Potential Research Space in MIS: A Framework for Envisioning and Evaluating Research Replication, Extension, and Generation

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.13.4.416.71

References

  • Adams D. A., Nelson R. R., Todd P. Perceived usefulness, ease of use, and usage of information technology: A replication. MIS Quart (1992) 16(2):227–247CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Bailey J. E., Pearson S. W. Development of a tool measuring and analysing computer user satisfaction. Management Sci (1983) 29(5):530–544LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Bandura A. Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. Amer. Psychologist (1982) 37(2):122–147CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Barwise P. Good empirical generalizations. Marketing Sci (1995) 14(3):G29–35LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Bedeian A. G., Mossholder K. W., Kemery E. R., Armenakis A. A. Replication requisites: A second look at Klenke-Hamel and Mathieu (1990). Human Relations (1992) 45(10):1093–1105CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Berger P., Luckmann T.The Social Construction of Reality (1966) (Penguin, London, U.K.) Google Scholar
  • Brinberg David, McGrath Joseph E., Brinberg David, Kidder L. Network of validity concepts within the research process. New Directions for Methodology of Social and Behavioral Science: Forms of Validity in Research (1982) (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA) Google Scholar
  • Burrell G., Morgan G.Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis (1979) (Heinemann, London, U.K.) Google Scholar
  • Chase J. E. Normative criteria for scientific publications. Amer. Sociologist (1970) 5:262–265Google Scholar
  • Cohen J. Things I have learned so far. Amer. Psychologist (1990) 45(December):1304–1312CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Collins H. M.Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (1985) (Sage, Beverly Hills, CA) Google Scholar
  • Cooper H. H., Rosenthal R. Statistical versus traditional procedures for summarizing research findings. Psych. Bull. (1988) 87:442–449CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Copper R. Modernism, postmodernism and organizational analysis: An introduction. Organ. Stud. (1988) 9(1):91–112CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Cronbach L. J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika (1951) 16):297–334CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Cronbach L. J., Furby L. How we should measure “change”—Or should we? Psych. Bull. (1970) 74(1):68–80CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Dasgupta S., Agarwal D., Ioannides A., Gopalakrishnan S. Determinants of information technology adoption: An extension of existing models to firms in a developing country. J. Global Inform. Management (1999) 7(3):30–40CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Davis F. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quart (1989) 13(3):319–340CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Davis F., Bagozzi R. P., Warshaw P. R. User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Sci. (1989) 35(8):982–1003LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Dishaw M. T., Strong D. M. Supporting software maintenance with software engineering tools: A computed task-technology fitanalysis. The J. Systems and Software (1998) 44(2):107–120CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Edwards J. R. Alternatives to difference scores as dependent variables in the study of congruence in organizational research. Organ. Behavior and Human Decision Processes (1995) 64(3):307–324CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Ehrenberg A. C. A hope for the future of statistics. Amer. Statistician (1990) 44:195–196CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Gadamer H., Barden G., Cummings J.Truth and Method (1975) (trans. Seabury, New York) Google Scholar
  • Goodhue D. L., Thompson R. L. Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quart. (1995) 19(2):213–236CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Hartwick J., Barki H. Hypothesis testing and hypothesis testing research: An example from the user participation literature. Inform. Systems Res. (1994) 5(4):446–450LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Heidegger M., Lovitt W.The Question ConcerningTechnology and Other Essays (1977) (trans. Garland Publishing, New York) Google Scholar
  • Hubbard R., Armstrong J. S. Replication and extensions in marketing: Rarely published but quite contrary. Internat. J. Res. Marketing (1994) 11:233–248CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Hubbard R., Armstrong J. S. An empirical comparison of published research in accounting, economics, finance, management, and marketing. J. Bus. Res. (1996) 35:153–164CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Hubbard R., Vetter D. E., Little E. L. Replication in strategic management: Scientific testing for validity, generalizability, and usefulness. Strategic Management J. (1998) 19(3):243–254CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Jackson C. M., Chow S., Leitch R. A. Toward an understanding of the behavioral intention to use an information system. Decision Sci. (1997) 28(2):357–389CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Johns G. Difference score measures of organizational behavior variables: A critique. Organ. Behavior and Human Performance (1981) 27:443–463CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Kane E. J. Why journal editors should encourage the replication of applied econometric research. Quart. J. Bus. Econom. (1984) Winter23:3–8Google Scholar
