A Historical Observation of the Intellectual and Institutional Structures of the Field

Abstract

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.

Qualitative and Critical Research in Information Systems and Human Computer Interaction: Divergent and Convergent Paths

“…Publication in proceedings counts, different conferences have different acceptance rates, but the journal publications tend to count more. The advantage of the conferences is the social context, as pointed out by both DeSanctis ( 2003) and Grover et al (2016).…”

“…As the foregoing illustrates, Scandinavian social democracy led to a different approach to systems development. This movement was part of the formation of IS as an academic discipline, which arose as computerbased technology was introduced in workplaces in the 1960s (Bansler, 1988;Grover et al, 2016). The larger IS field addressed questions at every organizational level, in response to the disruption by computer systems of established bureaucratic record-keeping, operations, accounting, and labor practices.…”

“…Aside from a search for trends in methods-as described above all reviews show a distinct growth in the proportion of qualitative to quantitative research-there is a search for paradigm consistency or the growth of paradigm consistency in IS. Grover et al (2016) and Culnan (1987) both trace the paradigm divergence and subsequent convergence; Polites and Watson (2009) have produced a network map of how IS intersects with a set of related disciplines. Chen and Zhao (2015) investigate research topics from three top IS journals to reveal "how different IS research areas (behavioral science, design science, economics, and organizational science) are intertwined to the extent that they are almost inseparable" (abstract).…”

“…Several authors have attempted to map some of this diversity. In an impressive study, Grover et al (2016) examine the development of intellectual structures and subfield influence in IS over three periods. They found that while the IS field's institutional structures -academic programs, journals, conferences, and professional associations -have developed admirably, the intellectual (paradigm convergence) structure is less clear.…”

The IS History Initiative: Continued Efforts and Results

“…After overviewing the historical evolution of institutional structures in the IS field, including academic programs, journals, conferences, and professional associations, Grover et al (2016) turn to the more challenging side of the IS history: the intellectual structures. Using a co-citation lens, they find that the IS field has transitioned from a state of identification through fragmentation to greater integration.…”