this IS research: Recent Episodes
Nick Berente and Jan Recker
Professors Nick Berente from the University of Notre Dame and Jan Recker from the University of Hamburg talk about current and persistent topics in information systems research, a field that explores how digital technologies change business and society.
You can find papers and other materials we discuss in each episode at http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.
We have TC Eley IV on the show, a freshly minted assistant professor that just completed his PhD program. He is starting a new mentorship program for the AOM CTO Division, which marks a great opportunity to talk about supervision, advice, and mentoring in the IS field. Should mentors be collaborators on papers? Can you trust all advice you have been given? When does mentoring go bad? How do you pick a mentor or an advisor to begin with? Tune in to find out. And if our podcast triggered your interest to become a mentor for the AoM CTO Career Mentoring Program, send an e-mail to teley@villanova.edu with the subject "Interested in being a mentor for the AoM Career Mentoring Program." References Berente, N., & Yoo, Y. (2012). Institutional Contradictions and Loose Coupling: Postimplementation of NASA's Enterprise Information System. Information Systems Research, 23(2), 376–396. Glanze, E., Recker, J., & Bockelmann, T. (2026). Digital Sustainability with Physical Constraints: Insights from Twin Transformations in the German Manufacturing Industry. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, forthcoming. Lehmann, J., Recker, J., Yoo, Y., & Rosenkranz, C. (2022). Designing Digital Market Offerings: How Digital Ventures Navigate the Tension Between Generative Digital Technology and the Existing Environment. MIS Quarterly, 46(3), 1453–1482. Recker, J. (2021). Scientific Research in Information Systems: A Beginner's Guide (2nd ed.). Springer. Berente, N., Hansen, S., Pike, J. C., & Bateman, P. J. (2011). Arguing the Value of Virtual Worlds: Patterns of Discursive Sensemaking of an Innovative Technology. MIS Quarterly, 35(3), 685–709. AIS Doctoral Student College: https://communities.aisnet.org/doctoralstudentcollege/home. Lee, J., & Berente, N. (2012). Digital Innovation and the Division of Innovative Labor: Digital Controls in the Automotive Industry. Organization Science, 23(5), 1428–1447. Schecter, A., Pilny, A., Leung, A., Poole, M. S., & Contractor, N. (2018). Step by step: Capturing the Dynamics of Work Team Process Through Relational Event Sequences. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(9), 1163–1181. Lehmann, J., Berends, H., Berente, N., & Tumbas, S. (2026). Architectural Learning in the Professional 3D Printing Ecosystem: Proxies and the Complementarity Space. Organization Science, 37(1), 157–185. Lehmann, J., Hukal, P., Recker, J., & Tumbas, S. (2025). Layering the Architecture of Digital Product Innovations: Firmware and Adapter Layers. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 26(6), 1630–1650. AIS Senior Scholar Mentoring Program: https://archives.aisconferences.org/icis2022/mentoring-program/index.html. AIS Women's Network College: https://www.aiswn.org/. Canadian Chapter of the Association for Information Systems Mentorship Program: https://communities.aisnet.org/canada-thrive/mentor. AIS SIG DITE Early Career Mentorship Program: https://communities.aisnet.org/sigdite/early-career-mentorship-program.
The Academy of Management has just moved the next AOM conferences outside of the United States. The Association for Information Systems has been rotating the International Conference for Information Systems between three different regions for many years. Picking conference locations seems to be hard, and pretty political—or not? What are the criteria by which academic conferences are selected and what are those by which they should be selected? We discuss a few different ways how conferences and academic programs could be organized. References Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2024). The Art of Phenomena Construction: A Framework for Coming Up with Research Phenomena beyond 'the Usual Suspects'. Journal of Management Studies, 61(5), 1737–1765. Stapleton, A. (2024). How Many People Have PhDs? Number of People With Doctoral Degree. Academia Insider, https://academiainsider.com/how-many-people-have-phds/. Lyytinen, K., Baskerville, R., Iivari, J., & Te'Eni, D. (2007). Why the Old World Cannot Publish? Overcoming Challenges in Publishing High-Impact IS Research. European Journal of Information Systems, 16(4), 317–326. Mettler, T., & Sunyaev, A. (2023). Are We on the Right Track? An Update to Lyytinen et al.'s Commentary on Why the Old World Cannot Publish. European Journal of Information Systems, 32(2), 263–276. Voronov, M. (2026). When a Flagship Conference Stops Caring: The Case of the AOM Annual Meeting. Journal of Management Inquiry, https://doi.org/10.1177/10564926261432898.
Do you think AI will have an impact on science? You are wrong. It will not–it already does. The annual International Conference on Information Systems received over 1,000 more paper submissions this year. Our main journals report a 20%, 40%, or even 100% increase in submission numbers. This could be great if these papers were good, if we simply saw more and better research being produced. Problem is: We don't. What we see is an AI slop tsunami of less readable papers, hastily produced, with marginal insights if any. How should we handle this situation? We discuss a few possible levers on the supply and demand side of research that we as a field could implement. References Gartenberg, C., Hasan, S., Murray, A., & Pierce, L. (2026). More Versus Better: Artificial Intelligence, Incentives, and the Emerging Crisis in Peer Review. Organization Science, 37(3), https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2026.ed.v37.n3. Ho, S. Y., Recker, J., Tan, C.-W., Vance, A., & Zhang, H. (2023). MISQ Special Issue on Registered Reports. MIS Quarterly, https://misq.umn.edu/call_for_papers/registered-reports. Liang, W., Zhang, Y., Cao, H., Wang, B., Ding, D. Y., Yang, X., Vodrahalli, K., He, S., Smith, D. S., Yin, Y., McFarland, D. A., & Zou, J. (2024). Can Large Language Models Provide Useful Feedback on Research Papers? A Large-Scale Empirical Analysis. NEJM AI, 1(8). https://doi.org/10.1056/AIoa240019 Saunders, C. (2005). Editor's Comments: Looking for Diamond Cutters. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), iii–viii. Tyner, A. H., Abatayo, A. L., Daley, M., . . . Errington, T. M. (2026). Investigating the Replicability of the Social and Behavioural Sciences. Nature, 652(8108), 143–150. Dennis, A. R., Valacich, J. S., Fuller, M. A., & Schneider, C. (2006). Research Standards for Promotion and Tenure in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(1), 1–12.
We devote enormous time and effort to developing a research idea, crafting a research design, executing a study, and then writing and polishing a paper – only to then find out that the reviewers do not find our contribution interesting enough to publish the paper. Years of work—wasted. There must be a better way. Thankfully, Murat Tarakci has an idea - flipping the script: deal with demand uncertainty first and with empirical uncertainty second. But before you do that you still need to ask one key question: Is this project worthy of me? Tune in to find out. References Pienta, D., Vishwamitra, N., Somanchi, S., Berente, N., & Thatcher, J. B. (2025). Do Crowds Validate False Data? Systematic Distortion and Affective Polarization. MIS Quarterly, 49(1), 347–366. Fewer, T. J., & Tarakci, M. (2025). CEO Political Partisanship and Corporate Misconduct. Academy of Management Journal, 68(2), 357–379. Sting, F. J., Tarakci, M., & Recker, J. (2024). Performance Implications of Digital Disruption in Strategic Competition. MIS Quarterly, 48(3), 1263–1278. Christensen, C. M. (1997). The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Harvard Business Review Press. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development. Harvard University Press. Utterback, J. (1994). Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation: How Companies Can Seize Opportunities in the Face of Technological Change. Harvard Business Review Press. Christensen, C. M., McDonald, R., Altman, E. J., & Palmer, J. E. (2018). Disruptive Innovation: An Intellectual History and Directions for Future Research. Journal of Management Studies, 55(7), 1043–1078. Tyner, A. H., Abatayo, A. L., Daley, M., Field, S., Fox, N., Haber, N. A.,. . . Errington, T. M. (2026). Investigating the Replicability of the Social and Behavioural Sciences. Nature, 652(8108), 143–150.
We have Daniel Schlagwein on the show, who is what Germans call a "Tausendsassa:" He is both a practitioner and researcher of digital nomadism, the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Information Technology, and president of the AIS special interest group on Grounded Theory Methodology. We touch upon all three of these aspects, but at the core we want to know from Daniel whether generative AI tools are automating grounded theory and thereby eliminate what used to be at the heart of a humanistic and constructionist approach to doing research – or are they merely leveling the playing field for qualitative field researchers by giving them computational support matching those tools that quantitative researchers have had for a long time. Daniel argues that it depends on the specific flavor of the grounded theory method you are using to determine whether and how you can leverage generative AI for such research. References Wang, B., Schlagwein, D., Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., & Cahalane, M. C. (2025). 'Emancipation' in Digital Nomadism vs in the Nation‑State: A Comparative Analysis of Idealtypes. Journal of Business Ethics, 198(1), 35–68. Hoffman, P. (1998). The Man Who Loved Only Numbers. Hyperion Books. Garland, A. (1996). The Beach. Viking. Jiwasiddi, A., Schlagwein, D., Cahalane, M. C., Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., Leong, C., & Ractham, P. (2024). Digital Nomadism as a New Part of the Visitor Economy: The Case of the 'Digital Nomad Capital' Chiang Mai, Thailand. Information Systems Journal, 34(5), 1493–1535. Fromm, E. (1941). Escape from Freedom. Farrar & Rinehart. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine Publishing Company. Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory. Sociology Press. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (2nd ed.). Sage. Charmaz, K. C. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis (2nd ed.). Sage. Nelson, L. K. (2020). Computational Grounded Theory: A Methodological Framework. Sociological Methods & Research, 49(1), 3–42. Gopal, R., Li, J., Riemer, K., Sarker, S., Singh, P. V., Susarla, A., Bichler, M., & Thatcher, J. B. (2025). Inventing with Machines: Generative AI and the Evolving Landscape of IS Research. Information Systems Research, 36(4), 1949–1967. Zhou, Y., Yuan, Y., Huang, K., & Hu, X. (2024). Can ChatGPT Perform a Grounded Theory Approach to Do Risk Analysis? An Empirical Study. Journal of Management Information Systems, 41(4), 982–1015. Yue, Y., Liu, D., Lv, Y., Hao, J., & Cui, P. (2025). A Practical Guide and Assessment on Using ChatGPT to Conduct Grounded Theory: Tutorial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 27, e70122. Wiesche, M., Jurisch, M., Yetton, P., & Krcmar, H. (2019). Grounded Theory Methodology in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly, 41(3), 685–701. Sarker, S., Xiao, X., Beaulieu, T., & Lee, A. S. (2018). Learning from First-Generation Qualitative Approaches in the IS Discipline: An Evolutionary View and Some Implications for Authors and Evaluators (PART 1/2). Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 19(8), 752–774. AIS Special Interest Group on Grounded Theory Methodology (SIG GTM): https://aisnet.org/members/member_engagement/groups.aspx?code=SIGGTM. Recker, J., Zeiss, R., & Mueller, M. (2024). iRepair or I Repair? A Dialectical Process Analysis of Control Enactment on the iPhone Repair Aftermarket. MIS Quarterly, 48(1), 321–346.
Jan is annoyed because he needs to revise his papers and respond to his reviewers. Why can't ChatGPT or Claude do this for him? Why aren't we doing this already? So we start to wonder: what will happen to paper writing, reviews, and revisions as we enter an age where science practice is imbued with AI? How important are framing, literature engagement, and prose when AI use will homogenize communication? How important are method skills when analytics can be automated? What skills should emerging researchers focus on to maintain or create a competitive edge? And will publishing move towards slimmer papers with only problematization, research design, and findings, or will we look for alternative markets to express our ideas and findings? Tune in to find out. References Acquired (2025). Google Part III: The AI Company. Episode 1, Oct 6, 2025, https://www.acquired.fm/episodes/google-the-ai-company. Ahart, J. (2026). AI can 'same-ify' human expression — can some brains resist its pull? Nature (11 March 2026), https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-00781-9. Habermas, J. (1984). Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Heinemann. Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1986). Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design. Ablex Publication Corporation. Heidegger, M. (1975). Being and Time. HarperOne. Churchman, C. W. (1972). The Design of Inquiring Systems: Basic Concepts of Systems and Organization. Basic Books. Kellogg, K. C., Valentine, M. A., & Christin, A. (2020). Algorithms at Work: The New Contested Terrain of Control. Academy of Management Annals, 14(1), 366–410. Roberson, Q. (2026). Artificial Intelligence and Responsible Research at AMJ. Academy of Management Journal, 69(2), 207–211.
