Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is information systems a discipline? Foucauldian and Toulminian insights

  • Special Section Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Information Systems

Abstract

Following the Kleinian spirit, this study takes a critical view of the existing orthodoxy within information systems (IS) and reframes the ongoing discussion concerning the intellectual core, identity and disciplinary status of IS using the disciplinary analysis of Michel Foucault and Stephen Toulmin. Instead of limiting the discussion to specific paradigms, topics, subjects or content, it focuses on the characteristics, rules and goals of IS as an academic field. A disciplinary lens is used to frame what it means to be a field, discipline and science, and in the process the study uncovers four doxas that have shaped the development of the IS field: (1) the IS research community sees no difference between fields, disciplines or sciences; (2) IT changes so rapidly, and thus the IS field needs to change to remain relevant; (3) disciplines are by definition rigid, inflexible and uni-theoretical and (4) because IS is pluralistic, IS should not become a discipline. This study's analyses of the IS field's discursive formation and intellectual ideals offer novel perspectives that allow for the integration of the IS field's plurality and diversity. To transform the IS field from its multimodal existence into a vibrant, diverse, academically and socially relevant and influential discipline, the study proposes actionable strategies that include (1) agreeing on the intellectual ideals for IS, (2) focusing on conceptual formation, (3) focusing on theory construction, (4) erecting genealogical boundaries and (5) fostering the development of professional bodies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2

References

  • Agarwal R and Lucas Jr. HC (2005) The information systems identity crisis: focusing on high-visibility and high-impact research. MIS Quarterly 29 (3), 381–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen I and Fishbein M (1973) Attitudinal and normative variables as predictors of specific behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 27 (1), 41–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alter S (1977) A taxonomy of decision support systems. Sloan Management Review 19 (1), 39–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alter S (1999) A general, yet useful theory of information systems. Communications of the AIS 1 (13), 1–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alter S (2003a) The IS core – XI: sorting out the issues about the core, scope, and identity of the IS field. Communications of the AIS 12 (41), 607–628.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alter S (2003b) Sidestepping the IT artifact, scrapping the IS silo, and laying claim to ‘systems in organizations’. Communications of the AIS 12 (30), 494–526.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banville C and Landry M (1989) Can the field of MIS be disciplined? Communications of the ACM 32 (1), 48–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell D (1973) The Coming of the Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting. Basic Books, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benbasat I and Zmud R (2003) The identity crisis within the IS discipline: defining and communicating the discipline’s core properties. MIS Quarterly 27 (2), 183–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benbasat I and Zmud RW (1999) Empirical research in information systems: the practice of relevance. MIS Quarterly 23 (1), 3–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourque P and Dupuis R (2004) SWEBOK: Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carey HC (1859/1963) Principles of Social Science. A.M. Kelley, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castells M (1996) The Rise of the Network Society: Vol. 1 of The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cecez-Kecmanovic D, Klein HK and Brooke C (2008) Editorial: exploring the critical agenda in information systems research. Information Systems Journal 18 (2), 123–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Checkland P and Holwell S (1998) Information, Systems and Information Systems: Making Sense of the Field. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchman CW (1971) The Design of Inquiring Systems. Basic Books, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchman CW and Ackoff RL (1950) Methods of Inquiry. Educational Publishers, Inc., St. Louis, MO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbett C and van Wassenhoff L (1993) The natural drift: what happened to operations research? Operations Research 41 (4), 625–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crouch RC (1979) Social work defined. Social Work 24 (1), 46–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daft RL and Lengel RH (1986) A proposed integration among organizational information requirements, media richness, and structural design. Management Science 32 (5), 191–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davenport TH and Markus ML (1999) Rigor vs. relevance revisited: response to Benbasat and Zmud. MIS Quarterly 23 (1), 19–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies J (1955) Phrenology: Fad and Science; A 19th-Century American Crusade. Yale University Press, New Haven.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13 (3), 318–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dearden J (1964) Can management information be automated? Harvard Business Review 42 (2), 128–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeSanctis G (2003) The social life of information systems research: a response to Benbasat and Zmud’s call for returning to the IT artifact. Journal of the AIS 4 (7), 360–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeSanctis G and Gallupe RB (1987) A foundation for the study of group decision support systems. Management Science 33 (5), 588–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeSanctis G and Poole MS (1994) Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use – adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science 5 (2), 121–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickson G (1968) Management information-decision systems. Business Horizons 11 (6), 17–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickson GW (1981) Management information systems: evolution and status. In Advances in Computers (YOVITS MC, Ed), pp 1–37, Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dilthey W (1883/1989) Introduction to the Human Sciences. Princeton University Publishers, Princeton, N.J.

