Theorizing in IS Research: What Came Before and What Comes Next?

Over the past decades, the IS community has adapted theories, methodologies, and philosophies from reference disciplines to solidify its domain. This has contributed to the diversity and pluralism in our field. As the IS discipline has evolved with relatively permeable research boundaries over the years, the diversity in theoretical underpinnings has been not only healthy but also essential to the evolution of our discipline. I find the challenges raised by Rose, Jones, and Truex to both researchers and practitioners interesting and valuable. Among other things, Rose et al. argue that there are correct and incorrect ways to use theories. The authors argue that when reference theories are taken into the domain of IS, different problems emerge. Among these problems we find how theories such as structuration theory and ANT are used and adapted in such a fashion that they stand in conflict with some of the basic assumptions in the original theory. In the challenges raised by Rose et al. we find the argument that we should stop calling contributions structurational or actor-network oriented if they violate central ideas of the original theory. I welcome this argument to the ongoing discourse on how and why theories should be adapted to our discipline. But while I agree with their observation, I believe that Rose et al. are only partially correct about the solution. Therefore, this debate contirbution sets out to complement their argument and to shed light on the process of adapting theories to IS research. In particular I