1055.
48.
NambisanSLyytinenKLyytinenK, et al. (2017) Digital innovation management: reinventing innovation management research in a digital world. MIS Quarterly41(1): 223–238.
49.
NickersonJKingJLyytinenK (2020) "Meta-human systems = humans + machines that learn. Journal of Information Technology36(4). (forthcoming)
50.
Ortiz de GuineaAWebsterJ (2017) Combining Variance and Process in Information Systems Research: Hybrid Approaches. Information and Organization27(3): 144–162.
51.
OswickCFlemingPHanlonG (2011) From borrowing to blending: rethinking the processes of organizational theory building. Academy of Management Review36(2): 318–337.
52.
PiccoliGRodriguezJGroverV (2020) Digital Strategic Initiatives and Digital Resources: Construct Definition and Future Research Directions. India: Proceedings of the Forty-First International Conference on Information Systems.
53.
PuranamPAlexyOReitzigM (2014) What’s “New” About New Forms of Organizing?Academy of Management Review39(2). DOI: 10.5465/amr.2011.0436.
54.
RaiA (2017) “Seeing the forest for the trees,” (Editorial). MIS Quarterlyvii41(4): 3.
55.
RivardS (2020) Theory building is neither an art nor a science. It is a craft. Journal of Information Technology36: 316–328. DOI:10.1177/0268396220911938.
56.
ScargleJ (2000) Publication bias: The “file-drawer” problem in scientific inference. Journal of Scientific Exploration14(1): 91–106.
57.
SchlegelmilchBB (2011) Commentary on “developing successful theories in marketing: insights from resource-advantage theory”. AMS Review1: 85–89. DOI: 10.1007/s13162-011-0012-3.
58.
StraubD (2012) “Does MIS Have Native Theories,” (Editorial). MIS Quarterly36(2):2-7.
TilsonDLyytinenKSørensenC (2010) “Digital Infrastructures: The Missing IS Research Agenda”. Information Systems Research21(4): 748–759.
61.
TruexDHolmströmJHolmströmJ, et al. (2006) Theorizing in information systems research: a reflexive analysis of the adaptation of theory in information systems Research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems7(12): 797–821.
62.
WeberR (2005) Like ships passing in the night: the debate on the core of the information systems discipline. In: KingJ.L.LyytinenK. (eds)In Information Systems: The State of the Field. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. 292–299.
63.
WeberR (2006) Reach and grasp in the debate over the is core: an empty hand?Journal of the Association for Information Systems7(11): 703–713.
64.
WeberR (2012) Evaluating and developing theories in the information systems discipline. Journal of the Association for Information Systems13(1): 1–30.
65.
WeickKE (1989) Theory construction as disciplined imagination. The Academy of Management Review14(4): 516–5310.
66.
WilliamsonOE (1994) Transaction Cost Economics and Organization Theory; .Industrial and Corporate Change: 107–156
67.
VenkateshVBrownSBrownSA, et al. (2013) Bridging the qualitative-quantitative divide: guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems. MIS Quarterly37(1): 21–54.
68.
VenkateshVBrownSASullivanYW (2016) “Guidelines for Conducting Mixed-methods Research: An Extension and Illustration,”. Journal of the Association for Information Systems17(7): 435–495. DOI: 10.17705/1jais.00433.
69.
YooYBolandRJLyytinenK, et al. (2012) Organizing for innovation in the digitized world. Organization Science23(5): 1398–1408.
70.
ZuboffS (2019) The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. New York, NY: Hachette Books.
