European Journal of Information Systems

, Volume 25, Issue 6, pp 509–533

Fragmentation or cohesion? Visualizing the process and consequences of information system diversity, 1993–2012

  • Yong Liu
  • Hongxiu Li
  • Jorge Goncalves
  • Vassilis Kostakos
  • Bei Xiao
Research Essay
  • 251 Downloads

Abstract

In information systems (IS) literature, there is ongoing debate as to whether the field has become fragmented and lost its identity in response to the rapid changes of the field. The paper contributes to this discussion by providing quantitative measurement of the fragmentation or cohesiveness level of the field. A co-word analysis approach aiding in visualization of the intellectual map of IS is applied through application of clustering analysis, network maps, strategic diagram techniques, and graph theory for a collection of 47,467 keywords from 9551 articles, published in 10 major IS journals and the proceedings of two leading IS conferences over a span of 20 years, 1993 through 2012. The study identified the popular, core, and bridging topics of IS research for the periods 1993–2002 and 2003–2012. Its results show that research topics and subfields underwent substantial change between those two periods and the field became more concrete and cohesive, increasing in density. Findings from this study suggest that the evolution of the research topics and themes in the IS field should be seen as part of the natural metabolism of the field, rather than a process of fragmentation or disintegration.

Keywords

co-word analysis bibliometric study information systems identity cohesion 

References

  1. Abbott A (2001) Chaos of Disciplines. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  2. Agarwal R and Lucas HL (2005) The information systems identity crisis: focusing on high-visibility and high-impact research. MIS Quarterly 29(3), 381–398.Google Scholar
  3. Akhlaghpour S, Wu J, Lapointe L and Pinsonneault A (2013) The ongoing quest for the IT artifact: looking back, moving forward. Journal of Information Technology 28(2), 150–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Albert S and Whetten DA (1985) Organizational identity. Research in Organizational Behavior 7, 263–295.Google Scholar
  5. An XY and Wu QQ (2011) Co-word analysis of the trends in [the] stem cells field based on subject heading weighting. Scientometrics 88(1), 133–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Banville C and Landry M (1989) Can the field of MIS be disciplined? Communications of the ACM 32(1), 48–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barabasi AL and Albert R (1999) Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286(5439), 509–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bauin S, Michelet B, Schweighoffer MG and Vermeulin P (1991) Using bibliometrics in strategic analysis: ‘understanding chemical reactions’ at the CNRS. Scientometrics 22(1), 113–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bauman Z (1992) Intimations of Postmodernity. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  10. Benbasat I and Weber R (1996) Research commentary: rethinking ‘diversity’ in information systems research. Information Systems Research 7(4), 389–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Bernroider EWN, Pilkington A and Córdoba JR (2013) Research in information systems: a study of diversity and inter-disciplinary discourse in the AIS basket journals between 1995 and 2011. Journal of Information Technology 28(1), 74–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Björkman I, Fey CF and Park HJ (2007) Institutional theory and MNC subsidiary HRM practices: evidence from a three-country study. Journal of International Business Studies 38(3), 430–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Borgatti SP and Everett MG (1999) Models of core/periphery structures. Social Networks 21(4), 375–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bryant A (2008) The future of information systems – thinking informatically. European Journal of Information Systems 17(6), 695–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Burt RS (1992) Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  17. Callon M, Courtial J and Laville F (1991) Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: the case of polymer Chemistry. Scientometrics 22(1), 155–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Callon M, Courtial J, Turner WA and Bauin S (1983) From translations to problematic networks: an introduction to co-word analysis. Social Science Information 22(2), 191–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Callon M, Law J and Rip A (1986) Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology: Sociology of Science in the Real World. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cambrosio A, Limoges C, Courtial JP and Laville F (1993) Historical scientometrics? Mapping over 70 years of biological safety research with co-word analysis. Scientometrics 27(2), 119–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Carr N (2003) IT doesn’t matter. Harvard Business Review 81(5), 41–49.Google Scholar
  22. Cattani G and Ferriani S (2008) Core/periphery perspective on individual creative performance: social networks and cinematic achievements in the hollywood film industry. Organization Science 19(6), 824–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Chang P-L, Wu C-C and Leu H-J (2010) Using patent analyses to monitor the technological trends in an emerging field of technology: a case of carbon nanotube field emission display. Scientometrics 82(1), 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Chen C, Chen Y, Horowitz M, Hou H, Liu Z and Pelligrino D (2009) Towards an explanatory and computational theory of scientific discovery. Journal of Informetrics 3(3), 191–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Clark R (2010) Word-system mobility and economic growth, 1980–2000. Social Forces 88(3), 1123–1151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Clarke R (2008) An exploratory study of information systems researcher impact. Communication of the Association for Information Systems 22(1), 1–32.Google Scholar
