Table A1 Specific indicators of the... | Emerald Publishing

Table A1

Specific indicators of the epistemology of ANT and that of the normal science tradition used in the coding of papers

Epistemological dimensions	Indicators of “classic ANT” reasoning	Indicators of normal science reasoning
Over-riding view of the role of theory in research	Are there any statements in which the authors reject existing domain theory as an input to their research? Are there any statements rejecting theory advancement as the output of the research?	Are there any statements regarding the authors' theory development ambitions based on using theory as an input or expecting theoretical advancement to occur as an output of the research?
Employed modes of reasoning	Do the authors follow an open-ended mode of reasoning (e.g. by “following the actors”) primarily aimed at generating rich empirical descriptions?	Do the authors engage in any attempts to derive hypotheses/predictions from extant domain and/or method theory (deduction), generalize from “grounded” empirical observations to either type of theory (induction), or combine the two types of theorizing (abduction)?
Strategies for developing research questions	Do the authors mainly rely on some empirically derived topic, pivoting on potentially controversial issues (“matters of concern”), to motivate their research questions/purpose?	Do the authors motivate their research questions (or position their purpose) in relation to some claimed theoretical lacuna (gap-spotting) or through theoretical problematization (in relation to extant domain and/or method theories) that is derived either deductively from tensions or paradoxes in the existing literature or starting from an observed empirical surprise/puzzle/mystery?
Nature of research contributions	Do the authors refrain from discussing their findings as (domain or method) theoretical contributions, i.e. are they content to conclude their research by simply summarizing the empirical findings?	Do the authors claim to have advanced any new domain and/or method theory (developing new theory)? Do the authors claim to have tested (theory testing) or illuminated (theory illustration) extant domain and/or method theory? Do the authors propose any additions to (extension) and/or revisions/fine-tuning (refinement) of extant theory or concepts in relation to the domain and/or method theories?

Epistemological dimensions	Indicators of “classic ANT” reasoning	Indicators of normal science reasoning
Over-riding view of the role of theory in research	Are there any statements in which the authors reject existing domain theory as an input to their research? Are there any statements rejecting theory advancement as the output of the research?	Are there any statements regarding the authors' theory development ambitions based on using theory as an input or expecting theoretical advancement to occur as an output of the research?
Employed modes of reasoning	Do the authors follow an open-ended mode of reasoning (e.g. by “following the actors”) primarily aimed at generating rich empirical descriptions?	Do the authors engage in any attempts to derive hypotheses/predictions from extant domain and/or method theory (deduction), generalize from “grounded” empirical observations to either type of theory (induction), or combine the two types of theorizing (abduction)?
Strategies for developing research questions	Do the authors mainly rely on some empirically derived topic, pivoting on potentially controversial issues (“matters of concern”), to motivate their research questions/purpose?	Do the authors motivate their research questions (or position their purpose) in relation to some claimed theoretical lacuna (gap-spotting) or through theoretical problematization (in relation to extant domain and/or method theories) that is derived either deductively from tensions or paradoxes in the existing literature or starting from an observed empirical surprise/puzzle/mystery?
Nature of research contributions	Do the authors refrain from discussing their findings as (domain or method) theoretical contributions, i.e. are they content to conclude their research by simply summarizing the empirical findings?	Do the authors claim to have advanced any new domain and/or method theory (developing new theory)?Do the authors claim to have tested (theory testing) or illuminated (theory illustration) extant domain and/or method theory?Do the authors propose any additions to (extension) and/or revisions/fine-tuning (refinement) of extant theory or concepts in relation to the domain and/or method theories?