On Crafting Effective Theoretical Contributions for Empirical Papers in Economics of Information Systems: Some Editorial Reflections

Abstract

The terms theory and theoretical contributions evoke mixed reactions in the information systems discipline, especially among empirical researchers in the economics of information systems (Econ-IS) area. Although some see such contributions as the raison d’etre for academic scholars engaged in research, others feel that the discipline has developed a fetish for theory, with reviewers and editors often demanding an unreasonable level of theoretical contributions for empirical manuscripts to succeed in the review process. Moreover, there exists a great deal of diversity in the conception of what constitutes a reasonable theoretical contribution, especially within empirical work, across editors and reviewers, leading to frustration with the review process and disappointment with editorial decisions. Given the different types of theoretical contributions that may be suitable for a given manuscript and recognizing the changing nature of empirical work within Econ-IS, we attempt to shed some light on theoretical contributions within empirical Econ-IS research, paying attention to their nature, types, and impact. Specifically, we start by reflecting on the typical theory-related comments we have seen in review packets that we generalize to a set of critiques often related to empirical papers. Subsequently, we provide a working definition of a theoretical contribution and the components that make up such a contribution. We then propose a taxonomy of theoretical contributions typically observed in Information Systems Research (ISR). Based on this taxonomy of contributions, the typical critiques observed in empirical Econ-IS papers, and a set of published papers, we provide some broad guidelines for how authors may craft an effective theoretical contribution for submission to ISR. We also discuss a pathway for manuscripts that do not (seek to) offer significant theoretical contributions. Such manuscripts are welcome, but we believe that a very high bar of practical impact must be met for them to succeed in the review process. Based on the guidelines and suggestions made here, our hope is that authors and evaluators will participate in the review process with a shared understanding of the elusive notion of theoretical contributions.