  27. Córdoba JR, Pilkington A and Bernroider EWN (2012) Information systems as a discipline in the making: comparing EJIS and MISQ between 1995 and 2008. European Journal of Information Systems 21(5), 479–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Coulter N, Monarch I and Konda S (1998) Software engineering as seen through its research literature: a study in co-word analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 49(13), 1206–1223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Culnan M (1986) The intellectual development of management information systems, 1972–1982: a co-citation analysis. Management Science 32(2), 156–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Culnan M (1987) Mapping the intellectual structure of MIS, 1980–1985: a co-citation analysis. MIS Quarterly 11(3), 341–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Dearden J (1972) MIS is a mirage. Harvard Business Review 50(1), 90–99.Google Scholar
  32. Ding Y, Chowdhury GG and Foo S (2001) Bibliometric cartography of information retrieval research by using co-word analysis. Information Processing & Management 37(6), 817–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Dwivedi Y and Kuljis J (2008) Profile of IS research published in the European Journal of Information Systems. European Journal of Information Systems 17(6), 678–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Dwivedi Y, Williams MD, Lal B and Schwarz A (2008) ‘Profiling adoption, acceptance and diffusion research in the information systems discipline’. In Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Information Systems, Galway, Ireland, 2008.Google Scholar
  35. Eagle N, Macy M and Claxton R (2010) Network diversity and economic development. Science 328(5981), 1029–1031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Everett MG and Borgatti SP (1999) The centrality of groups and classes. Journal of Mathematical Sociology 23(3), 181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Foucault M (1972) The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language. Pantheon, New York.Google Scholar
  38. Foucault M (1984) The ethics of the concern for self as a practice of freedom. In Michel Foucault: Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth (Essential Works of Michel Foucault, 1954–1984) (Rabinow P, Ed), pp 281–301, Penguin, London.Google Scholar
  39. Galliers RD (2003) Change as crisis or growth? Toward a trans-disciplinary view of information systems as a field of study. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 4(6), 337–351.Google Scholar
  40. Galliers RD and Whitley EA (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Garfield E (1989) Delayed recognition in scientific discovery: citation frequency analysis aids the search for case histories. Current Contents 23(5), 3–9.Google Scholar
  42. Hassan N and Will H (2006) Synthesizing diversity and pluralism in information systems: forging a unique disciplinary subject matter for the information systems field. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 17(7), 152–180.Google Scholar
  43. He Q (1999) Knowledge discovery through co-word analysis. Library Trends 48(1), 133–159.Google Scholar
  44. Hernandez B, Jimenez J and Martín MJ (2009) Adoption vs acceptance of e-commerce: two different decisions. European Journal of Marketing 43(9/10), 1232–1245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hirschheim R and Klein H (2006) Crisis in the IS field? A critical reflection on the state of the discipline. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 4(10), 237–293.Google Scholar
  46. Holden RJ and Karsh BT (2010) The technology acceptance model: its past and its future in health care. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 43(1), 159–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hsiao CH and Yang C (2011) The intellectual development of the technology acceptance model: a co-citation analysis. International Journal of Information Management 31(2), 128–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hu C-P, Hu J-M, Deng S-L and Liu Y (2013) A co-word analysis of library and information science in China. Scientometrics 97(2), 369–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Keen PGW (1980) ‘MIS research: reference disciplines and a cumulative tradition’. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Information Systems, paper 9, Philadelphia, USA.Google Scholar
  50. Krebs V and Holley J (2002) ‘Building smart communities through network weaving’. Available from: [WWW document] http://www.orgnet.com/buildingnetworks.pdf (accessed on 20 April 2015).
  51. Larsen T and Levine L (2005) Searching for management information systems: coherence and change in the discipline. Information Systems Journal 15(4), 357–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Law J, Bauin S, Courtial J and Whittaker J (1988) Policy and the mapping of scientific change: a co-word analysis of research into environmental acidification. Scientometrics 14(3–4), 251–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Law J and Whittaker J (1992) Mapping acidification research: a test of the co-word method. Scientometrics 23(3), 417–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lee MR and Chen TT (2012) Revealing research themes and trends in knowledge management: from 1995 to 2010. Knowledge-based Systems (28), 47–58.Google Scholar
  55. Leydesdorff L (1997) Why words and co-words cannot map the development of the sciences. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 48(5), 418–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Leydesdorff L and Hellsten I (2006) Measuring the meaning of words in contexts: an automated analysis of controversies about ‘monarch butterflies,’ ‘frankenfoods,’ and ‘stem cells’. Scientometrics 67(2), 231–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Liu G-Y, Hu J-M and Wang H-L (2011) A co-word analysis of digital library field in China. Scientometrics 91(1), 203–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Liu Y, Goncalves J, Ferreira D, Xiao B, Hosio S and Kostakos V (2014) ‘CHI 1994–2013: Mapping two decades of intellectual progress through co-word analysis’. In CHI 2014: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
