Intellectual Diversity in IS Research: Discipline-Based Conceptualization and an Illustration from Information Systems Research

References

• Aanestad M, Kankanhalli A, Maruping L, Pang MS, Ram S (2021) Digital technologies and social justice. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 1–9.Google Scholar
• Agarwal R, Lucas HC Jr (2005) The information systems identity crisis: Focusing on high-visibility and high-impact research. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 29(3):381–398.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Banville C, Landry M (1989) Can the field of MIS be disciplined? Comm. ACM 32(1):48–60.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barki H, Rivard S, Talbot J (1988) An information systems keyword classification scheme. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 12(2):299–322.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barki H, Rivard S, Talbot J (1993) A keyword classification scheme for IS research literature: An update. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 17(2):209–226.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baskerville RL, Myers MD (2002) Information systems as a reference discipline. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 26(1):1–14.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benbasat I, Weber R (1996) Research commentary: Rethinking “diversity” in information systems research. Inform. Systems Res. 7(4):389–399.Link, Google Scholar
• Benbasat I, Zmud RW (2003) The identity crisis within the IS discipline: Defining and communicating the discipline’s core properties. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 27(2):183–194.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burgess TF, Grimshaw P, Shaw NE (2017) Diversity of the information systems research field: A journal governance perspective. Inform. Systems Res. 28(1):5–21.Link, Google Scholar
• Burton-Jones A, Butler BS, Scott S, Xu SX (2021) Next-generation information systems theorizing: A call to action. MIS Quart. 45(1):301–314.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Culnan MJ (1987) Mapping the intellectual structure of MIS, 1980-1985: A co-citation analysis. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 11(3):341–353.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis GB (2000) Information systems conceptual foundations: Looking backward and forward. Baskerville R, Stage J, DeGross JI, eds. Organizational and Social Perspectives on Information Technology. (Springer, Boston, MA), 61–82.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dennis A (2019) An unhealthy obsession with theory. J. Assoc. Inform. Systems 20(9):1406–1411.Google Scholar
• Goes PB (2013) Commonalities across IS silos and intradisciplinary information systems research. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 37(2):iii–vii.Google Scholar
• Grover V, Lyytinen K (2015) New state of play in information systems research: The push to the edges. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 39(2):271–296.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gupta A (2017) Editorial thoughts: What and how ISR publishes. Inform. Systems Res. 28(1):1–4.Link, Google Scholar
• Gupta A (2018) Traits of successful research contributions for publication in ISR: Some thoughts for authors and reviewers. Inform. Systems Res. 29(4):779–786.Link, Google Scholar
• Hirschheim R, Klein HK (2012) A glorious and not-so-short history of the information systems field. J. Assoc. Inform. Systems 13(4):188–235.Google Scholar
• Ives B, Hamilton S, Davis GB (1980) A framework for research in computer-based management information systems. Management Sci. 26(9):910–934.Link, Google Scholar
• Keen PGW (1987) MIS research: Current status, trends and needs. Buckingham RA, Hirschheim RA, Land FF, Tully CJ, eds. Information Systems Education: Recommendations and Implementation (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK), 1–13.Google Scholar
• King JL, Lyytinen KJ (2006) The market of ideas as the center of the IS field. Comm. Assoc. Inform. Systems 17(1):841–850.Google Scholar
• Kuhn TS (2012) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 4th ed. (University of Chicago Press, Chicago).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Landry M, Banville C (1992) A disciplined methodological pluralism for MIS research. Accounting Management Inform. Tech. 2(2):77–97.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leidner DE (2021) Editorial reflections: Looking back on 2020. J. Assoc. Inform. Systems 22(1):1–4.Google Scholar
• Lyytinen K, King JL (2004) Nothing at the center? Academic legitimacy in the information systems field. J. Assoc. Inform. Systems 5(6):220–246.Google Scholar
• Majchrzak A, Markus ML, Wareham J (2016) Designing for digital transformation: Lessons for information systems research from the study of ICT and societal challenges. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 40(2):267–277.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Markus ML, Rowe F (2021) Guest editorial: Theories of digital transformation: A progress report. J. Assoc. Inform. Systems 22(2):273–280.Google Scholar
• Mingers J (2001) Combining IS research methods: Toward a pluralist methodology. Inform. Systems Res. 12(3):240–259.Link, Google Scholar
• Miranda S, Berente N, Seidel S, Safadi H, Burton-Jones A (2022) Computationally intensive theory construction: A primer for authors and reviewers. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 46(2):iii–xviii.Google Scholar
• Mumford E (2006) The story of socio-technical design: Reflections on its successes, failures and potential. Inform. Systems J. 16(4):317–342.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Myers MD, Klein HK (2011) A set of principles for conducting critical research in information systems. MIS Quart. 35(1):17–36.Google Scholar
• Orlikowski WJ, Iacono CS (2001) Research commentary: Desperately seeking the “IT” in IT research—A call to theorizing the IT artifact. Inform. Systems Res. 12(2):121–134.Link, Google Scholar
• Rai A (2016) The MIS Quarterly trifecta: Impact, range, speed. MIS Quart. 40(1):iii–x.Google Scholar
• Rai A (2018) Beyond outdated labels: The blending of IS research traditions. MIS Quart. 42(1):iii–vi.Google Scholar
• Robey D (1996) Research commentary: Diversity in information systems research: Threat, promise, and responsibility. Inform. Systems Res. 7(4):400–408.Link, Google Scholar
• Robey D (2003) Identity, legitimacy and the dominant research paradigm: An alternative prescription for the IS discipline: A response to Benbasat and Zmud’s call for returning to the IT artifact. J. Assoc. Inform. Systems 4(7):352–359.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sarker S, Chatterjee S, Xiao X, Elbanna A (2019) The sociotechnical axis of cohesion for the IS discipline: Its historical legacy and its continued relevance. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 43(3):695–719.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sarker S, Xiao X, Beaulieu T, Lee AS (2018) Learning from first-generation qualitative approaches in the IS discipline: An evolutionary view and some implications for authors and evaluators (part 2/2). J. Assoc. Inform. Systems 19(9).Google Scholar
• Saunders C (2006) What does it take for a journal to be global? Management Inform. Systems Quart. 30(3):iii–ix.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sidorova A, Evangelopoulos N, Valacich JS, Ramakrishnan T (2008) Uncovering the intellectual core of the information systems discipline. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 32(3):467–482.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Straub D (2010) “MISQ”, Inc. or an online collective? Is there a journal personality and what it means for authors. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 34(3):iii–viii.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tarafdar M, Davison RM (2018) Research in information systems: Intra-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary approaches. J. Assoc. Inform. Systems 19(6):523–551.Google Scholar
• Taylor H, Dillon S, Van Wingen M (2010) Focus and diversity in information systems research: Meeting the dual demands of a healthy applied discipline. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 34(4):647–667.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vaast E, Walsham G (2013) Grounded theorizing for electronically mediated social contexts. Eur. J. Inform. Systems 22(1):9–25.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Walsham G (2006) Doing interpretive research. Eur. J. Inform. Systems 15(3):320–330.Crossref, Google Scholar