1

Brent Furneaux
York University, Canada
Michael Wade
York University, Canada

ABSTRACT
Constructs and the relationships between them are widely considered to be central to theory development
set of relationships amongst a broad range of constructs. The result of these initiatives is a body of
literature that can be considered to represent the cumulative learning of the discipline. Based on the
premise that this cumulative learning is capable of providing valuable guidance to future theory development, the authors present a review and analysis of a large sample of empirical research published in
two leading IS journals. The objective of this endeavor is to offer a broad perspective on the nature of
the constructs and relationships explored in IS research and to develop a nomological network of the
most salient relationships that can then serve to guide future research and to lend support to new and
existing theory.

INTRODUCTION
The management and information systems (IS)
literature provides IS researchers with numerous
perspectives on the nature, use, and importance of
sound theory to the conduct of rigorous research
(e.g. Bacharach, 1989; Gregor, 2006; Sutton &

Staw, 1995; Whetten, 1989). The views expressed

in this literature have increasingly served to guide
research inquiries such that the use of substantive
theoretical foundations has become an essential
hallmark of work considered suitable for publication in leading journals. Although our understanding of what is meant by good theory is the

Copyright 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Theoretical Constructs and Relationships in Information Systems Research

subject of at least some measure of controversy

(Weick, 1995), the importance of constructs and
relationships to theory development and testing
appears to be widely accepted by both IS research ers and by those working in other disciplines.
Some have gone so far as to argue that constructs
and their relationships form the very essence of
theory (Bacharach, 1989). Although others have
argued that good theory must go beyond this to
provide sound explanations for the relationships
that are posited (Sutton & Staw, 1995; Whetten,
1989), they continue to maintain that constructs
and relationships are essential to much of what
we call theory.
Inadequate attention to the nature of the constructs and relationships underpinning a theory
can have severe negative implications for its application and ultimate success. The importance
and relevance of a theory that fails, for example,
larly, without a clear depiction of the nature of
the relationships posited by a theory it can be
that it may hold for practice or future research.

by subjecting its posited relationships to repeated

empirical testing (Popper, 1992). Such efforts can

with the result being needless impediments to

subsequent theory development.
The centrality of constructs and relationships
to the theory development process is highlighted
by research methods that call for a thorough
exploration of their essence as the basis for the
development of new theory (e.g., Glaser & Strauss,
1967). The objective of these methods is, among
other things, to ensure that theory more faithfully
product of researcher bias. Drawing upon the spirit
of such perspectives, we aim in the following
discussion to report upon an extensive examina-

journals during the period from the start of 1999

to the end of 2007. Rather than seeking to support or refute a particular theory or collection of
theories, this examination seeks to depict what the
empirical literature says about the many constructs
and relationships that have been explored by IS
researchers. Our analysis is based on the premise
that over time the results of empirical testing yield
a growing body of knowledge that can serve to
underscore those theoretical explanations that
are proving most robust, to identify empirically
supported relationships that are in need of more
substantive theoretical explanation, and to draw
attention to those areas where both theory and
empirical testing are lacking.
In the following discussion the reader is urged

that extend beyond the constraints of individual

theoretical perspectives, in an effort to better
understand the broader framework upon which
the discipline rests. We commence our discussion
with a presentation of the conceptual background
for our work. Subsequent to this presentation we
describe the methodology that was used to acquire
and analyze our data and then report on the key
we conclude with a discussion of some of the
implications of our analysis, an assessment of key
limitations, and some closing remarks.

BACKGROUND
Theoretical Constructs and
Relationships
Theoretical considerations guide many facets of
the research that is conducted and reported upon in
conceptualization and choice of methodology.
Despite such attention and the frequent calls for
more and better theorizing (Weber, 2003), the

Theoretical Constructs and Relationships in Information Systems Research

meaning of the term theory remains the subject of

considerable discussion (Gregor, 2006). Numerous
conceptualizations of theory have been offered
in the literature including perspectives that view
it as a guide to future action and those that see
it as offering a description of the state of some
phenomenon or group of phenomena (Gregor,
2006). Although this diversity of perspectives
suggests considerable discord in our understand-

(2006) suggest that the notion of a construct is

fundamental to theory in its many forms. The
centrality of constructs to theory highlights the
potential opportunity that a thorough examination
of the constructs used by IS researchers holds for
improving our understanding of the nature and
use of theory in the discipline.

