The IS Core IX: The 3 Faces of IS Identity: Connection, Immersion, and Fusion

From the time of the first ICIS conference in 1980, the debate over the identity of IS research continues to flare. Accompanying this debate is an endless quest for “the core” of the IS field and its boundaries, as well as the identification and articulation of its reference disciplines and research methods. This debate most recently crystallized in the dialectic between the BenbasatZmud-Weber position around narrowing the field to center around the core of “the IS artifact” and the Alter position around broadening the field to be a work-centered systemic interconnected view. This paper argues that there is nothing inherently wrong with either of these two perspectives, but that they are just alternative models of reality which bring particular central features of phenomena to the foreground and hide other features. The paper further argues that there is at least a third critical perspective that can be equally argued for. It characterizes these three perspectives of IS identity as connection, immersion, and fusion, and articulates their commonalities and distinctions. Like the “Three Faces of Eve” in the classic 1957 Hitchcock movie thriller, each of these faces of IS identity reveals particular aspects of the IS persona. This paper contends that it may be time for a natural shift of emphasis from the Connection view to the Immersion View to the Fusion view as IT continues to morph and augment its capabilities. The paper explains the differences and similarities among the three views, and articulates each of them. The Fusion view is one that is not yet apparent in the IS field. This paper alerts the IS scholarly community to pay attention to it, and suggests ways of doing that.

[1]  Michael D. Myers,et al.  A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems , 1999, MIS Q..

[2]  D. Bohm,et al.  Wholeness and the Implicate Order , 1981 .

[3]  Russell L. Ackoff,et al.  Management misinformation systems , 1967 .

[4]  Omar El Sawy,et al.  Building an Information System Design Theory for Vigilant EIS , 1992, Inf. Syst. Res..

[5]  Steven L. Alter 18 Reasons Why IT-Reliant Work Systems Should Replace "The IT Artifact" as the Core Subject Matter of the IS Field , 2003, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[6]  Steven L. Alter Sidestepping the IT Artifact, Scrapping the IS Silo, and Laying Claim to "Systems in Organizations" , 2003, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[7]  Ron Weber,et al.  Editor's comment: still desperately seeking the IT artifact , 2003 .

[8]  M. Markus,et al.  Information technology and organizational change: causal structure in theory and research , 1988 .

[9]  Ian I. Mitroff,et al.  A Program for Research on Management Information Systems , 1973 .

[10]  Daniel Robey,et al.  Research Commentary: Diversity in Information Systems Research: Threat, Promise, and Responsibility , 1996, Inf. Syst. Res..

[11]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  The Management Information Systems Area: Problems, Challenges and Opportunities , 1980, ICIS.

[12]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  The Identity Crisis Within the IS Discipline: Defining and Communicating the Discipline's Core Properties , 2003, MIS Q..

[13]  Rob Kling,et al.  The Web of Computing: Computer Technology as Social Organization , 1982, Adv. Comput..

[14]  John P Briggs,et al.  Looking glass universe: The emerging science of wholeness , 1984 .

[15]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Research Commentary: Rethinking "Diversity" in Information Systems Research , 1996, Inf. Syst. Res..

[16]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Research Commentary: Desperately Seeking the "IT" in IT Research - A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact , 2001, Inf. Syst. Res..

[17]  A. Kellerman,et al.  The Constitution of Society : Outline of the Theory of Structuration , 2015 .

[18]  Ron Weber,et al.  Still desperately seeking the IT artifact , 2003 .

[19]  Peter G. W. Keen,et al.  Mis Research: Reference disciplines and a Cumulative Tradition , 1980, ICIS.