Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What does MIS survey research reveal about diversity and representativeness in the MIS field? A content analysis approach

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Diversity and representativeness are two enriching components of an academic field and for quite some time, Management Information Systems (MIS) researchers have been advocating for more studies on them. The objective of this study is to investigate the extent to which survey-based research articles reflect diversity in MIS research and to evaluate representativeness in journals in the MIS field. Diversity is a multifaceted concept that can be delineated along several constructs such as diversity in research approach, diversity in theories, and diversity in research methods. Survey research is the dominant research method in the MIS field accounting for 32–41% of published empirical research studies. In this study, diversity is conceptualized and explored through six factors that are easily identifiable in a survey-based research article namely the unit of analysis, research topics, type of respondents, number of authors, number of schools of authors, and number of country of authors. The study makes use of a set of 1466 survey-based research articles published over 21 years in 15 mainstream MIS journals in Europe and the USA to study diversity and representativeness using Tsallis entropy and Chi-Square statistics. The results present an overview of the state of the MIS survey-based research in Europe and the USA while also revealing that MIS researchers are predominantly gathering survey data from business executives at the firm and individual units of analysis in both regions. Overall, we find dominant categories (top 2) emerge for each factor as they relate to diversity both in Europe and the USA with three factors having the same dominant categories indicating that diversity continues to elude the MIS research field. The results have implications for both research and practice in the MIS field.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Acedo, F. J., Barroso, C., Casanueva, C., & Galán, J. L. (2006). Co-authorship in management and organizational studies: An empirical and network analysis. Journal of Management Studies,43(5), 957–983.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alavi, M., & Carlson, P. (1992). A review of MIS research and disciplinary development. Journal of Management Information Systems,8(4), 45–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayanso, A., Lertwachara, K., & Vachon, F. (2007). Diversity or identity crisis? An examination of leading IS journals. Communications of the Association for Information Systems,20(1), 660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baccini, A., & Barabesi, L. (2010). Interlocking editorship: A network analysis of the links between economic journals. Scientometrics,82(2), 365–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M. (2016). 1500 Scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature News,533(7604), 452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandodkar, N., & Grover, V. (2016). Factors influencing the extent of co-authorship in IS research: An empirical investigation. Communications of the Association for Information Systems,38(1), 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banker, R. D., & Kauffman, R. J. (2004). 50th Anniversary article: the evolution of research on information systems: A fiftieth-year survey of the literature in management science. Management Science,50(3), 281–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bariff, M. L., & Ginzberg, M. J. (1982). MIS and the behavioral sciences: Research patterns and prescriptions. ACM SIGMIS Database,14(1), 19–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barki, H., Rivard, S., & Talbot, J. (1988). An information systems keyword classification scheme. MIS Quarterly, 12(2), 299–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baruch, Y., & Holtom, B. C. (2008). Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research. Human Relations,61(8), 1139–1160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baskerville, R. L., & Myers, M. D. (2009). Fashion waves in information systems research and practice. MIS Quarterly,33(4), 647–662.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U. (2000). What is globalization? (p. 74). Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, S. (1996). Learning with information systems: Learning cycles in information systems development. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benamati, J., & Lederer, A. L. (2001). Rapid information technology change, coping mechanisms, and the emerging technologies group. Journal of Management Information Systems,17(4), 183–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benbasat, I., & Weber, R. (1996). Research commentary: Rethinking “diversity” in information systems research. Information Systems Research,7(4), 389–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, N. K. (2013). Social work authorship. Social Work Research,37(1), 3–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, T. F., Grimshaw, P., & Shaw, N. E. (2016). Research commentary—diversity of the information systems research field: A journal governance perspective. Information Systems Research,28(1), 5–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, W., & Hirschheim, R. (2004). A paradigmatic and methodological examination of information systems research from 1991 to 2001. Information Systems Journal,14(3), 197–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chua, C., Cao, L., Cousins, K., & Straub, D. W. (2002). Measuring researcher-production in information systems. Journal of the Association for information Systems,3(1), 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurements,20, 37–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Culnun, M., & Swanson, E. (1986). Research in management information systems, 1980–1984: Points and reference. MIS Quarterly Executive,10(3), 289–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, G. B., & Olson, M. H. (1985). Management information systems: Conceptual foundation, structure, and development. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durney, C. P., & Donnelly, R. G. (2015). Managing the effects of rapid technological change on complex information technology projects. Journal of the Knowledge Economy,6(4), 641–664.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evaristo, J. R., & Karahanna, E. (1997). Is North American IS research different from European IS research? ACM SIGMIS Database,28(3), 32–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Everard, A., Pierre, K. S., & Heck, J. (2017). Contributors to the high-impact IS Journals (1977–2014): An aid for setting research standards. CAIS,40, 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farhoomand, A. F. (1987). Scientific progress of management information systems. ACM SIGMIS Database,18(4), 48–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farhoomand, A. F., & Drury, D. H. (1999). A historiographical examination of information systems. Communications of the Association for Information Systems,1, 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, J. K., MacCallum, R. C., & Tait, M. (1986). The application of exploratory factor analysis in applied psychology: A critical review and analysis. Personnel Psychology,39, 291–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, F. J., Jr. (2013). Survey research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galliers, R. D., & Huang, J. C. (2012). The teaching of qualitative research methods in information systems: An explorative study utilizing learning theory. European Journal of Information Systems,21(1), 119–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galliers, R. D., & Land, F. F. (1987). Viewpoint: choosing appropriate information systems research methodologies. Communications of the ACM,30(11), 901–902.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galliers, R. D., & Meadows, M. (2003). A discipline divided: globalization and parochialism in information systems research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems,108(117), 117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galliers, R. D., & Whitley, E. A. (2007). Vive les differences? Developing a profile of European information systems research as a basis for international comparisons. European Journal of Information Systems,16(1), 20–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallivan, M. J., & Benbunan-Fich, R. (2007). Analyzing IS research productivity: an inclusive approach to global IS scholarship. European Journal of Information Systems,16(1), 36–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glasow, P. A. (2005). Fundamentals of survey research methodology. Retrieved March 3, 2018 from https://www.mitre.org/sites/default/files/pdf/05_0638.pdf.

