The Routledge Companion to Management Information Systems

Robert D. Galliers, Mari-Klara Stein, Robert D. Galliers, Mari-Klara Stein

• Editorial: Routledge
• Año: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781317213710
• Edición: 1
• Categoría: Business
• Categoría: Gestione dell'informazione

The field of Information Systems has been evolving since the first application of computers in organizations in the early 1950s. Focusing on information systems analysis and design up to and including the 1980s, the field has expanded enormously, with our assumptions about information and knowledge being challenged, along with both intended and unintended consequences of information technology.

This prestige reference work offers students and researchers a critical reflection on major topics and current scholarship in the evolving field of Information Systems. This single-volume survey of the field is organized into four parts. The first section deals with Disciplinary and Methodological Foundations. The second section deals with Development, Adoption and Use of MIS – topics that formed the centrepiece of the field of IS in the last century. The third section deals with Managing Organizational IS, Knowledge and Innovation, while the final section considers emerging and continuing issues and controversies in the field – IS in Society and a Global Context. Each chapter provides a balanced overview of current knowledge, identifying issues and discussing relevant debates.

This prestigious book is required reading for any student or researcher in Management Information Systems, academics and students covering the breadth of the field, and established researchers seeking a single-volume repository on the current state of knowledge, current debates and relevant literature.

Part 1

Disciplinary and methodological foundations

Introduction

Part 1 of this Companion volume focuses on the disciplinary and methodological foundations of Information Systems (IS) as a field of study. This foundation is extremely important in the context of this Companion given the diversity and changing nature of IS, and the various schools of thought and debates that have characterised the field over the years.¹ Hirschheim and Klein note in Chapter 1 of the Routledge Handbook on MIS (Galliers & Stein, 2015) that the IS literature can be characterised as ‘diverse and pluralistic’ (see Hirschheim & Klein, 2012 ² for the original article), while King et al. (2010) view the field in terms of ‘harmonious pluralism.’ Were the latter to be entirely the case! The field’s very diversity is seen as a strength by some (e.g., Galliers, 2003, 2006; Robey, 1996), but as a weakness by others (e.g., Benbasat & Weber, 1996; Benbasat & Zmud, 2003).

The history of the IS field provides some clues as to why it is that esteemed colleagues take such contrasting views as these, and this is why we commence, in Chapter 1, with a further reflection, by Nik Hassan, on historical developments.

While limited progress has been made in providing histories of the IS field in recent years,³ this chapter builds on such earlier studies as these and introduces the major paradigms of historiography to highlight various features of such histories and their potential to encourage new, insightful research that can help in establishing the identity and relevance of IS not just for the field itself but also on behalf of cognate fields. By doing so, this chapter highlights existing gaps and future opportunities for further IS research and can be seen as something of a precursor to our consideration of IS as a reference discipline in and of itself, in Chapter 3.

As is pointed out by Hassan,

Writing history is very different from writing traditional IS research. Taking IS history seriously first starts when the differences between the behavioral research that IS researchers are accustomed to and historical studies are clear in the mind of the researcher. It demands a major shift in outlook about research and about why IS history is being written.

Given its inherently reflexive nature, such research tells us what has been achieved in the past, and exposes the field’s intellectual structures. Further, such studies can identify what and howwe have studied chosen phenomena. Thus, in reviewing historical studies, Chapter 1 helps, potentially at least, in resolving long-standing issues of identity and relevancy within the IS field. If we can agree on past accomplishments, then the ‘communication deficit’ that remains between different research communities within the IS academy – and externally with practitioner colleagues – may be reduced, resulting in a greater likelihood of agreement concerning appropriate future research agendas.

The diversity, changing nature and alternative perspectives that characterise the IS field require us to delve more deeply into philosophical and methodological issues, and this is a topic that is considered by Allen Lee in Chapter 2. Titled “Philosophy and Method: Making Interpretive Research Interpretive,” this chapter raises three key questions: (1) What makes interpretive research interpretive? (2) How is interpretive research valid? (3) Why are these two questions important for the conduct of research in Information Systems? In answering these questions, Chapter 2 calls upon such topics as phenomenology, hermeneutics, ethnography and hypothetico-deductive logic to problematise and interpret meaning, and to assess the validity of interpreted meaning. Key ideas are applied and illustrated with a reconstructed example (Sarker & Lee, 2006) of a walk-through of the interpretation of the meaning of technological tools used for business process change in two organisations.

