Journal of Information Technology

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 385–394

The use of history in IS research: an opportunity missed?

Research Article

Abstract

The article is shaped by two regularily repeated cliches. The first is History is bunk. Henry Ford's well known saying has two implications: (1) that what purports to be history is more often than not inaccurate if not a downright lie, and (2) that we have nothing to learn from history as modern innovations make the past irrelevant. The second cliche is We will heed the lessons we have learned from past disasters. How often do we hear that claim with respect to information systems (IS) failures? Again there are two implications: (1) that history repeats itself, and that if we learn how prior mistakes were made we can avoid the same mistakes being repeated, and (2) that we have the capability to analyse the past with sufficient accuracy that we can identify all the problems that led to the mistakes being made. In this article, I will argue that the historiography of IS is important to understanding IS and its evolution through time, and that understanding even the most transformative, revolutionary, innovations benefits from the study of the historical context. Henry Ford's viewpoint is far too prevalent, and in my view damaging to IS research. The argument will be supported by a number of examples.

Keywords

history of information systems historiography innovation diffusion continuity and transformation learning from history 

References

  1. Aris, J. (2000). Inventing Systems Engineering, IEEE Annals of the History of Computing 22 (3): 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armstrong, C.P. and Sambamurthy, V. (1999). Information Technology Assimilation in Firms: The influence of senior leadership and IT infrastructures, Information Systems Research 10 (4): 304–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Avgerou, C. (ed.) (2008). Information Systems, Gloalization and Developing Countries, in L.P. Willcocks and A.S. Lee, Series (eds.), Vol. VI, Major Currents in Information Systems, Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Avgerou, C. and McGrath, K. (2007). Power, Rationality, and the Art of Living through Socio-technical Change, MIS Quarterly 31 (2): 1–21.Google Scholar
  5. Avison, D. and Baskerville, R. (eds.) (2008). Information Systems Development, in L.P. Willcocks and A.S. Lee, Series (eds.), Vol. II, Major Currents in Information Systems, Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Bannister, F. (2002). The Dimension of Time: Historiography in information research, Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods 1 (1): 1–10.Google Scholar
  7. Baskerville, R. (2003). The LEO Principle: Perspectives on 50 years of business computing, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 12 (4): 255–263 Special LEO Conference Edition.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baskerville, R. and Land, F.F. (2004). Socially Self-Destructive Systems, in C. Avgerou, C. Ciborra and F.F. Land (eds.) The Social Study of Information and Communications Technology: Innovation, actors and contexts, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Baskerville, R. and Myers, M. (2002). Information Systems as a Reference Discipline, MIS Quarterly 26 (1): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid Modernity, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  11. Benbesat, I. and 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.Google Scholar
  12. Bryant, A. and Charmaz, K. (eds.) (2007). The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory, London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carr, N.G. (2003). IT Doesn’t Matter, Harvard Business Review 81 (5): 41–49.Google Scholar
  14. Ciborra, C.U. (1998). Crisis and Foundations: An inquiry into the nature and limits of models and methods in the information systems discipline, Journal of Strategic Information Systems 7 (1): 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clarke, R. (2006). Key Aspects of the History of the Information Systems Discipline in Australia, Australian Journal of Information Systems 14 (1): 123–140.Google Scholar
  16. Clemons, E.K. and Row, M. (1991). Sustaining IT Advantage: The role of structural differences, MIS Quarterly 15 (3): 274–292 Special Issue.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Collingwood, R. (1993). The Idea of History: With lectures, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Copeland, D.G., Mason, R.O. and McKenney, J.L. (1995). Sabre: The development of information-based competence and execution of information-based competition, IEEE Annals of the History of Computing 17 (3): 30–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dalcher, D. and Drevin, L. (2003). Learning from Information Systems Failures by Using Narrative and Ante-narrative Methods, in J. Bishop and D. Kourie (eds.) Proceedings of the 2005 Research Conference of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists, SAICSIT, Published, Pretoria: South Africa, Vol. 47, pp. 137–142.Google Scholar
