Change as Crisis or Growth? Toward a Trans-disciplinary View of Information Systems as a Field of Study: A Response to Benbasat and Zmud\u27s Call for Returning to the IT Artifact

Benbasat and Zmud (2003) express concern that the research community in Information Systems is responsible for the ambiguity of the discipline\u27s central identity by underinvestigating phenomena intimately associated with IT-based systems and overestimating phenomena distantly associated with IT-based systems (p.183). Their related argument is that IS needs to focus on the core of the discipline to survive. I seriously contend this point of view. Questioning that we are at a crossroads in the Information Systems (IS) field, I argue that the field should become less disciplinary, and more trans-disciplinary in nature. I build my case by focusing on - and then questioning - underpinnings in their argument. These include: (1) their definitions of IS as a field; (2) the locus of our field in organizations; (3) the assumption that IS is a discipline; and (4) the lack of consideration given to the inter- and trans-national nature of IS as a field of study. Thus, the paper attempts to reposition Information Systems (IS) as quintessentially trans-disciplinary in nature. This case develops by considering how fields of study evolve over time. This evolution can be seen as either natural or as producing crisis. Next, I offer an alternative core to Benbasat\u27s and Zmud\u27s IT artifact. Following this, I present an appropriate locus of study for IS, one that offers a less constricting boundary than that of the organization, including societal and cross-cultural considerations. Finally, I question the very notion of discipline as applied to IS, and identify implications for the IS academy

More than a Footnote: The Perils of Multidisciplinary Research Collaboration

This paper considers the espoused reasons for the recent emphasis on multidisciplinary research, drawing on some of the literature on multi-functional networking and teamworking in industry. We critique the predominately prescriptive and overly simplistic accounts of multidisciplinary working in academia. Finally, we distinguish between interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research and consider the implications of our analysis in terms of encouraging the former, particularly in the Information Systems domain

Taxonomy of Web-Based Shopping Systems

This paper attempts to address a detailed understanding of the diffusion of WBSS, introducing a classification model of WBSS, analyzing the cases of four categories of WBSS, and providing a characteristics of the four types of WBSS. A model of four types of Web-based shopping systems is suggested: (1) general-direct-sales; (2) generalintermediary-sales; (3) specialized-direct-sales and (4) specialized-intermediary-sales. On the basis of these four categories of WBSS, the paper analyses the distinguishing characteristics of WBSS, which has implications for both theory and practice. We hope that this research will mark the starting point in on-going research towards many unresolved issues on Web-based shopping systems

A Discipline Divided: Globalization and Parochialism in Information Systems Research

This research note examines an apparent paradox in Information Systems (IS) research. This paradox relates to the parochial nature of much of the published IS research (both in terms of the chosen journal outlet and the literature cited), notwithstanding the global nature of the phenomena being investigated. It does so by reviewing author \u27nationality\u27 in four leading IS journals over a seven-year period (1994-2000), and by reviewing the \u27nationality\u27 of the literature cited by these authors. Two of the journals are published in the USA and two are published in Europe. Despite apparent recognition of increasing globalization in our field, brought about - in part at least - by information technology (IT), the data provide firm evidence that the IS discipline is marked by a distinct parochialism along national, or at least, regional lines. A reorientation appears to be required if leading IS journals are not to continue to be the unwitting mouthpieces of unwitting researchers, publishing the results of partial, culturally biased research. The findings also contain profound implications for published material based on citation analyses and on our understanding of what constitutes the appellation \u27international\u27 in our discipline

Electronic Commerce within Organizations: Lessons From Two Cases

This paper describes research concerning two companies that have been seeking to improve collaboration and communication internally across functional and departmental boundaries through the introduction of intranets. In one case, the development and introduction of the system lead to unintended, negative effects; in the other, there is preliminary evidence to suggest that the results have been much more positive. The experiences of the two companies help to reinforce lessons that have been known for some time – in relation, for example, to socio-technical systems and Information Systems (IS) failures (e.g. Bostrom & Heinen, 1977a,b). The fact that these two cases are contemporary and that there appears to be evidence that some of the lessons of the past have been forgotten or have remained unheard, suggests nonetheless that the comparison may be enlightening

An Anatomy of European Information Systems Research ECIS 1993 - 2002: Some Initial Findings

This paper reflects on European research on information systems as presented during the first ten years of the European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS). Based on an analysis of all papers published in the ECIS proceedings during the period 1993–2002, the paper presents initial findings regarding key aspects of European IS research activity

Information Systems: To Be, or Not To Be, a Science? Is that the Question?

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

Microtask crowdsourcing can both empower and marginalise workers

Crowd workers’ voices must be heard, write Xuefei (Nancy) Deng, K.D. Joshi and Robert D. Gallier

Rejoinder to “Reconsidering Counting Articles in Ranked Venues (CARV) as the Appropriate Evaluation Criteria for the Advancement of Democratic Discourse in the IS Field”

In their article, Cuellar, Truex, and Takeda (2019) criticize the “process for evaluating scholarly output, “counting articles in ranked venues’ (CARV)” (p. 188). In their view, CARV limits the open exchange of ideas and, thereby, democratic discourse, which leads to unwanted performative effects and, ultimately, inhibits the growth of the information systems (IS) field. They propose the scholarly capital model (SCM) as a preferable mechanism that evaluators should employ to assess scholarly capital instead of scholarly output. In this rejoinder, we argue that CARV does not claim to measure output quality; it neither limits quality in the IS field nor the IS field’s growth, and mingling the effects of CARV with debates on quality or growth could be misleading. Replacing CARV would not change the game, only its rules. We posit that we all entered academia voluntarily knowing its rules and argue that colleagues facing P&T committees should recognize and focus on the specific (CARV-based or not) criteria of their institutions’ committees. While we expect that a new method will replace CARV in the not so distant future, we are convinced that, until then, a CARV-based environment offers ample opportunity to advance quality and growth of the IS field

The Impact of Organizational Sub Cultures on the Implementation of Component Based Development: A Case Study of an International Investment Bank

This paper presents a case study of the investment banking arm of a multinational banking corporation (Invebank) which is attempting to introduce Component-Based Development (CBD). Problems were apparent in this adoption because, while CBD requires extensive knowledge sharing and collaboration, sub-cultural differences between groups within Invebank meant that this proved difficult to enact. Thus, the paper considers the complexities of sub-cultural differences in firms and provides a salutary reminder that the implementation of so-called corporate-wide integrative ‘solutions’ such as Business Process Reengineering (BPR) and Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems, as well as CBD, cannot, automatically, bear fruit in terms of firm performance. Further, the paper highlights the point that there is more to the issue of organizational sub-cultural differences than the oft-cited business-IT divide. The more simplistic entreaties to knowledge sharing and the nurture of collaborative cultures and consensus are also brought into question