---
name: isr-theory-development
description: Use when building or refining the mechanism for an Information Systems Research (ISR) manuscript — deriving behavioral hypotheses for empirical work or analytical propositions/equilibrium predictions for modeling work, always centered on the IT artifact and the sociotechnical interplay across levels of analysis. Builds the theory; it does not test it (isr-methods, isr-data-analysis).
---

# Theory Development (isr-theory-development)

## When to trigger

- Your predictions are descriptive ("IT use relates to performance") with no mechanism
- You have an analytical model but the propositions are unmotivated or the comparative statics are not theorized
- A reviewer says "where is the IS theory?" or "this could be any social science"
- You must connect a behavioral and an economic/design logic (intradisciplinary work)

## Two theorizing modes — match yours to your genre

ISR houses **behavioral/empirical** and **analytical/economic & design-science** research as co-equal genres. The shape of "theory" differs:

- **Behavioral mode.** Build an explicit causal **mechanism** centered on the IT artifact: how a feature of the system, platform, or algorithm changes cognition, affect, behavior, interaction, or organizing — then derive hypotheses *a priori*. State the boundary conditions and the level(s) (individual → group → firm → network → society). Theorize mediation (the process) and moderation (when it strengthens/weakens), not just main effects.
- **Analytical mode.** Specify agents, payoffs, information structure, and the IT-enabled decision (e.g., platform pricing, security investment, contracting, recommendation, data sharing). The **assumptions are the theory**: justify each, derive equilibrium results, and read the **comparative statics** as the propositions. The contribution is the qualitative insight ("when X, the platform optimally does Y"), not the algebra.

## Make it sociotechnical and intradisciplinary

ISR's distinctive identity is **bridging IS silos**. The strongest manuscripts let the social and the technical co-determine the outcome and connect perspectives that usually stay separate — e.g., an economic model whose parameters are disciplined by behavioral evidence, or a behavioral study whose design is informed by a design-science artifact. Single-paradigm theory is publishable but the intradisciplinary, silo-bridging move is what ISR prizes. If you are combining methods, the 2025 multimethod-research framework editorial (ISR 36(2)) expects you to state how each method's theory informs the others.

## Anchor every construct to the IT artifact

The IT artifact must do theoretical work. For each construct, ask: would the prediction change if the technology were different? If not, the theory is not yet about IS.

## Checklist

- [ ] Genre named (behavioral vs analytical vs design-science) and theory shaped accordingly
- [ ] Behavioral: explicit mechanism + a priori hypotheses + mediation/moderation + level(s)
- [ ] Analytical: agents/payoffs/information stated; assumptions justified; propositions = comparative statics
- [ ] IT artifact does load-bearing theoretical work
- [ ] Sociotechnical co-determination is visible; an intradisciplinary bridge is attempted
- [ ] Boundary conditions and scope stated

## Anti-patterns

- **Decorated correlations**: "H1: A is positively related to B" with no mechanism.
- **Algebra-as-theory**: deriving an equilibrium without articulating the IS insight it yields.
- **Technology as backdrop**: a mechanism that would hold for any tool.
- **Forced multimethod**: stapling a model to an experiment without a shared theoretical logic.

## Output format

```
【Genre】behavioral / analytical / design-science
【Mechanism or model】[...]
【Predictions】hypotheses (a priori) / propositions (comparative statics)
【IT-artifact role】load-bearing? [...]
【Sociotechnical + intradisciplinary】[...]
【Boundary conditions】[...]
【Next step】isr-literature-positioning or isr-methods
```