This paper presents a methodological framework to support the process of information systems (IS) planning in organizations. It draws on the ideas of critical systems thinking (CST), a research perspective that encourages the analysis of stakeholders' understandings prior to the selection and implementation of planning methods. The framework emphasizes continuous identification of concerns from stakeholders, and facilitates critical reflection in the exploration of possibilities for improvement. Some of these possibilities might require the support of IS and communication technologies. To define the framework, two systems theories are used: boundary critique and autopoiesis. The first one enables critical reflection on values and assumptions about potential situations or marginalization. The second one fosters continuous dialogue, listening and mutual collaboration between participants. With these theories, the framework enables people to reflect on issues of inclusion, exclusion and marginalization, and to participate in the design of plans for improvement. Ultimately, the definition of this framework suggests the importance of critical reflection about ethics to improve the practice of IS planning.Organizations are currently using information technologies (IT) as a necessity for survival. The times when IT and information systems (IS) associated were considered rare, a luxury or even advantage are past. With increasing collaboration and new forms of networking (Castells, 1996), the use of IS can open new opportunities for communication and interaction. For IS planning, new technologies and ways of working bring new challenges for organizations. Their rapid incorporation to business processes makes it difficult to reflect on the thinking that underpins the definition of plans to design and implement IS in organizations (Galliers, 2004).
Information systems as a discipline in the making: comparing EJIS and MISQ between 1995 and Article (Draft)Original Citation: Córdoba, José-Rodrigo and Pilkington, Alan and Bernroider, Edward (2012)
AbstractThe status of Information Systems (IS) as a discipline has been widely debated as a body of knowledge that offers a number of concepts, methods and techniques to understand and improve the roles of information communication systems and technologies in organizations. Current state of this debate as reported in academic journals signals an imperative to ground some of the perspectives in relation to what IS professionals use in practice in different cultural and geographical contexts. This paper aims to contribute to the debate by tracing the unfolding of information systems as a body of knowledge using the ideas of Abbott on disciplines. We use three different stages of a discipline's development: differentiation, conflict and absorption and map them using a citation and co-citation analyses of two main IS journals (EJIS and MISQ) in the period between 1995 and 2008. Our results indicate that dominant ideas and models to investigate IS phenomena emerged over time are behavioural based and study IS adoption/acceptance/rejection in organisations, many of which are predictive and thus lending themselves usable for positivistic quantitative and qualitative research. There are however stable varieties within IS building on interpretivism and constructivism that we need to recognise and reignite in order to ensure that this field continues moving forward, in particular in studying current and future processes of innovation and diffusion of technology worldwide.
The paper investigates how Information Systems (IS) has emerged as the product of interdisciplinary discourses. The research aim in this study is to better understand diversity in IS research, and the extent to which the diversity of discourse expanded and contracted from 1995 to 2011. Methodologically, we apply a combined citations/co-citations analysis based on the eight Association for Information Systems (AIS) basket journals and the 22 subject-field classification framework provided by the Association of Business Schools (ABS). Our findings suggest that IS is in a state of continuous interaction and competition with other disciplines. General Management was reduced from a dominant position as a reference discipline in IS at the expense of a growing variety of other discourses including Business Strategy, Marketing, and Ethics and Governance among others. Over time, IS as a field moved from the periphery to a central position during its discursive formation. This supports the notion of IS as a fluid discipline dynamically embracing a diverse range of adjacent reference disciplines, whilst keeping a degree of continuing interaction with them. Understanding where IS is currently at allows us to better understand and propose fruitful avenues for its development in both academia and practice.
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.