  • Glass, R. L., Ramesh, V., & Vessey, I. (2004). An analysis of research in computing disciplines. Communications of the ACM,47(6), 89–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glass, R. L., Vessey, I., & Ramesh, V. (2002). Research in software engineering: an analysis of the literature. Information and Software Technology,44(8), 491–506.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goyal, S., Ahuja, M., & Guan, J. (2018). Information systems research themes: A seventeen-year data-driven temporal analysis. Communications of the Association for Information Systems,43(1), 23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grover, V., Lee, C. C., & Durand, D. (1993). Analyzing methodological rigor of MIS survey research from 1980–1989. Information and Management,24(6), 305–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grover, V., & Lyytinen, K. (2015). New state of play in information systems research: The push to the edges. MIS Quarterly,39(2), 271–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haeussler, C., & Sauermann, H. (2013). Credit where credit is due? The impact of project contributions and social factors on authorship and inventorship. Research Policy,42(3), 688–703.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haj-Bolouri, A., & Flensburg, P. (2017). Conceptualizing the essence of presence in distance education through digital dasein. International Journal on E-Learning,16(2), 149–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardaway, D., Harryvan, R., Wang, X., & Goodson, J. C. (2016). Partnering with practice: How partnerships can be developed, shared and managed. CAIS,38, 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardgrave, B. C., & Walstrom, K. A. (1997). Forums for MIS scholars. Communications of the ACM,40(11), 119–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harzing, A. W., & Metz, I. (2013). Practicing what we preach: The geographic diversity of editorial boards. Management International Reviews,53(2), 169–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, M. O., & Garland, E. L. (2015). Social work research: 2044. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research,6(2), 173–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, H. H., & Hsu, J. S. C. (2005). An evaluation of publication productivity in information systems: 1999 to 2003. Communications of the Association for Information Systems,15(5), 555–564.

