Value of IS Research-A Response to the Rejoinders (original) (raw)
Related papers
Value of IS Research: Is there a Crisis?
Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 2014
This debate section article examines the notion of value or worth of IS research. It suggests that how others value the product of Information Systems (IS) research may be the underlying problem triggering various forms of anxiety discourses that are frequently recurring. The value of IS research is examined from the perspectives of ends-means, basic and applied research, and the significance of IS problems. The article also proposes ways of maintaining the value of IS research by emphasizing originality, being "active" and not "passive", and making evident what is not. The article argues that the value of IS research is found not in duplicating research already undertaken in management, computer science, psychology, economics or its other reference disciplines, but in asking questions that other disciplines are not asking or in addressing problems that others are incapable of addressing.
Value of IS Research: Let’s Not Talk Crisis – but We Can Do Better
Communications of the Association for Information Systems
I argue that the Information Systems (IS) field is at a crossroads, not a crisis. Across a variety of metrics, the field has progressed fabulously. The quality of our journals and the research they embody is on par with other business disciplines. However, our course of drawing from reference disciplines, creating different instantiations of models, having everyone engage in theory and empirics, and limiting our actionable implicationsmight be creating an impediment for us. We need to expend more energy in dealing with bigger questions that characterize contemporary digital environments. This will require some thoughtful discussion and introspectionso that we can fight against the institutional forces that limit our value proposition.
Thirty Years of IS Research: Core Artifacts and Academic Identity
Communications of the Association for Information Systems
This paper puts forward an academic identity for the IS discipline which emerges out of its displayed academic artifactsnamely, papers published in two of the discipline"s major journals (Information Systems Research and MIS Quarterly) between 1977 and 2006. Our study focuses on two specific attributes of these papers: the focal IT Artifact and the IS Theme. An analysis of 1056 papers reveals an academic identity characterized by a relatively persistent focus on a small set of IT Artifacts and a similarly small set of IS Themes. The analysis suggests that our academic identity is indicated by two central and enduring intellectual cores associated with a handful of IT Artifacts and IS Themes, which have captured the attention of IS researchers over three decades. This academic identity may be described as the scientific study of the design, development, and management of information technologies, as well as their use by and impact on individuals, groups, and organizations. Of particular interest are information technologies (and their specific components) that enable communication, collaboration, and decision making. A follow up analysis of the papers published in 2007 and 2008 provides support to the central and enduring nature of our discipline"s intellectual core.
2015
Recent articles such as Avison and Malaurent (2014) and Grover and Lyytinen (2015) question taken-for-granted assumptions about the centrality of theory in research published in leading journals and the near necessity of following repetitive scripts that sometimes are an obstacle to creativity. This paper goes a step further by providing examples and observations that illustrate five seemingly insurmountable challenges related to attaining long-term value from theorizing about information systems. 1) Divergent definitions of basic terms makes it extremely difficult to accumulate IS knowledge. 2) The IS discipline seems to take for granted that knowledge must take the form of theory. 3) Many beliefs and practices related to IT will not hold still for long due to the rapid pace of technological change 4) Most concepts and phenomena that are relevant to IS are not uniquely about IS. 5) Institutional practices at multiple levels encourage use of scripts that are obstacles to creativity ...
Making Information Systems Research More Valuable
This essay explores research characteristics beyond those of rigor or relevance to propose a framework that will make information systems (IS) research more valuable to its stakeholders. The value of IS research ought to be measured by its originality, how well it addresses the needs of its sociological and discursive environment, the extent the research makes evident what is hidden, and how closely it adheres to the laws that rarify it. The originality of the research is in turn defined by its subordination to its disciplinary subject matter and how actively the research manipulates the objects and concepts that it forges in the process of creating knowledge. These characteristics define the value of IS research and what ultimately makes the research relevant and sought after.