concepts that are not directly observable, whose

existence remains in the world of conception
(Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999, p. 25) appears to
capture the essence of what is meant by the term.
Variables, in contrast, are the directly observable
phenomena that are frequently used to measure
or provide an approximate understanding of
constructs (Bacharach, 1989). Thus, although con structs are conceptually distinct from variables, it
is important to recognize that the variables used by
researchers to measure and understand constructs
these constructs. The importance of recognizing
such impacts is heightened by the considerable
latitude that exists for ambiguity and error in the
of theoretical constructs. For example, constructs
considered conceptually distinct if they are measured using the same set of variables. In addition,
an important source of error in the interpretation
of research results is the error that arises as a
consequence of the imprecise representation of
constructs by variables (Bacharach, 1989). These

and other challenges related to the distinction

between theoretical constructs and the variables
used to measure them serve to underscore the
importance of considering both when conducting
analysis aimed at better understanding the nature
of a set of constructs. In the present context, consideration for the explicit and implicit meanings
underlying IS research constructs helps to ensure
that our analysis is not needlessly clouded by the
presence of seemingly distinct constructs that are,
in essence, the same.
cal constructs, a second important element of much
theory development work involves the assertion of
some form of relationship or association between
constructs (Doty & Glick, 1994; Gregor, 2006).
Bacharach (1989, p. 498) argues, for instance, that
a theory is a statement of relationships between
units observed or approximated in the empirical world. Although a number of authors have
argued that theory requires more than variables
or constructs connected by relationships (e.g.,
Markus & Robey, 1988; Sutton & Staw, 1995;
Whetten, 1989), there appears to be little question
theory and much of the theory development and
testing conducted by IS researchers.
Relationships are generally conceived of as
describing the nature of the causal linkages among
constructs (Markus & Robey, 1988; Whetten,
1989) though the manner in which these linkages
are characterized varies considerably depending
on the phenomena of interest and the conception
of theory that is being invoked. They can, for
instance, be described as linear or curvilinear
when positivist variance-oriented theory is being presented or they can be linked to a temporal
dimension as is typically the case in the context
of process-oriented theories (Bacharach, 1989;
Markus & Robey, 1988; Mitchell & James, 2001).
In less positivist perspectives, relationships are
more likely to be characterized in terms of associations or as contributing factors whereby causal
-

Theoretical Constructs and Relationships in Information Systems Research

comes (Gregor, 2006). Bacharach (1989) further

notes that relationships need not be unidirectional
with dialectical and reciprocal relationships beDespite the potential complexity of relationship
of some form of relationship between a pair of
tionship can provide important guidance to future
inquiry irrespective of research paradigm.
from several decades of IS research, one is
presented with a substantial body of empirical
observations surrounding the relationships among
a broad range of theoretical constructs. Since every journal acceptance decision serves, to some
2003; Power, 2003), journal publications come to
represent an implicit if not explicit understanding
of the constructs, relationships, and theories of
importance to that discipline (Kuhn, 1970). This
publication record can therefore be drawn upon
to develop a broad understanding of the theoretical focus of a discipline and to highlight those
aspects of its theoretical foundations that have
withstood empirical scrutiny. Thus, building on
the richness of the extant IS literature, we undertake to explore the constructs and relationships
that have been examined in the empirical work
to provide researchers and theorists with improved
understanding of the empirical foundations upon
which IS theory rests.

Nomological Networks
Empirical support for a theoretical perspective
can be improved by linking it to other theories
through what have been referred to as a boundary
spanning constructs (Bacharach, 1989). Boundary spanning constructs are constructs that are
shared by multiple theories and, as such, they are
of considerable importance to the theories which
share them. In essence, the theoretical links es-

tablished by boundary spanning constructs foster

the creation of a network that brings the weight
of the empirical evidence for each theory to all
other theories connected to the network (Bacharach, 1989). The power of such networks and the
them suggests the value of exploring IS research
constructs to identify those that either serve or
could potentially serve as boundary spanners
between the theories used by IS researchers.
Closely related to the notion of a boundary
spanning construct is that of a nomological network (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955). Nomological
networks are constructed by linking theoretical
constructs into a network of established relationships. Since the relationships in a nomological
network are generally well established, the validity
of new constructs is often assessed by evaluating
(Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade, 2008). Thus, in an
effort to extend the utility of our analysis, we draw
upon on our data to develop and present a set of
nomological networks for the IS discipline. The
objective of this effort is to provide empirically
grounded guidance to future research and theory
development. Using these networks researchers
can, for instance, improve the strength of their
theory development and validation efforts by
connecting their work to other empirical work
within the discipline.
Recent literature attention has been directed
surrounding what has been referred to as the IT
artifact (Benbasat & Zmud, 2003; Orlikowski &
Iacono, 2001). Benbasat and Zmud (2003) argue,
for instance, that the IT artifact and its immediate
nomological network should form the core of the IS
discipline. Toward this end they identify the inclu sion of constructs only distantly related to the IT
artifact and the exclusion of the IT artifact as two
key errors that should be avoided by IS researchers. Despite some disagreement surrounding this
position (e.g. Alter, 2003), the importance of the
IT artifact to the IS discipline appears to have