  59. Lu K and Wolfram D (2012) Measuring author research relatedness: a comparison of word-based, topic-based, and author cocitation approaches. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63(10), 1973–1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Marc M, Courtial J, Senkovska E, Petard J and Py Y (1991) The dynamics of research in the psychology of work from 1973 to 1987: from the study of companies to the study of professions. Scientometrics 21(1), 69–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Mayer-Schönberger V (2009) Can we reinvent the internet? Science 325(5939), 396–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Mingers J (2003) The paucity of multimethod research: a review of the information systems literature. Information Systems Journal 13(3), 233–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Monarch I (2000) ‘Information science and information systems: converging or diverging’. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Canadian Association for Information Science, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.Google Scholar
  64. Muñoz-Leiva F, Viedma-del-Jesús MI, Sánchez-Fernández J and López-Herrera AG (2011) An application of co-word analysis and bibliometric maps for detecting the most highlighting themes in the consumer behaviour research from a longitudinal perspective. Quality & Quantity 46(4), 1077–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Nielsen AE and Thomsen C (2011) Sustainable development: the role of network communication. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 18(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Ocholla DN, Onyancha OB and Britz J (2010) Can information ethics be conceptualized by using the core/periphery model? Journal of Informetrics 4(4), 492–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Poell RF, Rocco TS and Roth GL (2015) The Routledge Companion to Human Resource Development. Routledge, Abingdon, UK.Google Scholar
  68. Ritzhaupt A, Stewart M, Smith P and Barron A (2010) An investigation of distance education in North American research literature using co-word analysis. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 11(1), 37–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rombach MP, Porter M, Fowler J and Mucha P (2014) Core-periphery structure in networks. SIAM Journal of Applied Mathematics 74(1), 167–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rowe F and Truex D (2011) Evaluation and control at the core: how French scholars inform the discourse. In Emerging Themes in Information Systems (Carugati A and Rossignoli C, Eds), pp 45–61, Springer, Heidelberg, Germany.Google Scholar
  71. Shih H-Y (2006) Network characteristics of drive tourism destinations: an application of network analysis in tourism. Tourism Management 27(5), 1029–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Stein M, Galliers RD and Whitley EA (2014) Twenty years of the European information systems academy at ECIS: emergent trends and research topics. European Journal of Information Systems – advance online publication on August 26, 2014 doi:10.1057/ejis.2014.25.Google Scholar
  73. Steyvers M and Tenenbaum JB (2005) The large-scale structure of semantic networks: statistical analyses and a model of semantic growth. Cognitive Science 29(1), 41–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Taylor H, Dillon S and van Wingen M (2010) ‘Focus and diversity in information systems research: meeting the dual demands of a healthy applied discipline’. MIS Quarterly 34(4), 647–667.Google Scholar
  75. Valente TW (2012) Network interventions. Science 337(6090), 49–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Vaughan L, Yang R and Tang J (2012) ‘Web co-word analysis for business intelligence in the Chinese environment’. ASLIB Proceedings 64(6), 653–667.Google Scholar
  77. Viedma-del-Jesús MI, Perakakis P, Muñoz MÁ, López-Herrera AG and Vila J (2011) Sketching the first 45 years of the journal Psychophysiology (1964–2008): a co-word-based analysis. Psychophysiology 48(8), 1029–1036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wang Z-Y, Li G, Li C-Y and Li A (2011) Research on the semantic[s]-based co-word analysis. Scientometrics 90(3), 855–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Ward JH (1963) Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American Statistical Association 58(301), 236–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Weber R (2003) Editor’s comment: still desperately seeking the IT artifact. MIS Quarterly 27(2), iii–xi.Google Scholar
  81. Williams MD, Dwivedi YK, Lal B and Schwarz A (2009) Contemporary trends and issues in IT adoption and diffusion research. Journal of Information Technology 24(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Zhao L and Zhang Q (2011) Mapping knowledge domains of Chinese digital library research output, 1994–2010. Scientometrics 89(1), 51–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Zong Q-J, Shen H-Z, Yuan Q-J, Hu X-W, Hou Z-P and Deng S-G (2013) Doctoral dissertations of library and information science in China: a co-word analysis. Scientometrics 94(2), 781–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The OR Society 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yong Liu
    • 1
  • Hongxiu Li
    • 2
  • Jorge Goncalves
    • 3
  • Vassilis Kostakos
    • 3
  • Bei Xiao
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Information and Service Economy, Aalto University School of BusinessHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Turku University School of EconomicsTurkuFinland
  3. 3.Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of OuluOuluFinland
  4. 4.Department of Information Technologies, Åbo Akademi UniversityTurkuFinland

Personalised recommendations