    Google Scholar 

  • Im, K. S., Kim, K. Y., & Kim, J. S. (1998). An assessment of individual and institutional research productivity in MIS. Decision Line,29(1), 8–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeyaraj, A., & Zadeh, A. H. (2019). Evolution of information systems research: Insights from topic modeling. Information and Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2019.103207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joseph, N., Kar, A. K., Ilavarasan, P. V., & Ganesh, S. (2017). Review of discussions on internet of things (IoT): Insights from twitter analytics. Journal of Global Information Management (JGIM),25(2), 38–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanuk, L., & Berenson, C. (1975). Mail surveys and response rates: A literature review. Journal of Marketing Research, 12(4), 440–453.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karanja, E., & Zaveri, J. (2012). IT leaders: Who are they and where do they come from? Journal of Information Systems Education,23(2), 143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karanja, E., & Zaveri, J. (2013). A comprehensive review of survey-based research in MIS. Journal of Systems and Information Technology,15(2), 159–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karanja, E., Zaveri, J., & Ahmed, A. (2013). How do MIS researchers handle missing data in survey-based research: A content analysis approach? International Journal of Information Management,33(5), 734–751.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, S., & Coulthard, D. (2013). Charting diversity and change in IS publications: A tri-continental journal analysis. Australasian journal of information systems,18(1), 5–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khan, G. F., & Trier, M. (2019). Assessing the long-term fragmentation of information systems research with a longitudinal multi-network analysis. European Journal of Information Systems,28(4), 370–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, G., Shin, B., & Grover, V. (2010). Investigating two contradictory views of formative measurement in information systems research. MIS Quarterly,34(2), 345–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraut, A. I. (1996). Organizational surveys: Tools for assessment and change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraut, R., Egido, C., & Galegher, J. (1988). Patterns of contact and communication in scientific research collaboration. In Proceedings of the 1988 ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work (pp. 1–12).

  • La Paz, A., Merigó, J. M., Powell, P., Ramaprasad, A., & Syn, T. (2019). Twenty-five years of the information systems journal: A bibliometric and ontological overview. Information Systems Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, T. J., & Levine, L. (2005). Searching for management information systems: Coherence and change in the discipline. Information Systems Journal,15(4), 357–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loebbecke, C., & Leidner, D. (2012). The contribution of top IS publications to subsequent research: A citation analysis. Communications of the Association for Information Systems,30(1), 25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowry, P., Karuga, G., & Richardson, V. (2007). Assessing leading institutions, faculty, and articles in premier information systems research journals. Communications of the Association for Information Systems (CAIS),20(16), 142–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowry, P. B., Romans, D., & Curtis, A. (2004). Global journal prestige and supporting disciplines: A scientometric study of Information Systems journals. Journal of the Association of Information Systems,5(2), 29–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre, L. J. (1999). The practical skeptic: Core concepts in sociology. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mingers, J. (2001). Combining IS research methods: Towards a pluralist methodology. Information systems research,12(3), 240–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, M. D., & Klein, H. K. (2011). A set of principles for conducting critical research in information systems. MIS Quarterly,35(1), 17–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W., & Baroudi, J. J. (1991). Studying information technology in organizations: Research approaches and assumptions. Information Systems Research,2, 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palvia, P., Kakhki, M. D., Ghoshal, T., Uppala, V., & Wang, W. (2015). Methodological and topic trends in information systems research: A meta-analysis of IS journals. Communications of the Association for Information Systems,37(1), 30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payton, F. C., & Jackson, C. (1999). Ethnic diversity in IS: What are current Ph.D. students saying? ACM SIGCPR Computer Personnel,20(3), 27–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., & Dalton, D. R. (1987). Research methodology in organizational studies. Journal of Management,13(2), 419–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pries-Heje, J., & Krohn, M. M. (2017). The safe way to the agile organization. In Proceedings of the XP2017 scientific workshops (p. 18). ACM.

