Is Information Systems a Science?

Some researchers have compared the information systems discipline with the physical and biological sciences, which suggests that information systems sits in the same academic space as the physical and natural sciences. Indeed, the language and perceptions expressed in journals such as the Transactions for Replication Research, which refer to “scientific consensus” and the involvement of information systems researchers in “the quest for scientific advancement”, supports this suggestion. In this paper, I argue that the view that information systems is a science in which general laws can be developed by applying statistical surveys and running laboratory experiments has negatively affected the development of the discipline. I argue that the discipline’s nature is such that one cannot pitch it as a science. After briefly discussing the motivation and philosophy that might underlie the perception of information systems as a science, I offer an alternative view of information systems as a deep, complex, and multi-layered discipline in the humanities. I propose dance studies as an appropriate discipline to twin with information systems

IS Information Systems a (Social) Science?

McBride (2018) worries that researchers increasingly approach information systems (IS) research like a natural science whereby they seek to develop general laws “by applying statistical surveys and running laboratory experiments”. While it is interesting to liken IS to the hard sciences, the discipline has deep interdisciplinary roots that join many ontological, epistemological, and even philosophical understandings of phenomena related to information technology (IT). These diverse viewpoints strengthen the discipline. They are healthy and beneficial for a discipline that studies rapidly moving, complex phenomena. Rather than turn away from rigorous, statistically intensive methods, we propose that IS researchers embrace diversity and adopt an entrepreneurial model of scholarship. By employing entrepreneurial mindsets to guide their selection of theories and methods, we believe IS scholars can create opportunities to conduct rigorous, relevant work that examines increasingly diverse, complex, and emerging IT-related phenomena

A Comment on “Is Information Systems a Science?”

In this paper, we respond to McBride’s (2018) paper on whether information systems is a science. We first argue that information systems is indeed a science in that it draws from and creates knowledge in a form similar to many different disciplines, including psychology, sociology, mathematics, economics, computer science, and engineering. We counter the flawed logic of methodical extremists who believe that their approach represents the best or only path to knowledge. Specifically, we argue that many different methods of inquiry and discovery are appropriate in information systems and that each has its strengths and weaknesses

Is Information Systems a science? An inquiry into the nature of the information systems discipline

The Information Systems (IS) discipline is apparently undergoing an identity crisis. Academicians question the need for IS departments in colleges stating the absence of a core for the field and its integration within other business functions as a basis for its elimination. At the same time, many practitioners, as reflected in the US government\u27s recent IT labor shortage report, continue to ignore IS as a distinct field of study. This article briefly outlines these and other challenges and argues that notwithstanding underlying philosophical differences, it can be concluded that IS is an emerging scientific discipline. This conclusion is reached through an assessment of the debate surrounding the issue of whether IS should be a discipline and an analysis of the IS discipline using some key characteristics of science. The arguments put forth in this paper have four key implications for the IS community: a continuing emphasis on adopting scientific principles and practices for conducting inquiry into IS phenomena; an enhancement of the self-concept of IS academics and professionals through a common identity; enhances the ability of supporters of the IS field to defend against criticisms, integration with other disciplines, and resource rivalry; and creates the potential of being well-situated to building a cumulative tradition in the field

Is Information Systems a Discipline? A Foucauldian and Toulminian Analysis

Based on Michel Foucault’s description of how knowledge is created and Stephen Toulmin’s philosophy of human understanding, this essay uncovers what it means for a branch of knowledge to be a discipline. This deconstruction explains certain disciplinary misconceptions existing within the IS field and addresses the field’s disciplinary status. Although the findings suggest that the IS field does not yet qualify as a discipline in its own right, they show that as soon as the members of the IS field can reconstitute the field’s meta-theoretical structure and scholarly content, it is certainly capable of reaching that status

Information Systems (IS) Discipline Identity: A Review and Framework

The recent debate about crisis in the Information Systems (IS) discipline is largely attributed to its having a fluid discipline identity. Myriad conceptualizations of IS discipline identity have resulted in a plethora of unstructured and disconnected recommendations for the survival and growth of the IS field. It is therefore essential to have a theoretical framework which explains: What is IS discipline identity? In this study, we address this void in the identity literature. By extending and borrowing from the concepts of organizational and self-identity, we propose a theoretical framework for discipline identity and explicate its dimensions with respect to the IS discipline. The three contextual questions of discipline identity about purpose, period, and place set the stage for an in-depth inquiry of the three constitutive questions (or dimensions): periphery, perspective, and process, to provide a holistic framework for conceptualizing IS discipline identity. Further, we conceptualize IS discipline identity process as consisting of four recursive and iterative sub-processes: copy, consolidate, differentiate, and demonstrate (CCDD). We posit that an iterative hermeneutic focus on these four sub-processes is vital for the health of the discipline and neglecting even one of them will lead to an imbalanced identity structure. Through this paper, we seek to stimulate and further the ongoing debate on the topic

Is Information Systems a Science? Rejoinder to Five Commentaries

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

Debate Section Editorial Note: Is Information Systems a Science?

In this debate section, Neil McBride (affiliated with the Centre for Computing and Social Responsibility at De Montfort University in Leicester in the United Kingdom) asks: “is information systems a science?”

Contextuality and Information Systems: how the interplay between paradigms can help

Through this paper, we theorize on the meanings and roles of context in the study of information systems. The literatures of information systems and information science both explicitly conceptualize information systems (and there are multiple overlapping definitions). These literatures also grapple with the situated and generalizable natures of an information system. Given these shared interests and common concerns, this paper is used as a vehicle to explore the roles of context and suggests how multi-paradigmatic research ??? another shared feature of both information science and information systems scholarship ??? provides a means to carry forward more fruitful studies of information systems. We discuss the processes of reconstructed logic and logic-in-use in terms of studying information systems. We argue that what goes on in the practice of researchers, or the logic-in-practice, is typified by what we are calling the contextuality problem. In response, we envision a reconstructed logic, which is an idealization of academic practices regarding context. The logic-in-use of the field is then further explained based on two different views on context. The paper concludes by proposing a model for improving the logic-in-use for the study of information systems

Interoperability between classification systems using metadata

The First on-Line conference on Metadata and Semantics Research Conference (MTSR'05): Approaches to advanced information systems, 21-30 November 2005Metadata are structures which catalogue, classify, describe and articulate electronic information. The Subject element of Dublin Core is used for c1assification systems and subject headings. There are five ways of applying semantic interoperability: interoperability between controlled vocabularies in the same language; between controlled vocabularies in different languages and classification systems; between subject headings and c1assification systems; between c1assification systems; and between languages. The relations between diverse types of standards or systems present diverse difficulties. The electronic information container, which is Internet, guarantees the trend to try and achieve the interoperability of content analysis, whether it be between c1assification systems, or subject headings. The organisation of information in a physical format has transferred its organisational forms to the structuring of electronic information. The digital formal transforms the organisational form itself. If, in information the message is the medium, in organisation the structure is the medium.Publicad