Uncovering-the-Intellectual-Core-of-the-Informatio

Sidorovaetal./TheIntellectualCoreoftheISDisciplineMISQuarterlyVol.32No.3,pp.467-482/September2008467ISSUESANDOPINIONSUNCOVERINGTHEINTELLECTUALCOREOFTHEINFORMATIONSYSTEMSDISCIPLINE1By:AnnaSidorovaCollegeofBusinessAdministrationUniversityofNorthTexasDenton,[e-mail]sCollegeofBusinessAdministrationUniversityofNorthTexasDenton,[e-mail]sAdministrationWashingtonStateUniversityPullman,[e-mail]anCollegeofBusinessAdministrationUniversityofNorthTexasDenton,[e-mail]ctualcoreoftheinformationsystemsdisci-pline?ThisstudyuseslatentsemanticanalysistoexaminealargebodyofpublishedISresearchinordertoaddressthisquestion.Specifically,theabstractsofallresearchpapersoverthetimeperiodfrom1985through2006publishedinthreetopISresearchjournals—MISQuarterly,InformationSystemsResearch,andJournalofManagementInformationSystems—wereanalyzed.Thisanalysisidentifiedfivecoreresearchareas:(1)informationtechnologyandorganiza-tions;(2)ISdevelopment;(3)ITandindividuals;(4)ITandmarkets;and(5)ITandgroups.Overthetimeframeofouranalysis,thesecoretopicshaveremainedquitestable.However,thespecificresearchthemeswithineachcoreareahaveevolvedsignificantly,reflectingresearchthathasfocusedlessontechnologydevelopmentandmoreonthesocialcontextinwhichinformationtechnologiesaredesignedandused.Assuch,thisanalysisdemonstratesthattheinformationsystemsacademicdisciplinehasmaintainedarelativelystableresearchidentitythatfocusesonhowITsystemsaredevelopedandhowindividuals,groups,organizations,andmarketsinteractwithIT.Keywords:ISidentity,ISresearchissues,ISresearchagenda,organizationalidentity,latentsemanticanalysisIntroductionIfinfluentialstakeholdersareunabletocomprehendthenature,importance,anddistinctivenessoftherolebeingservedbytheISdiscipline,thesestake-holdersareunlikelytoacknowledgeitslegitimacywithintheorganizationalfield.(BenbasatandZmud2003,p.185)Sidorovaetal./TheIntellectualCoreoftheISDiscipline468MISQuarterlyVol.32No.3/September2008Overthepastquarterofacentury,theInformationSystemsacademicdisciplinehasmadesignificantprogresstowardwidespreadacceptancewithintheacademy.WhilethefieldissignificantlyyoungerthancounterpartssuchasManage-mentorAccounting,itisnowconsideredtobeamaturingdiscipline(Georgeetal.2005;Groveretal.2006;Power2003).Nevertheless,manyISresearchersagreethatcon-tinueddevelopmentandsuccessofthedisciplinedependsonitsabilitytoestablishastrongidentity(BenbasatandZmud2003;Robey2003).Identityconcernsarenotnew.SomeoftheearlyeffortstoshapetheISdiscipline’sidentitycanbetracedtoMasonandMitroff’s(1973)article,“AProgramforResearchonManagementInformationSystems.”Variousscholarscon-tributedtotherefinementofthediscipline’sidentitythroughthe1980sand1990sbyprovidingoverarchingframeworkstoguideISresearch(Ivesetal.1980;NolanandWetherbe1980),byexaminingtherelationshipsbetweenISandotherdisciplines(Keen1980),bydirectingattemptsat“disci-plining”thefield(BanvilleandLandry1989),byprovidingeditorialguidance(e.g.,DeSanctis1993),andsoon.AmongthemostvisibleeffortstoshapetheidentityoftheISdisciplineisthediversitydebatethattookplaceinthemid-1990s(BenbasatandWeber1996;Robey1996).Inparti-cular,BenbasatandWeber(1996)examinedthehighlevelofdiversitywithintheISfield,especiallyintermsofreferencedisciplinesandtheoreticalfoundations,suggestingthatsuchdiversitymayhavedeleteriouseffectsonthefield’slegiti-macy.Robey(1996),whileagreeingwithBenbasatandWeberonsomethreatsofdiversity,arguedthattheadvan-tagesofdiversityaremuchgreaterthanitsthreats.Speci-fically,hearguedthatdiversitypromotescreativityandhelpsattracttopresearchersfromdifferentdisciplines;likewise,denouncingdiversityinISresearchisequivalenttocurbingthemuch-valuedacademicfreedom.AlongthelinesofLandryandBanville(1992),Robey(1996)recommendedtheuseofdisciplineddiversity,wherethechoicesoftheoriesandmethodologiesaredrivenbytheresearchquestionratherthanadominantparadigm.Discourseonbenefitsanddangersofdiversitycontinuedintothe2000s.Forexample,Mingers(2001),anotheradvocateofdiversity,suggestedamulti-method,multi-paradigmapproachforISresearchthatwouldprovidericherandmorereliableresults.Morerecently,theidentitydebateresumedwhenBenbasatandZmud(2003)expressedconcernsaboutthelackofadistinctiveintellectualcoreinISresearch.DrawingontheworkbyOrlikowskiandIacono(2001),theypointoutthatwhilethefocusoninformationtechnologydifferentiatestheISfieldfromothers,manyscholarlypaperspublishedintop-levelISjournalsdidnotinvestigatephenomenadirectlyrelatedtoIT.Itwasarguedthatthislackofan“ITartifact”withinmanyofthesepublicationssentanambiguoussignalregardingtheidentityoftheISdiscipline.Toremedythesituation,theyproposedthatISscholarsshouldfocusonissuesthataredirectlyrelatedtothedevelopment,useandeffectofIT,andleaveotherphenomenatoscholarsfromotherdisciplines(BenbasatandZmud2003).Theseprovoca-tiverecommendationsspurredanumbero