    Google Scholar 

  • El Sawy O (2003) The IS core IX: the 3 faces of IS identity: connection, immersion, and fusion. Communications of the AIS 12 (39), 588–598.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emery JC (1973) An overview of management information systems. Data Base 5 (1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falkenberg ED, Hesse W, Lindgreen P, Nilsson BE, Han Oei JL, Rolland C, Stamper RK, Van Assche FJM, Verrijn-Stuart AA and Voss K (1998) A framework of information systems concepts: the revised FRISCO report. IFIP [WWW document] http://www.mathematik.uni-marburg.de/~hesse/papers/fri-full.pdf. (accessed 10 January 2007).

  • Feynman RP (1959) Plenty of Room at the Bottom. In American Physical Society, California Institute of Technology.

  • Fildes R and Ranyard JC (1997) Success and survival of the operational research groups: a review. Journal of the Operational Research Society 48 (4), 336–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flexner H (1979) The curriculum, the disciplines, and interdisciplinarity in higher education. In Interdisciplinarity and Higher Education (KOCKELMAN JJ, Ed) Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park.

    Google Scholar 

  • Floridi L (2003) Two approaches to the philosophy of information. Minds and Machines 13 (4), 459–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foucault M (1970) The Order of Things: An Archeology of the Human Sciences. Pantheon Books, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault M (1972) The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language. Pantheon Books, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault M (1973) The Birth of the Clinic: An Archaeology of Medical Perception. Pantheon, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith JR (1973) Designing Complex Organizations. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galliers RD (2003) Change as crisis or growth? Toward a trans-disciplinary view of information systems as a field of study: a response to Benbasat and Zmud’s call for returning to the IT artifact. Journal of the AIS 4 (6), 337–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger R (1986) To Advance Knowledge: The Growth of American Research Universities, 1900–1940. Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerrie J (2003) Was Foucault a philosopher of technology? Techn 7 (2), 14–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibelman M (1999) The search for identity: defining social work – past, present, future. Social Work 44 (4), 298–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens A (1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. University of California Press, Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gieryn TY (1983) Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review 48, 781–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie R (1991) Manufacturing Knowledge: A History of the Hawthorne Experiments. Cambridge University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goles T and Hirschheim R (2000) The paradigm is dead, the paradigm is dead … long live the paradigm: the legacy of Burrell and Morgan. Omega 28 (3), 249–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodhue D and Thompson RL (1995) Task technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly 19 (2), 213–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorry GA and Scott Morton MS (1971) A framework for management information systems. Sloan Management Review 13 (1), 55–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray P (2003) Introduction to the debate on the core of the information systems field. Communications of the AIS 12 (42), Accessed from [WWW document], http://aisel.aisnet.org/cais/vol12/iss1/42/.

  • Gregor S (2006) The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quarterly 30 (3), 611–642.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman TA (2003) Up to standard. OR/MS Today 30 (4), 18–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grover V, Ayyagari R, Gokhale R, Lim J and Coffey J (2006) A citation analysis of the evolution and state of information systems within a constellation of reference disciplines. Journal of the AIS 7 (5), 270–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie RA (2003) The IS core – V: defining the core. Communications of the AIS 12 (35), 557–561.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guyatt G, Cairns J and Churchill D (1992) Evidence-based medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA 268, 2420–2425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackhausen H (1972) Discipline and interdisciplinarity. In Interdisciplinarity: Problems of Teaching and Research in Universities (APOSTEL L, BERGER G, BRIGGS A and MICHAUD G, Eds), pp 83–89, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick DC and Chen M-J (2008) New academic fields as admittance-seeking social movements: the case of strategic management. Academy of Management Review 33 (1), 32–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harper D (2001) Discipline. Online Etymology Dictionary, [WWW document] http://www.etymonline.com/ (accessed 1 October 2004).

