Identity issue of IS discipline

Identity issue of IS discipline

1. Benbasat and Zmud (2003)

   • IS discipline lacks legitimacy. Identity of the discipline is achieved through research topics. IT artifact and it's nomologial set must be at the center
   • DeSanctis (2003)
     • When viewed as a Community of practice, IS is not lacking legitimacy. Legitimacy should come from internal interactions rather then from external judgement. More views and diverse topics signal of the maturity of the discipline

2. Hirschheim and Klein (2012)

   • Common history. Focus on common body of knowledge (differentiating IT from others and better identify stakeholders.

3. Sidorova et al. (2008)

   • Intellectual core of the discipline: IS discipline focuses on how IT systems are developed and how individuals, groups, organizations, and markets interact with it

4. Baskerville and Myers (2002)

   • IS is a mature discipline and is a reference discipline. IS has it's subject matter and disctictive research
   • Wade et al. (2006)
     • IS is NOT a reference discipline, but a "contributing" discipline. IS is more of consumer of ideas (importer) than a producer of ideas (exporter to other disciplines).

5. Orlikowski and Iacono (2001)

   • IS has not deeply engaged in it's core subject matter: IT artifact. Five views of IT: (1)tool view, (2) proxy view, (3) computational view, (4) ensemble view, and (5) nominal view

6. Karuga et al. (2007)

   • IS is a mature discipline

7. Benbasat and Zmud (1999)

   • Relevance of research to practitoners: to be relevant research must be implementable, synthesize , and elicit critical thinking. Five reasons for lacking relevance; (1) IS as a new discipline emphasized rigor over relevance (2) lack of cumulative tradition (3) IT is changing rapidly (4) lack of exposure to real world problems (5) requirements from schools and peers.

8. Markus and Saunders (2007)

   • Unless IS builds its own unique theories and themes it will not be recognized as a discipline