Does Jan really know what he is talking about? Like we did with Nick last time, we play another round of trivia questions about information systems research – but now Nick is the host and Jan is the player. How well does he know the field? Tune in to find out. And like last time, you can play our game for yourself. The questions are posted below. Play the game for yourself: Round 1 Question: MIS Quarterly is physically headquartered and historically associated with which American university? A. MIT B. Georgia State University C. Indiana University D. University of Minnesota Round 2 Question: In 2003, which scholar wrote the highly influential MISQ Issues & Opinions paper entitled "The Identity Crisis within the Is Discipline: Defining and Communicating the Discipline's Core Properties"? A. Wanda Orlikowski B. Izak Benbasat C. Varun Grover D. Ben Shneiderman Round 3 Question: Wanda Orlikowski, a frequent contributor to both MIS Quarterly and Information Systems Research, is famous for a 1992 Organization Science paper that introduced which theory to the IS field? A. Structuration Theory B. Actor-network Theory C. Transaction Cost Theory D. Punctuated Equilibrium Theory Round 4 Question: Enid Mumford is most closely associated with which IS development practice? A. Requirements engineering B. Rapid application development C. Object orientationD. User participation Round 5 Question: In which years were the first issues of MISQ and ISR published? A. 1977 and 1980 B. 1980 and 1990 C. 1980 and 1985 D. 1977 and 1990 Round 6 Question: Markus (1983), in one of the most famous IS papers ever written, used a case study to argue that "resistance" to a new system is caused by: A. Lack of technology fit B. Change fatigue C. Power imbalances D. User cognition Round 7 Question: In his work on system failure, Lyytinen argued that the traditional "technical" view of systems development was too narrow. He instead developed a framework of IS failure focusing on which of the following? A. Expectation Failure B. Socio-technical Failure C. Temporal Failure D. Representation Failure Round 8 Question: Which of these concepts associated with the work of Mark Keil is frequently cited as a common dysfunction in system development and implementation projects? A. Resistance B. Escalation of commitment C. Power dynamics D. Inadequate documentation Round 9 Question: The classic paper by Grover, Jeong, Kettinger, and Teng (1995) regarding business process reengineering success was published in which journal, known for its strong ties to economic IS research? A. Journal of Management Information Systems B. Information Systems Research C. Information & Management D. Management Science Round 10 Question: Which 2004 MISQ paper by Hevner, March, Park and Ram introduced the "Design Science" paradigm in IS research, providing a set of seven guidelines for the craft? A. "Information Systems Strategy" B. "The IT Artifact" C. "Design Science in Information Systems Research" D. "Rigorous Research in the Digital Age" Round 11 Question: Willcocks and Lacity are world-renowned scholars who have published a massive body of "classic" works across JIT and MISQ regarding what specific organizational phenomenon? A. Strategic value of IT B. Outsourcing C. Post adoption system use D. Participatory methods for IS development Round 12 Question: In 1991, Banker and Kemerer published a highly influential paper in Information Systems Research regarding Economies of scale in software development. What was their primary tool for measuring software size and complexity? A. Lines of Code B. Function Points C. Entropy D. Cyclometric Complexity
Does Nick really know what he is talking about? Time to find out. We play a trivia quiz with fifteen questions about information systems research. Nick has an audience joker, a telephone joker, and a 50:50 joker -and he needs all of them to make it through the levels. How well do you know the field? Tune in to find out, or play our game for yourself. The questions are posted below. Play the game for yourself: Round 1 Question: Which three journals were added when the AIS Senior Scholars expanded the old Basket of Eight into the 11-journal premier list in 2023? A. DSS, I&M, and I&O B. DSS, ISJ, and JSIS C. CAIS, I&M, and IT&P D. DSS, JIT, and I&O Round 2 Question: In Fred Davis's 1989 TAM paper, which two beliefs are the famous core constructs? A. Trust and enjoyment B. Performance expectancy and effort expectancy C. Perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use D. Social influence and facilitating conditions Round 3 Question: Which paper introduced UTAUT? A. Venkatesh & Davis, 2000, Management Science B. Davis, 1989, MIS Quarterly C. Venkatesh et al., 2003, MIS Quarterly D. Venkatesh, Thong, & Xu, 2012, MIS Quarterly Round 4 Question: The original DeLone and McLean paper, "Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable," appeared in which year? A. 1988 B. 1990 C. 1992 D. 2003 Round 5 Question: Which paper is generally credited with introducing Action Design Research (ADR) into the IS mainstream? A. Hevner et al. (2004), MISQ B. Sein et al. (2011), MISQ C. Gregor & Hevner (2013), MISQ D. Peffers et al. (2007), JMIS Round 6 Question: Which paper is the 2017 MISQ piece on platform ecosystems with the subtitle-like claim "How Developers Invert the Firm"? A. Parker, Van Alstyne, & Jiang B. Constantinides, Henfridsson, & Parker C. Eisenmann, Parker, & Van Alstyne D. Ghazawneh & Henfridsson Round 7 Question: Which paper is the most impactful technostress article in Information Systems research? A. Tarafdar et al. (2007), JMIS, The impact of technostress on role stress and productivity B. Ragu-Nathan et al. (2008), ISR, The consequences of technostress for end users in organizations C. Tarafdar et al. (2010), JMIS, Impact of technostress on end-user satisfaction and performance D. Tarafdar, Pullins, & Ragu-Nathan (2015), ISJ, Technostress: negative effect on performance and possible mitigations Round 8 Question: As of March 2026, which of the following papers has the highest Google Scholar citation count? A. Venkatesh et al. (2003) UTAUT B. Yoo, Henfridsson, & Lyytinen (2010) The New Organizing Logic C. Hevner et al. (2004) Design Science in Information Systems Research D. Davenport (1993) Process innovation: reengineering work through information technology Round 9 Question: In digital-platform research, the phrase "boundary resources model" is most closely associated with which paper? A. Ghazawneh & Henfridsson (2013), ISJ B. Constantinides, Henfridsson, & Parker (2018), ISR C. Parker, Van Alstyne, & Jiang (2017), MISQ D. Yoo, Henfridsson, & Lyytinen (2010), ISR Round 10 Question: In IS economics / IT business value research, which paper is the classic article on information worker productivity? A. Brynjolfsson & Hitt, 1996, MISQ B. Aral, Brynjolfsson, & Van Alstyne, 2012, ISR C. Aral & Weill, 2007, Org. Science D. Brynjolfsson, Rock, & Syverson, 2017, NBER Level 11 Question: In Feldman and Pentland's routines work, which pairing is correct? A. Ostensive = abstract pattern or idea of the routine; Performative = specific enactments by specific people at specific times and places B. Ostensive = formal SOP; Performative = deviations from the SOP C. Ostensive = managerial intention; Performative = worker resistance D. Ostensive = organizational memory; Performative = organizational forgetting Level 12 Question: Which statement best captures Paul Leonardi's (2013) position on sociomateriality? A. Materiality and human interpretation are always inseparable, so affordances and constraints cannot be analytically distinguished from materiality. B. Materiality exists independently of people, but affordances and constraints do not; they arise in relation to human goals. C. Sociomateriality should only be grounded in agential realism, not critical realism. D. The social and the material are separable in theory, but not in empirical research. Level 13 Question: The 2010 ISR research commentary "Digital Infrastructures: The Missing IS Research Agenda" is associated with which set of authors? A. Yoo, Henfridsson, and Lyytinen B. Tilson, Lyytinen, and Sørensen C. Hanseth, Monteiro, and Hatling D. Eaton, Elaluf-Calderwood, Sorensen, and Yoo. Level 14 Question: Which paper examined whether participation in the gig economy is associated with entrepreneurial activity, and who are its authors? A. Burtch, Carnahan, and Greenwood (2018), Management Science B. Greenwood, Agarwal, Agarwal, and Gopal (2019), Organization ScienceC. Burtch, Ghose, and Wattal (2013), Information Systems Research D. Greenwood and Wattal (2017), MIS Quarterly Level 15 Question: In Kellogg, Valentine, and Christin's "Algorithms at Work: The New Contested Terrain of Control" framework, which set correctly names the six mechanisms of algorithmic control? A. Restricting, recommending, recording, rating, replacing, rewarding B. Ranking, routing, recording, rewarding, reviewing, removing C. Restricting, routing, reviewing, ranking, replacing, rewarding D. Recommending, recording, rating, regulating, replacing, remunerating
Journals play an important role for academics. They disseminate new knowledge and separate good from bad research. They also signal competencies, reputation, and standing. Publishing in certain journals often means your work is more rigorous. It may also mean your work is more visible and gets cited more often. Plus, having your work appear in certain journals can be an important prerequisite for career advancement and it can literally affect your salary. Yet of course, these different functions can be evaluated in different ways. Not all journals score equally high or low on all these different aspects. Determining which journal is "good" or "top" becomes a complicated multidimensional riddle. We decided to ask Jason Thatcher. He is one of the most prolific authors of journal papers our field has ever seen and he has served as reviewer or editors on most if not all of them. We try to develop a simple 2x2 decision tool that helps authors identify journals that are both rigorous and prestigious, that are good for the research we do and good for our careers as well. References AIS College of Senior Scholars. (2023). Senior Scholars' List of Premier Journals. Association for Information Systems, https://aisnet.org/page/SeniorScholarListofPremierJournals. Lowry, P. B., Moody, G. D., Gaskin, J., Galletta, D. F., Humpherys, S. L., Barlow, J. B., & Wilson, D. W. (2014). Evaluating Journal Quality and the Association for Information Systems Senior Scholars' Journal Basket Via Bibliometric Measures: Do Expert Journal Assessments Add Value? MIS Quarterly, 37(4), 993–1012. Dennis, A. R., Valacich, J. S., Fuller, M. A., & Schneider, C. (2006). Research Standards for Promotion and Tenure in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(1), 1–12. Abbasi, A., Parsons, J., Pant, G., Liu Sheng, O. R., & Sarker, S. (2024). Pathways for Design Research on Artificial Intelligence. Information Systems Research, 35(2), 441–459. Rai, A. (2017). Editor's Comments: Seeing the Forest for the Trees. MIS Quarterly, 41(4), iii–vii. Recker, J. (2020). Reflections of a Retiring Editor-in-Chief. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 46(32), 751–761. Agarwal, R., & Lucas Jr., H. C. (2005). The Information Systems Identity Crisis: Focusing on High-Visibility and High-Impact Research. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 381–398. Applegate, L., & King, J. L. (1999). Rigor and Relevance: Careers on the Line. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 17–18. Rai, A. (2017). Editor's Comments: Avoiding Type III Errors: Formulating IS Research Problems that Matter. MIS Quarterly, 41(2), iii–vii.
Let's say we are unethical people, trying to get ahead in academia and gain accolades for the sake of promotion and income and so forth. In an age where artificial intelligence and LLMs are entering the academic enterprise, has "cheating" changed? Are there new ways of fabricating, fudging, cooking, trimming, and lying about your data, your insights, and your writing? Do we cheat the way we've always cheated, just more effectively and efficiently? Or do we not actually cheat but merely change the rules and norms of scholarship? Tune in and find out. References Noblit, G. W., & Hare, R. D. (1988). Meta-Ethnography: Synthesising Qualitative Studies. Sage. Locke, K. D., & Golden-Biddle, K. (1997). Constructing Opportunities for Contribution: Structuring Intertextual Coherence and "Problematizing" in Organizational Studies. Academy of Management Journal, 40(5), 1023–1062. Recker, J. (2026). The Only Constant is Change: CAIS and the Ever-Evolving World of IS Research and Practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 57(79), 1537-1546. Shu, L. L., Mazar, N., Gino, F., Ariely, D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2012). RETRACTED: Signing at the Beginning Makes Ethics Salient and Decreases Dishonest Self-Reports in Comparison to Signing at the End. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(38), 15197–15200. Wikipedia. (2025). Ulrich Lichtenthaler. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulrich_Lichtenthaler. Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing After the Results are Known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3), 196–217. Andrade, C. (2021). HARKing, Cherry-Picking, P-Hacking, Fishing Expeditions, and Data Dredging and Mining as Questionable Research Practices. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 82(1), 20f13804. Matthews, R. A. J. (2026). The ASA p-Value Statement 10 Years on: An Event of Statistical Significance? Significance, 23(2), 4–5. von Briel, F., Davidsson, P., & Recker, J. (2026). Why and How Societal Crises Give Rise to Extreme Growth Outliers: A Theory of External Enablement. Academy of Management Review, https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2023.0072. Brodeur, A., Carrell, S., Figlio, D., & Lusher, L. (2023). Unpacking P-hacking and Publication Bias. American Economic Review, 113(11), 2974–3002. Dubner, S. J. (2026). If You're Not Cheating, You're Not Trying. Freakonomics Radio, Episode 662, https://freakonomics.com/podcast/if-youre-not-cheating-youre-not-trying/.
In 2026, everything is different. AI is scaling both research and publishing productivity. Impact factors no longer matter. Big name journal publishers launch offspring journals with little credentials other than the brand. How should we make sense of all this to figure out which journals are really important to our field? It is time for a new, rigorous ranking of IS journals. Problem is, we cannot really agree on our ranks and our reasons. You need to help us: give us your top ten ranking of IS journals with your reasoning. Together, we can find out what is best for our field going forward. References Seidel, S., Berente, N., Guo, H., Oh, W. (2026): Ethics, Regulation, and Policy: The Challenge to Institutions in the Digital Age. MIS Quarterly Special Issue, https://misq.umn.edu/pages/call_for_papers_ethics_and_regulations. Saunders, C., Brown, S. A., Bygstad, B., Dennis, A. R., Ferran, C., Galletta, D. F., Liang, T.-P., Lowry, P. B., Recker, J., & Sarker, S. (2017). Goals, Values, and Expectations of the AIS Family of Journals. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 18(9), 633–647. Riemer, K., Peter, S., Schwabe, G., Chatterjee, S., Adam, M., & Davison, R. M. (2026). Generative AI is Neither Just Another IT Artifact Nor a Colleague: Methodological Guidance for IS Scholarship. Information Systems Journal, 36(2), https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.70027. Rai, A. (2016). Editor's Comments: The MIS Quarterly Trifecta: Impact, Range, Speed. MIS Quarterly, 40(1), iii–x. Berente, N., Seidel, S., & Safadi, H. (2019). Data-Driven Computationally-Intensive Theory Development. Information Systems Research, 30(1), 50–64. Recker, J. (2026). The Only Constant is Change: CAIS and the Ever-Evolving World of IS Research and Practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 57, forthcoming. Watson, H. J. (2009). Tutorial: Business Intelligence - Past, Present, and Future. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 25(39), 487–510. Loeser, F., Recker, J., vom Brocke, J., Molla, A., & Zarnekow, R. (2017). How IT Executives Create Organizational Benefits by Translating Environmental Strategies into Green IS Initiatives. Information Systems Journal, 27(4), 503–553. Chau, M., Saunders, C., Chin, W., Recker, J., & Schwarz, A. (2025). 2025 Senior Scholars Journal Review Quality Survey. Association for Information Systems, https://aisnet.org/page/2025SeniorScholarSurvey.
As usual in the final episode of the year, we hand out three awards for what we think are some of the finest pieces of information systems scholarship produced this year. Except that this time, we are live at the International Conference on Information Systems in Nashville, Tennessee, in a room packed with our listeners. While this means the quality of the audio of our recording is not so great, the quality of the papers we honor this year is. And with a room full of laughter celebrating great information systems scholarship, we end the year on a high note. Congratulations to Stefan, Christoph, and Jan for winning the Trailblazing Research Award, John and Prasanna for winning the Elegant Scholarship Award, and Yanzhen, Huaxia and Andrew for winning the Innovative Method Award 2025. References Lowry, M. R. L., Vance, A., & Vance, M. D. (2025). Inexpert Supervision: Field Evidence on Boards' Oversight of Cybersecurity. Management Science, https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.04147. Porra, J., Hirschheim, R., Land, F., & Lyytinen, K. (2025). Seventy Years of Information Systems Development Methodologies from Early Business Computing to the Agile Era: A Two-part History. Part 1: From Pre to Early ISD Methodology Era: The Emergence of ISD Methodologies and Their Golden Era (1880–1980). Journal of Information Technology, 40(4), 441-469. Porra, J., Hirschheim, R., Land, F., & Lyytinen, K. (2025). Seventy Years of Information Systems Development Methodologies from Early Business Computing to the Agile Era: A Two-part History. Part 2: Later ISD to Early Post ISD Methodology Era: Adapting to Accelerated Context Expansion (1980–today). Journal of Information Technology, 40(4), 470-498. Abbasi, A., Somanchi, S., & Kelley, K. (2025). The Critical Challenge of using Large-scale Digital Experiment Platforms for Scientific Discovery. MIS Quarterly, 49(1), 1-28. Storey, V. C., Baskerville, R. L., & Kaul, M. (2025). Reliability in Design Science Research. Information Systems Journal, 35(3), 984-1014. Larsen, K. R., Lukyanenko, R., Mueller, R. M., Storey, V. C., Parsons, J., VanderMeer, D. E., & Hovorka, D. S. (2025). Validity in Design Science. MIS Quarterly, 49(4), 1267-1294. Vance, A., Eargle, D., Kirwan, C. B., Anderson, B. B., & Jenkins, J. L. (2025). The Fog of Warnings: How Non-Security-Related Notifications Diminish the Efficacy of Security Warnings. MIS Quarterly, 49(4), 1357–1384. Baiyere, A., Bauer, J. M., Constantiou, I., & Hardt, D. (2025). Fake News and True News Assessment: The Persuasive Effect of Discursive Evidence in Judging Veracity. MIS Quarterly, 49(3), 823-860. Seidel, S., Frick, C. J., & vom Brocke, J. (2025). Regulating Emerging Technologies: Prospective Sensemaking through Abstraction and Elaboration. MIS Quarterly, 49(1), 179-204. Burton-Jones, A., Boh, W., Oborn, E., & Padmanabhan, B. (2021). Advancing Research Transparency at MIS Quarterly: A Pluralistic Approach. MIS Quarterly, 45(2), iii-xviii. Horton, J. J., & Tambe, P. (2025). The Death of a Technical Skill. Information Systems Research, 36(3), 1799-1820. Chen, Y., Rui, H., & Whinston, A. B. (2025). Conversation Analytics: Can Machines Read Between the Lines in Real-Time Strategic Conversations? Information Systems Research, 36(1), 440-455. Grisold, T., Berente, N., & Seidel, S. (2025). Guardrails for Human-AI Ecologies: A Design Theory for Managing Norm-Based Coordination. MIS Quarterly, 49(4), 1239-1266. Clark, A. (2015). Surfing Uncertainty: Prediction, Action, and the Embodied Mind. Oxford University Press. Recker, J. (2021). Scientific Research in Information Systems: A Beginner's Guide (2nd ed.). Springer. Hirschheim, R., & Klein, H. K. (2012). A Glorious and Not-So-Short History of the Information Systems Field. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 13(4), 188-235.
It only took us five years but we finally got Stefan Seidel on the podcast. We have been talking about him and his scholarship for a while. Today we finally get to ask him about his recent technology regulation paper, his view on grounded theorizing in information systems, his forthcoming special issue on Ethics, Regulation, and Policy that will start processing submissions in late 2026--and his bet with Nick Berente about who wins the race to 8000 citations. Episode reading list Seidel, S., Frick, C. J., & vom Brocke, J. (2025). Regulating Emerging Technologies: Prospective Sensemaking through Abstraction and Elaboration. MIS Quarterly, 49(1), 179-204. Recker, J., Zeiss, R., & Mueller, M. (2024). iRepair or I Repair? A Dialectical Process Analysis of Control Enactment on the iPhone Repair Aftermarket. MIS Quarterly, 48(1), 321-346. Seidel, S., & Urquhart, C. (2013). On Emergence and Forcing in Information Systems Grounded Theory Studies: The Case of Strauss and Corbin. Journal of Information Technology, 28(3), 237-260. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (2nd ed.). Sage. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine Publishing Company. Seidel, S., Berente, N., Guo, H., Oh, W. (2026): Ethics, Regulation, and Policy: The Challenge to Institutions in the Digital Age. MIS Quarterly Special Issue, https://misq.umn.edu/pages/call_for_papers_ethics_and_regulations. Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15-31. Berente, N., Gu, B., Recker, J., & Santhanam, R. (2021). Managing Artificial Intelligence. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1433-1450. Butler, T., Gozman, D., & Lyytinen, K. (2023). The Regulation of and Through Information Technology: Towards a Conceptual Ontology for IS Research. Journal of Information Technology, 38(2), 86-107 Gümüsay, A. A., & Reinecke, J. (2024). Imagining Desirable Futures: A Call for Prospective Theorizing with Speculative Rigour. Organization Theory, 5(1), https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877241235939. Grisold, T., Berente, N., & Seidel, S. (2025). Guardrails for Human-AI Ecologies: A Design Theory for Managing Norm-Based Coordination. MIS Quarterly, 49(4), 1239-1266. Seidel, S., Recker, J., & vom Brocke, J. (2013). Sensemaking and Sustainable Practicing: Functional Affordances of Information Systems in Green Transformations. MIS Quarterly, 37(4), 1275-1299.
Some academics go into the office every day; some are rarely ever seen on campus. Is one way better than the other? Who better to ask than the brilliant Ella Hafermalz who spent her career on the topic of remote work and its implications for belonging, community, collaboration, and performance. She points out that academia has always been a distributed and flexible profession. Researchers need flexibility and freedom to figure out their own best way of solving problems and doing their work, some of which may mean sitting at a desk, but maybe also involve lab or field work. On the other hand, pure freedom for individual academics makes a university nothing more than a collection of hired guns without a true community. How do we find the best balance and what is a good balance to begin with? Episode reading list Chang, S. (2025): China's unemployed young adults who are pretending to have jobs. BBC News, 11 August 2025, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdd3ep76g3go. Hafermalz, E., & Riemer, K. (2021). Productive and Connected While Working from Home: What Client-facing Remote Workers can Learn from Telenurses about 'Belonging Through Technology'. European Journal of Information Systems, 30(1), 89-99. Huysman, M. (2025). Studying AI in the Wild: Reflections from the AI@Work Research Group. Journal of Management Studies, https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.70021. The Professor and the Madman. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5932728/. Hafermalz, E. (2021). Out of the Panopticon and into Exile: Visibility and Control in Distributed New Culture Organizations. Organization Studies, 42(5), 697–717. Rovelli, C. (2022). Helgoland: The Strange and Beautiful Story of Quantum Physics. Penguin Books. Carroll, S. (2019). Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of Spacetime. Dutton. Sting, F. J., Tarakci, M., & Recker, J. (2024). Performance Implications of Digital Disruption in Strategic Competition. MIS Quarterly, 48(3), 1263-1278. Archive.org: Philosophy 185 Heidegger: Lectures from the course Philosophy 185 Heidegger by Hubert Dreyfus. https://fourble.co.uk/podcast/philosophy185heidegger. Baudrillard, J. (1981). Simulacra and Simulation. University of Michigan Press. Retkowsky, J., Hafermalz, E., & Huysman, M. (2024). Managing a ChatGPT-empowered Workforce: Understanding its Affordances and Side Effects. Business Horizons, 67(5), 511-523. Haubrich, G. F., Soekijad, M., & Hafermalz, E. (2025). 'What's Up with Work?'Bringing Screens into a Theory of Hybrid Working Situations. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.5465/AMPROC.2025.10670abstract. Tekeste, M. (2025). Under Pressure: Becoming the Good Enough Academic. Organization, https://doi.org/10.1177/13505084251383285. LinkedIn Community: The Digital Visibility Group: https://www.linkedin.com/groups/13346086/.
