IS and its agenda

‘y i t is not enough to pursue the traditional agenda in the future if the IS field is to remain an exciting one with a vision which can inspire and unite us y. We need a broader ethical agenda of making a better world and we must embrace new technologies and new settings where ICTs are important’ (Walsham, 2012). This quote encapsulates Geoff Walsham’s view of the ‘crisis’ in IS. He proposes a way forward in terms of the need for a core, the subject matter of the IS field, methodology, and interdisciplinarity. It is difficult to escape the question of whether discussion on boundaries and cores is an activity which mature disciplines tend to undertake in earnest. Inhabitants of mature academic disciplines usually know what is in and what is out, just as they know who is part of their community and who is not. I am reminded of a debate that took place in the 1970s and 1980s in the area of science and technology studies (STS). Both the subject and the form of the debate are relevant to the crisis in IS. Discussion centred on the merits, or otherwise, of what was then the new sociology of scientific knowledge. In particular, there was much wrangling over ‘internal’ history of science, that is, a history of science written to show the rational, intellectual development of scientific disciplines untainted by social values, versus ‘external’ history of science, broadly the view which accounts for social influences on scientific development (Barnes, 1974). Shapin’s (1982: 157) widely quoted assertion, ‘One can either debate the possibility of the sociology of scientific knowledge or one can do it’ encapsulated the mood of the time. While STS scholars do still engage in methodological and boundary discussions, they do not do it to anything like the extent they did before. One never hears about the ‘internal/external’ debate now. So, to paraphrase Shapin, it is a question of talking about it or doing it. Given that Walsham has spent many years in IS research (doing it) before being lured into the IS crisis debate (talking about it) by the editors of this journal, one might expect him to have some sympathy with a ‘just do it’ approach. Indeed, much of IS ‘just does it’. Fortunately, the people who talk about a crisis in IS also tend to be those who are highly active in IS research. This implies that nothing very much might happen if they stopped talking about an IS crisis, except for the freeing of a little space in IS journals. Walsham’s concerns with the subject matter of IS point to something potentially more problematic. It is not (just) that traditional IS has not kept up with the explosion of digital technologies used in settings other than the organization. If someone is doing good research on these areas then, on one level, it does not matter if that research is badged as IS as long as it is being done well and as long as good research is read and cited. However, just as important, it is the question of ethics. Indeed, it is hard to see how IS can address the ‘better world’ question without more explicit attention to ethics. This is not a new concern. Indeed, Walsham (1996) was one of the early protagonists of an ethical turn in IS. Looking back over the last 15 or so years it is clear that, whatever turns IS did make, the ethical turn was not one of them. The question of methodology, and the dominance of positivism is still problematic and, to some extent, accounts for the missing ethical turn. The focus on measuring gives little scope for normative matters. It is as if ethics belongs somewhere else and to someone else. A glance at the list of speakers at computer ethics conferences and the authors publishing in computer ethics journals shows that it does indeed belong somewhere else, as there is little overlap with IS scholars. This is borne out by Mingers’s and Walsham’s (2010) later review of ethics in IS, where they found much published research on ethics in IS but not in IS journals. I share the frustration over the lack of ethics research in IS. When I researched the area of gender and ethics in IS, I was genuinely surprised how little of the extensive feminist ethics literature previous gender and ethics studies in IS accessed and cited as I believed that was the first place one would look for theory and empirical studies (Adam, 2005). Possibly, the literature was just not known to those working in IS, however, it seems likely that the literature also raised uncomfortable issues for IS researchers. Some attempts at interdisciplinarity require courage. I am reminded of my earlier, optimistic attempts to bring feminism to computer scientists and a seminar entitled: ‘Why computer scientists should know about cyberfeminism’ where I barely escaped alive. Even though it is not always quite so life threatening, the question of where to publish is a problem for everyone, and is especially difficult for those of an interdisciplinary persuasion. How, and where should one’s interdisciplinary research be published, will people find it and cite it, will they be hostile towards it or will they ignore it? Against this, Walsham’s call for a broadening of the IS agenda is not only entirely reasonable, but also requires the broadening of the agenda of the gatekeepers, including journal editors, appointments panels and academic management. Journal of Information Technology (2012) 27, 102–103 & 2012 JIT Palgrave Macmillan All rights reserved 0268-3962/12