Discursive formations and trans-disciplinary agendas: a response to Walsham

W e would like to congratulate the Editors of JIT for suggesting to Geoff Walsham that he initiate a discussion in the pages of their journal on ‘Whither the IS field?’, also to Geoff for responding with a thoughtful and challenging paper (Walsham, 2012). The impact of his paper is reflected in the number of responses received and published in JIT. Some of these have argued that asking the question is itself an indication of the discipline’s malaise, part of an endless cycle of navel gazing, an activity not appropriate for a mature discipline. We disagree. All disciplines must be seen as ‘discursive formations,’ with those involved engaging in discussions regarding the directions in which things are being taken; encompassing practical, professional, and academic manifestations: Hence, this contribution to the discussion and ensuing responses. Walsham poses the question and challenge – ‘Are we making a better world with ICTs?’ The responses from Adam (2012), March and Neiderman (2012), Davidson (2012), Baskerville (2012), and to some extent Schultze (2012), assume that this refers specifically to the information systems (IS) discipline in some sense; which is understandable given that Walsham’s article is published in JIT. The ‘we’ in this case can be assumed to refer to the IS research community. In the 1950s, one of the popular TV series of the day was ‘The Lone Ranger,’ the eponymous hero was a masked man aided by his ‘trusty side-kick’ Tonto, who would now be described as a Native American. Dating from this time there is a joke that the Lone Ranger and Tonto see a horde of Indian braves bearing down on them in full battle fury. ‘Looks like we are in trouble, Tonto,’ says the Lone Ranger to his companion. ‘What do you mean “we,” white man?’ Tonto responds. So, in similar fashion, the present authors raise the question ‘What “we” Professor Walsham?’ In other words, why assume that the challenges facing IS academics and their ilk are only to be taken up within a fairly narrowly conceived view of the IS academic discipline? Walsham offers the very apposite example of ICT4D (ICT for Development) in the context of his paper, although somewhat confusingly he refers to it as a ‘subfield’ of IS; later using terms such as multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary. In fact, ICT4D exemplifies what Griselda Pollock has termed the trans-disciplinary; defined as trying ‘to hold on to both the specificity of particular ways of thinking and knowing that define disciplines, while creating the space of their productive encounter so that a different kind of knowledge emerges in the act of intersection and traverse of varied fields through which a shared concept might travel’ (Pollock, 2007). In this sense ICT4D exemplifies a key site for such encounters. Indeed, Shirin Madon in her study of E-governance in India demonstrates the problems which arise when ICT4D is regarded as a ‘subfield of IS’ or ICT in a narrow technical sense; leading to systems failures resulting from a lack of awareness of aspects such as the underlying concerns of Indian villagers, political structures, and cultural mores (Madon, 2009). Taking this perspective and using Walsham’s example of ICT4D, the term ‘we’ can and indeed should be seen as potentially encompassing a wide range of skills, interests, specializations, and disciplines brought together by those concerned with a relatively well-understood field which involves looking at the ways in which technological developments around ICTs can be brought to bear on issues around development. This is a far more complex picture, but as Richard Feynman noted it is better to