In an earlier editorial in this journal (Chatterjee & Davison, 2021), we argued that authors should strengthen their positioning and motivation for undertaking their research. As we noted, ‘the positioning and motivation of the paper strongly determine how the contribution emerges in the latter half of the paper’. More specifically, we recommended that authors motivate their research through problematisation (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2011; Sandberg & Alvesson, 2011), including, inter alia, both an identification of the stakeholders most likely to find the research value and then a focus on these same stakeholders via an appropriate set of research questions and objectives. Problematising the research in this way requires the researcher to reflect on why the research is being undertaken, and which stakeholders' perspectives are privileged or excluded. Notwithstanding the advantages of a problematisation approach to research motivation, we note that the vast majority of information systems research is motivated and positioned as being of value to corporate stakeholders, often paraphrased by authors in their research contributions as ‘managers’. Clarke and Davison (2020) reviewed approximately 20% of the empirical research (659 articles) published over a 15-year period in the eight AIS basket journals. They found that over 90% of the articles in their sample privilege the interests of corporate stakeholders, and indeed 90% also only consider economic interests, though of a range of stakeholders. Less than 10% of the articles examine issues that are of interest to non-corporate stakeholders, and similarly less than 10% consider social interests (whether of organisations or people). Environmental interests, that is, the implications of the research for natural ecosystems and the environment more broadly, are essentially unrepresented in the sample. Problematising research will at least help to ensure that the stakeholders most likely to be interested in the research will be identified, but if the pattern observed by Clarke and Davison (2020) continues, we can expect that over 90% of those stakeholders will be at the corporate level, whether the near-ubiquitous managers or the organisation as an entity in its own right. Further, we can also expect that research will predominantly consider economic interests, for example, profit, effectiveness and efficiency, but not non-economic interests such as social and environmental. Where the communication of research findings is concerned, researchers are often experts at crafting implications for other researchers but are much less adept where non-academic audiences are concerned. These latter contributions range from the formulaic (e.g., managers should invest in employee training) to the implausible (e.g., managers should redesign their corporate systems), and are sometimes so whimsical (e.g., managers globally will find our experimental results based on a student population to be of intrinsic value) that their inclusion seems to be no more than meeting a journal requirement. Thus, not only are limitations limited (Davison, 2017) but so too are contributions for anyone other than academics. We suggest that a key problem in communicating research findings can be traced back to the original motivation. If authors are undertaking a study to fill a gap in the research literature, as is sometimes the case, then indeed it is unlikely that their research will have much relevance for any audience other than those who like to see gaps filled. In contrast, problematising a research design around the interests and perspectives of a range of non-academic stakeholders, and perhaps not restricting the focus of the investigation to economic issues, will later help authors to craft implications emanating from their research that are of interest to a wide variety of people. We note that this inclusion of non-corporate stakeholders and non-economic interests is recognised as being important by our employers and funding agencies. For instance, in the UK and Australia the pursuit of business and social impact by research funding agencies is relentless, and various agencies like Quaquarelli Symonds and The Times are beginning to rank universities based on social impact as well. It therefore seems reasonable to expect that the authors of empirical research articles should at least reflect on the social implications of their research. We suggest that there are advantages associated with broadening the design of research such that it is relevant to stakeholders other than managers. We also hope to stimulate authors, reviewers, and the reading audience more broadly to consider the social and environmental implications of the research. This does not negate the value of economically focused research, and managers do constitute an important part of our vicarious audience, but we recognise that IS research is no longer confined to the study of situations where there is the potential to support an organisation's financial or strategic goals. Instead, contemporary research designs readily encompass the perspectives of non-corporate stakeholders with implications for individuals' well-being, society, and the environment. For instance, it is perfectly legitimate for IS scholars to contribute to