Researcher perspective in the IS discipline: an empirical study of articles in the basket of 8 journals

The purpose of this paper is to explore the nature of “researcher perspective” in articles published in the AIS Basket of 8 journals.,Purposive sampling: descriptive analysis of 659 articles published in three complete years of each of the eight leading journals (2001, 2008, 2015).,When observing phenomena, IS researchers mostly adopt the perspective of one of the stakeholders in the activities, commonly that of the sponsor of the information system that is in focus. 96% of relevant articles adopted a single-perspective approach, and 93% of those were oriented towards the system sponsor.,The discipline has not been exploiting opportunities to deliver greater value firstly through the adoption of perspectives other than that of the system sponsor, and secondly through dual- and multi-perspective research. Further, the ignoring of the viewpoints of other stakeholders is inconsistent with the requirements of the recently-adopted AIS Code of Ethics.,The dominance of single-perspective/system-sponsor-viewpoint research greatly constrains the benefits that IS research can deliver to IS practitioners and to the world at large.,The authors are not aware of any prior investigation into the nature of researcher perspective. We contend that an appreciation of the current bias is essential if IS research is to adapt, and thereby make far more useful contributions to practice.

[1]  Juho Lindman,et al.  Research output availability on academic social networks: implications for stakeholders in academic publishing , 2017, Electron. Mark..

[2]  Zahir Irani,et al.  Outsourcing information systems: drawing lessons from a banking case study , 2001, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[3]  Samer Faraj,et al.  Leading Collaboration in Online Communities , 2015, MIS Q..

[4]  Edgar A. Whitley,et al.  Doing the politics of technological decision making: due process and the debate about identity cards in the U.K. , 2008, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[5]  M. Lynne Markus,et al.  Designing for Digital Transformation: Lessons for Information Systems Research from the Study of ICT and Societal Challenges , 2016, MIS Q..

[6]  Joseph S. Valacich,et al.  The Behavioral Roots of Information Systems Security: Exploring Key Factors Related to Unethical IT Use , 2015, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[7]  Jungsuk Oh,et al.  Value appropriation between the platform provider and app developers in mobile platform mediated networks , 2015, J. Inf. Technol..

[8]  Sven Laumer,et al.  Giving too much social support: social overload on social networking sites , 2015, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[9]  Alexander Benlian,et al.  Web Personalization Cues and Their Differential Effects on User Assessments of Website Value , 2015, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[10]  Ritu Agarwal,et al.  Vocal Minority and Silent Majority: How Do Online Ratings Reflect Population Perceptions of Quality? , 2015, MIS Q..

[11]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Studying Information Technology in Organizations: Research Approaches and Assumptions , 1991, Inf. Syst. Res..

[12]  Peter Tolmie,et al.  ‘Memories are made of this’: explicating organisational knowledge and memory , 2001, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[13]  José-Rodrigo Córdoba-Pachón,et al.  Beyond organisational agendas: using boundary critique to facilitate the inclusion of societal concerns in information systems planning , 2008, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[14]  Rohit Aggarwal,et al.  Strike a Happy Medium: The Effect of IT Knowledge on Venture Capitalists' Overconfidence in IT Investments , 2015, MIS Q..

[15]  Shan Ling Pan,et al.  ICT-Enabled Community Empowerment in Crisis Response: Social Media in Thailand Flooding 2011 , 2015, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[16]  Michael J. Earl,et al.  Knowledge Management Strategies: Toward a Taxonomy , 2001, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[17]  Robert D. Galliers,et al.  Vive les differences? Developing a profile of European information systems research as a basis for international comparisons , 2007, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[18]  Alan R. Hevner,et al.  Design Science in Information Systems Research , 2004, MIS Q..

[19]  Marcelino Cabrera,et al.  From Applications to Policies: ICT-based Independent Living Services in the EU , 2008, Electron. Mark..

[20]  Vivek Choudhury,et al.  Strategic Choices in the Development of Interorganizational Information Systems , 1997, Inf. Syst. Res..

[21]  Bill C. Hardgrave,et al.  Emotional Dissonance and the Information Technology Professional , 2008, MIS Q..

[22]  Steven Jones,et al.  Understanding IS evaluation as a complex social process: a case study of a UK local authority , 2001, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[23]  Wendy L. Currie,et al.  Entangled Stakeholder Roles and Perceptions in Health Information Systems: A Longitudinal Study of the U.K. NHS N3 Network , 2016, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[24]  R. Freeman.  The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future Directions , 1994, Business Ethics Quarterly.

[25]  Roger Clarke,et al.  Electronic interaction research 1988 – 2012 through the lens of the Bled eConference , 2013, Electron. Mark..

[26]  Nazmun Nahar,et al.  ERP systems success: an empirical analysis of how two organizational stakeholder groups prioritize and evaluate relevant measures , 2007, Enterp. Inf. Syst..

[27]  Roman Beck,et al.  IS Research and Policy: Notes From the 2015 ICIS Senior Scholar's Forum , 2017, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[28]  John Campbell,et al.  Helping Yourself or Others? Motivation Dynamics for High-Performing Volunteers in GLAM Crowdsourcing , 2020, Australas. J. Inf. Syst..

[29]  Heng Xu,et al.  Information Privacy Research: An Interdisciplinary Review , 2011, MIS Q..

[30]  Feng-Yang Kuo,et al.  Extending ICT4D Studies: The Value of Critical Research , 2015, MIS Q..

[31]  Matt E. Thatcher,et al.  Managing the Knowledge Supply Chain: An Organizational Learning Model of Information Technology Offshore Outsourcing , 2008, MIS Q..

[32]  Roger Clarke.  Researcher perspectives in Electronic Markets , 2020, Electron. Mark..

[33]  R. Mason,et al.  A logic for strategic management , 1980 .

[34]  Sabine Matook,et al.  Are You Feeling Lonely? The Impact of Relationship Characteristics and Online Social Network Features on Loneliness , 2015, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[35]  Christine Legner,et al.  Toward the Inter-organizational Product Information Supply Chain - Evidence from the Retail and Consumer Goods Industries , 2008, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[36]  Nitin Agarwal,et al.  Raising and Rising Voices in Social Media , 2012, Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng..

[37]  S. R. Balasundaram,et al.  Integrated location aware medical care services , 2013, Electron. Mark..

[38]  Chrisanthi Avgerou,et al.  Information systems: what sort of science is it? , 2000 .

[39]  Michael D. Myers,et al.  Investigating Information Systems with Ethnographic Research , 1999, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[40]  Varun Grover,et al.  NEW STATE OF PLAY IN INFORMATION SYSTEMS RESEARCH : THE PUSH TO THE EDGES 1 , 2015 .

[41]  Paul Benjamin Lowry,et al.  The role of mobile‐computing self‐efficacy in consumer information disclosure , 2015, Inf. Syst. J..

[42]  Philip Powell,et al.  Information systems strategies in knowledge-based SMEs: the role of core competencies , 2001, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[43]  Ronald K. Mitchell,et al.  Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of who and What Really Counts , 1997 .

[44]  Robert M. Davison,et al.  Research in Information Systems: Intra-Disciplinary and Inter-Disciplinary Approaches , 2018, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[45]  A. Pouloudi,et al.  Stakeholder identification in inter-organizational systems: gaining insights for drug use management systems , 1997 .

[46]  Andrea Resca,et al.  Design for social media engagement: Insights from elderly care assistance , 2015, J. Strateg. Inf. Syst..

[47]  R. E. Freeman,et al.  Stockholders and Stakeholders: A New Perspective on Corporate Governance , 1983 .