A key problem in empirically oriented research, especially inductive and abductive work, is figuring out which theoretical lens or scaffold to apply to uncover novel insights. In other words, which theory should you use? We discuss a few heuristics scholars can draw on to reach a higher level of scholarly maturity, namely disposition, empirical salience, outcome definition, skepticism, and reflexivity. Episode reading list Recker, J. (2021). Scientific Research in Information Systems: A Beginner's Guide (2nd ed.). Springer. Quine, W. V. O. (1961). Two Dogmas of Empiricism. In W. V. O. Quine (Ed.), From a Logical Point of View (pp. 20-46). Cambridge University Press. Duhem, P. (1998). Physical Theory and Experiment. In M. Curd & J. A. Cover (Eds.), Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues (pp. 257-279). Norton. Popper, K. R. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Basic Books. Glikson, E., & Woolley, A. W. (2020). Human Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Review of Empirical Research. Academy of Management Annals, 14(2), 627-660. Recker, J., Zeiss, R., & Mueller, M. (2024). iRepair or I Repair? A Dialectical Process Analysis of Control Enactment on the iPhone Repair Aftermarket. MIS Quarterly, 48(1), 321-346. Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change. Harvard Business School Press. Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing After the Results are Known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3), 196-217. Lindberg, A., Berente, N., Howison, J., & Lyytinen, K. (2024). Discursive Modulation in Open Source Software: How Communities Shape Novelty and Complexity. MIS Quarterly, 48(4), 1395-1422. Lindberg, A., Berente, N., Gaskin, J., & Lyytinen, K. (2016). Coordinating Interdependencies in Online Communities: A Study of an Open Source Software Project. Information Systems Research, 27(4), 751-772. Chandar, B. (2025): AI and Labor Markets: What We Know and Don't Know. https://digitaleconomy.stanford.edu/news/ai-and-labor-markets-what-we-know-and-dont-know/.
Most think that algorithms are the modern root cause of innovations. But Marta Stelmaszak says not only are organizations today powered by data, they innovate through data. With several other colleagues, Marta is bringing data studies back to the forefront of information systems research. She produces workshops, a forthcoming book, and an online bibliography with seminal readings. We talk to Marta about the relationship between data and meaning, representation versus innovation, and whether we all soon live in a hyperreality created through synthetic data that lost all connection to the real-world. Episode reading list Alaimo, C., & Kallinikos, J. (2022). Organizations Decentered: Data Objects, Technology and Knowledge. Organization Science, 33(1), 19-37. Aaltonen, A., Stelmaszak, M., & Xu, D. The Data Studies Bibliography. https://www.datastudiesbibliography.org/. Chen, H., Chiang, R., & Storey, V. C. (2012). Business Intelligence and Analytics: From Big Data to Big Impacts. MIS Quarterly, 36(4), 1165-1188. Wand, Y., & Wang, R. Y. (1996). Anchoring Data Quality Dimensions in Ontological Foundations. Communications of the ACM, 39(11), 86-95. Xu, D., Stelmaszak, M., & Aaltonen, A. (2025). What is Changing the Game in Data Research? Insights from the "Innovating in Data-based Reality" Professional Development Workshop. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 56(8), 194-208. Kent, W. (1978). Data and Reality. North-Holland. Hirschheim, R., Klein, H. K., & Lyytinen, K. (1995). Information Systems Development and Data Modeling: Conceptual and Philosophical Foundations. Cambridge University Press. Goodhue, D. L., Wybo, M. D., & Kirsch, L. J. (1992). The Impact of Data Integration on the Costs and Benefits of Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 16(3), 239-311. Aaltonen, A., & Stelmaszak, M. (2024). Data Innovation Lens: A New Way to Approach Data Design as Value Creation. SSRN, https://ssrn.com/abstract=4574855. Recker, J., Indulska, M., Green, P., Burton-Jones, A., & Weber, R. (2019). Information Systems as Representations: A Review of the Theory and Evidence. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 20(6), 735-786. Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. MIT Press. Baudrillard, J. (1981). Simulacra and Simulation. University of Michigan Press. Harari, Y. N. (2024). Nexus: A Brief History of Information Networks from the Stone Age to AI. Random House. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations. Basil Blackwell. Stelmaszak, M., Wagner, E., & DuPont, N. N. (2024). Recognition in Personal Data: Data Warping, Recognition Concessions, and Social Justice. MIS Quarterly, 48(4), 1611-1636. Aaltonen, A., Stelmaszak, M., & Lyytinen, K. (Eds.). (2026). Research Handbook on Digital Data: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Edward Elgar Publishing.
When we discuss artificial intelligence, what metaphors do we use to illustrate what we mean? Is artificial intelligence some sort of robot—like Ultron—or is it an organism—like a beehive? What happens to our expectations, our thinking, and our conclusions when we change these metaphors, say, from an entitative metaphor (say, an agent) to a relational metaphor (say, belonging to our work network)? We discuss these points with and who wrote a very interesting paper on how management scholars think about artificial intelligence. Episode reading list Ramaul, L., Ritala, P., Kostis, A., & Aaltonen, P. (2025). Rethinking How We Theorize AI in Organization and Management: A Problematizing Review of Rationality and Anthropomorphism. Journal of Management Studies, . Berente, N., Gu, B., Recker, J., & Santhanam, R. (2021). Managing Artificial Intelligence. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1433-1450. Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2020). The Problematizing Review: A Counterpoint to Elsbach and Van Knippenberg’s Argument for Integrative Reviews. Journal of Management Studies, 57(6), 1290-1304. Berente, N. (2020). Agile Development as the Root Metaphor for Strategy in Digital Innovation. In S. Nambisan, K. Lyytinen, & Y. Yoo (Eds.), Handbook of Digital Innovation (pp. 83-96). Edward Elgar. Pepper, S. C. (1942). World Hypotheses: A Study in Evidence. University of California Press. Brynjolfsson, E., Li, D., & Raymond, L. R. (2025). Generative AI at Work. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 140(2), 889-942. Russell, S. J., & Norvig, P. (2010). Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall. Jarrahi, M. H., & Ritala, P. (2025). Rethinking AI Agents: A Principal-Agent Perspective. California Management Review Insights, . Boxenbaum, E., & Pedersen, J. S. (2009). Scandinavian Institutionalism – a Case of Institutional Work. In T. B. Lawrence, R. Suddaby, & B. Leca (Eds.), Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations (pp. 178-204). Cambridge University Press. Iivari, J., & Lyytinen, K. (1998). Research on Information Systems Development in Scandinavia-Unity in Plurality. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 10(1), 135-186. Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2024). The Art of Phenomena Construction: A Framework for Coming Up with Research Phenomena beyond ‘the Usual Suspects'. Journal of Management Studies, 61(5), 1737-1765. Brunsson, N. (2003). The Organization of Hypocrisy: Talk, Decisions, and Actions in Organizations. Copenhagen Business School Press. Floyd, C., Mehl, W.-M., Reisin, F.-M., Schmidt, G., & Wolf, G. (1989). Out of Scandinavia: Alternative Approaches to Software Design and System Development. Human-Computer Interaction, 4(4), 253-350. Grisold, T., Berente, N., & Seidel, S. (2025). Guardrails for Human-AI Ecologies: A Design Theory for Managing Norm-Based Coordination. MIS Quarterly, 49, . Forster, E. M. (1909). The Machine Stops. The Oxford and Cambridge Review, November 1909, .
We are together in South Bend and teach a class to PhD students in the Mendoza College of Business at the University of Notre Dame. Our joint teaching experience makes us wonder: What should all doctoral students learn or what should we all teach the next generation of IS students? We come up with Nick’s rules for a good PhD education: First, understand what knowledge and inferences are. Second, learn different methods and then deep dive into a primary method. Third, pick a domain and learn its foundations and history. Fourth, develop a mindset of mastery to become the world’s expert on your topic. And finally, develop and hone your writing skills. Episode reading list Bacon, F. (1620/2019). Novum Organum. Anodos. Hume, D. (1748/1998). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. In J. Perry & M. E. Bratman (Eds.), Introduction to Philosophy: Classical and Contemporary Readings (3rd ed., pp. 190-220). Oxford University Press. Popper, K. R. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Basic Books. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4th ed.). Sage Publications. Berente, N., Ivanov, D., & Vandenbosch, B. (2007). Process Compliance and Enterprise Systems Implementation. In: Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Waikoloa, Hawaii, pp. 222-231. Castelo, N., Bos, M. W., & Lehmann, D. R. (2019). Task-Dependent Algorithmic Aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 56(5), 809-825. Recker, J. (2021). Scientific Research in Information Systems: A Beginner's Guide (2nd ed.). Springer. Mackie, J. L. (1965). Causes and Conditions. American Philosophical Quarterly, 2(4), 245-264. Gable, G. G. (1994). Integrating Case Study and Survey Research Methods: An Example in Information Systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 3(2), 112-126. Chalmers, A. F. (2013). What Is This Thing Called Science? (4th ed.). Hackett. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2001). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference (2nd ed.). Houghton Mifflin. Taylor, F. W. (1911). The Principles of Scientific Management. Harper and Bros. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. John Wiley & Sons. Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Harvard University Press.
One of the big topics at the conference this summer was the use of large language models in the research process, especially in qualitative studies. We expand this discussion by asking: can qualitative research be automated—or augmented? Yes and no. Some of the advantages LLMs bring to the table are hard to ignore. LLMs can act as critical reviewers, as a consistency checker, as a provider of alternative perspectives on unstructured data, or to break path dependencies in the process of data analysis. They can also help find interesting outcomes that qualitative insights could explain. At the same time, the use of LLMs comes with thorny pitfalls. We know they are unreliable and hallucinate. And the output they create is… average at best. So if you use LLMs, make sure you are not using it for automation—do not lose touch with your craft or your data. Whatever tool you use, make sure you remain a virtuous scholar. Episode reading list Noblit, G. W., & Hare, R. D. (1988). Meta-Ethnography: Synthesising Qualitative Studies. Sage. Recker, J. (2021). Improving the State-Tracking Ability of Corona Dashboards. European Journal of Information Systems, 30(5), 476-495. Rynes, S., & Gephart Jr., R. P. (2004). Qualitative Research and the "Academy of Management Journal". Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 454-462. Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation Of Cultures. Basic Books. Boland, R. J. (2001). The Tyranny of Space in Organizational Analysis. Information and Organization, 11(1), 3-23. Weber, R. (2004). Editor's Comments: The Rhetoric of Positivism Versus Interpretivism: A Personal View. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), iii-xii. Lehmann, J., Hukal, P., Recker, J., & Tumbas, S. (2025). Layering the Architecture of Digital Product Innovations: Firmware and Adapter Layers. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 26, . Lindberg, A., Berente, N., Howison, J., & Lyytinen, K. (2024). Discursive Modulation in Open Source Software: How Communities Shape Novelty and Complexity. MIS Quarterly, 48(4), 1395-1422. Ragin, C. C. (1987). The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. University of California Press. Goodhue, D. L., Lewis, W., & Thompson, R. L. (2012). Comparing PLS to Regression and LISREL: A Response to Marcoulides, Chin, and Saunders. MIS Quarterly, 36(3), 703-716. Goodhue, D. L., Lewis, W., & Thompson, R. L. (2007). Statistical Power in Analyzing Interaction Effects: Questioning the Advantage of PLS With Product Indicators. Information Systems Research, 18(2), 211-227.
A new season of podcast episodes is starting and what better place to kick it off as the world’s largest business and management conference. We are recording this episode at in beautiful Copenhagen, made possible through a generous invite from who organized a recording studio for us. Being here amid symposia, professional development workshops, panels, and paper presentations makes us wonder: what does it take to produce great, stimulating, and productive academic discourse? Does it depend on the people that get invited to speak, is it about their ideas, or what else? We sit down with our friend with whom we share some stories from the events we’ve attended at AOM and we distil a few rules that characterize good intellectual debate: let there be cognitive conflict about the merit of ideas, be bold enough to propose new ideas, show humility for the craft and work of others, and be respectful to your colleagues. Episode reading list Kulkarni, M., Mantere, S., Vaara, E., van den Broek, E., Pachidi, S., Glaser, V. L., Gehman, J., Petriglieri, G., Lindebaum, D., Cameron, L. D., Rahman, H. A., Islam, G., & Greenwood, M. (2024). The Future of Research in an Artificial Intelligence-Driven World. Journal of Management Inquiry, 33(3), 207-229. Brynjolfsson, E., Collis, A., Diewert, W. E., Eggers, F., & Fox, K. J. (2025). GDP-B: Accounting for the Value of New and Free Goods. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, . Stelmaszak, M., Wagner, E., & DuPont, N. N. (2024). Recognition in Personal Data: Data Warping, Recognition Concessions, and Social Justice. MIS Quarterly, 48(4), 1611-1636. Habermas, J. (1984). Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Heinemann. Lehmann, J., Hukal, P., Recker, J., & Tumbas, S. (2025). Layering the Architecture of Digital Product Innovations: Firmware and Adapter Layers. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 26, .
Is there collusion in our field? Do we have elites running wild, making sure that their work gets published whilst the rest of us struggles to find room to publish our own work? And are we handling conflicts of interest that may exist between authors and the editors who are charged with making decisions about their work? These are serious questions. They target the core of our field, they have the potential to undermine – or bolster – the legitimacy of all our scholarship, and they pose serious material consequences for all scholars, their careers and ultimately their lives. We came across a new paper that reports an analysis of the potential conflict of interest issues in academic publishing, and we use this paper to reflect on our experiences as both authors and editors. We try to draw a few conclusions and recommendations about how we can raise awareness and build institutional trust to minimize if not avoid any questionable or outright unethical practices in publishing. Episode reading list Association for Information Systems. AIS Podcast Library, . Mindel, V., & Ciriello, R. (2025). Safeguarding Academic Legitimacy: Editorial Conflicts of Interest as a Principal-Agent Problem in Elite Business Journals. SSRN, . Recker, J., Rosemann, M., Green, P., & Indulska, M. (2011). Do Ontological Deficiencies in Modeling Grammars Matter? MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 57-79. Lee, J., & Berente, N. (2012). Digital Innovation and the Division of Innovative Labor: Digital Controls in the Automotive Industry. Organization Science, 23(5), 1428-1447. Kane, G. C., Young, A., Majchrzak, A., & Ransbotham, S. (2021). Avoiding an Oppressive Future of Machine Learning: A Design Theory for Emancipatory Assistants. MIS Quarterly, 45(1), 371-396. Grisold, T., Berente, N., & Seidel, S. (2025). Guardrails for Human-AI Ecologies: A Design Theory for Managing Norm-Based Coordination. MIS Quarterly, . Boh, W., Melville, N. P., Baptista, J., Chasin, F., Horita, F., Ixmeier, A., Johnson, S. L., Ketter, W., Kranz, J., Miranda, S. M., Nan, N., Pentland, B. T., Recker, J., Sadeghi, S., Sarker, S., Sarker, S., Sutanto, J., Wang, P., & Wilopo, W. (2025). Digital Resilience for the Climate Crisis: Theoretical Perspectives and Ideas for Future Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly, forthcoming. Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew Effect in Science. Science, 159(3810), 56-63. Tiwana, A., & Safadi, H. (2025). Silence Inside Systems: Roots and Generativity Consequences. Information Systems Research, . Li, J., Li, M., Wang, X., & Thatcher, J. B. (2021). Strategic Directions for AI: The Role of CIOs and Boards of Directors. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1603-1643. Pienta, D., Vishwamitra, N., Somanchi, S., Berente, N., & Thatcher, J. B. (2025). Do Crowds Validate False Data? Systematic Distortion and Affective Polarization. MIS Quarterly, 49(1), 347-366.