  20. De Neufville, R. (1994). The Baggage System at Denver: Prospects and lessons, Journal of Ait Transport Management 1 (4): 229–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Diamond, J. and Robinson, J.A. (2010). All the World's a Lab, New Scientist March 27: 28–31.Google Scholar
  22. Dickson, G. (1981). Management Information Systems, Evolution and Status, in M. Yovits (ed.) Advances in Computers, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  23. Drummond, H. (1996). Escalation in Decision Making: The tragedy of Taurus, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Drummond, H. (2008). The Icarus Paradox an Analysis of a Totally Destructive System, Journal of Information Technology 23 (3): 176–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977, New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  26. Foucault, M. (1982). The Subject and Power, in M. Foucault, H. Dreyfus and P. Rabinow (eds.) Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Press, pp. 208–226.Google Scholar
  27. Giddens, A. (1987). Social Theory and Modern Sociology, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  28. Glass, R.L. (1998). Software Runaways: Lessons learned from massive software project failures, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  29. Gottschalk, P. (2002). Towards a Model of Growth Stages for Knowledge Management in Law Firms, Informing Science 5 (2): 81–93.Google Scholar
  30. Hammer, M. and Champy, J. (2001). Reengineering the Corporation: A manifesto for business revolution, New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  31. Hevner, A.R. (ed.) (2008). Design Science Theories and Research Practices, in L.P. Willcocks and A.S. Lee, Series (eds.), Vol. III, Major Currents in Information Systems, Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Howcroft, D. and Land, F. (eds.) (2008). Information Systems Infrastructure, in L.P. Willcocks and A.S. Lee, Series (eds.), Vol. I, Major Currents in Information Systems, Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Hyman, A. (1985). Charles Babbage: Pioneer of the computer, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Journal of Information Technology (JIT) (2007). Special Issue on NPfIT, 22: 202–264.Google Scholar
  35. Khazanchi, D. and Munkvold, B.E. (2000). Is Information Systems a Science? An Inquiry into the Nature of the Information Systems Discipline, ACM SIGMIS Database 31 (2): 24–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. King, J.L. and Kraemer, K. (1984). Evolution and Organizational Information Systems: An assessment of Nolan's stage model, Communications of the ACM 27 (5): 466–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. King, J.L. and Lyytinen, K. (2004). Reach and Grasp, MIS Quarterly 28 (4): 539–551.Google Scholar
  38. Lacity, M.C. (ed.) (2008). The Management Information of Information Systems, in L.P. Willcocks and A.S. Lee, Series (eds.), Vol. IV, Major Currents in Information Systems, Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  39. Land, F.F. (1996). The New Alchemist: Or how to transmute base organizations into corporations of gleaming gold, Journal of Strategic Information Systems 5 (1): 7–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Land, F.F. (2000). The First Business Computer: A case study in user-driven innovation, IEEE Annals of the History of Computing 22 (3): 16–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Land, F.F. (2006). LEO II and the Model T Ford, Computer Journal 49 (6): 650–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Land, F.F. (2009). Knowledge Management and the Management of Knowledge, in W.R. King (ed.) Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning, Vol. 4, Annals of Information Systems, New York: Springer, Chapter 2, pp. 15–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Land, F.F., Detjearuwat, N. and Smith, C. (1983a). Factors Affecting Social Control: The reasons and values – Part I, Systems Objectives, Solutions 3 (5): 155–164.Google Scholar
  44. Land, F.F., Detjearuwat, N. and Smith, C. (1983b). Factors Affecting Social Control: The reasons and values – Part I, Systems Objectives, Solutions 3 (6): 207–224.Google Scholar
  45. Liebenau, J. and Mitev, N.N. (eds.) (2008). Social and Organizational Information Systems Research, in L.P. Willcocks and A.S. Lee, Series (eds.), Vol. V, Major Currents in Information Systems, Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  46. Lyytinen, K. and Hirschheim, R. (1987). Information Systems Failures: A survey and classification of the empirical literature, Oxford Surveys in Information Technology 4: 257–309.Google Scholar
  47. Lyytinen, K. and 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.Google Scholar
