Theorizing is one of the defining aspects of academic research. Articulating insights generated from situated empirical observations into relatively stable abstractions (e.g., concepts, propositions, models) that elucidate, explain or predict events occurring at another time and place is the hallmark of knowledge generation (King 2021). Of late, much attention has been paid to theory development in the Information Systems (IS) field. For example, the MIS Quarterly (MISQ) special issue on 'Next-Generation Information Systems Theorizing' reflects a sense of urgency felt within the IS field to make sense of an increasingly unruly and complex reality given the increasing pace of technological innovation (Burton-Jones et al. 2021). In similar vein, two 2021 Journal of Information Technology (JIT) debates sections focused on 'IS Research and Science' (Siponen and Klaavuniemi 2020, and commentaries) and 'Theorising as Craft' (Rivard 2021, and commentaries) and a recent Journal of the Association for Information Systems (JAIS) special issue focused on 'Envisioning Digital Transformation – Advancing Theoretical Diversity'. New and native IS theories ensure that the IS field remains vibrant, diverse, academically and socially relevant and influential (Hassan 2011; Hassan and Willcocks 2021; Lowry et al. 2020; Markus and Saunders 2007). Researchers, however, often set the bar too high for theory delivered within individual research contributions by viewing theory as a comprehensive and detailed explanation of a phenomenon (Rivard 2021), an object that Weick (1995) refers to as a 'theory that sweeps away all others' (p. 386). This mindset may lead IS researchers to adopt theories from other fields as a foundation rather than creatively developing new and native theories from empirical observations (Grover and Lyytinen 2015).
To maintain the long-term growth and vitality of the IS field, a definition of theory that encourages cumulative and novel theorizing over time is needed (Hassan and Willcocks 2021; King 2021). One way of achieving this is by advancing a 'products of theorizing' perspective (Weick 1995). The theorizing perspective celebrates both the final outcomes and the 'interim struggles' that characterize theory generation (Weick 1995). It holds the promise that interim conceptual artifacts of theorizing such as metaphors, frameworks and concepts (Lowry et al. 2020) are valuable to the discipline as they can be leveraged and exploited further in subsequent research. In this way, a discipline might inch its way towards native theories over time. The goal of this special issue is to solicit and showcase exemplars from the 'products of theorizing' approach. We are looking for articles that go beyond verification dimensions of the natural-science approach to IS research (Schlagwein 2021) and push the envelope of theorizing towards native products of theorizing (Hassan et al. forthcoming): theory frame devices (i.e., questions, paradigms, laws and frameworks), theory generators (i.e., myths, analogies, metaphors and models) and theory components (i.e., concepts, constructs, statements and hypotheses).
The time is ripe to embark upon the development of native theories in the IS field, as IT has leaped into the consciousness of the public in unprecedented ways. Big data and AI applications are part of consumers’ and workers’ everyday lives, either enhancing them or increasing their visibility (Aral 2020; Benbya et al. 2021; Zuboff 2019); firms increasingly deploy robotic process automation and cognitive automation, aiming to achieve benefits for themselves, their employees and their customers (Lacity and Willcocks 2021); and governments rely on new forms of data collection about citizens (e.g., blood samples, vaccination data, fingerprints, iris-recognition systems) in support of the services they provide (Kolas et al. 2021). To take advantage of the theorizing opportunities that these emergent information technology (IT) phenomena provide, the goal of this special issue is to encourage research that generates products of theorizing derived from and related to IT phenomena. We are seeking contributions that develop products of theorizing, that is, interim constructions, that are useful as precursors to strong native IS theory. To increase the likelihood of a theorizing product’s value, we are particularly interested in research that tackles phenomena that are core to the IS discipline. Given the multifaceted nature of the IS discipline, we do not expect agreement on what constitutes a core IS phenomenon. We therefore encourage authors to make the case that the products of theorizing they develop are valuable for articulating native theories that are defining of the field of IS or are substantially valuable for their specific area.