Which research methods are better, quantitative or qualitative? What is more important, getting a richer picture of what goes on in organizations, or seeking generalizable insights about causality? This debate has raged at the very least since Glaser and Strauss popularized the grounded theory method in the mid twentieth century. In 2025, we want to put this debate to rest. We asked one of the best econometric scholars we know () and one of the best qualitative scholars we know () to fight this debate on air and come up with their very own end-of-all arguments. The result? It may surprise you: We all ought to get mad. Episode reading list Chang, H. (2008). Inventing Temperature: Measurement and Scientific Progress. Oxford University Press. Burtch, G., Carnahan, S., & Greenwood, B. N. (2018). Can You Gig It? An Empirical Examination of the Gig Economy and Entrepreneurial Activity. Management Science, 64(12), 5497-5520. Greenwood, B. N., Kobayashi, B. H., & Starr, E. P. (2025). Can You Keep a Secret? Banning Noncompetes Does Not Increase Trade Secret Litigation. SSRN, . Kraemer, K. L., Dickhoven, S., Tierney, S. F., & King, J. L. (1987). Datawars: The Politics of Modeling in Federal Policymaking. Columbia University Press. Roth, J., Sant'Anna, P. H. C., Bilinski, A., & Poe, J. (2023). What’s Trending in Difference-in-Differences? A Synthesis of the Recent Econometrics Literature. Journal of Econometrics, 235(2), 2218-2244. Matherly, T., & Greenwood, B. N. (2024). No News is Bad News: The Internet, Corruption, and the Decline of the Fourth Estate. MIS Quarterly, 48(2), 699-714. Levitt, S. D., & Dubner, S. J. (2005). Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything. William Morrow. Greenwood, B. N., & Wattal, S. (2017). Show Me the Way to Go Home: An Empirical Investigation of Ride-Sharing and Alcohol Related Motor Vehicle Fatalities. MIS Quarterly, 41(1), 163-187. King, A. A. (2025). Does Corporate Social Responsibility Increase Access to Finance? A Commentary on Cheng, Ioannou, and Serafeim (2014). Strategic Management Journal, forthcoming. . Seidel, S., Frick, C. J., & vom Brocke, J. (2025). Regulating Emerging Technologies: Prospective Sensemaking through Abstraction and Elaboration. MIS Quarterly, 49(1), 179-204. Pentland, B. T. (1999). Building Process Theory with Narrative: From Description to Explanation. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 711-725. Lee, J., & Berente, N. (2013). The Era of Incremental Change in the Technology Innovation Life Cycle: An Analysis of the Automotive Emission Control Industry. Research Policy, 42(8), 1469-1481. Anderson, P., & Tushman, M. L. (1998). Technological Discontinuities and Dominant Designs: A Cyclical Model of Technological Change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(4), 604-633. Brynjolfsson, E., & Hitt, L. M. (1996). Paradox Lost? Firm-Level Evidence on the Returns to Information Systems Spending. Management Science, 42(4), 541-558. Noe, R. (2025). Moral Incoherence During Category Emergence: The Contentious Case of Connected Toys. Harvard Business School Working Paper, 24-071, .
We continue with our special “Ask us anything” episode to celebrate the centenary of the This IS Research podcast. This time, we handle questions such as “do we have to worry about ontology?" - No; "should we engage in community building?" Yes; and “what have you learned from the podcast?” A whole lot - and we hope you have learned a thing or two along the way as well. Episode reading list Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363. James, W. (1907). Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking. Hackett Publishing. Gal, U., Berente, N., & Chasin, F. (2022). Technology Lifecycles and Digital Innovation: Patterns of Discourse Across Levels of Abstraction: A Study of Wikipedia Articles. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 23(5), 1102-1149. Faik, I., Barrett, M., & Oborn, E. (2020). How Information Technology Matters in Societal Change: An Affordance-Based Institutional Perspective. MIS Quarterly, 44(3), 1359-1390. Leonardi, P. M. (2010). Digital Materiality? How Artifacts Without Matter, Matter. First Monday, 15(6), . Goebeler, L., Hukal, P., & Xiao, X. (2024). Four Roles of Physicality in Digital Innovation: A Theoretical Review. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 33(4), 101862. Faulkner, P., & Runde, J. (2019). Theorizing the Digital Object. MIS Quarterly, 43(4), 1279-1302. Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., . . . Wright, R. T. (2023). "So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Opportunities, Challenges and Implications of Generative Conversational AI for Research, Practice and Policy. International Journal of Information Management, 71, 102642.
We have an anniversary to celebrate: one hundred episodes of the This IS Research podcast. We mark the occasion by answering questions we received from our audience: Which bear is the best, who likes a hug more... and what advice would we give about starting as an assistant professor, pivoting your research, and what books to read. All this and much more in part one of our “ask us anything” episode. Episode reading list Fort, T. (2003). The Book of Eels. HarperCollins. Nazar, S. (1999). A Beautiful Mind. Simon & Schuster. Frankl, V. E. (1946). Man’s Search for Meaning. Beacon Press. Ashby, W. R. (1956). An Introduction to Cybernetics. Chapman & Hall. Card, O. S. (1985). Ender’s Game. Tor Books. Beer, S. (1974). Designing Freedom. CBC Learning Systems. Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative Behavior: a Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization. Macmillan. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human Problem Solving. Prentice-Hall. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. John Wiley & Sons. Urquhart, C., Berente, N., Recker, J. (2021). Naughty Grounded Theory. . Zwass, V., Berente, N., Recker, J. (2023). Never create a journal unless it is JMIS. . Berente, N., Recker, J. (2022). Why we love what we do. .
In 2010, the Association for Information Systems formed a special interest group () to nurture an international community of academics that study the role of digital technologies in fostering environmentally, economically and socially sustainable development. Fifteen years later, we sit down with , the current SIGGreen president, to reflect on the progress we have made. What do we know about how digital technologies help greening our planet? What efforts in empirical, theoretical, and design work is still needed? Is our role to understand the role of digital technologies or do we need to push and enact change ourselves? We conclude that environmental questions and problems are now firmly on the radar screen of our discipline but more work needs to be done for information systems academics to transform the way we think about and use digital technologies. Episode reading list Corbett, J., & Mellouli, S. (2017). Winning the SDG Battle in Cities: How an Integrated Information Ecosystem can Contribute to the Achievement of the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. Information Systems Journal, 27(4), 427-461. Seidel, S., Recker, J., & vom Brocke, J. (2013). Sensemaking and Sustainable Practicing: Functional Affordances of Information Systems in Green Transformations. MIS Quarterly, 37(4), 1275-1299. Hasan, H., Ghose, A., & Spedding, T. (2009). Editorial for the Special Issue on IT and Climate Change. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 16(2), 19-21. Watson, R. T., Corbett, J., Boudreau, M.-C., & Webster, J. (2011). An Information Strategy for Environmental Sustainability. Communications of the ACM, 55(7), 28-30. Jenkin, T. A., Webster, J., & McShane, L. (2011). An Agenda for 'Green' Information Technology and Systems Research. Information and Organization, 21(1), 17-40. Watson, R. T., Boudreau, M.-C., & Chen, A. J. (2010). Information Systems and Environmentally Sustainable Development: Energy Informatics and New Directions for the IS Community. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 23-38. Elliot, S. (2011). Transdisciplinary Perspectives on Environmental Sustainability: A Resource Base and Framework for IT-Enabled Business Transformation. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 197-236. Kahlen, M., Ketter, W., & van Dalen, J. (2018). Electric Vehicle Virtual Power Plant Dilemma: Grid Balancing Versus Customer Mobility. Production and Operations Management, 27(11), 2054-2070. Gholami, R., Watson, R. T., Hasan, H., Molla, A., & Bjørn-Andersen, N. (2016). Information Systems Solutions for Environmental Sustainability: How Can We Do More? Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 17(8), 521-536. Corbett, J., & El Idrissi, S. C. (2022). Persuasion, Information Technology, and the Environmental Citizen: An Empirical Study of the Persuasion Effectiveness of City Applications. Government Information Quarterly, 39(4), 101757. Degirmenci, K., & Recker, J. (2023). Breaking Bad Habits: A Field Experiment About How Routinized Work Practices Can Be Made More Eco-efficient Through IS for Sensemaking. Information & Management, 60(4), 103778. Zeiss, R., Ixmeier, A., Recker, J., & Kranz, J. (2021). Mobilising Information Systems Scholarship For a Circular Economy: Review, Synthesis, and Directions For Future Research. Information Systems Journal, 31(1), 148-183. Haudenosaunee Confederacy. (2025). Values. . The Stakeholder Alignment Collaborative. (2025). The Consortia Century: Aligning for Impact. Oxford University Press. Hovorka, D. and Corbett, J. (2012) IS Sustainability Research: A trans-disciplinary framework for a ‘grand challenge”. 33rd International Conference on Information Systems, Orlando, Florida. Hovorka, D. S., & Peter, S. (2021). Speculatively Engaging Future(s): Four Theses. MIS Quarterly, 45(1), 461-466. Gümüsay, A. A., & Reinecke, J. (2024). Imagining Desirable Futures: A Call for Prospective Theorizing with Speculative Rigour. Organization Theory, 5(1), . Kotlarsky, J., Oshri, I., & Sekulic, N. (2023). Digital Sustainability in Information Systems Research: Conceptual Foundations and Future Directions. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 24(4), 936-952. Gray, P., Lyytinen, K., Saunders, C., Willcocks, L. P., Watson, R. T., & Zwass, V. (2006). How Shall We Manage Our Journals in the Future? A Discussion of Richard T. Watson’s Proposals at ICIS 2004. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 18(14), 2-41. Saldanha, T. J. V., Mithas, S., Khuntia, J., Whitaker, J., & Melville, N. P. (2022). How Green Information Technology Standards and Strategies Influence Performance: Role of Environment, Cost, and Dual Focus. MIS Quarterly, 46(4), 2367-2386. Leidner, D. E., Sutanto, J., & Goutas, L. (2022). Multifarious Roles and Conflicts on an Inter-Organizational Green IS. MIS Quarterly, 46(1), 591-608. Wunderlich, P., Veit, D. J., & Sarker, S. (2019). Adoption of Sustainable Technologies: A Mixed-Methods Study of German Households. MIS Quarterly, 43(2), 673-691. Melville, N. P. (2010). Information Systems Innovation for Environmental Sustainability. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 1-21. Edwards, P. N. (2013). A Vast Machine. MIT Press. Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. W. (1972). The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome's Project on the Predicament of Mankind. Universe Books. Over the Hedge. (2006). . McPhearson, T., Raymond, C. M., Gulsrud, N., Albert, C., Coles, N., Fagerholm, N., Nagatsu, M., Olafsson, A. S., Niko, S., & Vierikko, K. (2021). Radical Changes are Needed for Transformations to a Good Anthropocene. npj Urban Sustainability, 1(5), .
is back on the show and he is bringing decades of experiences as a journal editor. So we decided we play a game of round robin where each of us is giving rules of what to do (or not to do) as an editor. How long can we sit on papers before we make decisions? On what basis should we offer revise and resubmit decisions? When is it okay to desk reject a paper? How many reviews are enough? So if you want to learn more about the different editorial superhuman powers and supervillain powers – this is your episode. Episode reading list Recker, J. (2020). Reflections of a Retiring Editor-in-Chief. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 46(32), 751-761. Berente, N., Gu, B., Recker, J., & Santhanam, R. (2021). Managing Artificial Intelligence. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1433-1450. Li, J., Li, M., Wang, X., & Thatcher, J. B. (2021). Strategic Directions for AI: The Role of CIOs and Boards of Directors. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1603-1643. Grisold, T., Berente, N., & Seidel, S. (2025). Guardrails for Human-AI Ecologies: A Design Theory for Managing Norm-Based Coordination. MIS Quarterly, 45, forthcoming. Davis, J. L. (2020). How Artifacts Afford: The Power and Politics of Everyday Things. MIT Press. Majchrzak, A., & Malhotra, A. (2019). Unleashing the Crowd: Collaborative Solutions to Wicked Business and Societal Problems. Springer. Gaskin, J., Berente, N., Lyytinen, K., & Yoo, Y. (2014). Toward Generalizable Sociomaterial Inquiry: A Computational Approach for Zooming In and Out of Sociomaterial Routines. MIS Quarterly, 38(3), 849-871. Teodorescu, M., Morse, L., Awwad, Y., & Kane, G. C. (2021). Failures of Fairness in Automation Require a Deeper Understanding of Human–ML Augmentation. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1483-1499. Lee, J., & Berente, N. (2012). Digital Innovation and the Division of Innovative Labor: Digital Controls in the Automotive Industry. Organization Science, 23(5), 1428-1447. Berente, N., Salge, C. A. D. L., Mallampalli, V. K. T., & Park, K. (2022). Rethinking Project Escalation: An Institutional Perspective on the Persistence of Failing Large-Scale Information System Projects. Journal of Management Information Systems, 39(3), 640-672.
Is it okay to use large language models in the research process? For what task, exactly, and to automate the task or to augment the researcher? In this episode, we try to explore whether and how LLMs could be used in five aspects of the research process - for paper writing, reviewing, data analysis, as a subject of research, or as a surrogate for research subjects. We also discuss whether they should be used at all, and what some long-term consequences could be of such a choice, and we develop a number of heuristic rules to help researcher make decisions about using LLMs for research. Episode reading list Kankanhalli, A. (2024). Peer Review in the Age of Generative AI. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 25(1), 76-84. Yang, Y., Duan, H., Liu, J., & Tam, K. Y. (2024). LLM-Measure: Generating Valid, Consistent, and Reproducible Text-Based Measures for Social Science Research. arXiv preprint, . Li, J., Larsen, K. R. T., & Abbasi, A. (2020). TheoryOn: A Design Framework and System for Unlocking Behavioral Knowledge Through Ontology Learning. MIS Quarterly, 44(4), 1733-1772. Larsen, K. R., Yan, S., & Lukyanenko, R. (2024). LLMs and Psychometrics: Global Construct Validity Integrating LLMs and Psychometrics. 45th International Conference on Information Systems, Bangkok, Thailand. Anthis, J. R., Liu, R., Richardson, S. M., Kozlowski, A. C., Koch, B., Evans, J., Brynjolfsson, E., & Bernstein, M. (2025). LLM Social Simulations Are a Promising Research Method. arXiv preprint, . Abbasi, A., Somanchi, S., & Kelley, K. (2025). The Critical Challenge of using Large-scale Digital Experiment Platforms for Scientific Discovery. MIS Quarterly, 49(1), 1-28.
Is there a formula for doing and publishing research on digital phenomena? And if so, it is the same formula as the scripts for IS papers of the past, or has it changed? We discuss how our field has historically worked with reference theories from other disciplines and how we have moved beyond this one way of doing and publishing research to a variety of ways in which we can build theory about digital phenomena. We suggest that reference theories should not be viewed as immutable sacred cows but rather as a tentative basis of received wisdom, which we must problematize and adapt to move knowledge forward. Doing so requires us to find puzzles in the real world that point to things being different instead of new. Episode reading list Truex, D. P., Holmström, J., & Keil, M. (2006). Theorizing in Information Systems Research: A Reflexive Analysis of the Adaptation of Theory in Information Systems Research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 7(12), 797-821. Grover, V., & Lyytinen, K. (2015). New State of Play in Information Systems Research: The Push to the Edges. MIS Quarterly, 39(2), 271-296. Ba, S., & Pavlou, P. A. (2002). Evidence of the Effect of Trust Building Technology in Electronic Markets: Price Premiums and Buyer Behavior. MIS Quarterly, 26(3), 243-268. Jiang, L., Hou, J., Ma, X., & Pavlou, P. A. (2025). Punished for Success? A Natural Experiment of Displaying Clinical Hospital Quality on Review Platforms. Information Systems Research, . Grover, V., & Lyytinen, K. (2023). The Pursuit of Innovative Theory in the Digital Age. Journal of Information Technology, 38(1), 45-59. Baiyere, A., Berente, N., & Avital, M. (2023). On Digital Theorizing, Clickbait Research, and the Cumulative Tradition. Journal of Information Technology, 38(1), 67-73. Grisold, T., Kremser, W., Mendling, J., Recker, J., vom Brocke, J., & Wurm, B. (2023). Keeping Pace with the Digital Age: Envisioning Information Systems Research as a Platform. Journal of Information Technology, 38(1), 60-66. Berente, N., Gu, B., Recker, J., & Santhanam, R. (2021). Managing Artificial Intelligence. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1433-1450. Dell'Acqua, F., McFowland, E., Mollick, E. R., Lifshitz-Assaf, H., Kellogg, K., Rajendran, S., Krayer, L., Candelon, F., & Lakhani, K. R. (2023). Navigating the Jagged Technological Frontier: Field Experimental Evidence of the Effects of AI on Knowledge Worker Productivity and Quality. Harvard Business School Technology & Operations Mgt. Unit Working Paper 24-013. Fisher, G., Mayer, K. J., & Morris, S. (2021). From the Editors—Phenomenon-Based Theorizing. Academy of Management Review, 46(4), 631-639. Gregory, R. W., & Henfridsson, O. (2021). Bridging Art and Science: Phenomenon-Driven Theorizing. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 22(6), 1509-1523. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). Free Press. Salge, C. A. D. L., & Karahanna, E. (2018). Protesting Corruption on Twitter: Is It a Bot or Is It a Person. Academy of Management Discoveries, 4(1), 32-49. Abramova, O., Recker, J., Schemm, U., & Barwitzki, L.-D. (2025). Inclusion of Autistic IT Workforce in Action: An Auticon Approach. Information Systems Journal, . Grisold, T., Seidel, S., Heck, M., & Berente, N. (2024). Digital Surveillance in Organizations. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 66(3), 401-410. Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., ... Wright, R. T. (2023). “So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Opportunities, Challenges and Implications of Generative Conversational AI for Research, Practice and Policy. International Journal of Information Management, 71, 102642.
Our field of information systems is in the fortunate position that we have our own independent and self-governed association (we have more than one, in fact), which publishes one of the true top journals of our field, which means that the journal is entirely in our control as members. But as , the current Editor-in-Chief of the argues, this privileged position also demands from us collective awareness, vigilance, and responsibility. We discuss some of the tensions that exist between journals and publishers and what it means for authors, reviewers, and editors to be mindful about journals and publishing platforms. We also talk about several of the key hallmark features of the Journal of the Association for Information Systems and how to make the best use of them when you submit your best work to the journal. Episode reading list Dennis, A. R., Valacich, J. S., Fuller, M. A., & Schneider, C. (2006). Research Standards for Promotion and Tenure in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(1), 1-12. Adjerid, I., Angst, C. M., Devaraj, S., & Berente, N. (2023). Does Analytics Help Resolve Equivocality in the Healthcare Context? Contrasting Effects of Analyzability and Differentiation. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 24(3), 882-911. Tarafdar, M., Shan, G., Thatcher, J. B., & Gupta, A. (2022). Intellectual Diversity in IS Research: Discipline-Based Conceptualization and an Illustration from Information Systems Research. Information Systems Research, 33(4), 1490-1510. JAIS Workshop: Creating Policy Impact through Information Systems Research. LinkedIn Post by Monideepa Tarafdar, . King, J. L., & Kraemer, K. L. (2019). Policy: An Information Systems Frontier. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 20(6), 842-847. McCarthy, C. (1985). Blood Meridian. Random House. Majchrzak, A., and Markus, M. L. (2013). Methods for Policy Research: Taking Socially Responsible Action (2nd edition). Sage. Yoo, Y. (2024) Evolving Epistemic Infrastructure: The Role of Scientific Journals in the Age of Generative AI. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 25(1), 137-144.
Nick is traveling, Jan is sick - no time to produce a new episode in time. But fear not, we still have a giant archive of episodes that you may have forgotten or not even heard so far. So we picked five of our best episodes and link to them below so that you can re-visit them, or maybe you haven’t even gotten around to listening to them yet. All episodes can be found on the major podcasting platforms but you can also listen to them directly on the websites below. Episode links The IS field has no passion (10 November 2021). Episode recorded together with , available at . Writing papers on how to write papers (12 October 2022). Episode available at . The big five theories from the last millennium (17 May 2023). Episode available at . Anything qualitative researchers write has been said before (13 September 2023). Episode recorded together with , available at . How to do a literature review (10 July 2024). Episode available at .
Is the journal publishing process and the “game” around journal publishing forcing us to give up on big ideas and instead work on small ideas about trivial matters? We are not so sure. We think that science needs many different types of academics, and they have all sorts of different ideas, big and small, and we need outlets for expressing every single one of them. But outlets, like ideas, are not all equal. Journals are an incremental genre leaning toward rigor and thus risk type-2 errors. Book are an expansive genre learning towards big ideas – and thus risk type-1 errors. So the question is rather what type of scholar you are and whether you can handle the very different processes and mechanisms – those associated with big ideas that take a long time to develop, versus the production of smaller ideas and insights that incrementally push our knowledge forward. References Recker, J., Zeiss, R., & Mueller, M. (2024). iRepair or I Repair? A Dialectical Process Analysis of Control Enactment on the iPhone Repair Aftermarket. MIS Quarterly, 48(1), 321-346. Bechky, B. A., & Davis, G. F. (2025). Resisting the Algorithmic Management of Science: Craft and Community After Generative AI. Administrative Science Quarterly, 70(1), 1-22. Kallinikos, J. (2025). Management and Information Systems (in all shapes and colours) missed the wider significance of computerization and informatization. LinkedIn, . Beniger, J. R. (1989). The Control Revolution: Technological and Economic Origins of the Information Society. Harvard University Press. Zuboff, S. (1998). In The Age Of The Smart Machine: The Future Of Work And Power. Basic Books. Zuboff, S., & Maxmin, J. (2004). The Support Economy: Why Corporations Are Failing Individuals and the Next Episode of Capitalism. Penguin Publishing Group. Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. Profile. Zuboff, S. (1985). Automate/Informate: The Two Faces of Intelligent Technology. Organizational Dynamics, 14(2), 5-18. boyd, d., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230. Zittrain, J. L. (2006). The Generative Internet. Harvard Law Review, 119, 1974-2040. Kahneman, D. (2012). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Penguin. Parker, G., Van Alstyne, M., & Choudary, S. P. (2016). Platform Revolution: How Networked Markets Are Transforming the Economy - and How to Make Them Work for You. W. W. Norton & Company. Harari, Y. N. (2024). Nexus: A Brief History of Information Networks from the Stone Age to AI. Random House. Sauer, H. (2024). The Invention of Good and Evil: A World History of Morality. Profile Books. Harari, Y. N. (2014). Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. Harper. von Briel, F., Davidsson, P., & Recker, J. (2018). Digital Technologies as External Enablers of New Venture Creation in the IT Hardware Sector. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 42(1), 47-69. Davidsson, P., Recker, J., & von Briel, F. (2020). External Enablement of New Venture Creation: A Framework. Academy of Management Perspectives, 34(3), 311-332. Davidsson, P., Recker, J., & von Briel, F. (2025). External Enablement of Entrepreneurial Actions and Outcomes: Extension, Review and Research Agenda. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 12(3-4), 300-470. Safadi, H., Lalor, J. P., & Berente, N. (2024). The Effect of Bots on Human Interaction in Online Communities. MIS Quarterly, 48(3), 1279-1296. Chen, Z., & Chan, J. (2024). Large Language Model in Creative Work: The Role of Collaboration Modality and User Expertise. Management Science, 70(12), 9101-9117. Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J., & Reijers, H. A. (2018). Fundamentals of Business Process Management (2nd ed.). Springer. Harari, Y. N. (2014). Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow. Harvill Secker. Recker, J. (2021). Scientific Research in Information Systems: A Beginner's Guide (2nd ed.). Springer. The Stakeholder Alignment Collaborative. (2025). The Consortia Century: Aligning for Impact. Oxford University Press.
One of the main reasons article submissions get desk-rejected by journals is for lack of fit. But what does that actually mean? And how can we figure this out before we submit our work? Well there are several tests you can do to evaluate the fitness of your work to an information systems journal: you can evaluate whether you are writing about a discourse that already takes place in information systems journals. You can check whether your arguments have a hook for information systems academics. You can determine whether you have a digital artefact at the core of your paper because while a digital artefact at the core is not required, having such a focus can be good indicator for fitness. Finally, you can establish whether your research is at least to some extent sociotechnical in orientation.
Look at what Santa dropped when he came down the chimney last night. A bunch of valuable ThisISResearch Best paper Awards! As we do at the end of every year, we look back at the finest information systems scholarship our field has produced this year, and we pick some of our favorite papers that we want to give an award too. Like in previous years, we recognize three different kinds of best papers – a paper that is innovative in its use of research methods, a paper that is a fine example of elegant scholarship, and a paper that is trailblazing in the sense that it starts new conversations in our field. References Pujol Priego, L., & Wareham, J. (2023). From Bits to Atoms: White Rabbit at CERN. MIS Quarterly, 47(2), 639-668. Recker, J., Zeiss, R., & Mueller, M. (2024). iRepair or I Repair? A Dialectical Process Analysis of Control Enactment on the iPhone Repair Aftermarket. MIS Quarterly, 48(1), 321-346. Seidel, S., Frick, C. J., & vom Brocke, J. (2025). Regulating Emerging Technologies: Prospective Sensemaking through Abstraction and Elaboration. MIS Quarterly, 49, . Abbasi, A., Somanchi, S., & Kelley, K. (2025). The Critical Challenge of using Large-scale Digital Experiment Platforms for Scientific Discovery. MIS Quarterly, 49, . Lindberg, A., Schecter, A., Berente, N., Hennel, P., & Lyytinen, K. (2024). The Entrainment of Task Allocation and Release Cycles in Open Source Software Development. MIS Quarterly, 48(1), 67-94. Kitchens, B., Claggett, J. L., & Abbasi, A. (2024). Timely, Granular, and Actionable: Designing a Social Listening Platform for Public Health 3.0. MIS Quarterly, 48(3), 899-930. Chen, Z., & Chan, J. (2024). Large Language Model in Creative Work: The Role of Collaboration Modality and User Expertise. Management Science, 70(12), 9101-9117. Matherly, T., & Greenwood, B. N. (2024). No News is Bad News: The Internet, Corruption, and the Decline of the Fourth Estate. MIS Quarterly, 48(2), 699-714. Morse, L., Teodorescu, M., Awwad, Y., & Kane, G. C. (2022). Do the Ends Justify the Means? Variation in the Distributive and Procedural Fairness of Machine Learning Algorithms. Journal of Business Ethics, 181(4), 1083-1095. Hansen, S., Berente, N., & Lyytinen, K. (2009). Wikipedia, Critical Social Theory, and the Possibility of Rational Discourse. The Information Society, 25(1), 38-59. Habermas, J. (1984). Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Heinemann.
What do academics have to offer that practitioners do not already have? They have the data academics want. They can analyse it by themselves, sometimes better than academics. They are also not reading our articles. So why would academics bother engaging with them? Why should we even bridge that perceived or existing gap between theory and practice? Because academics need to dip their toes into practice, and they need to mingle with industry to stay relevant. So says Jonny Holmström, director and co-founder of the Swedish Center for Digital Innovation. He has been at the forefront of doing academic research that blends theory and practice, rigor and relevance, and he knows a thing or two about how to do so successfully. His secret? Maximize the gap between academics and practitioners, don’t close it. References Holmström, J., Magnusson, J., & Mähring, M. (2021). Orchestrating Digital Innovation: The Case of the Swedish Center for Digital Innovation. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 48(31), 248-264. Churchman, C. W. (1972). The Design of Inquiring Systems: Basic Concepts of Systems and Organization. Basic Books. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford University Press. Holmström, J. (2022). From AI to Digital Transformation: The AI Readiness Framework. Business Horizons, 65(3), 329-339. Recker, J., Bockelmann, T., & Barthel, F. (2024). Growing Online-to-Offline Platform Businesses: How Vytal Became the World-Leading Provider of Smart Reusable Food Packaging. Information Systems Journal, 34(1), 179-200. Abbasi, A., Somanchi, S., & Kelley, K. (2025). The Critical Challenge of using Large-scale Digital Experiment Platforms for Scientific Discovery. MIS Quarterly, 49, . Sandberg, J., Holmström, J., & Lyytinen, K. (2020). Digitization and Phase Transitions in Platform Organizing Logics: Evidence from the Process Automation Industry. MIS Quarterly, 44(1), 129-153. Werder, K., Seidel, S., Recker, J., Berente, N., Kundert-Gibbs, J., Abboud, N., & Benzeghadi, Y. (2020). Data-Driven, Data-Informed, Data-Augmented: How Ubisoft’s Ghost Recon Wildlands Live Unit Uses Data for Continuous Product Innovation. California Management Review, 62(3), 86-102. Sting, F. J., Tarakci, M., & Recker, J. (2024). Performance Implications of Digital Disruption in Strategic Competition. MIS Quarterly, 48(3), 1263-1278. Tarakci, M., Sting, F. J., Recker, J., & Kane, G. C. (2024). Three Questions to Ask About Your Digital Strategy. MIT Sloan Management Review, July, . Davenport, T. H. (1993). Process Innovation: Reengineering Work Through Information Technology. Harvard Business School Press. Davenport, T. H. (1998). Putting the Enterprise into the Enterprise System. Harvard Business Review, 76(4), 121-131. Schecter, A., Wowak, K. D., Berente, N., Ye, H., & Mukherjee, U. (2021). A Behavioral Perspective on Service Center Routing: The Role of Inertia. Journal of Operations Management, 67(8), 964-988. Sundberg, L., & Holmström, J. (2024). Innovating by Prompting: How to Facilitate Innovation in the Age of Generative AI. Business Horizons, 67(5), 561-570. Kronblad, C., Essén, A., & Mähring, M. (2024). When Justice is Blind to Algorithms: Multilayered Blackboxing of Algorithmic Decision Making in the Public Sector. MIS Quarterly, 48(4), 1637-1662.
You set up an assumption, you have a theory, you analyze your data, and you show that the assumption does not hold. Doing good qualitative research is that simple. Except that it’s not, of course. On the ground, in the research and writing process, these basic rules can be quite tricky to implement. So we discuss some heuristics researchers can use to limit their conversants, settle on suitable theoretical lenses to examine their data, and collecting more data than what they thought was necessary. References Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation Of Cultures. Basic Books. Goodall, J. (1986). The Chimpanzees of Gombe: Patterns of Behavior. Harvard University Press. Popper, K. R. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Basic Books. Durkheim, E. (1895). The Rules of Sociological Method. Free Press. Giddens, A. (1976). New Rules of Sociological Method. Hutchinson. Barley, S. R. (1986). Technology as an Occasion for Structuring: Evidence from Observations of CT Scanners and the Social Order of Radiology Departments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(1), 78-108. Kellogg, K. C. (2022). Local Adaptation Without Work Intensification: Experimentalist Governance of Digital Technology for Mutually Beneficial Role Reconfiguration in Organizations. Organization Science, 33(2), 571-599. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1445 Mertens, W., Recker, J., Kummer, T.-F., Kohlborn, T., & Viaene, S. (2016). Constructive Deviance as a Driver for Performance in Retail. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 30, 193-203. Markus, M. L. (1983). Power, Politics, and MIS Implementation. Communications of the ACM, 26(6), 430-444. Berente, N., Lyytinen, K., Yoo, Y., & King, J. L. (2016). Routines as Shock Absorbers During Organizational Transformation: Integration, Control, and NASA’s Enterprise Information System. Organization Science, 27(3), 551-572. Alashoor, T., Keil, M., Smith, H. J., & McConnell, A. R. (2023). Too Tired and in Too Good of a Mood to Worry about Privacy: Explaining the Privacy Paradox through the Lens of Effort Level in Information Processing. Information Systems Research, 34(4), 1415-1436. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4th ed.). Sage. Berente, N., Recker, J., & Leonardi, P. (2023). . This IS Research podcast, 13 September 2023. Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15-31. Lebovitz, S., Levina, N., & Lifshitz-Assaf, H. (2021). Is AI Ground Truth Really “True”? The Dangers of Training and Evaluating AI Tools Based on Experts’ Know-What. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1501-1525. Ryle, G. (1949). The Concept of Mind. University of Chicago Press. Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691-711. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis (2nd ed.). Sage. Cramton, C. D., & Hinds, P. J. (2014). An Embedded Model of Cultural Adaptation in Global Teams. Organization Science, 25(4), 1056-1081.
Did you know there is someone who published a MIS Quarterly paper in its inaugural issue in 1977 and has another one forthcoming in 2024? Hard to fathom but has published at least one paper in our top journal in every decade of its existence. Izak has been doing IS scholarship for almost fifty years, which makes him the perfect researcher to talk to about how the field has changed, where it is going, whether we are progressing well, and whether we maintain the optimal balance between social and technical, internal and external views of IS phenomena in our research. References Benbasat, I., & Schroeder, R. G. (1977). An Experimental Investigation of Some MIS Design Variables. MIS Quarterly, 1(1), 37-49. Jussupow, E., Benbasat, I., & Heinzl, A. (2024). An Integrative Perspective on Algorithm Aversion and Appreciation in Decision-Making. MIS Quarterly, . Benbasat, I., & Zmud, R. W. (2003). The Identity Crisis Within The IS Discipline: Defining and Communicating The Discipline's Core Properties. MIS Quarterly, 27(2), 183-194. Gregor, S., & Benbasat, I. (1999). Explanations from Intelligent Systems: Theoretical Foundations and Implications for Practice. MIS Quarterly, 23(4), 497-530. Berente, N., Gu, B., Recker, J., & Santhanam, R. (2021). Managing Artificial Intelligence. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1433-1450. Lyytinen, K., & King, J. L. (2004). Nothing At The Center? Academic Legitimacy in the Information Systems Field. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 5(6), 220-246. Sarker, S., Chatterjee, S., Xiao, X., & Elbanna, A. R. (2019). The Sociotechnical Axis of Cohesion for the IS Discipline: Its Historical Legacy and its Continued Relevance. MIS Quarterly, 43(3), 695-719. Wand, Y., & Weber, R. (1995). On the Deep Structure of Information Systems. Information Systems Journal, 5(3), 203-223. Banville, C., & Landry, M. (1989). Can the Field of MIS be Disciplined? Communications of the ACM, 32(1), 48-60. Benbasat, I., & Wang, W. (2005). Trust In and Adoption of Online Recommendation Agents. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 6(3), 72-101. Benbasat, I., & Barki, H. (2007). Quo Vadis TAM? Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(4), 211-218. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press. Kim, D., & Benbasat, I. (2006). The Effects of Trust-Assuring Arguments on Consumer Trust in Internet Stores: Application of Toulmin's Model of Argumentation. Information Systems Research, 17(3), 286-300. Qiu, L., & Benbasat, I. (2009). Evaluating Anthropomorphic Product Recommendation Agents: A Social Relationship Perspective to Designing Information Systems. Journal of Management Information Systems, 25(4), 145-182. Applegate, L., & King, J. L. (1999). Rigor and Relevance: Careers on the Line. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 17-18. Mason, R. O., Mason, F. M., & Culnan, M. J. (1995). Ethics of Information Management. Sage. Mason, R. O. (2022). On the Evolution to PAPA. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 51(2), 7-22. Keen, P. G. W., & Scott Morton, M. S. (1978). Decision Support Systems: An Organizational Perspective. Addison-Wesley. Davis, G. B. (1974). Management Information Systems: Conceptual Foundations, Structure and Development. McGraw-Hill. Alaimo, C., & Kallinikos, J. (2024). Data Rules: Reinventing the Market Economy. MIT Press. Burton-Jones, A., Butler, B. S., Scott, S. V., & Xu, S. X. (2021). Next-Generation Information Systems Theorizing: A Call to Action. MIS Quarterly, 45(1), 301-314. Leidner, D. E., & Tona, O. (2021). The CARE Theory of Dignity Amid Personal Data Digitalization. MIS Quarterly, 45(1), 343-370. Parker, G., Van Alstyne, M., & Jiang, X. (2017). Platform Ecosystems: How Developers Invert the Firm. MIS Quarterly, 41(1), 255-266. Pujol Priego, L., & Wareham, J. (2023). From Bits to Atoms: White Rabbit at CERN. MIS Quarterly, 47(2), 639-668. Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., & Lyytinen, K. (2010). The New Organizing Logic of Digital Innovation: An Agenda for Information Systems Research. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 724-735. Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192-222.
We continue our discussion around theorizing about digital phenomena and publishing conceptual papers. Today, we are joined by , who has published several theoretical articles on digital technology in Academy of Management Review. He is also an AMR editor for a special issue on and he heads the Theory section as senior editor in the Journal of the Association for Information Systems. With Robert, we talk about the AMR publishing process, how it is different from mainstream IS journals and what we need to look out for when we generate theory about new digital phenomena. References Gregory, R. W., Henfridsson, O., Kaganer, E., & Kyriakou, H. (2021). The Role of Artificial Intelligence and Data Network Effects for Creating User Value. Academy of Management Review, 46(3), 534-551. Sieber, S., & Gregory, R. W. (2018). Facebook’s Data Debacle in 2018. How to Move on? IESE Teaching Case, Number SI-200-E. Gregory, R. W., Henfridsson, O., Kaganer, E., & Kyriakou, H. (2021). Data Network Effects: Key Conditions, Shared Data, and the Data Value Duality. Academy of Management Review, 47(1), 189-192. Gregory, R. W., & Henfridsson, O. (2021). Bridging Art and Science: Phenomenon-Driven Theorizing. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 22(6), 1509-1523. Afuah, A., & Tucci, C. L. (2012). Crowdsourcing as a Solution to Distant Search. Academy of Management Review, 37(3), 355-375. Fisher, G., Mayer, K. J., & Morris, S. (2021). From the Editors—Phenomenon-Based Theorizing. Academy of Management Review, 46(4), 631-639. Raisch, S., & Fomina, K. (2024). Combining Human and Artificial Intelligence: Hybrid Problem-Solving in Organizations. Academy of Management Review, . Baiyere, A., Berente, N., & Avital, M. (2023). On Digital Theorizing, Clickbait Research, and the Cumulative Tradition. Journal of Information Technology, 38(1), 67-73. Grover, V., & Lyytinen, K. (2023). The Pursuit of Innovative Theory in the Digital Age. Journal of Information Technology, 38(1), 45-59. Gregory, R. W., Beck, R., Henfridsson, O., & Yaraghi, N. (2024). Cooperation Among Strangers: Algorithmic Enforcement of Reciprocal Exchange with Blockchain-Based Smart Contracts. Academy of Management Review, . Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational Theories: Some Criteria for Evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 496-515. Rivard, S. (2021). Theory Building is Neither an Art Nor a Science. It is a Craft. Journal of Information Technology, 36(3), 316-328. Leidner, D. E., & Gregory, R. W. (2024). About Theory and Theorizing. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 25(3), 501-521.
Editorials are spaces in journals where the key stewards of the field leave advice for others about what type of research the journals they lead are looking to publish. We discuss some of our favorite editorials and dissect the advice to dish out for finding important research problems, theorizing effectively, and writing persuasively. References Rai, A. (2016). Celebrating 40 Years of MIS Quarterly: MISQ’s History and Future Through the Lenses of its Editors-in-Chief. MIS Quarterly, 40(4), iii-xvi. Lee, A. S. (2001). Editor's Comments: Research in Information Systems: What We Haven't Learned. MIS Quarterly, 25(4), v-xv. Saunders, C. (2005). Editor's Comments: Looking for Diamond Cutters. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), iii-viii. Rai, A. (2017). Editor's Comments: Avoiding Type III Errors: Formulating IS Research Problems that Matter. MIS Quarterly, 41(2), iii-vii. Weber, R. (2003). Editor's Comments: The Problem of the Problem. MIS Quarterly, 27(1), iii-ix. Berente, N., Gu, B., Recker, J., & Santhanam, R. (2021). Managing Artificial Intelligence. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1433-1450. Dietvorst, B. J., Simmons, J. P., & Massey, C. (2015). Understanding Algorithm Aversion: Forecasters Erroneously Avoid Algorithms After Seeing them Err. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(1), 114-126. Jussupow, E., Benbasat, I., & Heinzl, A. (2024). An Integrative Perspective on Algorithm Aversion and Appreciation in Decision-Making. MIS Quarterly, . Li, J., Li, M., Wang, X., & Thatcher, J. B. (2021). Strategic Directions for AI: The Role of CIOs and Boards of Directors. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1603-1643. Sparrowe, R. T., & Mayer, K. J. (2011). Publishing in AMJ—Part 4: Grounding Hypotheses. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1098-1102. Straub, D. W. (2009). Editor's Comments: Why Top Journals Accept Your Paper. MIS Quarterly, 33(3), iii-x.
Conceptual papers that offer new theories are hard to write and even harder to publish. You do not have empirical data to back up your arguments, which makes the papers easy to reject in the review cycle. We are also typically not well trained in theorizing, and there isn’t even a clear process to theorizing we could learn or follow. Does that mean that we shouldn’t even try to write theory papers? We ponder these questions, figure out what is so hard in writing conceptual papers – and share a few tricks that might help if you still wanted to write such a paper. References Berente, N., Gu, B., Recker, J., & Santhanam, R. (2021). Managing Artificial Intelligence. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1433-1450. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine Publishing Company. Watson, R. T., Boudreau, M.-C., & Chen, A. J. (2010). Information Systems and Environmentally Sustainable Development: Energy Informatics and New Directions for the IS Community. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 23-38. Lee, A. S., & Baskerville, R. (2003). Generalizing Generalizability in Information Systems Research. Information Systems Research, 14(3), 221-243. Tsang, E. W. K., & Williams, J. N. (2012). Generalization and Induction: Misconceptions, Clarifications, and a Classification of Induction. MIS Quarterly, 36(3), 729-748. Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., & Lyytinen, K. (2010). The New Organizing Logic of Digital Innovation: An Agenda for Information Systems Research. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 724-735. Yoo, Y. (2010). Computing in Everyday Life: A Call for Research on Experiential Computing. MIS Quarterly, 34(2), 213-231. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of Perception Routledge. Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K. B. (2000). Design Rules, Volume 1: The Power of Modularity. MIT Press. Weick, K. E. (1989). Theory Construction as Disciplined Imagination. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 516-531. Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75-105. Sætre, A. S., & van de Ven, A. H. (2021). Generating Theory by Abduction. Academy of Management Review, 46(4), 684-701. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291. Farjoun, M. (2010). Beyond Dualism: Stability and Change As a Duality. Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 202-225. Recker, J., & Green, P. (2019). How do Individuals Interpret Multiple Conceptual Models? A Theory of Combined Ontological Completeness and Overlap. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 20(8), 1210-1241. Jabbari, M., Recker, J., Green, P., & Werder, K. (2022). How Do Individuals Understand Multiple Conceptual Modeling Scripts? Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 23(4), 1037-1070. Cornelissen, J. P. (2017). Editor’s Comments: Developing Propositions, a Process Model, or a Typology? Addressing the Challenges of Writing Theory Without a Boilerplate. Academy of Management Review, 42(1), 1-9. Recker, J., Lukyanenko, R., Jabbari, M., Samuel, B. M., & Castellanos, A. (2021). From Representation to Mediation: A New Agenda for Conceptual Modeling Research in a Digital World. MIS Quarterly, 45(1), 269-300. Haerem, T., Pentland, B. T., & Miller, K. (2015). Task Complexity: Extending a Core Concept. Academy of Management Review, 40(3), 446-460. Kallinikos, J., Aaltonen, A., & Marton, A. (2013). The Ambivalent Ontology of Digital Artifacts. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 357-370. Ho, S. Y., Recker, J., Tan, C.-W., Vance, A., & Zhang, H. (2023). MISQ Special Issue on Registered Reports. MIS Quarterly, . Simon, H. A. (1990). Bounded Rationality. In J. Eatwell, M. Milgate, & P. Newman (Eds.), Utility and Probability (pp. 15-18). Palgrave Macmillan. James, W. (1890). The Principles of Psychology. Henry Holt and Company. Watson, H. J. (2009). Tutorial: Business Intelligence - Past, Present, and Future. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 25(39), 487-510. Baird, A., & Maruping, L. M. (2021). The Next Generation of Research on IS Use: A Theoretical Framework of Delegation to and from Agentic IS Artifacts. MIS Quarterly, 45(1), 315-341.
Did you know that when you spend time on an online platform, you could be experiencing between six to eight different experimental treatments that stem from several hundred A/B tests that run concurrently? That’s how common digital experimentation is today. And while this may be acceptable in industry, large-scale digital experimentation poses some substantial challenges for researchers wanting to evaluate theories and disconfirm hypotheses through randomized controlled trials done on digital platforms. Thankfully, the brilliant has a new paper forthcoming that illuminates the orthogonal testing plane problem and offers some guidelines for sidestepping the issue. So if experiments are your thing, you really need to listen to what is really going on out there. References Abbasi, A., Somanchi, S., & Kelley, K. (2024). The Critical Challenge of using Large-scale Digital Experiment Platforms for Scientific Discovery. MIS Quarterly, . Miranda, S. M., Berente, N., Seidel, S., Safadi, H., & Burton-Jones, A. (2022). Computationally Intensive Theory Construction: A Primer for Authors and Reviewers. MIS Quarterly, 46(2), i-xvi. Karahanna, E., Benbasat, I., Bapna, R., & Rai, A. (2018). Editor's Comments: Opportunities and Challenges for Different Types of Online Experiments. MIS Quarterly, 42(4), iii-x. Kohavi, R., & Thomke, S. (2017). The Surprising Power of Online Experiments. Harvard Business Review, 95(5), 74-82. Fisher, R. A. (1935). The Design of Experiments. Oliver and Boyd. Pienta, D., Vishwamitra, N., Somanchi, S., Berente, N., & Thatcher, J. B. (2024). Do Crowds Validate False Data? Systematic Distortion and Affective Polarization. MIS Quarterly, . Bapna, R., Goes, P. B., Gupta, A., & Jin, Y. (2004). User Heterogeneity and Its Impact on Electronic Auction Market Design: An Empirical Exploration. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 21-43. Somanchi, S., Abbasi, A., Kelley, K., Dobolyi, D., & Yuan, T. T. (2023). Examining User Heterogeneity in Digital Experiments. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 41(4), 1-34. Mertens, W., & Recker, J. (2020). New Guidelines for Null Hypothesis Significance Testing in Hypothetico-Deductive IS Research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 21(4), 1072-1102. GRADE Working Group. (2004). Grading Quality of Evidence and Strength of Recommendations. British Medical Journal, 328(7454), 1490-1494. Abbasi, A., Parsons, J., Pant, G., Liu Sheng, O. R., & Sarker, S. (2024). Pathways for Design Research on Artificial Intelligence. Information Systems Research, 35(2), 441-459. Abbasi, A., Chiang, R. H. L., & Xu, J. (2023). Data Science for Social Good. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 24(6), 1439-1458. Babar, Y., Mahdavi Adeli, A., & Burtch, G. (2023). The Effects of Online Social Identity Signals on Retailer Demand. Management Science, 69(12), 7335-7346. Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75-105. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291. Benbasat, I., & Zmud, R. W. (2003). The Identity Crisis Within The IS Discipline: Defining and Communicating The Discipline's Core Properties. MIS Quarterly, 27(2), 183-194. Gregor, S., & Hevner, A. R. (2013). Positioning and Presenting Design Science Research for Maximum Impact. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 337-355. Rai, A. (2017). Editor's Comments: Avoiding Type III Errors: Formulating IS Research Problems that Matter. MIS Quarterly, 41(2), iii-vii. Burton-Jones, A. (2023). Editor's Comments: Producing Significant Research. MIS Quarterly, 47(1), i-xv. Abbasi, A., Dillon, R., Rao, H. R., & Liu Sheng, O. R. (2024). Preparedness and Response in the Century of Disasters: Overview of Information Systems Research Frontiers. Information Systems Research, 35(2), 460-468.
We are back with the usual dose of fortnightly folksy academic wisdom sprinkled in with some serious and substantive conversations. We kick this new season off by discussing observations we made at this year’s Academy of Management conference in Chicago. We talk about how to get the most out of doctoral and junior faculty consortia, how to pick which session to go to, how papers get reviewed at conferences, which papers tend to get selected for presentation – and how to use your session as a platform to pitch your work and yourself and finish with a crescendo and a mic drop. References Kallinikos, J., Yoo, Y., Baldwin, C., Van Alstyne, M., Tucci, C. L., & Saar-Tsechansky, M. (2024). Perspectives on Digital Innovation. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, . Baskerville, R., Kaul, M., & Storey, V. C. (2017). Establishing Reliability in Design Science Research 38th International Conference on Information Systems, Seoul, Korea, . Aaltonen, A., Stelmaszak, M. (2024). Innovating in Data-based Reality: New Perspectives on Data as a Research Object. Academy of Management Professional Development Workshop, August 9, 2024, Chicago, Illinois. Meurer, M. M., Chalmers, D., Recker, J. (2024). Digital Technologies as Catalysts for Entrepreneurial Activities. Academy of Management Professional Development Workshop, August 9, 2024, Chicago, Illinois. Davidsson, P., Recker, J., & von Briel, F. (2020). External Enablement of New Venture Creation: A Framework. Academy of Management Perspectives, 34(3), 311-332.
Many people think of summer as the best time to read. On the beach, on the airplane to a vacation, in between semesters… Sounds like a perfect time to do a literature review. But there are many ways to do a literature review, and in all honesty, we think most people choose the wrong type of review – the “systematic” literature review where they select papers about a phenomenon, do a supposedly structured but not exhaustive search across IS journals, and then criticize the knowledge others have created. We discuss a few alternatives that we think hold more promise: qualitative and quantitative meta analyses, or narrative and integrative reviews. We also point to a few papers that have helped us organize the conversations we read about in the literature – which really, is what literature reviewing is all about. References Berente, N., Lyytinen, K., Yoo, Y., & Maurer, C. (2019). Institutional Logics and Pluralistic Responses to Enterprise System Implementation: A Qualitative Meta-Analysis. MIS Quarterly, 43(3), 873-902. Noblit, G. W., & Hare, R. D. (1988). Meta-Ethnography: Synthesising Qualitative Studies. Sage. King, W. R., & He, J. (2006). A Meta-analysis of the Technology Acceptance Model. Information & Management, 43(6), 740-755. Zaza, S., Joseph, D., & Armstrong, D. J. (2023). Are IT Professionals Unique? A Second-Order Meta-Analytic Comparison of Turnover Intentions Across Occupations. MIS Quarterly, 47(3), 1213-1238. Trang, S., Kraemer, T., Trenz, M., & Weiger, W. H. (2024). Deeper Down the Rabbit Hole: How Technology Conspiracy Beliefs Emerge and Foster a Conspiracy Mindset. Information Systems Research, . Berente, N., Salge, C. A. D. L., Mallampalli, V. K. T., & Park, K. (2022). Rethinking Project Escalation: An Institutional Perspective on the Persistence of Failing Large-Scale Information System Projects. Journal of Management Information Systems, 39(3), 640-672. Skinner, R. J., Nelson, R. R., & Chin, W. (2022). Synthesizing Qualitative Evidence: A Roadmap for Information Systems Research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 23(3), 639-677. vom Brocke, J., Simons, A., Niehaves, B., Riemer, K., Plattfault, R., & Cleven, A. (2009). Reconstructing the Giant: On the Importance of Rigour in Documenting the Literature Search Process. 17th European Conference on Information Systems, Verona, Italy. vom Brocke, J., Simons, A., Riemer, K., Niehaves, B., Plattfault, R., & Cleven, A. (2015). Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Challenges and Recommendations of Literature Search in Information Systems Research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37(9), 205-224. Bunge, M. A. (1977). Treatise on Basic Philosophy Volume 3: Ontology I - The Furniture of the World. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Burton-Jones, A., Recker, J., Indulska, M., Green, P., & Weber, R. (2017). Assessing Representation Theory with a Framework for Pursuing Success and Failure. MIS Quarterly, 41(4), 1307-1333. Recker, J., Indulska, M., Green, P., Burton-Jones, A., & Weber, R. (2019). Information Systems as Representations: A Review of the Theory and Evidence. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 20(6), 735-786. Saghafi, A., & Wand, Y. (2020). A Meta-Analysis of Ontological Guidance and Users' Understanding of Conceptual Models. Journal of Database Management, 31(4), 46-68. Leonardi, P. M., & Vaast, E. (2017). Social Media and their Affordances for Organizing: A Review and Agenda for Research. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 150-188. Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the Separation of Technology, Work and Organization. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433-474. Felin, T., Foss, N. J., & Ployhart, R. E. (2015). The Microfoundations Movement in Strategy and Organization Theory. Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 575-632. Cronin, M. A., & George, E. (2023). The Why and How of the Integrative Review. Organizational Research Methods, 26(1), 168-192. Paré, G., Trudel, M.-C., Jaana, M., & Kitsiou, S. (2015). Synthesizing Information Systems Knowledge: A Typology of Literature Reviews. Information & Management, 52(2), 183-199. Rivard, S. (2014). Editor's Comments: The Ions of Theory Construction. MIS Quarterly, 32(2), iii-xiii. Leidner, D., Berente, N., & Recker, J. (2023). What’s been done, what’s been found, and what it means. This IS research podcast, . Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), xiii-xxiii. Grisot, M., & Modol, J. R. (2024). Special Section Introduction: Reflecting and Celebrating Ole Hanseth’s Contribution to the IS Community. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 36(1), 39-40. Association for Information Systems (2023. History of AIS. .
