Replication Research (AIS Transactions on Replication Research)

Click here to return to the track list page.

Track Chairs

Alan Dennis, Indiana University,
Joe Valacich, University of Arizona,

Track Description

Our focus is replications of prior research studies. All topics in IS are open for consideration. Articles will either support the findings of the original article or provide results that do not support the original article (e.g., nonsignificant). Either outcome will advance science. If the original article results are replicated, then the replication provides external third-party validation of the results and a generalization of the original contribution. If the new article fails to replicate the original results, this doesn’t mean the original results are “wrong”; just that they don’t generalize to the new context, which should trigger additional replications and new follow-on research to understand in what contexts the theory applies and why the original findings are only generalizable to those contexts.

A replication paper should briefly introduce the research area and present the results of the study being replicated before presenting the methods and results of the replication; no hypotheses or theory are needed because those have been presented in depth in the original article. The focus is on the results and a discussion of how they match or differ from the original article.

We seek three types of replications:
  1. Exact Replications: These articles are exact copies of the original article in terms of method and context. All measures, treatments statistical analyses, etc. will be identical to those of the original study. The context will also be the same, so if the original study used US undergraduate business students, Mechanical Turk, employees of a Finnish telecom, etc., so too will an exact replication study.
  2. Methodological Replications: These articles use exactly the same methods as the original study (i.e., measures, treatments, statistics etc.) but are conducted in a different context. For example, if the original study used US undergraduate business students, the replication might use US graduate students, undergraduates from Hong Kong, US professionals, and so on.
  3. Conceptual Replications: These articles test exactly the same research questions or hypotheses, but use different measures, treatments, and/or analyses. For example, replications might alter the wording of items used to measure key constructs or use different software to implement a treatment in an experiment. Likewise, studies that attempt to test the boundaries of the theory and the strength of a relationship using explained variance and effect sizes are particularly welcomed.

Mini-Track 1: Replication of Individual-Level Research

Traci Carte, Kennesaw State University,
Taylor Wells, California State University, Sacramento,

This mini-track will focus on replications of published IS research at the individual-level. While there are many impactful and influential individual-level research studies (e.g., the Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989), Task-Technology Fit (Goodhue, 1995), online trust (McKnight et al., 2002), and others), very few IS studies have been rigorously replicated. Replication validates and helps refines our theories, identifies boundary conditions, and is an essential part of the scientific method. We invite authors submitting to this mini-track to do just that. Replications of any form (i.e., exact replications, methodological replications, or conceptual replications – see track description) are welcome.

Mini-Track 2: Replication of collaboration research

Sue Brown, Professor, University of Arizona,
Robert Fuller, University of Tennessee,

This mini-track focuses on replications of collaboration research. Collaboration research encompasses studies that are focused on dyads, teams, virtual worlds, and online social networks – essentially everything where two or more people leverage technology for interactions. Some areas in collaboration research that have had conflicting or equivocal results in prior research include the effects of: trust, training style, leadership style, and experience on performance; technology affordances and communication style on performance and affect; cultural characteristics on choice, use, performance, and affect; and individual characteristics (e.g., playfulness, personality) on performance and satisfaction. In addition, research has only begun to examine issues associated with social media use, such as: commitment to and participation in forums; outcomes associated with forum participation (e.g., medical/health-care forums and health outcomes); and civility (or incivility) in social media interactions.

Mini-Track 3: Replication of Organizational-level Research and Studies on Systems Development

Saonee Sarker, University of Virginia,
Allen S. Lee, Virginia Commonwealth University,

This minitrack focuses on the replication of prior studies examining both systems development and other organizational-level phenomenon within the IS discipline. Alan R. Dennis and Joseph Valacich in AIS Transactions on Replication Research provide the following argument for more replication studies: “Replication is one of the main principles of the scientific method. The social sciences, and in particular the information systems discipline, have lagged behind the physical sciences which have more established traditions of independently replicating studies from other labs. [There is] the need for replication in the information systems discipline. … Replication will either improve confidence in our research findings or identify important boundary conditions. Replications also enhance various scientific processes and offer methodical and educational improvements.” Given that a large number of IS research studies focus on organizational-level phenomena in general, and systems development in particular, replication of such studies using different methodologies and contexts, among others, will contribute to the maturity and prosperity of the IS discipline.

Click here to return to the track list page.