A New Taxonomy for Developing and Testing Theories

  • Pertti Järvinen


Colquitt and Zapata-Phelan [1] developed taxonomy for classifying empirical studies depending on whether a theory to be tested was nascent or mature. They also thought that one and the same theory to be tested could contain parts from both nascent and mature theories. In this paper we separated development of the theory to be tested from its empirical test. We found that development of the theory can be grounded on data or earlier theoretical concepts and their relationships. We also differentiated the first test of the new theory from its repetitive test. Based on those building blocks we succeeded to build a new taxonomy for theory building and testing. We shall also show how our taxonomy can be strengthened by formative validity and summative validity and can be extended by taking dissensus into account.


Management Journal Theoretical Development Theory Testing Theory Building Inductive Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Colquitt, J.A., and Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2007). Trends in theory building and theory testing: A five-decade study of the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1281-1303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Deetz, S. (1996). Describing differences in approaches to organization science: Rethinking Burrell and Morgan and their legacy. Organization Science, 7(2), 191-207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Edmondson, A.C., and McManus, S.E. (2007). Methodological fit in management field research. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1155-1179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berthon, P., Pitt, L., Ewing, M., and Carr, C.L. (2002) Potential research space in MIS: A framework for envisioning and evaluating research replication, extension, and generation. Information Systems Research, 13(4), 416-427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gefen, D., Straub, D.W., and Boudreau, M.C. (2000). Structurational equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association of Information Systems, 4(7), 1-76.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Glaser, B., and Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies of qualitative research. London: Wiedenfeld and Nicholson.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 633-642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sutton, R.I., and Staw, B.M. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 371-384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Weick, K.E. (1995). What theory is not, theorizing is, Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 385-390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lee, A. S. and Hubona, G. S. (2009). A scientific basis for rigor in Information Systems research. MIS Quarterly, 33(2), 237-262.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lee, A.S. (1989). A scientific Methodology for MIS case studies. MIS Quarterly, 13(1), 33-50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Walsham, G., and Sahay, S. (1999). GIS for District-Level Administration in India: Problems and Opportunities. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 39-66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schultze, U. and Leidner D.E. (2002). Studying knowledge management in information systems research: Discourses and theoretical assumptions. MIS Quarterly, 26(3), 213-242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Walsham, G. (2006). Doing interpretive research. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(3), 320-330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Buchanan, D.A. (2003). Getting the story straight: Illusions and delusions in the organizational change process. Tamara Journal of Critical Postmodern Organization Science, 2(4), 7-21.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vaishnavi, V. and Kuechler, W. (2009). Design Research in Information Systems. Last updated August 16, 2009. URL: Accessed 26 April 2010.
  18. 18.
    Järvinen, P. (2004). On research methods. Tampere: Opinpajan kirja.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TampereTampereFinland

Personalised recommendations