The regulation of and through information technology: Towards a conceptual ontology for IS research

Abstract

This special issue addresses a largely neglected area of Information Systems (IS) research – the regulation of and through Information Technology (IT). As with other human technologies, IT artefacts present risks and can harm individuals, groups, organisations, economies, and society: However, this remains a largely unexplored topic in IS research. Nevertheless, regulators, social commentators, the media, and the public have voiced their concerns about such risks, particularly those related to artificial intelligence (AI), cybersecurity, privacy, digital assets (e.g. cryptocurrencies), and the market dominance of digital platforms. Accordingly, regulations have been instituted or proposed to regulate IT artefacts in and across several business sectors. Additionally, in response to the informational challenges posed by a complex web of laws and regulations, regulators and business organisations have implemented IT artefacts to transform regulatory and supervisory processes or to enhance organisational risk management and compliance reporting capabilities. This special issue addresses the research challenges related to emergent issues surrounding the regulation of and through IT. In this editorial, we take stock of where the field currently stands. We advance a conceptual ontology of IT regulation to guide future research by specifying several taken-for-granted core concepts. By rendering the concepts, categories, and their relationships explicit, the model and its related research questions provide a firm foundation to generate a cumulative body of research on the regulation of and through IT.

A Framing Contest Between Institutional Actors on Crypto-Asset Policymaking in the EU

“…In addition to the theoretical contributions, this dissertation also offers practical contributions that hold significant potential to inform about future implications for crypto-asset developments and service provisions. Specifically, the acceleration of policymaking observed in this research is discussed in relation to the race and pacing metaphors (Bennett Moses, 2011) concerning regulatory responses to technology innovation and expertise asymmetry of policymakers (Butler et al, 2023). In addition, the diversification, innovation, and bifurcation of the payment landscape as well as future considerations of designing digital monetary strategies contribute to further discussions and implications of the regulation of crypto-assets in the EU.…”

“…All in all, blockchains differ in technological features and have been argued to predispose the types of business models that they support (Iansiti & Lakhani, 2017). However, research on the usefulness of blockchain-enabled business models is limited leading to a gap in the understanding of crypto-asset affordances (Butler et al, 2023;Risius & Spohrer, 2017;Spohrer & Risius, 2022;Ølnes et al, 2017). One reason for this gap is the multifaceted aspects of the technology that span across industries and knowledge domains.…”

“…In addition, the possibilities for action can be perceived both as opportunities and/or as risks, also referred to as positive and negative affordances. Scholars across disciplines have started to engage in these opportunity/risk conversations (Armani Dehghani et al, 2023;Butler et al, 2023;Lichti & Tumasjan, 2023;Lotti, 2019;Spohrer & Risius, 2022). For example, some researchers account for the integration of application layers, enabling the issuance of smart contracts as a "new tool for organizational and economic autonomy" (Lotti, 2019, p. 288), enabling:…”

“…Both the analysis of affordances undergoes a selection process, but also the interpretation of risks or opportunities can be found in framing contests among social actors. These aspects are important to understand from a regulatory perspective (Butler et al, 2023;Scarantino, 2003). The critical challenge for social actors, here including policymakers, is to strike a balance between these perceived opportunities and risks of crypto-asset information systems (Butler et al, 2023).…”

“…In addition to the empirical and theoretical motivations outlined above, the analytical approach also seeks to further the development of the theoretical concept of framing mechanisms (Butler & Hackney, 2015;Butler & Hackney, 2021;Butler et al, 2023;Campbell, 2004;Campbell, 2005) to gain insight into the ways institutional actors, and more specifically in this case, a new field (the crypto-asset sector) strategically frame their interest against the existing and established financial service regulatory framework.…”