Following on from these considerations, the field of IS has for long been seen to be reliant on such ‘reference disciplines’ as Computer Science, Management Science, Systems Theory, and various subfields of Management (Keen, 1980). More recently, this thinking has been turned on its head given the trans-disciplinary nature of the subject matter, with the IS field itself being viewed as a reference discipline in its own right, able to inform other fields of study. Thus, for example, we see recent calls from management strategists for insights from the IS field given the impact of IS/IT on opening up organisational strategising (e.g., Whittington, 2014).⁴ As a result of this rethinking, Richard Baskerville and Michael Myers discuss IS as a reference discipline in Chapter 3, based in part on their earlier article on the topic (Baskerville & Myers 2002) – an article that for the first time questioned conventional wisdom and asked whether it was time for IS to be considered as a reference discipline in and of itself. The chapter, thus, reflects on the authors’ original article, reviews the various contributions that have been made to the debate in subsequent contributions and proposes a future research agenda. Baskerville and Myers conclude that the IS field “is simply one academic discipline among others exchanging knowledge in a free flow of ideas. Information Systems is simply one of many ‘contributing disciplines’ to an ever-changing discourse related to information technology.”

Having provided this foundation, we turn in Chapter 4 to the question of the theory – theories rather – upon which our research is based and to which it might contribute. Written by Shirley Gregor, this chapter aims to illustrate how different perspectives on theory and theorizing have accompanied historical movements in the philosophy of science. Recognising that theory can take on different forms depending on its purpose and how it is to be used, and building on her taxonomy of theory (Gregor, 2006), the process of theory development is discussed in terms of the context of discovery (theory building) and the context of justification (theory testing). Arising from this, a ‘Theory Contribution Canvas’ is presented to assist IS researchers in demonstrating their contribution to ongoing theory development.

These first four chapters provide us with a firm basis to next consider how we might go about undertaking research in the IS field given its expanding universe. Whatever method we choose,⁵ IS researchers have to locate their work in the context of extant theory, and thus, literature reviews that do not simply replicate what has already been said are crucial. What added value does the review provide? What gaps and controversies does it uncover? And what questions arise from a critical and reflexive treatment of what has been studied previously?

These are the kind of questions a thorough literature review will answer, and very helpful guidance on undertaking literature reviews is the topic covered by Ana Ortiz de Guinea and Guy Paré in Chapter 5. The authors note the “recent explosion of interest … investigating literature reviews as a research method.” They discern two main topics in this literature: (1) advice on how to conduct and assess the quality of literature reviews and (2) the development of a typology of literature reviews that are considered relevant to the IS field.

We go on to consider alternative research approaches and considerations in the next three chapters. Interpretive research is covered by Michael Myers in Chapter 6. NeuroIS is considered by René Riedl in Chapter 7, while Chapter 8, written by Ulrike Schultze, focuses on ethnography. Thus, in Chapter 6, Myers talks of interpretive research in IS “coming of age” in that, over the past decade and more, this form of research has established itself as a key research philosophy – among others, of course. He makes the point that “approximately one-quarter of all IS research articles” in the field’s major journals take an interpretive perspective. The chapter considers the reasons for the rise of interpretive research in our field, together with the contributions it is making, concluding with a vision of how interpretive research might evolve in the future.

From interpretive research that has ‘come of age,’ we then move to a research perspective that is only beginning to find its footing in the IS field, but has tremendous potential – ‘NeuroIS.’ A chapter by René Riedl explains that “NeuroIS is a field … which makes use of neurophysiological tools and knowledge to better understand the development, adoption, and impact of information and communication technologies.” Riedl poses and addresses four questions: (1) What is NeuroIS? (2) Why is NeuroIS important? (3) What are possible NeuroIS topics? (4) How to conduct NeuroIS research? The chapter provides a consolidation of the concepts and methods that have been used in NeuroIS in order to contribute to further development of the topic.

We conclude Part 1 of the Companion with an overview of ethnography and its use in IS research, with a view to identifying future research directions. The chapter is written by Ulrike Schultze, who notes that, while ethnographic research is a method originally developed by anthropologists to study foreign cultures, it has more recently been adopted by IS researchers. Following a partial review of a number of ethnographic IS studies, Schultze identifies three types of ethnographies that are particularly evident in IS: (1) organisational, (2) digital and (3) design ethnographies. Building on this, she notes that a key challenge for IS research is that the phenomena of interest are changing as a result of technological innovation … at once becoming more individual/personal (e.g., wearables) and more digital, distributed and global (e.g., grid computing, digital traces), while simultaneously becoming more fleeting. Schultze points to the implication that such methods require adaption to better capture contemporary phenomena. The chapter draws to a close by highlighting three types of ethnographic research: (1) mobile, (2) sensory and (3) visual ethnography that hold considerable promise for future IS research.

