Theorising plays a foundational role in Information Systems (IS) research. While the field has made important advances through theory borrowing, via adaptation and instantiation, as well as through contextualisation of established frameworks and models, comparatively little attention has been devoted to the elaboration of existing theories through structured, logic-driven approaches. This commentary problematises that imbalance and advances the concept of deductive theory elaboration as a valuable, yet underutilised, form of theorising in behavioural IS research. We define deductive theory elaboration as a process that extends existing theories by introducing conceptual modifications to their constructs, relationships, or boundary conditions prior to empirical testing. We distinguish this approach from related forms of theorising and propose a four-step framework supported by a repertoire of elaboration patterns for both variance and process theories. We also offer practical reporting guidelines to promote transparency and rigour in elaboration-based contributions. Our aim is to encourage more systematic elaboration efforts to enhance the precision, generalisability, and cumulative potential of IS theories, an optimistic vision of how behavioural IS research can evolve to meet the conceptual challenges of a rapidly transforming digital landscape.

The central role of information systems review articles has been recognised in a recent explosion of interest in editorials, research articles, and opinion papers investigating methods and approaches for conducting standalone reviews. In continuity with recent developments in this area, this descriptive review seeks to determine the extent to which various types of review articles published in our field are transparent, i.e., they report important methodological elements about their design. To fulfil this objective, we identified, classified, and coded 142 review articles from the Association for Information Systems (AIS) senior scholars’ basket of journals published between 2000 and 2014. Overall, our findings indicate inadequate reporting of the methods, procedures, and techniques used in a majority of reviews. Our assessment also reveals that theory development and narrative reviews, which are the most frequently published types of reviews in our field, generally were the least explicit with regard to the methods they used. Based on our observations, we recommend that authors of all forms of reviews better document design decisions so to increase trustworthiness, get meaningful results, and develop a cumulative body of knowledge in our discipline. The list of reporting items developed in this study can serve as a framework to assist prospective authors of reviews both within and outside our field.