Theoretical Constructs and Relationships in Information Systems Research

general support. Irrespective of any differences,

discrepant positions are often seen as continuing to
Wu & Saunders, 2003). Given such emphasis, we
expect that the IT artifact will be a particularly
play a central role in the nomological networks that
we develop. This expectation is therefore explored
in the following analysis with the broad conclusion being that the IT artifact is, as expected, a
richly developed construct of central importance
in the large sample of research that we examine.
We now proceed with a discussion of the methods
used to acquire and analyze the data that led to
this and other conclusions.

ANALYSIS OF EMPIRICAL
INFORMATION SYSTEMS
RESEARCH
Method
A dataset of constructs and relationships that
have received recent empirical attention from IS
researchers was assembled via an archival study
of the articles published in Information Systems
Research and MIS Quarterly during the nine year
period from the beginning of 1999 to the end of
2007. These two journals have been consistently
Gorman, Kanet, & Salisbury, 2007) and were
therefore thought to be appropriate to a study
that seeks to develop some understanding of the
IS research. In order to ensure that our analysis
period under consideration included the most
recent period possible. Similarly, examination of
a relatively large time period was intended to enrepresentative of the discipline rather than being

or by the content of occasional special issues that

focus on restricted topic domains.
tion of all articles published in the target journals
during the selected time period. The resulting
collection of 432 articles was then examined to
identify those articles incorporating a substantive
empirical investigation of constructs and their
relationships. This preliminary screening process
sought to eliminate articles such as research commentaries, reviews, opinion pieces, and measurement development work. No attempt was made to
exclude articles based on either research paradigm
or choice of methodology in order to help ensure
cipline as faithfully as possible (Vessey, Ramesh,
& Glass, 2002). The result of this pre-screening
relevant articles. The full text of these articles
was examined by the authors to identify those
constructs and relationships in each article that had
been subjected to some form of empirical testing.
All direct relationships between constructs were
added to a relationship dataset though a certain
degree of inference was necessary in the case of
those studies that were ambiguous in their reporting of constructs or relationships. In addition to
recording constructs and their relationships, the
direction of each relationship was recorded where
this was appropriate and an indication was made
as to whether empirical support was found for the
relationship. A subsequent review of a subset of
the coded data found that the results of the initial
coding effort were largely satisfactory.
Although the terms antecedent and consequent
are not entirely suited to all research paradigms,
in the interests of improved readability the following discussion will use the term antecedent
to refer to any construct that was intended by an
article to assume a position of causal or temporal
precedence to its related construct. Similarly, the
term consequent will be used to refer to those
constructs that were conceptualized as being

Theoretical Constructs and Relationships in Information Systems Research

outcomes or temporally subsequent to their related

constructs. Hence, in these terms, antecedents and
consequents of each relationship in the relationship
dataset were assessed by returning to the source
cal operationalizations. Based on the information
obtained from this process it was possible to
consolidate some constructs and thereby reduce
the number of distinct constructs in the dataset
while still remaining true to researcher intentions. For instance, two constructs with distinct
names were merged if a review of their variable
measures suggested that they were examining
essentially the same notion. This process of assessment and consolidation was repeated twice
for every antecedent and consequent resulting in
a reduction from 1295 distinct constructs in the
initial dataset to 690 constructs following the
consolidation process.
Subsequent to the process of construct consolidation, all relationships were reviewed to
ensure that the process did not introduce errors
or inconsistencies. The results of this review indicated that the consolidation effort had yielded
a satisfactory, consistent set of constructs. Once
this had been established, it became evident that
constructs frequently consisted of two components, a core construct that was central to what
For instance, the construct Decision Quality can
be seen to consist of the core construct Decision
of the decision that is of interest. This recognirelationship dataset to break them into these two
components with the objective being to further
facilitate efforts to understand the essence of the
constructs and relationships of interest to the IS
discipline. Following completion of this review
the dataset was analyzed using a variety of standard summary statistical techniques and network
diagram tools.