  • Hempel CG (1956) Fundamentals of concept formation in empirical science. In International Encyclopedia of Unified Science (NEURATH O, Ed) University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschheim R, Klein HK and Lyytinen K (1996) Exploring the intellectual structures of information systems development: a social action theoretical analysis. Accounting, Management & Information Technology 6 (1/2), 1–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschheim RA and Klein HK (2003) Crisis in the IS field? A critical reflection on the state of the discipline. Journal of the AIS 4 (5), 237–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland CP (2003) The IS core – X: information systems research and practice: IT artifact or a multidisciplinary subject? Communications of the AIS 12 (40), 599–606.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoskin KW and Macve RH (1986) Accounting and the examination: a genealogy of disciplinary power. Accounting, Organizations and Society 11 (2), 105–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber GP (1983) Cognitive style as a basis for MIS and DSS designs: much ado about nothing? Management Science 29 (5), 567–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Husén T (1991) The idea of the university: changing roles, current crisis and future challenges. Prospects 21 (2), 169–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ihde D (1991) Instrumental Realism: The Interface Between Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Technology. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iivari J, Hirschheim RA and Klein HK (2004) Towards a distinctive body of knowledge for information systems experts: coding ISD process knowledge in two IS journals. Information Systems Journal 14, 313–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ives B, Hamilton S and Davis GB (1980) A framework for research in computer-based management information systems. Management Science 26 (9), 910–934.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ives B, Parks MS, Porra J and Silva L (2004) Phylogeny and power in the IS domain: a response to Benbasat and Zmud's call for returning to the IT artifact. Journal of the AIS 5 (3), 108–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones M (1997) It all depends what you mean by discipline. In Information Systems: An Emerging Discipline? (MINGERS J and STOWELL F, Eds), pp 97–112, McGraw-Hill, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant I (1956) The Critique of Practical Reason. Liberal Arts Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant I (1963) On History. Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant I (1978) The Critique of Pure Reason. E. P. Dutton & Co, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan B, Truex III DP, Wastell D, Wood-Harper AT and DeGross JI (Eds.) (2004) Information Systems Research: Relevant Theory and Informed Practice. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Keen PGW (1980) MIS research: reference disciplines and a cumulative tradition. In International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS) (MCLEAN E, Ed), pp 9–18, ACM Press, Philadelphia, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keen PGW (1987) MIS research: current status, trends and needs. In Information Systems Education: Recommendations and Implementation (BUCKINGHAM R, HIRSCHHEIM RA, LAND F and TULLY C, Eds), pp 1–13, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keen PGW (1991) Relevance and rigor in information systems research: improving quality, confidence, cohesion and impact. In Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions (NISSEN H-E, KLEIN HK and HIRSCHHEIM R, Eds), pp 27–49, Elsevier Science Publishers B. V., North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • King JL and Lyytinen K (2004) Reach and grasp. MIS Quarterly 28 (4), 539–552.

