Betwixt and Between? Bringing Information Systems and Accounting Systems Research Together

Abstract

I n 2008, the Research and Publications Committee of the Information Systems Section of the American Accounting Association decided to sponsor a special issue of the Journal of Information Systems (JIS) entitled ‘‘Reviews of Information Systems Research.’’ The objective of the special issue is to ‘‘publish papers that review a stream of research in information systems (IS) broadly defined.’’ The Committee intended that submissions would review and integrate the IS (information systems) and AIS (accounting information systems) literatures and suggest future research directions in both disciplines. The special issue followed a previous valiant and groundbreaking effort in IS/AIS research integration for the IS section by Professors Vicky Arnold and Steve Sutton (Arnold and Sutton 2002). As editor of this special issue, I took a somewhat different approach to the task than is normal. First, rather than a regular call for papers, I requested researchers to submit extended abstracts. The objectives of this approach were to ensure that the scope of the proposed article was concomitant with the objective of the special issue and to identify any potential overlaps in subject matter. In this process, I was able to negotiate the amalgamation of several writing teams. I also ensured that where there was commonality in subject matter, the writing teams were introduced to each other and worked to manage the writing process. Second, I had clear views on how the papers should be structured. As an author of one of the chapters in the earlier monograph for the IS section, I was impressed with the systematic approach Dr. Arnold took to ensuring a common approach in the structure of the contributions and the discipline exercised in ensuring that the goals of the monograph were achieved. It is simpler to achieve a common approach in a monograph than it is in separate papers in JIS. My ambition was, then, to strongly suggest directions to authors but not to mandate a single approach. As a consumer of many literature reviews, I realize how easy it is to maroon readers in a Sargasso Sea, not knowing how to navigate their way. Readers need clear navigational markers and a sense of direction. Third, I saw the review process as a mutual exercise among writing teams, reviewers, and myself as editor. Given the scope of this exercise, I deliberately took a more active editorial role than is normal. These objectives probably added somewhat to the time taken for publication but did, I believe, improve the quality of the papers.