Crisis in the IS Field? A Critical Reflection on the State of the Discipline

This paper explores the issue of whether the field of IS is in crisis. To do so, the paper first starts by looking back on where the field has come from. Next, it assesses the status of the IS field by exploring where the field is now. That our current status remains a ¡®fragmented adhocracy¡¯ suggests the field may indeed be in crisis or headed for a crisis. This is compounded by the fact that there are two different views on the state of the IS field, each posing its own set of threats. One is the external view of the community (the view of IS from outside the academic field); the other is the internal view (the view from inside the IS community). By analyzing these two views, a better understanding of the problems the field faces emerges. In the next part of the paper, some thoughts are presented on where might the field go from here for overcoming its internal communication deficit. The paper proposes four different types of knowledge for structuring an IS Body of Knowledge (BoK) and following on from that, the value of creating a common BoK for the field. Lastly, the implications arising from the paper¡¯s analysis are explored. More specifically, the paper considers various options that are available for overcoming the internal communications deficit the IS field faces. These include changing the way the field thinks about generalizations, changing the institutional publication practices, focusing more on understanding the field¡¯s organizational stakeholders, and developing new knowledge creation and transformation networks. If IS as a field can overcome its internal communications deficits, it might ultimately contribute to the societal challenge of developing a deliberative cyber democracy and thereby help to address the social communication deficit which is a feature of modern mass societies

PARADIGMS AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS AS AN APPLIED DISCIPLINE – A MODEL-BASED REPRESENTATION, PROBLEMS, AND SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS

Information Systems Discipline (ISD) is dominated by the two contrary paradigms of design science on the one hand and behavioral science on the other. Apart from that, research results are considered more or less relevant for practice depending on the respective paradigm. Conclusively, research communities following the paradigms are partly incompatible while, due to the notion of relevance for practice, the exchange between science and practice is hampered. Various “disconnects” hindering the collaboration both between design science and behavioral science and between science and practice emerged due to this. These aspects will be described and represented within a model-based analysis of the situation while suggestions from ISD literature on the topic will be presented and discussed. Considering that comparable challenges have recently been faced in the field of medicine, Evidence-based Medicine (EbM) emerged as a new paradigm to solve similar problems and is now well-established. We will present and discuss some attempts to transfer the evidence-based research approach from medicine and how they may apply to the equally application-oriented field of Information Systems

Information Metatheory

This essay continues a report on the design of information metatheory. My general idea of ametatheory, or framework, is that it primarily reflects differences, rather than similarities (leave aloneidentity, or Platonic form), i.e. it helps to control variety. Grounded on differences, a metatheory isessentially about (their) coordination.I have already reported on two design steps toward a metatheory for information. The first argues for‘Multiple axiomatization in information management’ (Wisse 2002b). The second design stepestablishes the ‘Dia-enneadic framework for information concepts’ (Wisse 2003). Here, a third stepsynthesizes previous work. A more comprehensive framework, or information metatheory, results.Some remarks follow on qualifying information systems and information management, respectively,and on how information metatheory is indispensable to meet increasingly variable, dynamicrequirements

Introduction to the Debate on the Core of the Information Systems Field

This editorial introduces the debate between Alter and Benbasat and Zmud about whether IT artifacts or systems in organization are the appropriate model for a core for IS. It also describes the articles on the dedbate by 10 authors and gives some opinions of the editor on the subject

Artifact and/or Theory? Publishing Design Science Research in IS

With the rising interest in Design Science Research (DSR), it has become crucial to understand what the acceptable components of a DSR paper are, in order to get published. Central to this is the ongoing debate on what constitutes an acceptable contribution in DSR - the artifact, the design theory or both? Two camps have emerged in this debate, and this panel is setup to engage thought leaders from both sides in a scholarly discourse. At the end, we aim to have moved a step towards collectively charting a path for the future of Design Science in the IS discipline