Pluralist Theory Building: A Methodology for Generalizing from Data to Theory*

PurposeThis to show how critical success factors (CSFs) from practitioner-oriented research can be tested and used to generate new theory.Design/methodology/approachThis paper uses an extended example regarding the integration of IT departments following organizational mergers and acquisitions to illustrate in proof of concept that such practitioner-oriented research can generate new substantive theory and be used to begin a cycle of representation-testing leading to enhancing domain knowledge. The method used consists of the identification of an exemplary practitioner-oriented research article, restatement of CSFs into testable propositions, gathering data through interviews with phenomenon participants, analyzing and interpreting data relative to these CSFs, then presenting the results pertaining to these CSFs and observations from examining them holistically.FindingsNo CSFs were affirmed in all cases, neither were they rejected in all cases. The pattern of answers reveals a significant difference between factors representing general management best practices and technical practices. The higher frequency among management factors shows a relative universality to these items, whereas the technical issues are noted less frequently as they each apply to smaller subsets of all post mergers and acquisitions integrations but remain critical when they do apply. This set of responses suggests that the frequency of responses does not indicate the importance of any given factor across settings.Research limitations/implicationsThis study suggests (1) CSFs, while generally helpful, can also be misleading when applied such that, where of potential importance, they can be brought into a theorizing mode for refinement and extraction of additional knowledge; (2) that CSFs can be sorted into those tending toward general management principles that apply most frequently in contrast to those of critical importance but applicable across fewer situations; and (3) that as a proof of concept the case to theory transformation method can work to introduce heuristic knowledge into a process-initiating theorizing, raising prospects for subsequent continued improvement.Practical implicationsAssuming robust reporting of CSFs in well-conducted cases, this study knows that at least in one setting these factors were important in achieving particular results. However, this study does not know, without subsequent testing and theorizing, whether the factor applies across circumstances and whether it requires particular handling (e.g. timing may be critical but relies on varied conditions to indicate when actions need be taken). By theorizing based upon CSFs for important IS phenomena, the authors create a bridge between knowledge as used in practice and the scientific tools for increasing its value over time.Originality/valueAlthough the authors know of case and multiple case studies surfacing best practices in post mergers and acquisitions integrations, they know of no broad studies across numerous organizations; they also know of no studies demonstrating the relationship of management and technical CSFs in an IS phenomenon. Further, although there are other techniques advocated for theory initiation and building, the authors know of none that transforms heuristic or anecdotal knowledge for subsequent theorizing and continual improvement at a more detailed level than mid-range theory.

show abstract

“…Müller et al. (2020) suggest developing a new theory essentially by integrating multiple conflicting theories.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

The “case to theory transformation method” for initiating is theory: the process and an illustration using is integration following mergers and acquisitions

Niederman

Baker

2022

ITP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Reliability in design science research

Storey,

Baskerville,

Kaul

2024

Information Systems Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reliability, which is concerned with whether something performs as it should, is well‐accepted as an important part of any scientific research, with recognised methods for assessing it in the natural sciences. Reliability is a prerequisite for validity, which assesses knowledge production. Design science research is unique in that it produces an artefact and makes contributions to a design knowledge base and is tasked with the duality of design and science. Therefore, reliability should be reconsidered to address the assumptions underlying this type of information systems research.This paper proposes a Design Science Reliability Framework. The framework identifies the part of design science research that should be evaluated (artefact, methods, measures and design knowledge). It also considers when reliability should be assessed as a project progresses by differentiating synchronic versus diachronic evaluation. The framework is used to derive a set of techniques for establishing reliability that can be applied during the evaluation process to both a project's knowledge production and its artefacts. Application of the framework should assist design science researchers when considering how to assess their results.

show abstract

Pluralist Theory Building: A Methodology for Generalizing from Data to Theory*

Cited by 2 publications

References 70 publications

The “case to theory transformation method” for initiating is theory: the process and an illustration using is integration following mergers and acquisitions

The “case to theory transformation method” for initiating is theory: the process and an illustration using is integration following mergers and acquisitions

Reliability in design science research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About