ABSTRACT Among the defining characteristics of a healthy research discipline is the ability to correct its knowledge if more recent evidence creates grounds for this. Studies that reveal errors in earlier theories demonstrate, in line with Karl Popper’s thinking, an approach called falsificationism. They complement approaches aimed at developing and expanding knowledge by generalising empirical observations or postulating new contributions and testing them. The paper presents an analysis that applies this categorisation to abstracts of research papers (N = 5,202) in the eight leading IS journals. Machine-learning-based classification determined that only 7.0% of the papers manifested any clear form of knowledge-contestation, such as falsification, in the approach or findings presented. In light of this, we call on IS researchers to increase the falsification and knowledge-contestation in their research, to nurture more valid theories, methods, and practices, thereby achieving greater societal impact. We present two suitable IS research designs accordingly: knowledge-contesting comparisons and knowledge-contesting replications. We also discuss how these designs, exemplifying opportunities to increase the number of knowledge-contesting studies in the field, can be applied in both positivist and interpretivist research epistemology.

中文翻译：

---

建立在摇摇欲坠的基础上？IS 理论、方法和实践中缺乏证伪和知识争论

摘要 健康研究学科的定义特征之一是，如果最近的证据为这一点创造了基础，则能够纠正其知识。揭示早期理论错误的研究表明，与卡尔波普尔的思想一致，一种称为证伪主义的方法。它们通过概括经验观察或假设新的贡献并对其进行测试来补充旨在开发和扩展知识的方法。该论文提出了一项分析，将这种分类应用于八种领先的 IS 期刊中的研究论文摘要 (N​​ = 5,202)。基于机器学习的分类确定，只有 7.0% 的论文在所呈现的方法或发现中表现出任何明确形式的知识竞争，例如伪造。有鉴于此，我们呼吁IS研究人员在研究中增加证伪和知识竞赛，培育更多有效的理论、方法和实践，从而产生更大的社会影响。我们相应地提出了两种合适的 IS 研究设计：知识竞争比较和知识竞争复制。我们还讨论了这些设计如何在实证主义和解释主义研究认识论中应用这些设计，举例说明增加该领域知识竞争研究数量的机会。