Results
The Use of Constructs in IS Research

dataset. Table 1 provides a list of the 18 constructs

from this dataset that were posited as an antecedent or consequent in at least 20 relationships. Also
included in the table are brief descriptions of these
constructs and an indication of the number of times
that each was included in a relationship. The 18
constructs listed in Table 1 account for less than
3% of all constructs in the dataset though they
account for 27% of all relationship antecedents
and consequents and can therefore be considered
Separating constructs into those posited as
antecedents and those posited as consequents
yielded a list of 502 distinct antecedents and a list
of 339 distinct consequents. It should be noted here
that the discrepancy between the total construct
count and the sum of the antecedent and consequent counts is indicative of the extent to which
consequents are also theorized as antecedents and
vice versa. Similar to Table 1, Table 2 and Table
3 enumerate those constructs that were posited
as an antecedent or consequent a minimum of 20
times. The constructs in these two tables account,
respectively, for 1.4% and 2.7% of the antecedent
and consequent constructs while also accounting
for 19.3% and 22.8% of relationship antecedents
and consequents.
The diversity of research conducted in the
which research attention is distributed across a
wide range of constructs. However, to some de-

individual constructs without adequate consideration for their dimensionality. A review of the
constructs included in the dataset indicates, as
noted previously, that many of these constructs
consist of a core notion or concept such as Tech-

Theoretical Constructs and Relationships in Information Systems Research

Construct

Description

Frequency

Technology Use

The actual use of some form of IT artifact including such things as the use of a web site, a
spreadsheet, or a decision support system

124

Technology Usefulness

Measures of the extent to which an IT artifact is considered useful

99

Technology Use Intention

Measures of the extent to which an individual, group, or organization intends to use an IT

artifact

87

Technology Ease of Use

Measures of the extent to which an IT artifact is considered easy to use

72

Technology Capability

Functional abilities associated with an IT artifact such as a search functionality or support

for e-commerce

66

Individual Trust

Individual willingness to rely on an IT artifact or any other person or thing

49

Technology Use Scope

Evaluations of the extent to which an IT artifact is being used

39

Technology Implementation Success

An evaluation of the extent to which the implementation of an IT artifact is considered a

success

34

Information Presentation
Format

The format in which information is presented including formats that do not rely on the use
of an IT artifact

32

Organizational Performance

Measures of organizational performance including such things as return on investment and

32

Technology Satisfaction

Measures of the level of satisfaction with an IT artifact

30

Social Norms

Assessments of social rules, conventions, or expectations including assessments that are

strictly perceptual

28

Task Performance

Evaluations of performance on a task

27

Purchase Intention

Measures of the extent to which an individual, group of individuals, or an organization

intends to purchase a product or service

23

Technology Use Attitude

Any assessment of attitudes toward the use of an IT artifact

23

Vendor Trust

Evaluations of the willingness of individuals, groups of individuals, or organizations to rely

on the integrity or ability of a vendor or supplier

23
22

artifacts
Personalization

20
and desires of individual users

dimensions of this core such as its Use, Use

Intention, Ease of Use, and Usefulness. In an
effort to assess the impact of this situation on our
understanding of the discipline, each construct in
the dataset was separated into these two components resulting in a total of 1322 distinct construct
components. The frequencies with which these
components appeared in relationship antecedents
or consequents are reported in Table 4 for the 20
most common components.
Contrary to the impression given by the sheer
range of constructs examined by IS researchers,

Table 4 highlights the apparent importance of

a limited set of phenomena to the IS discipline.
The four relatively distinct notions of technology,
information and knowledge, organizations, and
tasks are incorporated into 45% of the antecedents
and consequents included in the relationship data set. In particular, some dimension of technology
was incorporated into 28.4% of all antecedents
and consequents. Since the technology construct
is largely synonymous with the notion of the
IT artifact, we conclude that the IT artifact has
been reasonably well represented in recent IS
research. The apparent salience of the IT artifact

