This paper suggests that there is too much emphasis on the requirement for theory use and theory building in qualitative research published in our leading journals. We discuss six concerns that we have that relate to this high status of theory in such papers. We argue for what we refer to as ‘theory light’ papers where theory plays no significant part in the paper and the contribution lies elsewhere, for example, new arguments, facts, patterns or relationships. Some examples of theory light papers (and research) are provided from other disciplines and one exemplar information systems paper is studied in depth. We see these papers as equally worthy as those which demonstrate the applicability and predictive qualities of theory use as well as the potential of theory building. We propose a list of 10 questions that authors and reviewers might ask themselves when writing or reviewing such theory light papers. The more demanding role of the reader is also discussed along with the requirement for editorial teams to adapt. We suggest that the requirement for a contribution to theory would be replaced with the requirement that any journal paper has a high potential for stimulating research that will impact on information systems theory and/or practice.

No abstract

This paper discusses how research with practitioners can help reconcile the top-down requirements of headquarters with the bottom-up local needs in the context of global information systems. Based on a 12-month canonical action research project that took place at the Chinese branches of a French multinational corporation, our research revealed and addressed workarounds that the Chinese users of a company-wide global enterprise resource planning system had put in place that were not expected nor desired by company headquarters. From the local users' point of view, they were necessary to deal with Chinese legislation and cultural practices, but from the French headquarters' point of view, they meant that many of the potential gains of global standards were lost. Activity theory was used as a focal theory to analyse each of these workarounds and business process management as an instrumental theory to design solutions to the workarounds. We describe in detail how we used canonical action research to successfully deal with exemplars of each of the three types of workaround identified (data adjustments, process adjustments and parallel-system adjustments). Unusually, the research relates to post-implementation change rather than to that looking at change occurring before and during implementation. We argue that canonical action research and the particular combination of activity theory and business process management are appropriate for dealing with workarounds and this has not been demonstrated previously. Further, our researchdeemed successful by managers, users and researchers aliketook place in China where previous literature suggests only limited success with such global systems.

No abstract

No abstract