Rigor and Relevance: Careers on the Line

Applegate, Lynda M.; King, John Leslie

doi:10.2307/249404

Cited by 63 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In 1999, the Editor-in-Chief of MISQ, Allen Lee, announced a renewed thrust aimed "at better imbuing rigorous research with the element of relevance to managers, consultants, and other practitioners" (Lee, 1999a, p. viii). The discussions presented in Benbasat and Zmud (1999), Applegate and King (1999), Lyytinen (1999), and Lee (1999b) supported this thrust. In March 2001, Communications of the AIS (Volume 6) had a special issue on relevancy, and Kock and his colleagues took part in an interesting panel discussion on the topic at ICIS 2001 (Kock et al, 2002).…”

Section: Discipline Critiquesmentioning

confidence: 67%

A Glorious and Not-So-Short History of the Information Systems Field

Hirschheim¹,

Klein²

2012

JAIS

189

158

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research Article Rudy HirschheimLouisiana State University rudy@lsu.edu Heinz K. Klein State University of New YorkIn this paper, the more than 40-year history of the information systems discipline is discussed by dividing history into four somewhat overlapping eras. For each era, important events that occurred are highlighted. The events are categorized as "management/governance of the IS function", "technology", "research themes", "research methodology ", "education", and "infrastructure" (organizations, conferences, journals, etc.). The paper then speculates on what the value would be if the IS community were to adopt a shared history. The paper contends that such a shared history would be effective in helping to bridge the communication gaps that exist between the different sub-communities that make up the discipline.

show abstract

Section: Discipline Critiquesmentioning

confidence: 67%

A Glorious and Not-So-Short History of the Information Systems Field

Hirschheim¹,

Klein²

2012

JAIS

189

158

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We witness this, for example, in the nearly ubiquitous efforts of researchers to pen "management implications" sections in their papers. That these efforts all too often struggle to articulate a convincing practical application (Robey and Markus 1998), and hence fail in the attempt to help move their larger discourses into the ecotone, has been the inspiration over many years for a great deal of collective introspection and, indeed, hand-wringing in the field (Applegate 1999;Baskerville and Myers 2004;Benbasat and Zmud 1999;Davenport and Markus, 1999;Keen 1991;Lee 1999).…”

Section: Ecological Dynamicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research Directions in Information Systems: Toward an Institutional Ecology

Ramiller

Swanson²,

Wang³

2008

JAIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This essay identifies three characteristic problems in how the Information Systems field sets its research directions. First is the propensity of our field to create research agendas modeled after the transitory infatuations that industry has with certain popular topics in IT-related innovation. The second problem is our field's inclination to develop insular sub-communities that consume resources on behalf of research programs that are of limited theoretical and practical interest. A third problem is noted from time to time by our partners in industry: We sometimes neglect topics that are of practical interest to them. This paper argues that these seemingly diverse phenomena can be brought under a common umbrella by examining how the shaping of research agendas depends on forces in our field's larger institutional milieu. Specifically, we suggest that the field's research directions constitute responses to institutionally constituted market forces that arise both within academia and in the larger economy and society. Furthermore, we propose that the substance of the discourse associated with any particular research stream is dictated by the workings of these forces, in ways our community has yet to fully understand. We make four proposals for reflexive inquiry that we believe will advance this understanding and ultimately help to foster research that better serves both theory and practice, while being less subject to the whims of industry fashion.

show abstract

“…Although directed at IS research as a whole, the main target for complaints has been what is seen to be an excessive attention to methodological refinement, especially in positivist studies of the sort recommended by Emery (1989), that may be exacerbated by academic career incentives (Applegate and King 1999). Lee (1999) also argues that positivist IS research, in seeking to emulate the natural sciences, has a particular tendency to be driven by theory rather than practice.…”

Section: Good Research Is Relevantmentioning

confidence: 99%

Debatable Advice and Inconsistent Evidence: Methodology in Information Systems Research

Jones

2004

Information Systems Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The range of legitimate methods in IS research has expanded considerably over the past 20 years, a process to which IFIP Working Group 8.2 is seen to have made an important contribution. This has probably made it even harder, however, for IS researchers to know what constitutes good methodological practice. This paper addresses this issue from two angles: first through a critical analysis of claims made in the IS literature regarding the characteristics of good research; and second through an examination of the use of methodology, as reported in a number of IS research papers. The characteristics of good research considered are that it should follow the scientific method; that it should fulfil certain criteria; that it should be relevant; and that it should employ multiple methods Each of these is shown to have limitations. With respect to methodology in practice, the analysis indicates a remarkable lack of consistency in the reporting of IS research. The implications of these findings are discussed.One of the particular contributions of IFIP Working Group 8.2, as the call for papers for this conference describes, is seen to have been in enlarging the range of research methodologies considered legitimate in the Information Systems (IS) research field. Although itself not perhaps the key legitimating institution, Working Group 8.2 has provided a forum for discussion of, and reflection upon, the methods appropriate to IS research, and is considered as being in the vanguard of the adoption of new, especially qualitative and interpretative, methods, as it has been in the use of social theory (Jones 2000b).

show abstract

Rigor and Relevance: Careers on the Line

Cited by 63 publications

References 0 publications

A Glorious and Not-So-Short History of the Information Systems Field

A Glorious and Not-So-Short History of the Information Systems Field

Research Directions in Information Systems: Toward an Institutional Ecology

Debatable Advice and Inconsistent Evidence: Methodology in Information Systems Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About