Theoretical Constructs and Relationships in Information Systems Research

Antecedent

Frequency

Technology Use

74

Technology Capability

50

Technology Usefulness

46

Technology Ease of Use

43

Information Presentation Format

32

Individual Trust

24

Technology Use Scope

23

Consequent

Frequency

Technology Use Intention

85

Technology Usefulness

53

Technology Use

50

Organizational Performance

32

Technology Ease of Use

29

Task Performance

25

Individual Trust

25

Technology Implementation Success

24

Technology Satisfaction

21

Construct Component

Frequency

Technology

859

Information

189

Intention

147

Use

137

Organization

117

Task

100

Performance

99

Usefulness

99

Knowledge

97

Trust

82

Functional Role

80

Ease of Use

72

Capability

71

Satisfaction

64

Individual

62

Quality

57

Vendor

54

Product

53

Purchase

50

Communication

48

Theoretical Constructs and Relationships in Information Systems Research

a reasonably comprehensive depiction of how this

construct is dimensionalized in the discipline.

earlier work seems to suggest that IS researchers

have been heeding calls for greater emphasis on
the centrality of this artifact to our research and

Relationships in IS Research

might therefore be considered a relatively positive

note on the responsiveness of the IS discipline to
calls for change.
Finally, an attempt was made to develop a
better understanding of the IT artifact through
an examination of the dimensions of the technology construct component. All dimensions of this
construct component were therefore extracted
from the construct component list and reviewed.

Prior to commencing with an analysis of the

relational structure of the constructs examined
in the preceding section, it should be noted that
the nature of the relationships to be discussed are
not strictly positivist in orientation. For instance,
a link between two constructs may indicate that
of the other or it may simply indicate that one
construct contributes to or is associated with
the other. Relatively positivist terminology will,
however, be used in the interests of readability
and to maintain focus on the essential messages

are summarized in Table 5 which also includes

the frequency with which each dimension was
used in connection with the technology construct
component. The dimensions included in this table
account for 80.7% of the technology constructs in
the dataset and can thus be considered to provide

Dimension

the relational structure of IS constructs. Given

that the vast majority of the relationships reported
in the literature were positivist in orientation, the

Frequency

Use

124

Usefulness

99

Use Intention

87

Ease of Use

72

Capability

66

Use Scope

39

Implementation
Success

34

Satisfaction

30

Use Attitude

23

Integration

19

Investment

17

Compatibility

16

Type

14

Complexity

12

Assimilation

11

Governance Structure

10

Knowledge

10

Outsourcing

10

Theoretical Constructs and Relationships in Information Systems Research

thought to be relatively small.

lationships that were subsequently reviewed to
identify 1172 distinct relationships. Of the 1172
distinct relationships, 961 received empirical
support while 289 were unsupported by empirical evidence. This imbalance between supported
and unsupported relationships almost certainly

between the total number of supported and unsupported relationships and the high quantity
of distinct relationships is indicative of a small
number of relationships that were both supported
common empirically supported relationships are
presented in Table 6 along with an indication of
the frequency with which each was found in the
dataset.
As would be anticipated given the prominence
of the IT artifact among the constructs of interest
to IS researchers, a review of the list of relationships receiving the most empirical support also
indicates a central role for technology. This ob-

10

servation, in conjunction with literature calls to

make the IT artifact central to any nomological
network of the IS discipline (Benbasat & Zmud,
2003), prompted us to build a series of networks
based on the empirically supported relationships
included in the dataset. Since only empirically
supported relationships were included in these
networks, they can be expected to offer a view
of the discipline that is built from the ground up,
irrespective of theoretical arguments.
In an effort to better understand how the most
salient dimensions of the IT artifact are interrelated, a nomological network was constructed that
included all of the technology constructs listed
in Table 1. The result of this process is presented
in Figure 1. Relationships were mapped in this
creasing or reducing consequent values where
empirical evidence suggested that some indication
of relationship direction was warranted. In cases
where directional inferences were not possible or
seemed inappropriate, relationships were simply
designated as impacts. As with the previous
discipline, Figure 1 serves to highlight the salience

Antecedent

Consequent

Frequency

Technology Usefulness

Technology Use Intention

17

Technology Ease of Use

Technology Usefulness

12

Technology Ease of Use

Technology Use Intention

Normative Pressures

Social Norms

Technology Capability

Technology Implementation Success

Expertise

Explanation Selection

Public Announcements

Stock Market Returns

Social Norms

Technology Use Intention

Technology Usefulness

Technology Satisfaction

Technology Usefulness

Technology Use Attitude

Individual Trust

Relationship Effectiveness

Individual Trust

Technology Use Intention

Technology Capability

Organizational Performance

Technology Use Attitude

Technology Use Intention

Theoretical Constructs and Relationships in Information Systems Research

of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and

related theoretical frameworks in IS research
(Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003).
While useful to better understand the dimensions of the IT artifact, an isolated nomological
network of these dimensions tends to overlook

the presumed objective of information systems.