    Google Scholar 

  • King JL and Lyytinen K (Eds.) (2006) Information Systems: The State of the Field. Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kishore R, Sharman R and Ramesh R (2004) Computational ontologies and information systems I: foundations. Communications of the AIS 14 (8), 158–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein HK and Hirschheim R (2006) Further reflections on the IS discipline: climbing the tower of Babel. In Information Systems: The State of the Field (KING JL and LYYTINEN K, Eds), pp 307–323, Wiley, Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein HK and Hirschheim R (2008) The structure of the IS discipline reconsidered: implications and reflections from a community of practice perspective. Information and Organization 18, 280–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein HK, Hirschheim RA and Nissen H-E (1991) A pluralist perspective of the information systems research arena. In Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions (KLEIN HK, HIRSCHHEIM RA and NISSEN H-E, Eds) Elsevier Science Publishers, North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein HK and Lyytinen K (1985) The poverty of scientism in information systems. In Research Methods in Information Systems (MUMFORD E, HIRSCHHEIM RA, FITZGERALD G and WOOD-HARPER AT, Eds), pp 131–162, Elsevier Science Publishers B. V., North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein JT (1990) Interdisciplinarity: History, Theory, & Practice. Wayne State University Press, Detroit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein JT (1993) Blurring, cracking, and crossing: permeation and the fracturing of discipline. In Knowledges: Historical and Critical Studies in Disciplinarity (MESSER-DAVIDOW E, SHUMWAY DR and SYLVAN DJ, Eds), pp 185–211, University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kristeller PO (1951) The modern system of the arts: a study in the history of aesthetics (I). Journal of the History of Ideas 12 (4), 496–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kristeller PO (1955) The Classics and Renaissance Thought. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn T (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landry M and Banville C (1992) A disciplined methodological pluralism for MIS research. Accounting, Management and Information Technology 2 (2), 77–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lange C (2005a) Development and Status of the Information Systems/Wirtschaftsinformatik Discipline: An Interpretive Evaluation of Interviews with Renowned Researchers Part I – Research Objectives and Method. ICB (Institute für Informatik und Wirtschaftsinformatik), Universität Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lange C (2005b) Development and Status of the Information Systems/Wirtschaftsinformatik Discipline: An Interpretive Evaluation of Interviews with Renowned Researchers Part II – Results. ICB (Institute für Informatik und Wirtschaftsinformatik), Universität Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linnaeus C (1737) Genera Plantarum. M.A. David, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lubove R (1965) The Professional Altruist: The Emergence of Social Work as a Career, 1890–1930. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lyytinen K and King JL (2004) Nothing at the center? Academic legitimacy in the information systems field. Journal of the AIS 5 (6), 220–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyytinen K and King JL (2006) The theoretical core and academic legitimacy: a response to professor Weber. Journal of the AIS 7 (11), 714–721.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machlup F (1962) The Production and Distribution of Knowledge in the United States. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machlup F (1980) Knowledge, Its Creation, Distribution, and Economic Significance. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markus ML (1999) Thinking the unthinkable: what happens if the IS field as we know it goes away? In Rethinking Management Information Systems (CURRIE W and GALLIERS B, Eds) Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markus ML (2005) Personal communication with Lynne Markus on Drucker's comment. Minneapolis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason RO (2006) Comments on the Weber commentary and Lyytinen/King response. Journal of the AIS 7 (11), 722–724.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masterman M (1970) The nature of a paradigm. In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge: International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science (Bedford College, 1965) (LAKATOS I and MUSGRAVE A, Eds), pp 59–89, Cambridge University Press, London.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McCubbrey DJ (2003) The IS core – IV: IS research: a third way. Communications of the AIS 12 (34), 553–556.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messer-Davidow E, Shumway DR and Sylvan DJ (Eds.) (1993) Knowledges: Historical and Critical Studies in Disciplinarity. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moody DL (2000) Building links between IS research and professional practice: improving the relevance and impact of IS research. In International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS) pp 351–360, ACM Press, Brisbane, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers MD (2003) The IS core – VIII: defining the core properties of the IS disciplines: not yet, not now. Communications of the AIS 12 (38), 582–587.