New State of Play in Information Systems Research: The Push to the Edges
MIS Quarterly
The dominant way of producing knowledge in information systems (IS) seeks to domesticate high-level reference theory in the form of mid-level abstractions involving generic and atheoretical information technology (IT) components. Enacting such epistemic scripts squeezes IS theory to the middle range, where abstract reference theory concepts are directly instantiated or slightly modified to the IS context, whereas IT remains exogenous to theory by being treated as an independent variable, mediator, or moderator. In this design, IT is often operationalized using proxies that detect the presence of IT or its variation in use or cost. Our analysis of 143 articles published in MIS Quarterly and Information Systems Research over the past 15 years demonstrates that over 70 percent of published theory conforms to this mode of producing IS knowledge. This state of play has resulted in two negative consequences: the field (1) agonizes over the dearth of original and bold theorizing over IT and (2) satisfices when integrating theory with empirics by creating incommensurate mid-range models that are difficult to consolidate. We propose that one way to overcome these challenges is to critically examine and debate the negative impacts of the field's dominant epistemic scripts and relax them by permitting IS scholarship that more fluidly accommodates alternative forms of knowledge production. This will push IS inquiry to the "edges" and emphasize, on the one hand, inductive, rich inquiries using innovative and extensive data sets and, on the other hand, novel, genuine, high-level theorizing around germane conceptual relationships between IT, information and its (semiotic) representations, and social behaviors. We offer several exemplars of such inquiries and their results. To promote this push, we invite alternative institutionalized forms of publishing and reviewing. We conclude by inviting individual scholars to be more open to practices that permit richer theorizing. These recommendations will broaden the field's knowledge ecology and permit the creation of good IS knowledge over just getting "hits." We surmise that, if such changes are carried out, the field can look confidently toward its future as one of the epicenters of organizational inquiry that deal with the central forces shaping human enterprise in the 21 st century.
Information Systems Research at the Crossroads: External Versus Internal Views
Organizational and Social Perspectives on Information Technology, 2000
The advent of the third millennium provides the backdrop for exploring the current intellectual stage of IS research in both substance and matters of research methods. The paper first identifies and reflects upon two key aspects that have shaped our discipline for the past three decades and are critical for us as a community to get right if the discipline is to flourish. These aspects surround: (1) the external view of the state of the community and (2) the internal state of the community. It is our contention that, in both areas, the discipline faces significant problems. In the second part of the paper, we identify some promising steps to be taken next in IS research and its institutionalization as we cross the millennium threshold.
Muddling Along to Moving Beyond in IS Research: Getting from Good to Great
Journal of the Association for Information Systems
In this article, I argue that the IS field seems to be doing well when evaluated with sociometric techniques. However, while the progress of our field is commendable, we might have reached diminishing returns in the way we conduct research with our current modus operandi. Given that we are dealing with the most important phenomena of our time, I believe that it is time to become more ambitious and expand our impact to other domains and disciplines by creating more enduring and impactful research. I argue that four key dimensions on which we should place emphasis include: our institutionalization of a certain genre of research, monistic theorizing of our phenomena, the focus on questions for which data is easier to access, and our unwillingness to deeply engage with reference discipline theories. Addressing these through individual and collective efforts can help us expand the frontiers of our knowledge product and create broader value.
Back to Basics: Exploring the Critical Legacy of IS Research
itu.dk
The main assumption in this paper is that there are important, unfamiliar and obscure qualities of information technology as it intertwines with people's everyday life. That is, aspects that so far and to a large extent has escaped critical scrutiny. It is also tentatively suggested that these unknown qualities are being prevented from critical examinations as long as we pursue investigations based on design and/or use perspectives. In this paper a tentative response to the request for new perspectives on critical research is formulated. The response is based on my assessment of Critical Theory and Critical Theory of Technology where an aesthetic understanding is suggested to alter our critical sense of how people today form meaningfulness by, through and with information technology. So, without neglecting other commonly held critical positions this paper tentatively concludes that an understanding of the reflexive nature of information technology in conjunction with the basic spirit behind the Frankfurt School empower critical IS researchers with a new sensibility for what might constitute contemporary critical concerns.