Since this objective is often seen as some form of
performance outcome (DeLone & McLean, 1992,
2003), Figure 1 also incorporates the performance
performance constructs emerged from the data

Figure 1. A Nomological Network of the IT artifact and associated performance outcomes

Technology
Satisfaction

Technology Ease
of Use

Technology Use
Intention

increases

Technology Use
Attitude

Technology Use
Scope
Technology
Usefulness

Technology Use

Organizational
Performance
Technology
Integration

Technology
Complexity

Technology
Capability

Technology
Assimilation

Task Performance

Technology
Implementation
Success

11

Theoretical Constructs and Relationships in Information Systems Research

with any degree of prominence: organizational

performance and task performance. As Figure 1
shows, organizational performance was found to
be related to technology use, use scope, integration, and capability while task performance was
only related to technology capability. Subsequent
to the development of Figure 1, a nomological
network was constructed that included all of the
constructs in Table 1 in order to present a network
of all of the most salient constructs and relation-

ships in IS research as suggested by analysis of

our dataset. This network is presented in Figure
2 with relationship labels removed to improve
readability. Figure 2 can be contrasted with Figure 1 by recognizing that Figure 1 includes only
technology and performance related constructs
while Figure 2 includes all constructs that our
dataset suggests are prominent in IS research.
In the following section we offer a brief discussion of some of the implications that the results

Figure 2. A Nomological Network of the IS Discipline

Technology Use
Scope

Technology Use
Organizational
Performance

Technology
Integration

Technology
Implementation
Success

Technology
Capability

Task Performance

Computer
Self-Efficacy

Information
Presentation Format
Technology Use
Attitude

Technology Use
Intention

Technology
Usefulness

Purchase Intention

Individual Trust

Social Norms

Personalization

Vendor Trust
Technology
Satisfaction

Technology Ease of
Use

12

Theoretical Constructs and Relationships in Information Systems Research

reported here may have for the development and

DISCUSSION
An examination of Table 1 highlights the salience
of the IT artifact in IS research conducted over
the past decade. It is evident that IS researchers
are exploring many dimensions of this artifact
including its use, usefulness, ease of use, use intention, implementation success, and satisfaction.
the most common constructs in IS research are
closely linked to TAM. The prominence of this
stream of research is also evident in the antecedent and consequent lists. Although these lists
indicate that constructs such as organizational
performance and task performance are posited as
consequents with some degree of frequency, the
most common consequents relate to technology
ing suggests that IS researchers may be placing
greater emphasis on ensuring that the IT artifact
is used then they are on ensuring that it drives
performance outcomes. Hence, there appears to
be some opportunity for theory development and
testing in the latter domain.
Two key forms of performance appear to play
is organizational performance which has been
operationalized in many ways. Most of the operationalizations observed in the dataset tended,
ability and return on assets. In contrast with many
of the measures used in the technology adoption
stream, organizational performance measures
also tended to be objective rather than perceptual.
The second form of performance of some salience
in our dataset was task performance which was
often used in the context of decision support
systems research and collaborative systems use.
It is interesting to note that the link between task
performance and organizational performance ap -

pears to have received limited attention. Thus, it

would seem that there is a need to more clearly
link the task performance gains from IS use to
organizational performance gains. There also appears to be a need to more fully explore the task
and other performance consequences of IS use in
relation to a broader range of systems. Research
in this stream would be considered essential by
practitioners seeking to justify IS acquisition
from improved theory of general relevance.
One of the challenges faced in our coding and
analysis was the extensive use of distinct terms
to refer to what appeared to be largely identical
constructs and the frequent use of construct names
that either inadequately represented the construct
suggest that issues of content validity exist within
the discipline on many fronts. For instance, it benetwork when each theory uses a different term
to denote a similar concept. Recognizing that this
practice is driven, to some extent, by the need to
establish unique contribution, we suggest that
reviewers give special attention to scrutinizing
the research constructs presented in the papers
that they review with a view toward ensuring that
disciplinary progress is not impeded by needless
confusion.
Our analysis further suggests a need for more
consistency and clarity in the manner in which
research is reported in journal articles. In this
chapter we were interested in collecting data on
the basic building blocks of empirical research:
constructs, relationships, and the empirical support (or lack thereof) that was found for these
relationships. Yet, in a substantial proportion
of the papers that we reviewed this information
was either not easy to identify or was completely
absent. We thus believe that the inclusion of two
basic elements in all empirical research papers
would greatly enhance their usefulness to re-