    Google Scholar 

  • Needham J (1965) Science and Civilization in China. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nerur SP, Mahapatra R, Balijepally V and Mangalaraj G (2006) Is information systems a reference discipline? In 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 39). Lihue, Hawaii.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nerur SP, Sikora R, Mangalaraj G and Balijepally V (2005) Assessing the relative influence of journals in a citation network. Communications of the ACM 48 (11), 71–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nissen H-E, Klein HK and Hirschheim RA (Eds.) (1991) Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions. Elsevier Science Publishers B. V., North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski WJ and Iacono CS (2001) Research commentary: desperately seeking the ‘IT’ in IT research – a call to theorizing the IT artifact. Information Systems Research 12 (2), 121–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski WJ and Robey D (1991) Information technology and the structuring of organizations. Information Systems Research 2 (2), 143–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborn RF (1954) GE and UNIVAC: harnessing the high-speed computer. Harvard Business Review 32 (4), 99–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeiffer R (1976) History of Classical Scholarship from 1300 to 1850. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper KR (1959) The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Basic Books, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper KR (1962) Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Basic Books, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preziosi D (1993) Seeing through art history. In Knowledges: Historical and Critical Studies in Disciplinarity (MESSER-DAVIDOW E, SHUMWAY DR and SYLVAN DJ, Eds), pp 215–231, University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price DJdS (1963) Little Science, Big Science. Columbia University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricardo D (1817) On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. John Murray, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rinehart RF (1954) Theats to the growth of operations research in business and industry. Journal of the Operational Research Society of America 2 (3), 229–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robey D (1996) Diversity in information systems research: threat, promise, and responsibility. Information Systems Research 7 (4), 400–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robey D (2003) Identity, legitimacy and the dominant research paradigm: An alternative prescription for the IS discipline. A response to Benbasat and Zmud’s call for returning to the IT artifact. Journal of the AIS 4 (7), 352–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rockart JF (1979) Chief executives define their own data needs. Harvard Business Review 52 (2), 81–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rockart JF and DeLong DW (1988) Executive Support Systems. Dow Jones-Irwin, Homewood, Ill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saarikoski H (2007) Objectivity and the environment – epistemic value of biases. Environmental Politics 16 (3), 488–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson PA and Temin P (1976) Economics. McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schauer C (2007) Relevance and Success of IS Teaching and Research: An Analysis of the ‘Relevance Debate’. ICB (Institute für Informatik und Wirtschaftsinformatik), Universität Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw IF, Arksey H and Mullender A (2006) Recognizing social work. British Journal of Social Work 36 (2), 227–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shumway DR and Messer-Davidow E (1991) Disciplinarity: an introduction. Poetics Today 12 (2), 301–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sidorova A, Evangelopoulos N, Valacich JS and Ramakrishnan T (2008) Uncovering the intellectual core of the information systems discipline. MIS Quarterly 32 (3), 467–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjölander S (1985) Long-term and short-term interdisciplinary work: difficulties, pitfalls, and built-in failures. In Inter-Disciplinarity Revisited : Re-Assessing the Concept in the Light of Institutional Experience (Levin L and LIND I, Eds), pp 85–101, OECD/CERI, Paris, France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith A (1776) An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Edwin Cannan, Glasgow.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Soulé ME and Press D (1998) What is environmental studies? BioScience 48 (5), 397–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spencer H (1897) The Principles of Sociology. D. Appleton, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spengler O (1926) The Decline of the West. A. A. Knopf, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stigler GJ (1961) The economics of information. The Journal of Political Economy 69 (3), 213–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stowell F and Mingers J (1997) Information systems: an emerging discipline? – Introduction. In Information Systems: An Emerging Discipline? (MINGERS J and STOWELL F, Eds), pp 1–15, McGraw-Hill, London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taniguchi N (1974) On the basic concept of ‘nano-technology’. In International Conference Production Engineering, Tokyo, Japan, Japan Society of Precision Engineering.

  • Toulmin S (1958) The Uses of Arguments. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin S (1972) Human Understanding: The Collective Use and Evolution of Concepts. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tournefort JPD (1694) Élémens de Botanique. L'Imprimerie royale, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toynbee AJ (1947) A Study of History. Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wade M, Biehl M and Kim H (2006) Information systems is not a reference discipline (and what we can do about it). Journal of the AIS 7 (5), 247–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wand Y and Weber R (1988) An ontological analysis of some fundamental information systems concepts. In International Conference on Information Systems, pp 213–224, ACM Press, Minneapolis, MN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wand Y and Weber R (1990) An ontological model of an information systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 16 (11), 1282–1292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber R (2003) Editor's comment: still desperately seeking the IT artifact. MIS Quarterly 27 (2), iii–xi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber R (2006) Reach and grasp in the debate over the IS core: an empty hand? Journal of the AIS 7 (10), 703–713.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitley R (1984) The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wideman RM (1986) The PMBOK report: PMI body of knowledge standards. Project Management Journal 17 (3), 15–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wöhler F (1828) Ueber künstliche bildung des harnstoffs (On the artificial formation of urea). Annalen der Physik und Chemie 87 (2), 253–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman H and Merton RK (1973) Age, aging, and age structure in science. In The Sociology of Science (MERTON RK and STORER NW, Eds) The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to express his gratitude to Heinz Klein, who saw value in the original manuscript and encouraged its development, and to many colleagues who helped refine and expand this paper after its presentation at the 2006 International Conference for Information Systems (ICIS) conference. The author has benefitted immensely from discussions with Lynne Markus, Carol Saunders, Rudy Hirschheim and from the many anonymous reviewers who contributed their valuable insights to this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Minnesota Duluth, Duluth, U.S.A.

    Nik R Hassan

Authors
  1. Nik R Hassan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nik R Hassan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hassan, N. Is information systems a discipline? Foucauldian and Toulminian insights. Eur J Inf Syst 20, 456–476 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.2

Keywords

Search

Navigation