  48. Marchetti, C. (1980). Society as Learning Systems: Discovery, invention and innovation cycles revisited, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 18 (4): 267–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mason, R.O. (2004). The Legacy of LEO: Lessons learned from an English tea and cake company's pioneering efforts in information systems, Journal of the Association for Information Systems 5 (5), Article 7 [www document] http://aisel.aisnet.org/jais/vol5/iss5/7.
  50. Mason, R.O., McKenney, J.L. and Copeland, D.G. (1997a). Developing a Historical Tradition in IS Research, MIS Quarterly 21 (3): 257–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mason, R.O., McKenney, J.L. and Copeland, D.G. (1997b). An Historical Research Method for MIS Research: Steps and assumptions, MIS Quarterly 21 (3): 307–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mitev, N.N. (1996). More than a Failure? The Computerized Reservation Systems at French Railways, Information Technology & People 9 (4): 8–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mitev, N.N. and Howcroft, D.A. (2005). The Role of History in IS research, in C.H.J. Gilson (ed.) Proceedings of Management Studies Conference (Cambridge, UK, 4–6th July 2005); Waikato Management School; New Zealand: South African Institute for Computer Scientists and Information Technologists.Google Scholar
  54. Mohr, L. (1982). Explaining Organizational Behaviour, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  55. Moschella, D. (1997). Waves of Power: Dynamics of global technology leadership 1964–2010, New York: AMACOM.Google Scholar
  56. Mumford, E. (2003). Designing an Expert System, in E. Mumford (ed.) Redesigning Human Systems, Herschey, Penn: IRM Press, Chapter 9, pp. 147–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Namier, J. (1971). Lewis Namier: A biography, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Ngwenyama, O. (1991). The Critical Social Theory Approach to Information Systems: Problems and challenges, in H.E. Nissen, H. Klein and R. Hirschheim (eds.) Information Systems Research, Amsterdam: North Holland, pp. 267–294.Google Scholar
  59. Nolan, R.L. (1973). Managing the Computer Resource: A stage hypothesis, Harvard Business Review 16 (4): 399–405.Google Scholar
  60. Pettigrew, A.M. (1990). Longitudinal Field Research on Change: Theory and practice, Organization Science 1 (3): 267–292, Special Issue: Longitudinal Field Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Piccoli, G. (2004). Making IT Matter: A manager's guide to creating and sustaining competitive advantage with information systems, CHR Reports 4 (9): 1–21.Google Scholar
  62. Porra, J., Hirschheim, R. and Parks, M.S. (2005). The History of Texaco's Corporate Information Technology Function: A general systems theoretical interpretation, MIS Quarterly 29 (4): 721–746.Google Scholar
  63. Santayana, G. (2009). The Life of Reason: Or the phases of human progress, Vol. 1, Charleston, SC: Bibliobazaar.Google Scholar
  64. Sauer, C. (1993). Why Information Systems Fail: A case study approach, Oxfordshire: Alfred Waller.Google Scholar
  65. Shaw, T. and Jarvenpaa, S. (1997). Process Models of Information Systems Research, in A.S. Lee, J. Liebenau and J. DeGross (eds.) Information Systems and Qualitative Research, Proceedings of IFIP TC8.2 Conference Philadelphia, IFIP, Chapter 6, London: Chapman & Hall, Ltd. pp. 70–100.Google Scholar
  66. Simmons, J.R.M. (1962). LEO and the Managers, London: MacDonald.Google Scholar
  67. Swanson, E.B. and Ramiller, N.C. (1997). The Organizing Vision in Information Systems Innovation, Organization Science 8 (6): 458–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Taleb, N.N. (2007). The Black Swan: The impact of the highly improbable, London: Random House.Google Scholar
  69. Tapscott, D. (2004). The Engine that Drives Success, CIO Magazine, May.Google Scholar
  70. Vessey, I., Ramesh, V. and 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
  71. Walsham, G. and Han, C.-K. (1991). Structuration Theory and Information Systems Research, Journal of Applied Systems Analysis 17: 77–85.Google Scholar
  72. Walsham, G. and Han, C.K. (1992). Information Systems Strategy Formation and Implementation: The case of a central government agency, Research Paper No. 1992/18, Management Studies Group at the Department of Engineering, Cambridge University.Google Scholar
  73. Willcocks, L.P. and Lee, A.S. series (eds.) (2008). Major Currents in Information Systems, Vol. 1–6. Los Angeles: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Williams, R. and Pollock, N. (2009). Beyond the ERP Implementation Study: A New Approach to the Study of Packaged Information Systems: The biography of artefacts framework, ICIS 2009 Proceedings, Paper 6 [www document] http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2009/6.

Copyright information

© Association for Information Technology Trust 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.London School of EconomicsLondonUK

Personalised recommendations