  • Keil M., Mann J., Rai A. Why software projects escalate: An empirical analysis and test of four theoretical models. MIS Quart. (2000) 24(4):631–664CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Kettinger W. J., Lee C. C. Perceived service quality and user satisfaction with the information services function. Decision Sci. (1994) 25(5):737–766CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Kinnear T. C. From the editor. J. Marketing (1992) 56(January):1–3CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Lee A. S. Integrating positivist and interpretive approaches to organizational research. Organ. Sci. (1991) 2(4):342–365LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Lee A. S. Editor's comments. MIS Quart. (1999) 23(2):xxv–xxviiiGoogle Scholar
  • Liberatore M. J., Titus G. J., Varano M. W., Dixon P. W. An experimental investigation of the effects of some information system design variables on performance, preference and learning. Inform. Processing and Management (1989) 25(5):563–578CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Lindsay R. M., Ehrenberg A. S. C. The design of replicated studies. The Amer. Statistician (1993) 47(3):217–228Google Scholar
  • Lord F. M. The utilization of unreliable difference scores. J. Educational Psych. (1958) 49(3):150–152CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Lykken D. T. Statistical significance in psychological research. Psych. Bull. (1968) 70:151–159CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Manzoni J. F., Angehrn A. A. Understanding organizational dynamics of IT-enabled change: A multimedia simulation approach. J. Management Inform. Systems (1997/1998) 14(3):109–140CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • McGrath J. E., Brinberg D. External validity and the research process: Commenton the Calder/Lynch dialogue. J. Consumer Res. (1983) 10:115–124CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Morgan G., Smircich L. The case for qualitative research. Acad. Management Rev. (1980) 5(4):491–500CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Parasuraman A., Zeithaml V. A., Berry L. L. A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. J. Marketing (1985) 49(4):41–50CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Parasuraman A., Zeithaml V. A., Berry L. L. SERVQUAL: A multiple item scale for measuring customer perceptions of service quality. J. Retailing (1988) Spring64:12–40Google Scholar
  • Peter J. P., Churchill G. A., Brown T. J. Caution in the use of difference scores in consumer research. J. Consumer Res. (1993) 19(1):655–662CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Pitt L. F., Watson R. T., Kavan C. B. Service quality: A measure of information systems effectiveness. MIS Quart. (1995) 19(2):173–187CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Pitt L. F., Watson R. T., Kavan C. B. Measuring information systems service quality: Concerns for a complete canvas. MIS Quart. (1997) 21(5):209–219CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Popper K.The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1959) (Hutchison, London, U.K.) Google Scholar
  • Raman K. Inductive inference and replications: A Bayesian perspective. J. Consumer Res. (1994) 20(March):633–643CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Robey D. Modeling interpersonal processes during systems development: Further thoughts and some suggestions. Inform. Systems Res. (1994) 5(4):439–446LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Robey D., Farrow D. User involvement in information system development: A conflict model and empirical test. Management Sci. (1982) 28(1):83–86LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Robey D., Farrow D., Franz C. R. Group process and conflictin system development. Management Sci. (1989) 35(10):1172–1192LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Robey D., Smith L. A., Vijayasarathy L. R. Perceptions of conflict and success in information systems development projects. J. Management Inform. Systems (1993) 10(1):123–134CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Rosenthal R., Rosnow R. L.Essentials of Behavioral Research: Methods and Data Analysis (1984) (McGraw-Hill, New York) Google Scholar
  • Tsoukas H. Postmodernism, reflexive rationalism and organizational studies. Organ. Stud. (1992) 13(4):643–649CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Van Dyke T. P., Kappelman L. A., Prybutok V. P. Measuring information systems service quality: Concerns on the use of the SERVQUAL questionnaire. MIS Quart. (1997) 21(2):195–208CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Wall T. D., Payne R. Are deficiency scores deficient? J. Appl. Psych. (1973) 58(3):322–326CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Wittgenstein L., Anscombe G. E. M.Philosophical Investigations (1953) (trans. The Macmillan Company, New York) Google Scholar
  • Zmud R. Editors comments. MIS Quart. (1996) 20(4):liii–lviGoogle Scholar
  • Zmud R. Editors comments. MIS Quart. (1998) 22(1):v–vi.Google Scholar
INFORMS site uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some are essential to make our site work; Others help us improve the user experience. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Please read our Privacy Statement to learn more.