knowledge that is primarily of relevance to non-managerial and blue-collar employees (Tarafdar & Saunders, 2022), farmers (Vaidya & Myers, 2021), customers (Geebren et al., 2021), citizens (Avgerou, 2013), refugees (Díaz Andrade & Doolin, 2016, 2019), society at large (Díaz Andrade & Techatassanasoontorn, 2021), and the denizens of non-human ecosystems (Hedman & Henningsson, 2016), all of whom are stakeholders who may be affected by our research. However, it is inadequate merely to include these different stakeholders in the implications section of a paper without making the corresponding changes to the motivation for why the research was undertaken in the first place. This is not a box-ticking exercise and not all research will automatically be of relevance to all possible stakeholders. Instead, a more careful and nuanced approach is needed. However, if researchers never intended to consider these stakeholders and different perspectives, it will be an artificial exercise to attempt to explain why the research might be valuable for them after the fact. Authors should keep in mind that they need to write about practical implications that are derived directly from the research, including the research setting. It is not acceptable to make speculative recommendations, and so it is better to plan research such that it is intended to be relevant to the specific stakeholder(s) from the outset. Special issues can provide a particular contextual focus that is designed around the interests of stakeholders. For instance, the special issue on the Dark Side of IT Use (Tarafdar et al., 2015) was an early foray into investigating the negative impacts arising from the use of IS from the perspective of end users. In the recently published special issue of this journal on responsible research, Giddens et al. (2023) contribute explicitly to people who work in non-profits and social entrepreneurs who aim to use IT for social good and indeed to make the world a better place. Meanwhile, in the special issue on social inclusion, Iivari et al. (2018) explored the agency of children and the ways in which social inclusion and exclusion are manifested in the practice of digital technology education. Another example is Zeiss et al.'s (2021, p.148) investigation of the circular economy and the opportunities to ‘enact circular material flows to intensify and extend the use of products and components, and recycle waste materials’. We encourage authors to problematise their research carefully and to consider which stakeholders may be most interested in the research outcomes. Given the already established tendency for IS research to focus on the economic interests of the organisation, we particularly encourage authors to consider non-economic interests of a wider variety of stakeholders. One way to achieve this is through multi-perspective research where the interests of multiple stakeholders are examined (Clarke & Davison, 2020). Another way is to design single perspective research that focuses on non-corporate stakeholders (Tarafdar & Saunders, 2022). We also suggest that reviewers be sensitive to these ideas and pay attention to how the expected impact is considered in the motivation and design of the research. Reviewers who expect to see a careful problematisation of a phenomenon can help to ensure the rigour and relevance of the research itself, and help the IS discipline to move beyond gap spotting research. Reviewers may of course also be sensitive to the interests of different types of stakeholders and make suggestions as to how research implications can be broadened in scope. These editorial remarks are not intended to convey the message that economically-focused research that is restricted to the perspective of the organisation or corporate stakeholder is not welcome. Instead, we hope to broaden the scope of IS research such that it includes non-economic perspectives and implications for a wider audience than the organisation and its senior management alone. In this issue of the ISJ we present seven articles. In the first article, Ng et al. (2023) note both that the failure rate of fintech platforms is disproportionately high, and the lack of research on the competitive strategies that could facilitate their survival or success. To address this knowledge gap, the authors first identified the unique characteristics of fintech platforms and the strategic implications of those characteristics. They then adapted a framework made up of six conventional core logics of strategy and juxtaposed the prescriptions of those logics with the unique characteristics identified. Finally, they constructed a research agenda based on their analysis to provide directions for future research in this area. The agenda suggests that fintech platform strategies have to account for competing institutional logic stemming from the platforms' dual identity and the tensions between conforming for legitimacy and differentiating for competitive advantage. There is also a need to account for an exceptionally dynamic and unpredictable regulatory landscape, and the responses and competitive actions of influential market incumbents. In the second article, Tarafdar et al. (2023) examine human–algorithm role interactions in algorithmic work, that is, when humans and algorithms interact with