The Value of Scientometric Studies: An Introduction to a Debate on IS as a Reference Discipline

While the two sets of authors agree on certain, specific empirical results and a number of critical concepts, such as the basic point that the field is evolving into a mature discipline, they disagree on whether IS is influencing other fields. What is fascinating to scholars intrigued by the domain of scientometrics—that is, the study of the scientific process itself—is that the groups could have come to such dramatically different conclusions using large, similar datasets of roughly 70,000 articles.

[1]  Robert D. Galliers,et al.  Change as Crisis or Growth? Toward a Trans-disciplinary View of Information Systems as a Field of Study: A Response to Benbasat and Zmud's Call for Returning to the IT Artifact , 2003, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[2]  Daniel Robey,et al.  Identity, Legitimacy and the Dominant Research Paradigm: An Alternative Prescription for the IS Discipline: A Response to Benbasat and Zmud's Call for Returning to the IT Artifact , 2003, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[3]  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..

[4]  Mark A. Fuller,et al.  Research Standards for Promotion and Tenure in Information Systems , 2006, MIS Q..

[5]  Nancy J. Adler,et al.  Academic and Professional Communities of Discourse: Generating Knowledge on Transnational Human Resource Management , 1992 .

[6]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  The Social Life of Information Systems Research: A Response to Benbasat and Zmud's Call for Returning to the IT Artifact , 2003, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[7]  Donald J. McCubbrey.  The IS Core-IV: IS Research: A Third Way , 2003, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[8]  Blake Ives,et al.  Phylogeny and Power in the IS Domain: A Response to Benbasat and Zmud's Call for Returning to the IT Artifact , 2004, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[9]  Ruth A. Guthrie.  The IS Core - V: Defining the IS Core , 2003, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[10]  Daniel J. Power,et al.  The IS Core-II: The Maturing IS Discipline: Institutionalizing our Domain of Inquiry , 2003, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[11]  P. Candace Dean,et al.  The IS Core - III: The Core Domain Debate and the International Business Discipline: A Comparison , 2003, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[12]  Michael D. Myers,et al.  The IS Core - VIII: Defining the Core Properties of the IS Disciplines: Not Yet, Not Now , 2003, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[13]  Steven L. Alter.  The IS Core - XI: Sorting Out the Issues About the Core, Scope, and Identity of the IS Field , 2003, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

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

[15]  Donna Dufner,et al.  The IS Core-I: Economic and Systems Engineering Approaches to IS Identity , 2003, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[16]  Juhani Iivari,et al.  The IS Core - VII: Towards Information Systems as a Science of Meta-Artifacts , 2003, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[17]  Rudy Hirschheim,et al.  Crisis in the IS Field? A Critical Reflection on the State of the Discipline , 2003, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[18]  Christopher P. Holland.  The IS Core - X: Information Systems Research and Practice: IT Artifact or a Multidisciplinary Subject? , 2003, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[19]  Carol Saunders,et al.  The IS Core - VI: Further Along the Road to the IT Artifact , 2003, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[20]  Omar El Sawy,et al.  The IS Core IX: The 3 Faces of IS Identity: Connection, Immersion, and Fusion , 2003, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[21]  Richard P. Bagozzi,et al.  Assessing Construct Validity in Organizational Research , 1991 .

[22]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Nothing At The Center?: Academic Legitimacy in the Information Systems Field , 2004, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..