  • Qian, C., Cao, Q., & Takeuchi, R. (2013). Top management team functional diversity and organizational innovation in China: The moderating effects of environment. Strategic Management Journal, 34(1), 110–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rainer, R. K., & Miller, D. M. (2005). Examining differences across journal rankings. Communications of the ACM,48(2), 91–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, H., & Robinson, B. (2007). The mysterious case of the missing paradigm: A review of critical information systems research 1991–2001. Information Systems Journal,17(3), 251–270.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2016). Research methods for business: A skill building approach. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senyo, P. K., Addae, E., & Boateng, R. (2018). Cloud computing research: A review of research themes, frameworks, methods and future research directions. International Journal of Information Management,38(1), 128–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication, Part I, Part II. Bell System Techical Journal,27, 623–656.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Shook, C. L., Ketchen, D. J., Cycyota, C. S., & Crockett, D. (2003). Data analytic trends and training in strategic management. Strategic Management Journal,24(12), 1231–1237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sidorova, A., Evangelopoulos, N., Valacich, J. S., & Ramakrishnan, T. (2006). Uncovering the intellectual core of the information systems discipline. MIS Quarterly,32(3), 467–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, E. H. (1949). Measurement of diversity. Nature,163, 688.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Steinmo, M., & Rasmussen, E. (2016). How firms collaborate with public research organizations: The evolution of proximity dimensions in successful innovation projects. Journal of Business Research,69(3), 1250–1259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, A., Cotton, J. L., & Adya, M. (2017). Information systems: A house divided? Communications of the Association for Information Systems,41, 544–586.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sudhindra, S., Ganesh, L. S., & Arshinder, K. (2017). Knowledge transfer: An information theory perspective. Knowledge Management Research and Practice,15(3), 400–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tahamtan, I., Safipour Afshar, A., & Ahamdzadeh, K. (2016). Factors affecting number of citations: A comprehensive review of the literature. Scientometrics,107(3), 1195–1225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarafdar, M., & Davison, R. M. (2018). Research in information systems: Intra-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary approaches. Journal of the Association for Information Systems,19(6), 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, H., Dillon, S., & van Wingen, M. (2010). Focus and diversity in information systems research: Meeting the dual demand of a healthy applied discipline. MIS Quarterly,34(4), 647–667.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thatcher, J., Pu, W., & Pienta, D. (2018). Information systems IS a (social) science. Communications of the Association for Information Systems,43(1), 11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tompkins, L. A., Eisenlohr, B., Groves, D. I., & Raetz, M. (1997). Temporal changes in mineralization style at the Cadjebut Mississippi valley-type deposit, Lennard Shelf, WA. Economic Geology,92(7–8), 843–862.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsallis, C. (1988). Possible generalization of Boltzmann–Gibbs statistics. Journal of Statistical Physics,52(1), 479–487.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Urquhart, C., & Fernández, W. (2016). Using grounded theory method in information systems: The researcher as blank slate and other myths. In Enacting research methods in information systems (Vol. 1, pp. 129–156). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

  • Vessey, I., Ramesh, V., & Glass, R. L. (2002). Research in information systems: An empirical study of diversity in the discipline and its journals. Journal of Management Information Systems,19(2), 129–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Visser, P. S., Krosnick, J. A., & Lavrakas, P. J. (2000). Survey research. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 223–252). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsham, G. (2002). Cross-cultural software production and use: a structuration analysis. MIS Quarterly, 26(4), 359–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walstrom, K. A., Hardgrave, B. C., & Wilson, R. L. (1995). Forums for management information systems scholars. Communications of the ACM,38(3), 93–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y., Xia, S. T., & Wu, J. (2017). A less-greedy two-term Tsallis entropy information metric approach for decision tree classification. Knowledge-Based Systems,120, 34–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, J. J., & Chau, M. (2006). The social identity of IS: Analyzing the collaboration network of the ICIS conferences (1980–2005). In ICIS (p. 39).

  • Zhang, P., Li, N., Scialdone, M. J., & Carey, J. (2009). The intellectual advancement of human–computer interaction research: A critical assessment of the MIS literature. ACM Transactions Computer–Human Interaction,1(3), 55–107.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business - Computer Information Systems Department, North Carolina Central University, C.T. Willis Commerce Building, Room 108 and 131, Durham, NC, 27707, USA

    Erastus Karanja & Aditya Sharma

  2. School of Business - Decision Sciences/Economics/Accounting Department, North Carolina Central University, C.T. Willis Commerce Building, Room 218, Durham, NC, 27707, USA

    Ibrahim Salama

Authors
  1. Erastus Karanja
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aditya Sharma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ibrahim Salama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erastus Karanja.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 18.

Table 18 The following lists the categories along with definition and examples
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Karanja, E., Sharma, A. & Salama, I. What does MIS survey research reveal about diversity and representativeness in the MIS field? A content analysis approach. Scientometrics 122, 1583–1628 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03331-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03331-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation