Is Information Systems a Science? An Inquiry Into the Nature of the Information Systems Discipline (original) (raw)
Related papers
Information Systems: To Be, or Not To Be, a Science? Is that the Question?
Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 2018
In this commentary, we complement McBride's (2018) paper by setting the debate in its historical context and building on the "rite of passage" notion that Chughtai and Myers (2017) introduced to denote the process of researchers entering a field of practice. We first summarize McBride's (2018) main point concerning whether or not IS is a science and pick up on the systemic nature of IS. In doing so, we incorporate how researchers have historically treated the debate and distinguish science per se from the scientific method. We turn then to reflect on the point that this debate apparently refuses to die. We conclude with a forward-thinking section in which we consider the implications of our considering the topic not for the field as a whole but for individual IS researchers. We end with our own modest call for action in terms of focusing on the everyday practices of IS researchers-specifically, the rites of passage or transitions (and lack of them) we (should?) go through in how we practice our research.
Securing the Future of Information Systems as an Academic Discipline
International Conference on Information Systems, 2005
There are reasons to be concerned about the future of the academic discipline (or field) of Information Systems. Enrollments have dropped, survey courses are questioned, some writers have suggested that the IS function will soon disappear, and some well-known schools have yet to acknowledge the existence of a new academic discipline. These events are enough to create uncertainty in a relatively young field less than 40 years old. Is there a real crisis, or is the current situation temporary? The paper evaluates six pessimistic arguments about the field.
Is Information Systems a Science? Rejoinder to Five Commentaries
Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 2018
This paper concludes the debate on the nature of the information systems discipline and its academic practice. I initiated the debate in a paper which I questioned the view of information systems as a scientific discipline. Ten information systems academics responded to this initial paper over five separate papers. In this final rejoinder, I critique and respond to those five papers.
The status of the IS field: historical perspective and practical orientation
2000
This paper provides a detailed assessment of the current status of the Information Systems (IS) field by tracing its historical evolution. It uses lessons drawn from the history of another social science, sociology, to highlight some of the fundamental choices now facing IS researchers. Firstly, the paper identifies the most important tensions and forces that shaped the evolution of the IS field in the 40 or so years of its history. Secondly, it draw a comparison between IS and sociology and uses some selected fundamental patterns of the history of the latter to explain the main aspects of the evolution of IS. Finally, noting that IS researchers do not seem to have succeeded in developing a core of concepts and definitions to enable the accumulation of knowledge in IS and to significantly contribute to the improvement of the business application of information systems, the paper calls for a debate on the future orientations of the field and identifies some of the choices that can be made at this stage of the evolution of the field.
The status of the information systems field: historical perspective and practical orientation
Information Research, 2000
This paper provides a detailed assessment of the current status of the Information Systems (IS) field by tracing its historical evolution. It uses lessons drawn from the history of another social science, sociology, to highlight some of the fundamental choices now facing IS researchers. Firstly, the paper identifies the most important tensions and forces that shaped the evolution of the IS field in the 40 or so years of its history. Secondly, it draw a comparison between IS and sociology and uses some selected fundamental patterns of the history of the latter to explain the main aspects of the evolution of IS. Finally, noting that IS researchers do not seem to have succeeded in developing a core of concepts and definitions to enable the accumulation of knowledge in IS and to significantly contribute to the improvement of the business application of information systems, the paper calls for a debate on the future orientations of the field and identifies some of the choices that can be made at this stage of the evolution of the field.
On the discipline of information systems
Information Systems Journal, 1991
Although information systems is growing rapidly, it has little theoretical clarity. An article in the Times Higher Education Supplement of March 1989 by Liebenau and Backhouse sparked a debate on the character of information systems as a discipline. This paper reviews that debate, bringing out the main points of many of the discussants, and presents an analysis which is intended to carry the discussion further in order to help clarify and to galvanize opinion.
The discipline of information systems: Issues and challenges
This paper explores challenges of the evolution of the concept of Information Systems (IS) and its implications on IS as a discipline. The concept of IS has come a long way since the first 'computer applications' that automated routine, repetitive tasks, up until today's organisation-wide IS, groupware systems and Internetbased IS that mediate communications. Gradually, IS have penetrated into all organisational processes and all aspects of organisational social life and inter-organisational relationships. As a result IS are coming to be considered as social systems, a component of the much wider domain of human language and social interaction. By addressing this dramatic shift from the first idea of the IS as a 'technical system' to the idea of the IS as a 'social system, technologically realised, the paper aims to contribute to the understanding of the emergence of the IS discipline.
2010
Abstract To many, information systems has become an autonomous discipline that offers a number of concepts, methods and techniques to deal with problems related to the implementation of information systems in organisations. Despite the diversity of these and their use in practice, there is still a need to clarify where we are in terms of becoming a discipline, and in particular what we claim IS academics and/or practitioners can offer to others.
Information Systems: A House Divided?
Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 2017
Is the IS discipline a single discipline that focuses on both behavioral (BIS) and technical (TIS) topics, or is it two disciplines split between these orientations? Current opinion emphasizes BIS and reinforces the notion that researchers practice research in disconnected silos as opposed to a relatively continuous web. Such silos do disservice to the diversity of scholarly interests, skew productivity expectations in favor of small subsets of journals that often exclude technical-and decision science-oriented journals, and run the risk of creating self-perpetuating journal groupings. Silos disadvantage IS researchers by making the discipline narrower in comparison to other business disciplines and contradict the nature of IS pedagogy that equally reflects technology and management. We applied social network and cross-citation analyses to a sample of 98 IS journals to examine the cohesiveness of IS and to understand the extent to which boundary-spanning journals maintain scholarly connections between the approaches. Distinguishing between weak and strong ties among journals, we found that a discipline that comprises both BIS and TIS journals is highly cohesive in terms of weaker ties and that many boundary-spanning journals are quite balanced in their citations to and from each orientation. However, we did not find that IS is uniformly cohesive. Even so, our findings imply that IS scholars with different interests can parse out distinct subsets of journals that are central to their interests. We demonstrate as much by examining the most central journals for three examples of IS scholars: those with a strongly behavioral approach, with sociotechnical interests, and with specialized interests, such as medical informatics. The most central journals for these three interests are distinct subsets of the IS discipline.
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.