Having considered these important disciplinary, philosophical and methodological aspects of the IS field, all of which underpin our research agenda, we turn to questions of the development, adoption and use of IS in Part 2.

Notes

1See, for example, King and Lyytinen (2006).

2See also Hirschheim and Klein (2011).

3See, for example, Galliers and Whitley (2007) and Stein et al. (2016) for historical reflections on the European Conference on IS since its inception.

4 See also Huang et al. (2013) and Baptista et al. (2017) for examples of the use of social media in ‘open’ strategy.

5See, for example, Galliers et al. (2007) for a consideration of alternative approaches to IS research.

References

Baptista, J., Wilson, A., Galliers, R. D. & Bynghall, S. (2017). Social media and the emergence of reflexiveness as a new capability for open strategy, Long Range Planning, 50(3), 322–336.

Baskerville, R. L. & Myers, M. D. (2002). Information systems as a reference discipline, MIS Quarterly, 26(1), 1–14.

Benbasat, I. & Weber, R. (1996). Rethinking diversity in information systems research, Information Systems Research, 7(4), 389–399.

Benbasat, I. & Zmud, R. (2003). The identity crisis within the IS discipline: defining and communicating the discipline’s core properties, MIS Quarterly, 27(2), 183–194.

Galliers, R. D. (2003). Change as crisis or growth? Toward a trans-disciplinary view of information systems as a field of study – A response to Benbasat and Zmud’s call for returning to the IT artifact, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 4(6): 337–351.

Galliers, R. D. (2006). ‘Don’t worry, be happy’ … A post-modernist perspective on the information systems domain, in J. L. King & K. Lyytinen (eds.), Information Systems: The State of the Field. Chichester: Wiley, 324–331.

Galliers, R. D. & Stein, M. K. (eds.) (2015). Management Information Systems: Critical Perspectives on Business and Management, Vols. I-IV, London: Routledge.

Galliers, R. D. & Whitley, E. A. (2007). Vive les differences? Developing a profile of European information systems research as a basis for international comparisons, European Journal of Information Systems, 16(1), 20–35.

Galliers, R. D., Markus, M. L. & Newell, S. (eds.) (2007). Exploring Information Systems Research Approaches: Readings and Reflections, London: Routledge.

Gregor, S. (2006). The nature of theory in information systems, MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 611–642.

Hirschheim, R. & Klein, H. K. (2011). Tracing the history of the information systems field. In R. D. Galliers & W. L. Currie (eds.) (2011). The Oxford Handbook of Information Systems: Critical Perspectives and New Directions, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 16–61.

Hirschheim, R. & Klein, H. K. (2012). A glorious and not-so-short history of the information systems field, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 13(4), 188–235.

Huang, J. Baptista, J. & Galliers, R. D. (2013). Reconceptualizing rhetorical practices in organizations: The impact of social media on internal communications, Information & Management, 50(2–3), 112–124.

Keen, P.G.W. (1980). MIS research: Reference disciplines and a cumulative tradition. ICIS 1980 Proceedings, Paper 9. http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis1980/9.

King, J. L. & Lyytinen, K. (eds.) (2006). Information Systems: The State of the Field, Chichester: Wiley.

King, J. L., Myers, M. D., Rivard, S., Saunders, C., and Weber, R. (2010). What do we like about the IS field? Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 26(20). http://aisel.aisnet.org/cais/vol26/iss1/20.

Robey, D. (1996). Diversity in information systems research: Threat, promise, and responsibility, Information Systems Research, 7(4), 400–408.

Sarker, S. & Lee, A. S. (2006). Does the use of computer-based BPC tools contribute to redesign effectiveness? Insights from a hermeneutic study, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 53(1), 130–145.

Stein, M. K., Galliers, R. D. & Whitley, E. A. (2016). Twenty years of the European information systems academy at ECIS: Emergent trends and research topics, European Journal of Information Systems, 25(1), 1–15.

Whittington (2014). Information systems and strategy-as-practice: A joint agenda, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 23(1): 87–91.

1
Taking is history seriously

Nik Rushdi Hassan

Introduction

Historical research in information systems (IS) represents an enigma. Recognizing the potential for historical research in IS, Harvard University initiated the MIS ...

Índice

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• Notes on contributors
• Acknowledgements
• Foreword
• Part 1 Disciplinary and methodological foundations
• Part 2 Development, adoption and use of MIS
• Part 3 Managing organisational IS, knowledge and innovation
• Part 4 IS in society and a global context: emerging – and continuing – issues and controversies
• Index