Abstract:In this paper, we examine the evolution of the institutional and intellectual structures of the IS field. We argue that, though the field's institutional structures-academic programs, journals, conferences, and professional associationshave developed admirably, the state of the field's intellectual structure is less clear. We employ a co-citation lens to analyze the development and evolution of subfields across three periods. We rely on Culnan's (1987) second cocitation study as a point of departure for our analysis. We then extend her work through two additional studies that individually assess the state of subfield development at distinct periods during the field's history. Over the three periods, we note that the field has experienced change in subfield diversity and cohesion. Culnan's study exhibits low levels of cohesion and diversity among topics. Our first study shows continued isolation but growth in subfield diversity. This period is indicative of a fragmented adhocracy. Our second study suggests increasing levels of integration despite only a slight reduction in subfield diversity. While we largely only describe the field's evolution, any assessment of whether this evolution represents a positive or negative trajectory for the field will be subject to interpretation and debate.
Unverifiable messages abound on the Internet. As policymakers and social media platforms grapple with the spread of misleading, false, or otherwise harmful messages, it is important they better understand why users share messages they cannot verify. This article reports on two studies that shed light on such issues. In the first study, the authors leverage secondary data collected from Twitter to show that true and false unverifiable messages have different characteristics and that those characteristics are predictive of retweeting. In the second study, they conduct a controlled experiment to explain why such characteristics influence resharing. Jointly, these studies show that leaks (i.e., true-but-unverifiable) tend to be more plausible, more vivid, and are sent by more credible senders than rumors (i.e., false-but-unverifiable). Further, the relationships among these variables is multiplicative such that the effects of vividness and sender credibility are strengthened for plausible and weakened for implausible messages. Finally, message recipients use these characteristics to determine whether an unverifiable message is novel and/or helpful. In sum, the authors find that social media users are likely to reshare unverifiable messages when they exhibit characteristics of plausibility, vividness, and sender credibility, which signal the novelty of helpfulness of the message.
Abstract:In this paper, we examine the evolution of the institutional and intellectual structures of the IS field. We argue that, though the field's institutional structures-academic programs, journals, conferences, and professional associationshave developed admirably, the state of the field's intellectual structure is less clear. We employ a co-citation lens to analyze the development and evolution of subfields across three periods. We rely on Culnan's (1987) second cocitation study as a point of departure for our analysis. We then extend her work through two additional studies that individually assess the state of subfield development at distinct periods during the field's history. Over the three periods, we note that the field has experienced change in subfield diversity and cohesion. Culnan's study exhibits low levels of cohesion and diversity among topics. Our first study shows continued isolation but growth in subfield diversity. This period is indicative of a fragmented adhocracy. Our second study suggests increasing levels of integration despite only a slight reduction in subfield diversity. While we largely only describe the field's evolution, any assessment of whether this evolution represents a positive or negative trajectory for the field will be subject to interpretation and debate.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.