one another to accomplish work so that the algorithm takes on the role of a co-worker. Drawing on the theoretical framing of organisational roles, the authors theorise on the algorithm as the role sender and the human as the role taker. They explain how the algorithm is a multi-role sender with entangled roles, whilst the human as role taker experiences algorithm-driven role conflict and role ambiguity. Further, whilst the algorithm records all of the human's task actions, it is ignorant of the human's cognitive reactions: it undergoes what the authors conceptualise as ‘broken loop learning’. The empirical context of the study is algorithm-driven taxi driving (in the USA) exemplified by companies such as Uber. In the third article, Zhao et al. (2023) address the unequal ability of older adults to use healthcare information technologies by further developing the concept of digital capability and emphasising the link between older adults and their social context. Based on a qualitative study of 33 Chinese patients and their family members, the authors generate a novel theoretical contribution for understanding the process by which social activities may shape older adults' digital capabilities. Theoretically, the authors strengthen the application of digital capability as a conceptual lens to investigate individuals' engagement with information and communication technologies (ICTs). It also extends research on the social context for ICT use by revealing how social processes at multiple levels influence digital capability development. In addition, the authors suggest two strategies and offer practical implications for governments and the private sector to encourage and promote ICT use by older adults. In the fourth article, Masiero (2023) notes a Western bias in the production of critical IS theory, which is largely clustered around the theoretical perspectives of Bourdieu, Foucault, and Habermas. She argues that this bias limits the ability of critical IS research to execute its mandate to illuminate the oppressive and alienating traits of the status quo. She proposes an alternative to Western critical theory, centred on subalternity theory: this is an approach that was developed by the Subaltern Studies collective and its study of post-colonial South Asia. She then develops a conceptual apparatus for the narration of ‘history from below’. She proposes subalternity theory as a route to decolonising critical IS research, using a subaltern conceptual apparatus to voice systematically marginalised communities. In the fifth article, Kirwan et al. (2023) explore the world of NeuroIS: the methods and knowledge of Neuroscience applied to Information Systems. Although Neursoscience enables researchers to probe into human cognition in a way that is impossible with behavioural studies, there is nevertheless an interest in combining NeuroIS with behavioural techniques. The authors argue for the benefits of a hybrid programme of NeuroIS-Behavioural IS research and outline four strategies that could be employed, in order both to understand IS-related behavioural phenomena and thereby advance IS knowledge. In the sixth article, Ofe and Sandberg (2023) explore how entrant platform providers can induce the actors in a digital ecosystem to negotiate carefully and collaboratively where power relationships are concerned. Such negotiation may help to mitigate the tensions that emerge in the governance of the ecosystem. The authors illustrate their analysis of these negotiations through a case study of the introduction of an open data platform in the Swedish public transport sector. They empirically demonstrate that entrepreneurial threats and opportunities can trigger platform launches and drive collaborative negotiation of digital ecosystem governance. They also demonstrate the role of interactive boundary resources in the negotiation of governance grounded in both social and systemic power relationships. Finally, they show how positive reinforcement can increase acceptance of design rules. In the seventh article, Qahri-Saremi and Turel (2023) challenge a common assumption that users possess a single orientation on a bipolar, univalent continuum (negative to positive) towards a system. Focusing on the context of social networking sites, the authors explain the limitations of this perspective in explaining the intricacy and variety of SNS use patterns. To alleviate this situation, they draw on ambivalence theory and explain that users can simultaneously experience both positive and negative orientations towards SNS use based on the positive and negative aspects of their SNS use experience. They theorise archetypes of users' attitudinal responses to ambivalence, and the SNS use pattern associated with each attitudinal response archetype. They empirically test their theory using multi-wave data collected from ambivalent SNS users. The findings suggest that ambivalence can trigger a specific set of attitudinal responses in users, which in turn can explain likely choices from a range of post-adoption SNS use patterns. I am grateful to the following ISJ Senior Editors who commented on this editorial: Angsana Techatassansoontorn, Antonio Díaz Andrade, Barney Tan, Federico Iannacci, Frank Chan, Mary-Beth Watson Manheim, Monideepa Tarafdar, and MN Ravishankar.