Opening remarks

Motivation

When developing or revising the structure for your own paper, remember that a good option is always to follow as closely as possible the standard paper structure instead of inventing new structures. Innovative structures are not always well received in the academic community because the novel structure makes reading the paper more difficult. Recker (2021b, 178)

Research types

Regarding you master thesis, there are basically two approaches you can take:

behavioral science or
design science.

Behavioral science

Development of a research model or assumptions based on theoretical considerations of literature
Empirical test of the research model
Derivation of management recommendations

Design science

Development of an artifact based on the body of knowledge (practice and theory)
Empirical test of the artifact
Refinement and repetition of the empirical test until the artifact is sufficient for management recommendation

The structure proposed here fits best to behavioral science research.

Polarities

Following table contrasts the approaches

	Behavioral science	Design science
Ontological temporality	Existing reality	New reality
Basic aim	Truth	Utility
Study focus	Behavior	Designed artifacts
Basic procedure	Data collection	Creation through design
Basic epistemic types	Explanation & description	Prescription through design principles and design theory
Type of conjecture	Causality hypothesis	Design idea & design hypothesis

Table 1: Polarities of behavioral science vs. design science in information systems research (Goldkuhl 2016)

Structure

Why structue matters

Science is about new ideas in old formats.

Reviewers and readers are accustomed to certain ways of reading an article—the so-called “script” (Grover and Lyytinen 2015).

Innovative structures are not always well received by scholars because the novel structure makes the paper difficult to read.

An innovative structure distracts from the content, forces readers to focus more on the structure, which gives them less capacity to focus on the content (Recker 2021b).

Thus, a good advice is to follow the script and make only mindful variations.

Generic paper structure (empirical papers)

Section	Content
Introduction	Problem statement, research gap, research question (RQ), approach, contributions
Background	Literature on the topic, research gap, general theory
Theory	Assumptions, propositions, hypotheses
Methodology	Sampling, data collection and analysis methods, etc.
Findings	Descriptive results of the data analysis
Discussion	Answer to the RQs, theoretical and practical contributions, limitations, further research
Conclusion	Closing frame

Table 2: Generic structure of an empirical research paper

Generic paper structure (design science papers)

Section	Content
Introduction	Problem statement, research gap, research question (RQ), approach, contributions
Background	Research context and literature on the topic (what is known about the artifact)
Justification	Theory from IS and natural and social science that informs the design theory
Methodology	Description of the design science research approach
Specification	Meta-requirements, principles of implementation/process, testable design properties
Instantiation	Description of the artifact/system/method
Evaluation	Test of the artifact/sytem/method
Discussion	Theoretical and practical contributions, limitations, further research
Conclusion	Closing frame

Table 3: Idealized structure of a design science paper

Examples

Generic structure	Quantitative study: Adam, Roethke, and Benlian (2023)	Qualitative study: Strich, Mayer, and Fiedler (2021)	Design Science: Recker (2021a)
Introduction	Introduction	Intro	Introduction
Background	Related literature and theoretical background	Theoretical background	Research context
Theory	Research model and hypotheses development	-	Solution objectives
Methodology	Research methodology	Research setting and methodology	Research approach
Findings	Study 1: Randomized field experiment Study 2: Randomized online experiment	Findings	Evaluation
Discussion	Discussion	Discussion	Discussion
Conclusion	-	Concludsion	Conclusion

Table 4: Examples of paper structures

Macro-structure (empirical papers)

The structure of many empirical papers can even be further abstracted to a macro-structure

Section	Associated headings
Theoretical front end	Background Conceptual development Hypotheses development Literature review Research hypotheses Research model Research questions Theory Theoretical background Theoretical development Theoretical model
Method	Analysis Data collection Findings Methodology Methods\| Model testing Procedure Research methodology Results
Implications	Contributions Discussion Future Research Implications Implications for future research Implications for practice Limitations Practical implications Recommendations Theoretical implications

Table 5: Macro-structure (Tams and Grover 2010)

Introduction

Function

Capture the reader’s curiosity and set the right frame (Kane 2022).

The expectations of the readers are set here.