13

Theoretical Constructs and Relationships in Information Systems Research

constructs and relationships. The inclusion of this

element helps the reader to frame the scope of
the study and to assess its relevance to his or her
needs. The second element is a summary table
of a table summarizing hypotheses results or a
posited paths. Surprisingly, at least one of these
two elements was missing from a large number
either which constructs and relationships were
being tested or whether tested relationships were
empirically supported.
In the interests of improving the clarity of
the constructs used in the discipline, we suggest
a need for further efforts to establish common
terminology and to dimensionalize constructs
along the lines of what we present. Considerable opportunity exists for researchers to review
the most salient construct dimensions used by
IS researchers and to more fully dimensionalize important constructs. Such efforts can be
expected to improve our understanding of these
constructs and to improve the cohesiveness of
research within the discipline. Initiatives of this
type would also help to illuminate construct
dimensions that have been overlooked or under
explored and the incumbent opportunities for new
theory development and testing. Based on the
results of our study, we would suggest that such
efforts commence with the concepts of technology,
knowledge and information, organizations, and
tasks. Beyond the opportunities that lie in more
fully developing the dimensions of these concepts,
our empirically grounded results suggest that they
may form some sort of core for the discipline and
we therefore believe that there may be merit in
further exploration of this possibility.
identify four theory development initiatives that
stem from the results and analysis reported here.
First, readers may wish to test the veracity of the
nomological networks that we present in an effort

14

to ensure that IS researchers have a sound basis

upon which future theory development and testing can be built. Second, efforts to better place
future research within the context of the networks
that have been presented can serve to increase
it. This work can simultaneously support other
theory development work by yielding important
extensions to the networks that we offer. Third,
researchers who are uncomfortable with the current framing of the discipline may seek to extend
the nomological network to place greater emphasis
on other constructs or incorporate new constructs.
Finally, there is a need in a number of cases to
develop and link the theoretical explanations
that we use to account for the empirical evidence
depicted in these nomological networks (Sutton
& Staw, 1995; Whetten, 1989).

Limitations and Future Research

Although we endeavored to conduct a through,
rigorous study that would be capable of yielding
useful insights on the nature of the information
systems discipline, certain limitations presented
themselves owing to the nature of the research
and the subject matter. Salient among these are
the publications selected for inclusion in the study
and the time period under consideration. Although
the publications used in the study are widely
considered the most prominent in the discipline,
future research could attempt to incorporate the
results of an analysis of additional high quality
publications. An extension to the time period
under consideration might also yield additional
insights though the relatively large time period
considered and the inclusion of recent publications
would seem to suggest that this limitation may
Additional attention to the richness of the
relationship structures described in the literature could be expected to yield some interesting
perspective. This attention could, for instance,
explore the temporal dimension of relationships,

Theoretical Constructs and Relationships in Information Systems Research

tate further theory development rather than as a

role of causal agency. Considerations such as
these were not made in the current study in the
interests of making the analysis tractable and to
avoid obscuring key messages by further complicating the already complex networks that are
presented. Nonetheless, a separate study holds
the potential to be highly informative. It would,
however, almost certainly be complicated by the
ambiguity of some research reports as was the
case with the current initiative.
As with any subjective undertaking, the conperspective of the researchers. We have, however,
sought to emphasize only the most salient results

In an effort to better elucidate the broad themes

of the empirical literature, only the most salient
constructs and relationships were included and
these networks cannot, therefore, be considered to
exhaustively represent all constructs and relation ships of interest to the discipline. They do, however, provide some framework for understanding
the nature of existing theory within IS research
and for recognizing what remains to be done.

CONCLUSION
After several decades of theory development and

result of the unique perspective of the researchers

than having a substantive basis in the literature.
Similarly, although our results indicated the
presence of relationships that were unsupported
opted to emphasize supported relationships. This
emphasis was based on our intention to present a
network of empirical evidence that can support
future theory development and testing.
Since it was not our intention to develop multilevel theory (Klein, Tosi, & Cannella, 1999), we
have presented the relationships as reported in the
literature without consideration for the numerous
challenges associated with levels of analysis.
Nonetheless, we feel that this is a rich topic area
that is worth further examination and we suggest
that the networks presented here may be useful
in this regard given their empirical basis. Among
the many possibilities, researchers might opt to
inquire as to the theoretical nature of an apparent
change in level of analysis in one of these networks
(Chan, 1998). The development of theory in this
vein would certainly be useful to researchers seeking to understand, for instance, how individual
outcomes arising from IS use contribute to higher
level organizational outcomes.
Finally, it must be remembered that the analysis
and networks offered here are intended to facili-

