Ågerfalk argues that “insufficient theoretical contribution” has become a convenient, seemingly decisive rejection rationale in top journals, but that this habit can quietly distort what counts as valuable scholarship (Ågerfalk, 2014). His core proposition is not that theory is unimportant; it is that theoretical contribution is not the only legitimate contribution type and, in some studies, it is not even the most appropriate primary target. In those cases, demanding a full, explicit theoretical payoff can penalize the very work that expands a field’s empirical imagination, documents emerging phenomena, and supplies the raw material from which later theorizing becomes possible (Ågerfalk, 2014).
A second key proposition is conceptual hygiene: contribution should be separated from implications. Ågerfalk treats theoretical contribution as an advance in our conceptual understanding, meaning the concepts we use and the relationships we claim among them, including the explanatory “how” and “why” that make a theory a theory (Ågerfalk, 2014). Empirical contribution, by contrast, is about making a phenomenon newly visible in a disciplined, informative way, often by reporting patterns, mechanisms, or contextual realities not previously documented or not previously documented with sufficient clarity. Theoretical implications can emerge from an empirical contribution, but Ågerfalk emphasizes that such implications are often provisional and may mature only after subsequent studies accumulate and test, refine, or reframe what the original work revealed. Confusing these categories encourages authors to inflate claims and encourages reviewers to treat a lack of immediate theorizing as a lack of value (Ågerfalk, 2014).
From this separation follows a third proposition: theory fetishism can systematically suppress pretheoretical research, namely research conducted in spaces where existing theories do not yet explain what is happening well enough to justify strong theoretical claims (Ågerfalk, 2014). When journals and reviewers insist on explicit theoretical novelty as the price of entry, they create an incentive to retrofit observations into fashionable constructs, to overinterpret thin evidence, or to narrate the work as theory-driven even when it is not. The result is not “more theory” in any meaningful sense; it is often more rhetorical packaging, more forced alignment, and less honest attention to what the data are saying. Ågerfalk’s warning is blunt: over-enforcement of theoretical contribution can yield the opposite of scientific progress by discouraging the careful reporting of anomalies and nascent patterns that frequently trigger genuine theoretical advancement later (Ågerfalk, 2014).
A fourth proposition is that there is a practical trade-off inside manuscripts: the more space, energy, and argumentative pressure devoted to manufacturing a strong theoretical claim, the less room remains for rich empirical exposition and careful contextualization (Ågerfalk, 2014). This matters because many research domains, especially applied ones, suffer less from “too little theory” than from an incomplete, low-resolution understanding of what is actually happening in practice. In such settings, a meticulously developed empirical account can be the most productive scientific move even if it does not culminate in a large theoretical leap. Ågerfalk’s point is that editors and reviewers should recognize contribution as plural: some papers should be judged on whether they deliver a compelling empirical advance that future theorists can build on, rather than on whether they deliver a near-finished theoretical product on the spot (Ågerfalk, 2014).
Ågerfalk also highlights design-oriented research as a particularly revealing arena for this debate, because the research object is often an artifact, a method, or a sociotechnical intervention whose primary value may lie in demonstrable utility and well-argued design rationale rather than in immediate theoretical novelty (Ågerfalk, 2014). If such work is forced into the same evaluative mold as theory-driven explanatory studies, reviewers may dismiss it for lacking theoretical contribution even when it delivers a substantive, reusable, and context-sensitive advance. His broader argument is consistent: contribution criteria must align with research purpose and epistemic stage. When a field encounters new technologies, new organizational forms, or new practices, insisting that every solid study also deliver an explicit theoretical delta can be an expensive mistake, because it blocks disciplined observation precisely when observation is most needed (Ågerfalk, 2014).
The editorial stance Ågerfalk advocates is a shift from conclusory rejection to discriminating evaluation: when a manuscript is weak theoretically, the first question should not be “reject,” but “does it deliver a strong empirical contribution, and if so, how can it be framed and written honestly as such?” (Ågerfalk, 2014). This reframing has implications for authors as well. If a study’s real strength is empirical, the most credible strategy is to foreground that strength, avoid overclaiming theoretical novelty, and discuss theoretical implications as plausible paths rather than as completed achievements. In short, Ågerfalk’s central proposition can be read as a quality-control principle: the problem is not papers that lack theoretical contribution; the problem is a review culture that treats this lack as a universal, conclusive reason to reject, even when the study’s most valuable function is to expand the field’s empirical base and thereby enable future theory to become better, not just louder (Ågerfalk, 2014).
References: Ågerfalk, P. J. (2014). Insufficient theoretical contribution: A conclusive rationale for rejection? European Journal of Information Systems, 23(6), 593–599. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2014.35
Mini dictionary
Insufficient theoretical contribution. A common review verdict that treats a manuscript’s lack of explicit theory advancement as a decisive reason for rejection, even when the work may offer other forms of value (Ågerfalk, 2014).
Theoretical contribution. An advance that changes how a field conceptualizes and explains a phenomenon, typically by refining concepts and/or proposing or improving relationships among them in a way that enhances explanation (Ågerfalk, 2014).
Empirical contribution. A substantive addition to what is known about a phenomenon through careful observation, description, measurement, or documentation, especially by making previously under-specified realities more visible and credible (Ågerfalk, 2014).
Pretheoretical research. Research conducted where existing theory is weak, absent, or not yet suitable for explaining what is observed, so the primary value is often disciplined discovery and articulation rather than immediate theorizing (Ågerfalk, 2014).
Theory fetishism. A review and publishing mindset that over-privileges explicit theoretical novelty as the primary legitimacy test, risking undervaluation of strong empirical work and encouraging performative theorizing (Ågerfalk, 2014).
Implications. Reasoned consequences or lessons drawn from findings, which may be practical or theoretical, but are not identical to the contribution itself and should not be used as a substitute label for it (Ågerfalk, 2014).
Overclaiming. Inflating what a study can legitimately assert, often by converting tentative observations into strong theoretical statements to satisfy contribution expectations, increasing credibility risk (Ågerfalk, 2014).
Rhetorical packaging. Writing strategies that present work as theoretically groundbreaking without corresponding substance, typically induced by contribution pressures rather than by the evidence base (Ågerfalk, 2014).
Review culture. The shared norms and habitual evaluation criteria in peer review that shape what kinds of knowledge are rewarded or excluded, including how “contribution” is operationalized in decisions (Ågerfalk, 2014).
Contribution pluralism. The stance that valuable scholarship can legitimately contribute in different ways, including empirically, methodologically, or through artifacts, and that evaluation should match the research purpose and stage of knowledge development (Ågerfalk, 2014).
Design science research. A research orientation where creating and evaluating artifacts is central; its primary contribution may be a useful, well-justified artifact or design knowledge rather than a conventional theory advance (Ågerfalk, 2014).
Trade-off between theorizing and empirics. The practical constraint that pushing harder for explicit theory-building can reduce space and attention for rich empirical exposition and careful contextualization, potentially weakening the overall scientific value (Ågerfalk, 2014).