Answer the questions, “What does the literature get wrong?” and “Why does it matter?”.
Outline how to correct these inadequacies
Put the study in the context of previous research, but keep it concise¹.
Good introductions are short²
Do not include a summary of the paper

Motivation

Motivate your research with a hook, not a gap

The gap is usually the argument that something hasn’t been done yet. Necessary, but not sufficient as some things shouldn’t be done (Grant and Pollock 2011).

The hook is a strategy to find a problem that someone cares about (Grant and Pollock 2011).

It resolves a contradiction in the literature,
expands the literature to include specific, important phenomena/understandings/contexts (and why)
resolves a puzzle for practitioners that is important but not yet addressed; and/or
demonstrates how the existing literature can mislead our thinking

Forumula

Based on Baird (2021) and Recker (2021b) following “script” can be derived:

Paragraph 1 – Hook
What is the context of this research? Why is it interesting or why does it matter?
Paragraph 2 – Background
Synthesis of research relevant to your area, target audience, and objective.
Paragrpah 3 - Tension
What is unresolved? What am I going to get wrong if I don’t read this paper?
Paragraph 4 – Resolution
How is this paper going to resolve this issue? (objective, theory, and design)
Paragraph 5 – Contribution
What is the expected contribution?
Paragraph 6 – Outline
How is the rest of the paper structured?

Background

Function

This section provides everything needed to understand your research processes and results.

Here you lay the foundation of your theory

The background is not a recapitulation, listing, or critique of all other work in this area, nor is it a list of concepts, it introduces and synthesizes the theoretical underpinnings you will rely on (Baird 2021):

relevant prior theory, assumptions and tensions,
concepts that you need; and
previous methods, algorithms, findings, and arguments on which your work is based.

Tips for writing the theory section

Organize the section according to topics, not as a list of studies.
Discuss related work, rather than just listing it.
Explain how your work complements others’ work.
Explain how your work contradicts previous work.
Highlight areas in which your work builds on others’ work. Keep it concise.’
In the last section, briefly summarize everything by highlighting what is known, but also what is either not known or assumed and needs to be revised (in this paper).

Theory

Function

This is not where existing theory is discussed, but where the magic happens (Recker 2021b):

Here you develop new theory.

Provide an overview of the conceptual or research model that is being developed and strong argument for the hypotheses (i.e., constructs and their relationships)
Keep your hypotheses simple but precise
In an exploratory research (mainly qualitative), outline your theoretical sensibility and possibly initial assumptions that guide the research.

Tips for writing (Recker 2021b)

Start with an overview of conceptual or research model being developed.
Discuss components of the model in paragraphs with relevant subheadings that reflect the model.
Follow a disciplined structure that moves from concepts to associations to laws to boundaries.
Each hypothesis must be preceded by a strong argument as to why it should hold.
Explain concepts or constructs in tables
Differentiate between conceptual level (abstact) and empirical level (operationalization)
When developing hypotheses, do not use words like “prove” but use words like “suggest” or “support.”

Methods

Function

This section provides the first part of your resolution.

Here you show how the research was carried out.

Outline and justify your research strategy;
provide materials, case sites, scope of survey, appropriate samples, participant selection and all other decisions related to the research design;
describe the measurements (quantitative) or data collection techniques (qualitative) used; and
exhibit the data analysis techniques used in your research.

Established scripts fopr the method section (Recker 2021b)

Experiment paper: experimental design, variables and measures, materials, tasks, procedures, and participants.
Quantitative paper: design, measures, sampling strategy, procedures, and validation of measures.
Qualitative paper: empirical setting, modes of data collection, and processes and techniques employed in data analysis.
Design science papers: overview, meta-requirements or design principles, artefact description, and evaluation.

Findings

Function

This section describes the second part of the resolution—the evidence gathered (Baird 2021).

Here you show what you have found out.

Offer a description of findings (factual result reporting, past tense)
Exclude data do which the discussion will not refer and vice versa
Include appropriate statistical tests or other analyses
Keep writing, statistics, and graphs should as simply as possible
Stick to the facts—do not include a discussion or interpretation of the findings

This section is easy to write and quite methodical—check published papers that use similar methods

Discussion

Function

This section is all about the contributions and implications.