Time to reflect a bit. After our conversations with three excellent but very different IS researchers, we sit down and ponder the lessons we learnt from the three previous podcasts with , , and . So did we learn anything? You betcha. We talk about the balancing humble scholarship with the need to popularize important new insights, the difference between rigor and importance of research, and the different career pathways in industry and academia. References Miranda, S. M., Berente, N., Seidel, S., Safadi, H., & Burton-Jones, A. (2022). Computationally Intensive Theory Construction: A Primer for Authors and Reviewers. MIS Quarterly, 46(2), i-xvi. Alaimo, C., & Kallinikos, J. (2024). Data Rules: Reinventing the Market Economy. MIT Press. Miranda, S. M., Wang, D., & Tian, C. (2022). Discursive Fields and the Diversity-Coherence Paradox: An Ecological Perspective on the Blockchain Community Discourse. MIS Quarterly, 46(3), 1421-1452. Miranda, S. M., Kim, I., & Summers, J. D. (2015). Jamming with Social Media: How Cognitive Structuring of Organizing Vision Facets Affects IT Innovation Diffusion. MIS Quarterly, 39(3), 591-614. Watson, R. T., Boudreau, M.-C., & Chen, A. J. (2010). Information Systems and Environmentally Sustainable Development: Energy Informatics and New Directions for the IS Community. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 23-38. Malhotra, A., Melville, N. P., & Watson, R. T. (2013). Spurring Impactful Research on Information Systems for Environmental Sustainability. MIS Quarterly, 37(4), 1265-1274. Sein, M. K., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., & Lindgren, R. (2011). Action Design Research. MIS Quarterly, 35(2), 37-56. Gregor, S., Chandra Kruse, L., & Seidel, S. (2020). The Anatomy of a Design Principle. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 21(6), 1622-1652. Lukyanenko, R., Parsons, J., Wiersma, Y. F., & Maddah, M. (2019). Expecting the Unexpected: Effects of Data Collection Design Choices on the Quality of Crowdsourced User-generated Content. MIS Quarterly, 43(2), 623-647. Recker, J., Lukyanenko, R., Jabbari, M., Samuel, B. M., & Castellanos, A. (2021). From Representation to Mediation: A New Agenda for Conceptual Modeling Research in a Digital World. MIS Quarterly, 45(1), 269-300. Abbasi, A., Dobolyi, D., Vance, A., & Zahedi, F. M. (2021). The Phishing Funnel Model: A Design Artifact to Predict User Susceptibility to Phishing Websites. Information Systems Research, 32(2), 410-436. vom Brocke, J., Simons, A., Riemer, K., Niehaves, B., Plattfault, R., & Cleven, A. (2015). Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Challenges and Recommendations of Literature Search in Information Systems Research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37(9), 205-224.
Behavioral research is alive and well ... online Some time ago, we wondered whether survey research is dead. Today, we speak with , who argues the exact opposite. He gives us plenty of advice on how to design online experiments, sample rigorously on platforms like Prolific, build reliable psychometric measurements, and embed surveys in robust research designs. And because Jason is not only a prolific scholar and senior editor in our field but also very active on LinkedIn, we also talk about reviewing practices and how social media can help communities address topics that need to be spoken about. .
is with us today. She has done some amazing theory construct research using computational methods before this was really an accepted thing. We discuss which work she built her research around to give it legitimacy, what good stopping rules are for authors or reviewers to know when enough is enough, and how we can engage in humble generalizations of interesting and general regularities. References Miranda, S. M., Kim, I., & Summers, J. D. (2015). Jamming with Social Media: How Cognitive Structuring of Organizing Vision Facets Affects IT Innovation Diffusion. MIS Quarterly, 39(3), 591-614. Walsh, I., Holton, J. A., Bailyn, L., Fernandez, W. D., Levina, N., & Glaser, B. G. (2015). What Grounded Theory Is ... A Critically Reflective Conversation Among Scholars. Organizational Research Methods, 18(4), 581-599. Levina, N., & Vaast, E. (2015). Leveraging Archival Data from Online Communities for Grounded Process Theorizing. In K. D. Elsbach & R. M. Kramer (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Organizational Research: Innovative Pathways and Methods (pp. 215-224). Routledge. Berente, N., Seidel, S., & Safadi, H. (2019). Data-Driven Computationally-Intensive Theory Development. Information Systems Research, 30(1), 50-64. Miranda, S. M., Wang, D., & Tian, C. (2022). Discursive Fields and the Diversity-Coherence Paradox: An Ecological Perspective on the Blockchain Community Discourse. MIS Quarterly, 46(3), 1421-1452. Fügener, A., Grahl, J., Gupta, A., & Ketter, W. (2021). Will Humans-in-the-Loop Become Borgs? Merits and Pitfalls of Working with AI. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1527-1556. Lindberg, A., Schecter, A., Berente, N., Hennel, P., & Lyytinen, K. (2024). The Entrainment of Task Allocation and Release Cycles in Open Source Software Development. MIS Quarterly, 48(1), 67-94. Sahaym, A., Vithayathil, J., Sarker, S., Sarker, S., & Bjørn-Andersen, N. (2023). Value Destruction in Information Technology Ecosystems: A Mixed-Method Investigation with Interpretive Case Study and Analytical Modeling. Information Systems Research, 34(2), 508-531. Miranda, S. M., Berente, N., Seidel, S., Safadi, H., & Burton-Jones, A. (2022). Computationally Intensive Theory Construction: A Primer for Authors and Reviewers. MIS Quarterly, 46(2), i-xvi. Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75-105. Adamic, L. A., & Glance, N. (2005). The Political Blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. Election: Divided They Blog. Paper presented at the 3rd International Workshop on Link Discovery, Chicago, Illinois. Pentland, B. T., Vaast, E., & Ryan Wolf, J. (2021). Theorizing Process Dynamics with Directed Graphs: A Diachronic Analysis of Digital Trace Data. MIS Quarterly, 45(2), 967-984. Sarker, S., Xiao, X., Beaulieu, T., & Lee, A. S. (2018). Learning from First-Generation Qualitative Approaches in the IS Discipline: An Evolutionary View and Some Implications for Authors and Evaluators (PART 1/2). Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 19(8), 752-774. Lee, A. S., & Baskerville, R. (2003). Generalizing Generalizability in Information Systems Research. Information Systems Research, 14(3), 221-243. Tsang, E. W. K., & Williams, J. N. (2012). Generalization and Induction: Misconceptions, Clarifications, and a Classification of Induction. MIS Quarterly, 36(3), 729-748. Hume, D. (1748/1998). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding [Reprint]. In J. Perry & M. E. Bratman (Eds.), Introduction to Philosophy: Classical and Contemporary Readings (3rd ed., pp. 190-220). Oxford University Press. Exemplar Computationally-intensive Theory Construction Papers Bachura, E., Valecha, R., Chen, R., & Rao, H. R. (2022). The OPM Data Breach: An Investigation of Shared Emotional Reactions on Twitter. MIS Quarterly, 46(2), 881-910. Gal, U., Berente, N., & Chasin, F. (2022). Technology Lifecycles and Digital Innovation: Patterns of Discourse Across Levels of Abstraction: A Study of Wikipedia Articles. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 23(5), 1102-1149. Hahn, J., & Lee, G. (2021). The Complex Effects of Cross-Domain Knowledge on IS Development: A Simulation-Based Theory Development. MIS Quarterly, 45(4), 2023-2054. Indulska, M., Hovorka, D. S., & Recker, J. (2012). Quantitative Approaches to Content Analysis: Identifying Conceptual Drift Across Publication Outlets. European Journal of Information Systems, 21(1), 49-69. Lindberg, A., Majchrzak, A., & Malhotra, A. (2022). How Information Contributed After an Idea Shapes New High-Quality Ideas in Online Ideation Contests. MIS Quarterly, 46(2), 1195-1208. Nan, N. (2011). Capturing Bottom-Up Information Technology Use Processes: A Complex Adaptive Systems Model. MIS Quarterly, 35(2), 505-532. Pentland, B. T., Recker, J., Ryan Wolf, J., & Wyner, G. (2020). Bringing Context Inside Process Research With Digital Trace Data. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 21(5), 1214-1236. Vaast, E., Safadi, H., Lapointe, L., & Negoita, B. (2017). Social Media Affordances for Connective Action: An Examination of Microblogging Use During the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill. MIS Quarterly, 41(4), 1179-1205.
According to the internet, Elon Musk is often praised for his visionary mindset, innovation, risk-taking attitude, and energy. is just like that, we think. With the positivity he brings into every project and meeting, Jan has been right at the center of many seminal developments in our field over the past twenty years, from the rise of design science to the inception of NeuroIS, the development of literature reviews, and more recently the creation of process science. We take the opportunity to reflect with him on his work, the way he builds and steers highly successful research groups, and how he manages to do research that is both impactful and engaging to many different audiences. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .
In science, citations are used to give credit to sources that are relevant to the topic that is being discussed where the citation appears. They are a key vehicle through which we establish a cumulative knowledge tradition – we use them to acknowledge material that informs our arguments. But citations are much more than that. They have become a key metric of academic success in their own right, providing a quantifiable basis to measure a scholar’s impact, reputation, and fame. And as any metrics-based systems, also the citation system can be gamed, and is being gamed. Time to unpack the role that citations play and discuss which citations are legit – and which may just be a bit flunky. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .
Research is a conversation. Every scholar must become a professional writer. But how do we learn these things? Most graduate school programs do not include a writing course and books on how to write are read even less than other types of books. Is good writing maybe all either genetics or just experience? Or does it depend on how we approach research, either phenomena- or theory-driven? We think both things matter – but there are also some practical steps people can take to get their writing going and maintain the flow of writing. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .
The thing is, special issues are special. Hence the name. But what is it that makes them special? We look at some of the hottest special issues out there for information systems researchers and we discuss three key aspects of special issues – topical fit, competition, and process – that provide both advantages and disadvantages to researchers thinking about submitting to them. And for some weird reason we end up discussing our experiences at doctoral and junior faculty consortia and why everyone should attend them, always. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .
Jan has a boy crush on IS Econ researchers while Nick thinks they reduce all phenomena to regressions. Time to put both myths – and a few others – to rest. We brought on the inimitable and wonderful and to talk about everything you ever wanted to know about economics, econometrics, difference-in-difference designs, mechanism identifications, analytical modeling, and forbidden comparisons. At the end of it all, Jan’s boy crush has subsided a little bit – which is probably good – and Nick’s theory that every study is just a case study is, well, still a theory. But Gordon and Brad share a wealth of insights and tricks about how to do good econometric research in IS and how to get it published. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on . Also, just to be clear – the 2024 SIG DITE paper development workshop keynote speakers are not yet confirmed, but it will definitely be worthwhile to attend. In case you are interested, follow .
Generative AI is the biggest tech issue of our time. We might be witnessing history in the making. At least, so says , who is not only but also has been studying AI and innovation for years and who is part of an inter-disciplinary team that explores the impact of generative AI on professional practices. Together, we decipher what is new and what is not, what is different and what is the same, before and after tools such as ChatGPT and Midjourney entered society at large. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .
Trivia question: which information systems scholar was a division one tennis professional and has an award-winning MIS Quarterly paper to her name? Of course, it can only be . She joins us today to talk about bots and cyborgs, how to deal with publishing pressures, and how to find a perfect co-author. Our solution is to build a Tinder platform that allows finding the perfect co-author match for your next project. And we agree that you should never put your name on a paper where you do not agree with every single sentence. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .
One of the biggest cases of academic misconduct in recent times has been the case involving Francesca Gino, Dan Ariely, and Max Bazerman. Is there anything we can learn from this case and how it was handled? Nick and Jan are back from the winter break and dig straight into questionable research practices, whistleblowers, senior co-authors and what we as a field should be doing to prevent fraud to undermine our research contributions. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .
As the year draws to a close, it is time for us to revisit some of the best IS scholarship that got published this year. Yes, time for the 3rd annual thisISresearch podcast awards. This year, it was particularly tough to choose so we just invented a new award! Tune in to find out who won the trailblazing research award, the innovative method award, and our brand-new elegant scholarship award! As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .
What is so special about digital technology? Is digital innovation about architecture or is it about data? We talk with the enigmatic – truly one of the great thinkers in our field. Our conversation covers the ambivalence of digital objects, the role of data as records in organizations, the role of books in expressing broader ideas in scholarship, and whether information systems can or should delve into metaphysics at all. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .
Nick and Jan venture into new publishing territory. We talk with the fabulous , one of the information systems department editors at , about journal procedures, reviewer expectations, and innovations in the review process. We discuss how our field nurtures multiple communities that all share the aim of advancing information systems knowledge and scholarship. And it’s fair to say that both Nick and Jan now have Management Science more on the radar screen as an information systems outlet than before we produced this episode. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .
ChatGPT is back in our podcast one more time. Last time we talked about its impact on the academic enterprise. But ChatGPT is also the key digital technology issue of our time. It should be researched, of course, and we information systems researchers should jump on the opportunity to learn more about it. What are some of the questions that surround ChatGPT and similar forms of generative artificial intelligence? We look at a few research ideas at the individual, collective, firm, and economic level. And we conclude that whatever topic people are researching, their key challenge will be to theorize about what’s different with generative artificial intelligence and what is not. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .
Or maybe it did not. Who knows? ChatGPT is here for the world to see and not even our podcast can avoid talking about it. All the firms we know have long started exploring ChatGPT and other generative AI technologies. Will generative AI also change the academic enterprise? Some suggest it already has. We think we are at the cusp of changes, both in degree and in kind. ChatGPT may help people get started and may even alleviate some of the laborious research tasks but at the end of the day, the academic profession is a person-centric profession built around individual expertise, trust, and honesty of knowledgeable academics. You cannot automate that. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .
IS as a field has the same problem that IT departments have in organizations - we think those other people should come to us with their questions about digitalization and benefit from our decades of wisdom! But we argue that this is not going to happen. It is our job (as it is the IT manager's job) to make the case for how we can help. OK, so that's a portion of what we talk about today. We actually meander a bit. We jump across a whole lot of topics, from IS' status as a reference discipline, the quarrels of IT departments with other business divisions, what our favorite conferences are, how to engage with conversations occurring in other fields, and what is so special about Taylor Swift. So it’s all over the place. But the good news is we laugh a lot and future episodes will be more focused again, we promise. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .
Someone asked us to do an episode on books that shifted our thinking. So here we are and we each brought two books that changed the way we look at the world when we read them. We discuss these books and what new things they told us. And of course, it’s turning into a showoff about who remembers more from these books. And suffice to say: Jan loses this battle. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .
What are the secrets to publishing qualitative papers? We have no idea but does – after all he is one of the most prolific and impactful scholars on technology and organizing of our time. We grab the opportunity and ask him for his secret tricks. Together, we reflect on fancy words, detailed method descriptions, obligatory Glaser and Strauss citations, and how many books you really need to read before doing an inductive study. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .
Summer is over, all wine is consumed, and all vegetables harvested. Time for this IS research to get back to work. We kick off the new season by talking about questionable research practices – HARKing, p-hacking, fishing for asterisks, data dredging, and so on. Nick digs out an old paper Jan wrote, and we use it to discuss the situations in which HARKing might be commonsense or outright unethical and we try to identify how best to protect against questionable research practices. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .
After talking about the big theories from the past millennium, it is time to talk about the ideas that emerged after the year 2000. From sociomaterality and two-sided markets to temporal networks, modularity, and routine dynamics – contemporary scholarship is ripe with new ideas that warrant further development, empirical exploration, and rigorous testing. It is truly a wonderful time to be an information systems scholar! And just on the side, we set a new record for material referenced on the podcast. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .
It feels like a long time ago now but one of the main reasons we started this podcast was because there was a pandemic going on that impacted our ability to manage work and private life. Is there anything we should have learned from that time? What changed since then if anything and what may still need changing? We talk about this with . She did research on the impact of the pandemic on the productivity of IS researchers, which allows us now to discuss what the broader takeaways are from that time for our field. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .
Many people do service to their community but usually one thing at a time. Today we speak with someone who is not only president of our global association and co-chair of our main conference at the same time but also the editor-in-chief of one of our top journals, . clearly cannot say no – he even agreed to talk with us on the podcast. We discuss the expanding scope of scholarship that he wants to see published in Information Systems Research, the different roles that editors must play, how the Association for Information Systems made our field truly global, and what wonderful things we can expect from in Hyderabad, India. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .
We have a very special guest, , who is both the founding and current editor-in-chief of the . He founded the journal in 1984 and he has been the only editor-in-chief ever since. Also, he has no intention of handing the reins to anyone else soon. We discuss what sets JMIS apart from the other top journals in our field, what the IS world looked like at the time when the journal was founded, and whether our discipline has moved into a better space since those early days (spoiler alert: yes, it has). As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .
What are the big ideas and streams of thinking from before the turn of the millennium that have shaped our field and may still be relevant today? For once, we did some homework to review some of the theories from before the year 2000 that we think everyone should know about. So whether you are studying AI or algorithmic aversion, digital transformation or digital innovation, you have no business continuing your research without knowing these gems from the past. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .
