DOING INFORMATION SYSTEMS: INFORMATIZING AND SYSTEMATIZING FROM A PRACTICE LENS

This study applies the theory of practice to view the information systems (IS) field in terms of its essential activity—what it does as an intellectual enterprise. Drawing from Foucault, Bourdieu, Pickering and other practice theorists, it defines the IS field as continuously informatizing and systematizing its objects of study. Each of these two activities is elaborated into three dimensions: informatizing is characterized as automating, informating, and complexing; systematizing is characterized as analysing/ synthesizing, sensemaking and enacting. These dimensions are mapped into themes that can be characteristically said to be IS research, and based on each of their essential activities, provide a theoretically coherent image of research in IS that connects the dots despite the field’s apparent theoretical diversity and incongruity. Focusing on what the IS field does builds a distinctive identity for the field, opens up possibilities for theorizing the IT artefact and enables IS researchers to theorize not only traditional IS topics, but especially novel, unpredictable, and emergent socio-technical phenomena. By bringing back the IS field to its core concepts—information and system—the performative act of doing IS in both its discursive and non-discursive practices hold the potential for enhancing the intellectual and social relevance of the IS field

Where are we headed in business analytics? A framework based on a paradigmatic analysis of the history of analytics

The explosion of interest in business analytics (BA) comes with multiple problems. With as many as eleven distinct disciplines teaching analytics, it is not clear which areas of study constitute the BA field. If the information systems (IS) field is to exert a significant influence in analytics, what the IS researcher and practitioner need to focus on has to be made clear. Using a paradigmatic historiographical analysis of the field of analytics this study provides evidence for the bifurcation of analytics into data science and BA as founding disciplines of computer science, mathematics and statistics, machine learning and IS contribute to the analytics movement. The results from this analysis also identify a set of conceptual foundations for BA that takes advantage of both the intellectual strengths of the IS field without sacrificing the necessary depth of data science

What does Native Theorizing and Native Products of Theorizing in Information Systems Look Like?

This paper supports efforts towards developing native information systems (IS) theories by providing exemplary case studies of how IS scholars have in the past undertaken native theorizing that produced native products of theorizing. It begins by arguing, based the IS field’s discursive activities, why relying on reference disciplines will not progress the IS field. Because descriptions of what native theories in IS and native products of theorizing look like are few and far between, this paper offers criteria for evaluating what a native IS product of theorizing looks like, which will lead to productive work in generating native IS theories

Analisis Peranan Pegawai Penguasa (P.P) Mengikut Pam 1998 Dan Ciob 2000

Objektif utama kajian ini adalah untuk menganalisis peranan Pegawai Penguasa (P.P) mengikut Borang Kontrak Piawai PAM 1998 (PAM 98) dan Borang Kontrak Piawai CIOB 2000 (CIOB 2000). Beberapa persamaan dan perbezaan dikenalpasti berdasarkan kedua-dua borang kontrak dan keberkesanannya dinilai secara adil dan saksama. Metodologi kajian ini adalah melalui kajian literatur, kaedah soal-selidik dan temubualtemubual tidak formal dengan mereka yang bergiat cergas di dalam industri pembinaan dan biasa berurusan dengan pelbagai jenis borang piawai dan malahan sering berperanan sebagai P.P

Useful Products in Information Systems Theorizing: A Discursive Formation Perspective

Although there is a growing understanding of theory building in the information systems (IS) field, what constitutes IS theory remains the subject of intense debate. Following Weick recommendation to focus on the products of theorizing rather than on what theories are, we assemble and analyze 12 products (question, paradigm, law, framework, myth, analogy, metaphor, model, concept, construct, statement, and hypothesis) that are rarely discussed together in any depth in the IS field and combine them into a coherent theorizing framework. Drawing on Foucault thesis of discursive formation we characterize the unique role of each product in IS theorizing and illustrate the usefulness of the framework in relation to both classical IS theorizing in the form of media richness theory as well as next-generation theorizing

Philosophy and Information Systems: Where are We and Where Should We Go?

The file attached to this record is the author's final peer reviewed version

Constructing the Right Disciplinary IS Questions

This essay argues for the primacy of asking disciplinary research questions instead of just research questions. Following how identities of academic disciplines are constructed based on their unique discourses, research questions become disciplinary when they address what is relevant to that unique discourse. The higher the level of cross-disciplinary activity the field supports, especially toward interdisciplinarity, the more interesting and valued the questions become. It argues that a critical step towards becoming an integrative interdiscipline is for the IS field to ask questions that are not being asked by other disciplines, or questions that other disciplines are incapable of asking. These questions become the right questions that support the establishment of the IS field as an integrative interdiscipline. Addressing these questions will require the IS field to build its own standards and methods of inquiry, its own culture and values that reflect its unique identity. To ensure that the field continues to consolidate itself as a distinct interdiscipline, this essay proposes that IS researchers ask, at the beginning of their research study, “What’s IS about it?” The example of NeuroIS is given to demonstrate the importance of asking this question

Bridging digitalization to sustainable futures by going back to the “systems” paradigm in information systems

This paper extends previous efforts to remedy the absence of “systems” theorizing within the information systems (IS) field. It addresses the question, “Why is the IS field struggling with sustainability issues?” By leveraging on the nascent foundations built for going back to the systems approach in IS, this paper develops a model for how current efforts in digitalization and digital transformation can support the building of sustainable futures. The bridge that links digitalization to sustainable futures is built on the principles of the system paradigm that provides leverage points for positive interventions that will make a difference to efforts in sustainability

Defining Information Systems Concepts for Uncharted Waters

This article raises the level of discourse about the role of concepts in the information systems (IS) field. Concepts are the irreducible and indispensable elements of theory. It is through the invention of new concepts that disciplines are able to navigate uncharted waters. Without new concepts, not only will we be unable to comprehend unprecedented phenomena, we will not be able to tame their less than desirable implications. Concepts are distinguished from constructs, which IS researchers are more familiar with, but which enter the research process too late for any creative theorizing. A brief example of how concepts are defined illustrates the usefulness of concept analysis