Can the field of MIS be disciplined?

Abstract

A number of active researchers of Management Information Systems (MIS) have recently expressed preoccupations about the actual state and future evolution of MIS as a scientific field. Preoccupations of this type have been around for quite a while, but they seem to have gained in popularity and acuteness in the last few years as witnessed by the frequency of exchanges related to this topic whether it be through papers, colloquia, or private and public conversations. Some of those expressing concern assert that MIS researchers too often work on non-pertinent [5,22] or unrelated topics ("gadget of the week") while others [26,53] question the research methods. Some will propose frameworks [24, 35,42] that should bring unity to a field they see as characterized by too much dispersion. Others [16] will react to an apparent proliferation of frameworks and contend that "we have enough conceptual frameworks. It is time to test, enhance, and embellish these frameworks with empirical research results." Keen [25]. the opening speaker at the First International Conference on Information Systems, asks for no less than a clarification of reference disciplines, a definition of the dependent variable, the building of a cumulative tradition and the solution to corollary problems such as the relationship of MIS to technology, the relationship between MIS research and practice and the establishment of publication outlets. Others, explicitly adopting Kuhn's model of the development of science [31], announce the advent [18,19] or ask for the establishment of [52] or for efforts leading to a clear definition [51] of a paradigm for MIS. This list could be extended to contain concerns about the establishment of journals [8] or the organization of coUoquia [37, 41] or other such manifestations. It is ® 19Sy ACM 0001-0782/89/0100-0048 S1.5Uprobably sufficient, however, to show the pervasiveness among some of the most active members of the MIS field of the interest for the actual state and future of MIS as a scientific field.A major driving force underlying the concerns of these authors is a preoccupation with the idea of progress and maturation of the MIS field. Indeed, their comments are aimed at one or both of the two following goals: first, to point at what they perceive as obstacles to progress within the field and to propose means to eliminate them; second, to suggest actions deemed appropriate for accelerating the pace of progress in order for the field to mature more rapidly. In both cases this implies a legitimate need to understand and evaluate the present state and foresee the future of the MIS field. Indeed, members of any scientific field, and particularly those belonging to fields struggling for recognition such as MIS, have to worry about the social and scientific status of their discipline.It must be realized that anyone attempting to assess the state of a particular scientific discipline must necessarily proceed with the implicit or explicit help of a model as to what a scientific discipline is and how it should develop. Th...

Agility from First Principles: Reconstructing the Concept of Agility in Information Systems Development

“…However, it could prove very challenging and confusing for ISD teams who wish to be agile when they are given completely conflicting, polar opposite advice. Such inconsistency and contradiction evokes similar emotive descriptions to those leveled at IS research in general, such as "fragmented adhocracy" (Banville and Landry 1989), and "crucial but confused" (Checkland and Holwell 1998).…”

Communicating MIS research: A citation study of journal influence

“…The impact of MIS field maturation upon MIS core membership and ranking may take many forms (Banville & Landry, 1989). We will address three such maturation paths.…”

Qualitative Research in Information Systems: Time to be Subjective?

“…As a highly applied field, it covers a broad spectrum, from practice-biased disciplines such as engineering and management, to soft disciplines such as psychology and sociology (Galliers and Land, 1987;Banville and Landry 1989;Achterberg, Van Es and Heng 1991;Baskerville and Wood-Harper 1996).…”