Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/246649 
Year of Publication: 
2020
Citation: 
[Journal:] Future Business Journal [ISSN:] 2314-7210 [Volume:] 6 [Issue:] 1 [Publisher:] Springer [Place:] Heidelberg [Year:] 2020 [Pages:] 1-3
Publisher: 
Springer, Heidelberg
Abstract: 
This commentary is on Shirley Gregor's (2006) article titled "The Nature of Theory in Information Systems", published in MIS Quarterly. In terms of theories, five types have been prominent in Gregor's classification: (a) Theory of Analyzing (b) Theory of Explaining (c) Theory of Prediction (d) Theory of Explaining and Predicting (e) Theory of Design and Action. The author argued that this can help researchers to choose a differing epistemological approach to develop a theory that is under development. Furthermore, a structural breakdown of the theory has been projected that gives a better and clear understanding of the essential parts of the theory to researchers. However, some important questions emerge after reading the most cited article about the nature of theory in IS. The major ones are: (a) What is the difference between theory in general and theory in IS?, (b) Are the structural parts of the theory described by Gregor exhaustive and correctly presented?, (c) Different classifications of theories presented by Gregor are theory or theorizing in nature, and finally, (d) Gregor argued that management scientists did not provide anything regarding design and action theory, is that true?
Subjects: 
Gregor
Information systems
Management sciences
Theory
Persistent Identifier of the first edition: 
Creative Commons License: 
cc-by Logo
Document Type: 
Article

Files in This Item:
File
Size





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.