systems, we have argued in this chapter that there

the current state of the discipline. Building on the
IS literature provide a valid and useful record of
the constructs and relationships of importance to
IS researchers, we have presented a review and
The aim of this review was to develop some
and relationships in IS research and to provide a
broad-based nomological network of the discipline
that relies on empirical results rather than any
particular theoretical perspective.
As an overview of an extensive body of literavaluable assistance to those seeking to test theory
and potentially useful guidance to those readers
As such, this chapter serves as a useful starting point for subsequent chapters that seek to
perspectives. As has been noted, good theory
requires that substantive theoretical explana tions be offered for why relationships between
constructs exist and under what circumstances
they are most and least likely to be found (Sutton

15

Theoretical Constructs and Relationships in Information Systems Research

& Staw, 1995; Whetten, 1989). It is this challenge

that we present to you the reader. We encourage
you to read further in this volume in pursuit of
more and better theory.

REFERENCES
Alter, S. (2003). 18 reasons why IT-reliant work
systems should replace the IT artifact as the
Communications of the Association for Information Systems,
12(23), 366-395.
Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational theories:
Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 496-515.
Benbasat, I., & Zmud, R. W. (2003). The identity
municating the disciplines core properties. MIS
Quarterly, 27(2), 183-194.
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among
constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition
models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83 (2),
234-246.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct
validity in psychological tests. Psychological
Bulletin, 52, 281-302.
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Informa tion systems success: The quest for the dependent
variable. Information Systems Research, 3 (1),
60-95.
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems
success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19 (4), 9-30.
Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1994). Typologies
as a unique form of theory building: Toward improved understanding and modeling. Academy of
Management Review, 19(2), 230-251.

16

Ferratt, T. W., Gorman, M. F., Kanet, J. J., &

Salisbury, W. D. (2007). IS journal quality asCommunications of the Association for Information
Systems, 17, 710-724.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovresearch. Chicago: Aldine Publishing.
Gregor, S. (2006). The nature of theory in informa tion systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 611-642.
Klein, K. J., Tosi, H., & Cannella, A. A., Jr. (1999).
and new developments. Academy of Management
Review, 24(2), 243-248.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970).
lutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Markus, M. L., & Robey, D. (1988). Information
technology and organizational change: Causal
structure in theory and research. Management
Science, 34(5), 583-598.
Mayer, J. D., Roberts, R. D., & Barsade, S. G.
(2008). Human abilities: Emotional intelligence.
Annual Review of Psychology, 59 (1), 507-536.
Mitchell, T. R., & James, L. R. (2001). Building
things happen. Academy of Management Review,
26(4), 530-547.
Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. (1999). The
structure and function of collective constructs:
Implications for multilevel research and theory
development. Academy of Management Review,
24(2), 249-265.
Orlikowski, W. J., & Iacono, C. S. (2001). Research commentary: Desperately seeking IT in
IT research - a call to theorizing the IT artifact.
Information Systems Research, 12 (2), 121-134.
Popper, K. R. (1992).
covery. New York: Routledge.

Theoretical Constructs and Relationships in Information Systems Research

Power, D. J. (2003). The maturing IS discipline:

Institutionalizing our domain of inquiry. Communications of AIS, 2003(12), 539-545.

Wu, Y. A., & Saunders, C. (2003). The IS core

VI: Further along the road to the IT artifact.
Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 12(36), 562-567.

and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 638-641.

Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory
is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40 (3),
371-384.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., &
Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of informaMIS
Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478.
Vessey, I., Ramesh, V., & Glass, R. L. (2002).
Research in information systems: An empirical
study of diversity in the discipline and its journals.
Journal of Management Information Systems,
19(2), 129-174.
Weber, R. (2003). Theoretically speaking. MIS
Quarterly, 27(3), iii-xii.
Weick, K. E. (1995). What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40 (3),
385-390.
Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management
Review, 14(4), 490-495.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Construct: An abstract concept that de scribes an idea or phenomenon that is not directly
observable.
IT Artifact:
needs.
Nomological Network: A mapping of the
relationships among a set of constructs.
Paradigm:
reality and how knowledge is acquired.
Positivism: A view of reality that sees
phenomena as being governed by fundamental
laws.
Relationship: An association or connection
between entities and/or concepts.
Variable: A tangible phenomena that is directly observable and therefore measurable.

17