Focus and Diversity in Information Systems Research: Meeting the Dual Demands of a Healthy Applied Discipline

Drawing on sociology of science foundations, we argue that, in order to survive and prosper, healthy applied disciplines must meet the dual demands of academic and practitioner audiences by demonstrating both focus and diversity in their research. First, we use this concomitant modality to explain why previous studies into the structure of the Information Systems discipline have reported contradictory results, with some finding a focused field while others conclude that the field is diverse. In support of our argument, we then present the results of a longitudinal, author co-citation analysis, looking across the full range of journals in which IS research is published. Our results suggest that the IS field has sustained a focus on research within three subfields over a 20-year period from 1986 to 2005: (1) a thematic miscellany of research on development, implementation, and use of systems in various application domains; (2) IS strategy and business outcomes; and (3) group work and decision support. At the same time, the field has demonstrated considerable diversity within and around these core subfields, with researchers responding flexibly to the rapidly changing field by investigating these areas with new paradigms and in new contexts, and by exploring new topics including inter-business and Internet applications, computer-supported collaborative work, virtual teams, and knowledge management. Finally, we demonstrate that, over the 20-year period from 1986 to 2005, the discipline has shifted from fragmented adhocracy to a polycentric state, which is particularly appropriate to an applied discipline such as IS that must address the dual demands of focus and diversity in a rapidly changing technological context.

[1]  Mary J. Culnan,et al.  Mapping the Intellectual Structure of MIS, 1980-1985: A Co-Citation Analysis , 1987, MIS Q..

[2]  Henry C. Lucas,et al.  The information systems identity crisis , 2005 .

[3]  Gordon B. Davis,et al.  A Framework for Research in Computer-Based Management Information Systems , 1980 .

[4]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Reach and Grasp , 2004, MIS Q..

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

[6]  Dag W. Aksnes,et al.  Citation rates and perceptions of scientific contribution , 2006 .

[7]  Leonard J. Ponzi The intellectual structure and interdisciplinary breadth of Knowledge Management: A bibliometric study of its early stage of development , 2002, Scientometrics.

[8]  J. Sime,et al.  Living on the border: knowledge, risk and transdisciplinarity , 2004 .

[9]  R. Whitley The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences (Second Edition: with new introductory chapter entitled 'Science Transformed? The Changing Nature of Knowledge Production at the End of the Twentieth Century') , 1984 .

[10]  Frédéric Adam,et al.  The status of the information systems field: historical perspective and practical orientation , 2000 .

[11]  Mary J. Culnan,et al.  The intellectual development of management information systems, 1972-1982: a co-citation analysis , 1986 .

[12]  A. Huff,et al.  Re‐Focusing the Business School Agenda , 2001 .

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

[14]  F. Wickson,et al.  Transdisciplinary research: characteristics, quandaries and quality , 2006 .

[15]  Richard L. Nolan,et al.  Toward a comprehensive framework for MIS research , 1980 .

[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]  Gordon B. Davis,et al.  A Research Perspective for Information Systems and Example of Emerging Area of Research , 1999, Inf. Syst. Frontiers.

[18]  W. Doll,et al.  A discrepancy model of end-user computing involvement , 1989 .

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

[20]  M. Gibbons,et al.  Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty , 2003 .

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

[22]  Varun Grover,et al.  A Citation Analysis of the Evolution and State of Information Systems within a Constellation of Reference Disciplines , 2006, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[23]  Tor J. Larsen,et al.  Searching for management information systems: coherence and change in the discipline , 2005, Inf. Syst. J..

[24]  L. Leydesdorff,et al.  The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and , 2000 .

[25]  Anol Bhattacherjee,et al.  Whom are we informing? issues and recommendations for MIS research from an informing sciences perspective 1 , 2009 .

[26]  H. Bernard,et al.  Data Management and Analysis Methods , 2000 .

[27]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  Measuring Researcher-Production in Information Systems , 2002, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[28]  A. Pettigrew Management Research After Modernism , 2001 .

[29]  Thomas H. Davenport,et al.  Rigor vs. relevance revisited: response to Benbasat and Zmud , 1999 .

[30]  David Ellis,et al.  Information Science and Information Systems: Conjunct Subjects Disjunct Disciplines , 1999, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

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

[32]  Matthew B. Miles,et al.  Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook , 1994 .

[33]  J. Dearden MIS Is a Mirage. , 1972 .

[34]  E. Burton Swanson,et al.  Information Systems Research Thematics: Submissions to a New Journal, 1987-1992 , 1993, Inf. Syst. Res..

[35]  D. Tranfield,et al.  The Nature, Social Organization and Promotion of Management Research: Towards Policy , 1998 .

[36]  S. Schwartzman,et al.  The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies , 1994 .

[37]  Patricia Carlson,et al.  A Review of MIS Research and Disciplinary Development , 1992, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[38]  Thompson S. H. Teo,et al.  Information Systems (IS) Discipline Identity: A Review and Framework , 2007, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[39]  S. Fuchs A Sociological Theory of Scientific Change , 1993 .

[40]  Katherine W. McCain,et al.  Mapping authors in intellectual space: A technical overview , 1990, Journal of the American Society for Information Science.

[41]  Richard Whitley,et al.  THE FRAGMENTED STATE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES: REASONS AND CONSEQUENCES , 1984 .

[42]  D. Ellis,et al.  Information science and information systems: conjuct subjects disjunct disciplines , 1999 .

[43]  H. V. Lente,et al.  Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda , 2008 .

[44]  Venkataraman Ramesh,et al.  Research in Information Systems: An Empirical Study of Diversity in the Discipline and Its Journals , 2002, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

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

[46]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Empirical Research in Information Systems: The Practice of Relevance , 1999, MIS Q..

[47]  Maurice Landry,et al.  Can the field of MIS be disciplined? , 1989, CACM.

[48]  K. Lyytinen,et al.  Exploring the intellectual structures of information systems development: A social action theoretic analysis , 1996 .

[49]  Henry M. Kim,et al.  Information Systems is Not a Reference Discipline (And What We Can Do About It) , 2006, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[50]  E. Burton Swanson,et al.  Research in Management Information Systems, 1980-1984: Points of Work and Reference , 1986, MIS Q..

[51]  Jennifer A. Chatman,et al.  Intellectual Structure of Research in Organizational Behavior, 1972-1984: A Cocitation Analysis. , 1990 .

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

[53]  Vernon J. Richardson,et al.  Assessing Leading Institutions, Faculty, and Articles in Premier Information Systems Research Journals , 2007, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[54]  Katherine W. McCain,et al.  Visualizing a Discipline: An Author Co-Citation Analysis of Information Science, 1972-1995 , 1998, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[55]  John P. Robinson,et al.  Being undisciplined: Transgressions and intersections in academia and beyond , 2008 .

[56]  Frantz Rowe,et al.  Marshaling the Professional Experience of Doctoral Students: A Contribution to the Practical Relevance Debate , 2008, MIS Q..

[57]  John C. Smart,et al.  Mapping intellectual structure of a scientific subfield through author cocitations , 1990, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[58]  Katherine W. McCain,et al.  Mapping authors in intellectual space: A technical overview , 1990, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[59]  Anna Sidorova,et al.  Uncovering the Intellectual Core of the Information Systems Discipline , 2008, MIS Q..