The importance of theory at the Information Systems Journal

ISJ inaugural editorial

Power dynamics in organisations and the role of information systems

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.

Defining the central identity of the information systems (IS) field is a subject of ongoing concern and debate among IS researchers. Published empirical studies to date have focused on restricted sets of IS-related journal publications spread across relatively short time periods. This paper offers a broader review of the central identity of the IS field, using three dimensions proposed by Albert and Whetten [1985]: central character (i.e., what topics do IS scholars research?); temporal continuity (i.e., to what extent has the identity of the IS field remained static over time?); and distinctiveness (i.e., how unique is research published in IS vs. non-IS research journals?). The first two dimensions are examined using a dataset containing 6,466 journal citations drawn from seven leading IS journals over a 32-year period, and the third is evaluated by comparing results from these seven journals with research published in 15 leading non-IS business journals over the same time period. Results suggest that articles published in leading IS journals do share a strong central character that is distinct from research published in non-IS journals, and yet an identity that has continually shifted over time. This study contributes to the literature by providing an empirically supported review of who we are, how we are different, and some thoughts about where we may be going as a discipline.

About Our Authors

Editorial: Continuing on an Inclusive Path to Scholarly Excellence with Renewed Vigor

Editorial

About Our Authors

Assessing the relative stature of journals devoted to the information systems (IS) discipline is an important issue for IS scholars and those who evaluate them. Even though journal assessment results are often dubiously applied by those making hiring, promotion, and merit decisions, the fact that they are so often a major ingredient in these decisions demands that we understand underlying journal assessment processes. Beyond processes involving the opinions of various “experts,” we here examine how IS journals can be evaluated based on overt behaviors of crowds of IS scholars. These behaviors are revealed preferences, in contrast to stated preferences found in opinions. Two classes of objective journal assessments are studied: impact measures and power measures. Among the former, we find that so-called journal impact factors are problematic, rendering their meaningfulness in evaluating journal stature highly suspect. Another kind of impact measure, the H-index, is found to be a more straightforward way to gauge journal impact. Two power measures for assessing IS journal stature are examined: publishing intensity and publishing breadth. The stature of IS journals according to each of the impact measures and power measures is determined. A comparison of the results shows that a small group of four or five IS journals are repeatedly found at the top across multiple objective assessment approaches. To account for both the consumption and production of IS research, it is suggested that a combined use of impact and power measures be employed in exercises aimed at evaluating relative statures of journals devoted to IS research.

This report is part of a series of publications on the status and development of the North-American Information Systems (IS) field and Wirtschaftsinformatik (WI), its counterpart in German speaking countries. Information systems in businesses and organizations are the main subject of research in IS and WI. Hence, both disciplines are applied fields of research. Thus, the valuation of research results and graduates by business practice are vital indicators for the disciplines’ status and success. Between 1991 and 2001 a plethora of articles were published in leading Information Systems (IS) journals and conference proceedings addressing the issue of relevance of IS research and teaching. This research report provides a comprehensive content analysis of this „relevance debate“ in the North-American Information Systems field. The perceptions, opinions, and recommendations of the contributors are presented structured according to statements of valuation, perception, explanation, and recommendation. The reconstruction of the main IS relevance debate indicates that all debate participants agree that relevance to practice plays a vital role for the IS discipline, but that the field largely lacks relevance in terms of research as well as in terms of teaching. The lack of relevance is, for example, illustrated by the general perception that research results rarely impact practice and that IT/IS professionals usually do not read academic IS journals. In order to analyse if the debate has lead to any changes in terms of practice relevance of the IS field the most recent literature and studies available on IS relevance are evaluated. Analysis results indicate that no significant changes took place. But various IS researchers still report on problems in terms of acceptance and perception of IS degree programs and research. Based on the perspectives of experienced researchers from WI and other European IS communities the concluding remarks of this report attempt to explain the apparent lack of change in the North-American IS field and provide suggestions for improving the current status of the IS field in terms of relevance.

About Our Authors

When studying information systems (IS) phenomena, scholars increasingly aim to take a socio-technical approach. This means that instead of focusing exclusively on the technical side, they also study them from a human perspective. An underrecognized yet powerful tool for examining the opinions and attitudes of individuals is the Q methodology because it makes subjective viewpoints on IS phenomena objectively measurable. Despite its benefits and wide application in other disciplines, the use of Q methodology in top IS journals is still rare. Based on a systematic literature review, this article explores the potential and fit of Q methodology within the sociotechnical systems framework. This analysis leads to two main insights. First, Q methodology enables the integration of the social and the technical component as well as instrumental and humanistic outcomes. Second, this qualiquantilogical technique enriches the understanding of IS phenomena by objectifying the approach to exploring subjective viewpoints. Thus, our work highlights the potential of the method for conducting IS research. And it also provides clear guidelines on how to use the method to uncover new patterns inherent in the data being studied.

Editorial

About Our Authors

About Our Authors