Time to tie up some loose ends. We learned so much from our guests in the previous three episodes and we touched on so many topics that we feel we need to revisit some of these. So we once again discuss what we think about the new list of eleven premier journals, we discuss what good career advice looks like in different regions of IS scholarship, and we begin to wonder whether all theories are truly equal. And of course, we are figuring out which of us is the alpha male on this podcast. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .
We continue our series of episodes in which we talk about several of the most important journals in our field. Today, we speak with , editor-in-chief of the . We talk about several innovations the journal has implemented and the range of genres that are welcome. We also talk about what makes truly great papers different and what distinguishes a literature review from a theoretical paper. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .
We are starting a new series of episodes in which we talk about several of the most important journals in our field. We kick things off with , the editor-in-chief of the . We talk about the history and the role of the journal in our field, what initiatives are underway to move the field forward, and of course what matters when you are trying to publish in this journal. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .
The decided to expand their list of designated “premier journals” in our field from 8 to 11. What does this mean? How are these decisions being made? Who makes these decisions? We explore these questions with our good old friend who has been a member of the task force that championed this decision. With her, we discuss politics in the information systems community, the governance of our community, and the question of how our journals and conferences could or should operate. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .
We can talk about impactful, joyful, and meaningful research all we want, but most of us just want to get published. Literally, our careers depend on it. So how do we do it? what are little secrets that turn good research into great papers, that get you over the line from rejection candidate to conditional acceptance? We discuss some of the techniques we use ourselves, that we see others use, and that we come across as editors. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .
Research is a collaborative effort. Most of the time, we are not writing papers alone but together with others. Sometimes we lead the effort, sometimes we are the second author, sometimes we only have a small role to play. Coauthoring papers often leads to tensions, frustrations and disappointments. Are there any rules about co-authorship? We think there are. We give you four rules about how to be the best co-author. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .
Teaching is done for many of us, we’ve had main our conference, our papers and revisions are submitted. What’s left to do? Rewind, reflect, and celebrate the great work accomplished this year. And given that n = 2 equals a tradition, we dish out awards this year just like last year. This time, we celebrate the year’s most trailblazing theories, the most innovative methods, the most timely case studies, and the best design research artifacts. Tune in and listen, make sure to read the great exemplar works, and follow us also in 2023 when we return. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .
Researchers do not care about philosophy because it adds no value to their experiment. They just go out into the world and do their work. So say some if not many scientists, but disagrees. With him we discuss whether some questions of philosophy such as ontology and epistemology even matter to information systems research, which topics and questions lend themselves to philosophical reasoning, and whether we can disassociate philosophical ideas from the people that proposed them. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .
Our top journal is called MIS Quarterly, not Causality Quarterly. Or is it? How should we go about building and testing causal explanations in our research and how do different approaches to causality complement each other? We invited , , , and as our guests. They recently published an editorial on this topic and we use this opportunity to pick their brains about experiments, econometrics, counterfactual, correlational and configurational views of establishing causality. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .
Can we theorize with the best scholars sociology has to offer? Perhaps we are not quite as bad with jargon monoxide as they are. We do pay more attention to technology than they do. On the other hand, our chase of new technology and our publish or perish paradigm are stopping us from even trying to do the big, timeless stuff. So if you are interested in our lengthy rant about jargon, social theory, institutions, sociomateriality and publishing, tune in and enjoy. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .
Nick is annoyed with accepting cookies on websites and wonders if the transactional "notice and choice" approach really does anything to benefit the world. So what's the alternative? We asked the expert to join our podcast again and chat with us about this. We ask whether there really is a "privacy paradox", how fields such as information systems, engineering, law, and ethics and others approach this topic, and whether we are paternalistic elitists or not. Then Kirsten unplugs Nick's Wi-Fi so he quits interrupting her… As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .
Did you know you have to search engine-optimize your papers? Makes sense now that you know it, doesn’t it. We wish we would have known years ago. We sift through some of the most recent papers on how to write good papers and contrast them with our own experiences. Turns out we all wish we could change the title of our papers in hindsight. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .
It’s late at night. Only because Jan has been asked to talk about something he knows very little about so we asked someone at the other side of the planet for help – the wonderful . With her on the show, it is finally time to talk about design science, clichés and stereotypes. We wonder whether more people write about doing design science than actually do design science, how scholarly design research has to be, and why might be the most successful design scientist of all time. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .
Journals are really all about their editors. So when journals are bad, it really means editors were bad. But what do we mean by that and what should editors do instead? Of course, as usual we have our own views. So tune in and listen as we share our stories of “the worst things an editor can do.” As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .
This IS research is back for its fourth season. We start off by discussing the journal space for information systems researchers. What are our top journals, what are differences between them and how should authors decide where to submit their work? Tune in to find out. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .
Andrew van de Ven passed away but there are other scholars out there that push the idea of engaged scholarship further. One of these is from Australia. He joins us to share his thoughts about whether papers or researchers should be relevant, why impact can be an intrinsic motivation, and why our research artifacts should not only be valid and reliable but also beautiful. As usual, the references to all readings we mention are listed on .
We venture into unknown territories. We team up with our friends Alex and Philipp from the German podcast “”, which comes out of the Vienna University of Economics and Business and is run by PhD students , , , and . If you understand German – or aspire to learn it – you should follow their podcast. Together, we discuss what makes a great or a good PhD student, whether PhD students need to create a researcher identity for themselves, and how academics can deal with envy. As usual, the references to all readings we mention are listed on .
June is here and a new paper is out that argues that empirical patterns are publishable in our top journals. Really? Really. In this episode, Jan plays the interviewer and Nick is the interviewee in what is essentially a Q&A session about computationally intensive theory construction, which Nick argues will be a key part of the future of information systems research. As usual, the references to all readings we mention are listed on .
Our audiences may be full of jerks and we may fail all the time – but we still love being academics. Why is that? We feel it is time to talk about some of the good things we associate with this role in our society and why being an academic and spending your life in this profession might just be a truly wonderful thing after all. As usual, the references to all readings we mention are listed on .
Sometimes, we simply fail. Our hypotheses may not be supported. Our ability to access data might evaporate. We may fail to convince a review panel. We may not get that grant or that job position that we were after. How do we deal with such failure when it is so regular and eminent in our work? We are trying to figure that out and also try to find some words of wisdom to pass onto others. Thankfully, we have on the show to help us out. Together, we conclude that resilience is key but different people have different ways to build resilience. As usual, the references to all readings we mention are listed on .
Surprise! is back on the show, our first repeat guest. But only because we continue our recent philosophy of making impromptu changes to our planned recordings. This time we end up talking about presenting research and handling questions from the audience. Jan suggests some jerkiness can be a good thing while Nick things we should all play nice. And Youngjin? He suggests both is fine. As usual, the references to all readings we mention are listed on .
Jan is in Sweden and the audio quality is not great. Meanwhile, Nick is busy and he needs a dose of project management expertise. We discuss how we manage our time and our projects and how we engage in collaborations. After Recker’s rules for humble-bragging failed to get much traction, we now give you the Berente rules for starting collaborations. As usual, the references to all readings we mention are listed on .
We wanted to talk about something else. But regardless, what matters is that we ended up here: what is positivism and interpretivism – and does that distinction even matter anymore to information systems research in the age of digital traces and computationally-intensive methods? And so this is how you end up with a debate about philosophy without any preparation whatsoever. As usual, the references to all the articles we mention are listed on .
Scholars read books. But to be able to read books, someone has to write them. And who does that anymore? We asked , an information systems and computer science researcher who wrote several successful books, to tell us about the role of books, the value of books, the publishing of books – and how we can get more people like him to become involved in business-oriented information systems research. As usual, the references to all the articles we mention are listed on .
This IS research is back for a new season and Jan and Nick are eager to run their mouth again. This time, they chat about how we as a community measure and communicate research outcomes and success. Have we created a culture where we pursue click-bait research to improve our standing on some self-created ranking lists that count our productivity but not our scholarly contributions? Also, Jan admits that he has learned something from Nick – for the first time. As usual, the references to all the articles we mention are listed on .
It is award season and it is time to celebrate the highlights of 2021. We decided to hand out two awards, the Trailblazing Research Award, and the Innovative Research Approach Award, to recognize brilliant work done by our colleagues in 2021. Find out who got nominated and who won the awards in this final episode of this podcast before we take a small break. Happy new year everybody! In this episode, the intro and outro music were produced by . As usual, the references to all the articles we mention are listed on .
Jan and Nick are both fan boys of grounded theory so it is about time we talk to someone who knows more about it than we do. Thankfully, agreed to join us. With her we talk about the procedures and outcomes of grounded theorizing, what sort of contributions we can build through this approach and whether IS scholars should build grand or substantive theories. But because Cathy has been around the block a long time, we also talk about our own community institutions and whether they need a reform. In short, we are being naughty. As usual, the readings we refer to are listed on .
We talk about the dominant research method in information systems, survey research. Can you believe that still one in five papers in our main journals are based on surveys? We think survey research is past its prime – or is it? We discuss what is so good and what is so difficult about it. We try to find a future in which survey is one key part of our method portfolio and how it can continue to stand as a cornerstone of our IS knowledge tradition. As usual, the readings we refer to are listed on .
Imagine there was a time where the was struggling to fill its issues. Can’t believe it? Well so it was in the early 2000s says our guest, . With him, we continue our conversation about the history of the information systems field. Ron was around when a new digital technology called E-mail got introduced in a small cluster of U.S. universities in the 1980s. We discuss about the need for a core of the information systems field, theoretical progress in the field, how accessible or precise ideas have to be to create a following, and how academics can learn to develop passion and enjoy a balanced and sustainable career and life. Please excuse the audio issues – this conversation spanned US, Europe, and Australia. As usual, the readings we refer to are listed on .
So says at least , our guest today. He is the head of the Case mafia - or so at least Jan says - and the main referent of the infamous number – or so at least Nick says. We pick Kalle’s brain a little bit to learn more about the origins of the information systems field and what is was really like in the 80s and 90s. We also talk about publishing in the old days and now, the debates in our field at that time and why they stopped, and what we can learn from the past that helps us advance as scholars in the future. As usual, the readings we refer to are listed on .
We are joined by , a technology and ethics expert. We talk about who is responsible – and who is accountable – for what algorithms do. But as usual we drift off onto tangents: we talk about how to publish on technology and ethics, why emergent scholars focus more on these topics than before, what we can do to help them, and how we engage in normative writing. As usual, the readings we refer to are listed on .
Jan’s voice is loud and clear but Nick comes up with the better phrases. Or does he? In this episode, Nick and Jan discuss the history and role of affordances theory in information systems. Are we actually contributing to this theory or are we just using it? Should we abandon it, just as we abandoned TAM? Or how can we move forward with affordances theory and what options does it allow pursuing for us as a field? Join us to find out. As usual, the readings we refer to are listed on .
Jan received an invite to join a paper about a new technology he has no clue about. Of course, he joins the research project. Jan and Nick use the occasion to discuss a few questions: How do we actually theorize about new technologies? Why is this so important to us in comparison to other fields? And should we principally fill gaps or solve problems?
We have the brilliant , , and on the show and we talk about a lot of things. We talk about how they constructed their ethnography on , what they initially planned to do (AI in HR), how valuable digital seminars can be, and why Natalia refuses to upgrade her dropbox plan. Lebovitz, S., Levina, N., & Lifshitz-Assaf, H. (2021). Is AI Ground Truth Really “True”? The Dangers of Training and Evaluating AI Tools Based on Experts’ Know-What. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1501-1525.
We have a truly inter-disciplinary team as guests. is a computer scientist, is a business ethics expert, and is a seasoned information systems researcher. They wrote a really special paper, an issues and opinions commentary about . We talk about their paper, how the different disciplines operate, and what it takes to publish conceptual papers. Teodorescu, M., Morse, L., Awwad, Y., & Kane, G. C. (2021). Failures of Fairness in Automation Require a Deeper Understanding of Human–ML Augmentation. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1483-1499.
Drug discovery is an enormously complicated and important process and artificial intelligence can be a key tool for the bio-pharma industry moving forward. We talk with about her paper with Bowen Lou on "." We learn a lot about this idea came about, how they collaborated and also a few things about chemistry and the bio-pharma field. Wu, L., & Lou, B. (2021). AI on Drugs: Can Artificial Intelligence Accelerate Drug Development? Evidence from a Large-scale Examination of Bio-pharma Firms. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1451-1482.
IS researchers do not use enough Star Trek references. Thankfully, is a Trekkie and convinced his co-authors to title their paper " He joins our conversation together with his co-author . Together, we talk about how collaborating on papers is easier across time zones, what makes a paper accessible to an audience, and whether or not formal theory benefits a paper or distracts from its contributions. Fügener, A., Grahl, J., Gupta, A., & Ketter, W. (2021). Will Humans-in-the-Loop Become Borgs? Merits and Pitfalls of Working with AI. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1527-1556.
How is a strategic AI orientation different from an IT orientation? and are on our show and talk about their paper “.” We learn about how their survey of CIOs and boards of directors, how IS scholars work together in the Hong Kong ecosystem, and we discuss ways in which paper projects can be managed. Li, J., Li, M., Wang, X., & Thatcher, J. B. (2021). Strategic Directions for AI: The Role of CIOs and Boards of Directors. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1603-1643.
We are joined by to talk about the paper “,” which he co-authored with Timo Sturm, Luisa Pumplun, Neda Mesbah, Felix Peters, Christoph Tauchert, Ning Nan, and Peter Buxmann. We learn about how the idea came about, what the role of simulations is in IS research, and how you can manage an ambitious paper project using Scrum principles. Sturm, T., Gerlach, J. P., Pumplun, L., Mesbah, N., Peters, F., Tauchert, C., Nan, N., & Buxmann, P. (2021). Coordinating Human and Machine Learning for Effective Organizational Learning. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1581-1602.
We talk with and about their paper “.” In our conversation, we touch upon doing ethnographies, establishing collaborations with industry firms, and how a paper changes through the review process. van den Broek, E., Sergeeva, A., & Huysman, M. (2021). When the Machine Meets the Expert: An Ethnography of Developing AI for Hiring. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1557-1580.
The new issue of the is out and it features a special issue on "Managing Artificial Intelligence" that Nick and Jan have been co-producing with and . Time to discuss what we have done, how it all went, and what we learned. Over the next fortnight, we will also release new episodes every two days, each one featuring a conversation with the author teams featuring in the special issue. Be prepared to learn everything possible about what AI is and what managing AI means. As usual, the readings we refer to are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.
Nick and Jan are back from vacation and the new season of this IS research is underway. We kick things off in a live session in the at the Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS), held virtually on 13 August 2021. With our hosts and we talk about the role of conferences for IS academics and share a few experiences and tips for doctoral students for how to start collaborations, present at conferences, and prepare for job talks. As usual, the readings we refer to are listed on .
Our first season comes to a close. This is the last episode before Nick and Jan take a break over the summer. We tie up a few loose ends, talk about academia as a competition, and share a few funny stories we encountered while being IS academics. As usual, the readings we refer to are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.
Should every information systems research paper be relevant to practice? Does research need to be relevant in the first place? And if relevance is relevant, how should we engage with practitioners about our research? We discuss relevance of information systems research, how the field's view of relevance may have changed and what researchers might do if they wish to be relevant to practice. As usual, the readings we refer to are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.
We are joined on the show by from Case Western Reserve University, who Nick calls “the energizer bunny” of theoretical ideas. With him, we discuss how we develop theory. But being the idea generator that he is, we end up discussing all sorts of things, from the role of science in the societal discourse, to theorizing practices, to feelings of imposter syndrome, and other topics. As usual, the readings we refer to are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.
Nick and Jan discuss what contributions are, how they can be composed, and which contributions are interesting – and whether they need to be interesting in the first place. Do contributions by scientific papers need an element of surprise? Are obvious contributions okay? As usual, he readings we refer to are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.
Jan and Nick are still processing what they learned from . Both gave advice to young researchers, but Jan and Nick are not sure they agree, so they end up constructing their own advice for how to build a career in information systems research. In the episode, we mention a few exemplary IS scholars, among others, , , , , , , , , and . As usual, readings relevant to this episode can be found at http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/careers-on-the-line-28-april-2021/.
Jan is annoyed. He received reviews and of course they were critical of his work. But what makes a good review? When do reviews stop being helpful? And do we need a new reviewing culture? Nick and Jan suggest we do. As usual, the readings we refer to are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.
Information systems is a discipline nestled between the organizational sciences and the computer sciences. How do these different fields view each other? We ask Brian Pentland (an organizational sociologist) and Wil van der Aalst (a computer scientist). Both work on the same topic - processes and routines - but within different communities. We explore whether these communities are coming together and what advice young researchers receive in the different fields. As usual, the readings we refer to are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.
What are the big methodological movements at the moment that potentially shape the future of IS research? What are the most popular methods IS researchers use? How do we do research in the golden age of digital trace data? As usual, the readings we refer to are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.
What do econometricians do? Do they really care more about statistics than explanations? Nick and Jan ask Brad Greenwood from George Mason University and try to reconcile their views of what good research is. As usual, the papers we discuss in this episode at listed at http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.
Is there a difference between digital technologies and regular IT? Are we in a new wave of technology that changes our society and business, or is it all just the same technology and we've been here before? Do we need to develop new theories about technology and organizing or do our old assumptions still hold? Nick and Jan explore these possibilities and try to reach a shared conclusion. You can find the papers we discuss in this episode at .
Jan and Nick discuss ethics dilemmas they faced and try to figure out what advice they would give to others that work and publish in teams on information systems research problems. You can find papers we discuss in this episode at .
How important is theory to research? Do design research, AI, and predictive modeling change the need for theoretical contributions? And what is high impact research anyway? You can find the papers we discuss in this episode at .