Here the paper becomes most interesting

It usually starts with a summary of the main findings.
Then proceeds with their interpretation (sensemaking, present tense):
What do they actually mean? Why did you get the results that you obtained?
Explain results: why did you find what you found?
Abstract the results to concepts: what does it mean in a larger view?
Theorize the results: what do they tell us about the existing/new theory?

Note: Some readers tend to skim papers, read the intro, take a glimpse on figures and tables and then devote their attention mostly to this section.

Formula

Start with reminding the reader of the area of focus and the tension (Baird 2021).

Implications for research (theoretical contributions)

Start with the primary finding, explain how it relates to prior research, and the implications.
Add secondary findings, as well as how they extend research, and implications.

Questions that could guide your identification of theoretical contributions:

What did we find that can guide future research?
What opportunities for future research arise from the study described?
What new questions arise from the way the research question was answered in the paper?

Implications for practice (practical contributions)

How might your primary finding be applied by practitioners?
How about your secondary findings?

Limitations and future research

Reiterate strengths and identify limitations (to validity, generalizability, etc.)
Show opportunities for future research

Visualization

Implications should be visualized to enhance understanding and make them catchy.

Figure 1: Visualizing theoretical implications in Li, Hsieh, and Rai (2013)

Conclusion

Function

This section is optional and provides the closing frame to a paper (Recker 2021b).

Here you synthesize what you set out to do and accomplished

The conclusion is often not much more than an abstract statement;
it briefly summarizes the main contributions of the paper (no details) and
reflects on the research findings presented in the paper.

Homework

Please read the hypothetical AoM micro submission “Responses to Transformational Leadership: Are Some Followers Immune?”.

Reflect on the quality of this submission based on your learnings in IS research and this module so far. Write down strenghts and weaknesses of the paper.

Then read the sample reviews and compare these with your assessment.

Imagine you are the editor deciding about accepting or rejecting the manuscript:
What recommendations would you give the authors?

Literature

Adam, Martin, Konstantin Roethke, and Alexander Benlian. 2023. “Human Vs. Automated Sales Agents: How and Why Customer Responses Shift Across Sales Stages.” Information Systems Research 34 (3): 1148–68.

Baird, Aaron. 2021. “On Writing Research Articles Well: A Guide for Writing IS Papers.” Journal of the Association for Information Systems 22 (5): 1197–1211.

Goldkuhl, Göran. 2016. “Separation or Unity? Behavioral Science Vs. Design Science.” In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), 1–13.

Grant, Adam M, and Timothy G Pollock. 2011. “Publishing in AMJ—Part 3: Setting the Hook.” Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Briarcliff Manor, NY.

Grover, Varun, and Kalle Lyytinen. 2015. “New State of Play in Information Systems Research.” MIS Quarterly 39 (2): 271–96.

Kane, Gerald C. 2022. “How to Write an ‘a’ Paper.” Journal of the Association for Information Systems 23 (5): 1071–79.

Li, Xixi, JJ Po-An Hsieh, and Arun Rai. 2013. “Motivational Differences Across Post-Acceptance Information System Usage Behaviors: An Investigation in the Business Intelligence Systems Context.” Information Systems Research 24 (3): 659–82.

Recker, Jan. 2021a. “Improving the State-Tracking Ability of Corona Dashboards.” European Journal of Information Systems 30 (5): 476–95.

———. 2021b. Scientific Research in Information Systems: A Beginner’s Guide. Springer Nature.

Strich, Franz, Anne-Sophie Mayer, and Marina Fiedler. 2021. “What Do i Do in a World of Artificial Intelligence? Investigating the Impact of Substitutive Decision-Making AI Systems on Employees’ Professional Role Identity.” Journal of the Association for Information Systems 22 (2): 9.

Tams, Stefan, and Varun Grover. 2010. “The Effect of an IS Article’s Structure on Its Impact.” Communications of the Association for Information Systems 27 (1): 10.

Footnotes

Say only what the reader needs to know to understand the work at hand↩︎
Introductions in articles should be no longer than 2.5 pages (Baird 2021)↩︎