Advertisement

European Journal of Information Systems

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 395–417 | Cite as

An historically grounded critical analysis of research articles in IS

  • François-Xavier de VaujanyEmail author
  • Isabelle Walsh
  • Nathalie Mitev
Original Article

Abstract

In order to explore scientific writing in Information Systems (IS) journals, we adopt a combination of historical and rhetorical approaches. We first investigate the history of universities, business schools, learned societies and scientific articles. This perspective allows us to capture the legacy of scientific writing standards, which emerged in the 18th and 19th centuries. Then, we focus on two leading IS journals (EJIS and MISQ). An historical analysis of both outlets is carried out, based on data related to their creation, evolution of editorial statements, and key epistemological and methodological aspects. We also focus on argumentative strategies found in a sample of 436 abstracts from both journals. Three main logical anchorages (sometimes combined) are identified, and related to three argumentative strategies: ‘deepening of knowledge’, ‘solving an enigma’ and ‘addressing a practical managerial issue’. We relate these writing norms to historical imprints of management and business studies, in particular: enigma-focused rhetorics, interest in institutionalized literature, neglect for managerially grounded rhetoric and lack of reflexivity in scientific writing. We explain this relation as a quest for academic legitimacy. Lastly, some suggestions are offered to address the discrepancies between these writing norms and more recent epistemological and theoretical stances adopted by IS researchers.

Keywords

argumentative strategies history academic writing legitimacy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the clear and constructive reviews from the associate editor, the senior editor and all the reviewers on the earlier versions of this article. Their comments have substantially helped us improve our work. They also thank Steve Smithson and Jonathan Liebenau of the London School of Economics for their time.

References

  1. Alvesson M and Kärreman D (2000) Taking the linguistic turn in organizational research. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science 36, 136–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvesson M and Sköldberg K (2009) Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research, 2nd edn, Sage, London, UK.Google Scholar
  3. ANSI/NISO (1996) Guidelines for Abstracts National Information Standards Organization, American National Standards Institute (ANSI/NISO Z39.14-1997), NISO Press, Bethesda, Maryland.Google Scholar
  4. Arnold V, Clark N, Collier PA, Leech SA and Sutton SG (2006) The differential use and effect of knowledge-based system explanations in novice and expert judgement decisions. Management Information Systems Quarterly 30 (1), 79–97.Google Scholar
  5. Bainbridge WS (2007) The scientific research potential of virtual worlds. Science 317 (5837), 472–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Banks A and Banks SP (Eds) (1998) Fiction and Social Research: By Ice or Fire. Altamira, Walnut Creek, CA.Google Scholar
  7. Bardin L (2007) L’analyse de contenu. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris.Google Scholar
  8. Basboll T and Graham H (2006) Substitutes for strategy research: notes on the source of Karl Weick's anecdote of the young lieutenant and the map of the Pyrénées. Ephemera 6 (2), 194–204.Google Scholar
  9. Biagioli M (2002) From book censorship to academic peer review. Journal for the Study of Media & Composite Cultures 12 (1), 11–45.Google Scholar
  10. Bonet E and Sauquet S (2010) Rhetoric in management and management research. Journal of Organizational Change Management 23 (2), 120–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bouilloud JP and Lecuyer BP (1994) L’invention de la gestion, histoire et pratiques. L’Harmattan (Série Logiques de Gestion), Paris.Google Scholar
  12. Brown JR (1986) Thought experiments since the scientific revolution. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 1 (1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Butler BS and Gray PH (2006) Reliability, mindfulness, and information systems. MIS Quarterly 30 (2), 211–224.Google Scholar
  14. Calás M and Smircich L (1991) Voicing seduction to silence leadership. Organization Studies 12, 567–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carter P and Jackson N (2004) For the sake of argument: towards an understanding of rhetoric as a process. Journal of Management Studies 41 (3), 469–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Charles C and Verger J (1994) Histoire des universités, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  17. Chen W and Hirschheim R (2004) A paradigmatic and methodological examination of information systems research from 1991 to 2001. Information Systems Journal 14 (3), 197–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Choudrie J and Dwivedi YK (2005) Investigating the research approaches for examining technology adoption issues. Journal of Research Practice 1 (1), Article D1.Google Scholar
  19. Cocheris H (1860) Histoire du journal des savants depuis sa fondation jusqu’à nos jours. A. Durand, Paris.Google Scholar
  20. Cullen P (2006) Conflicting logics in the business school field: academia, practice and identity. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
  21. Czarniawska B (1997) Narrating the Organization: Dramas of Institutional Identities. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  22. Czarniawska B (1999) Writing Management: Organization Theory as a Literary Genre. Oxford University Press, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Czarniawska-Joerges B and Guillet de Monthoux P (Eds) (1994) Good Novels, Better Management. Harwood Academic, Chur, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  24. Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13 (3), 319–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. De Vaujany FX (2008) Strategic alignment: what else? A practice based view of IS value. Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Information Systems, December 2008, Paris, France, Paper 4. Association of Information Systems, www.aisnet.org.
  26. De Vaujany FX, Lesca N, Fomin VV and Loebbecke C (2008) The espoused theories of IS: a study of general editorial statements. Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Information Systems, December 2008, Paris, France, Paper 10. Association of Information Systems, www.aisnet.org.
  27. De Vries EJ (2005) Epistemology and methodology in case research: a comparison between European and American IS journals. Proceedings of the 13th European Conference of Information Systems, May 2005, Regensburg, Germany, Paper 145, Association of Information Systems, www.aisnet.org.
  28. Desq S, Fallery B, Reix R and Rodhain F (2007) La spécificité de la recherche francophone en systèmes d’information. Revue Française de Gestion 176, 63–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Dickson G (1977) Editor's comment. MIS Quarterly 1 (1), 2–3.Google Scholar
  30. Dwight A (1999) Scientific Discourse in Socio-Historical Context: The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675–1975. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.Google Scholar
  31. Ellison G (2002) Evolving standards for academic publishing: a q-r theory. Journal of Political Economics 110 (5), 994–1034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Engwall L and Zamagni V (Eds) (1998) Management Education in Historical Perspective. Manchester University Press, Manchester, U.K.Google Scholar
  33. Farhoomand AF (1992) Scientific progress of management information systems. In Information Systems Research: Issues, Methods and Practical Guidelines (Galliers RD, Ed), p 93, Blackwell Scientific, Oxford.Google Scholar
  34. Feingold DM (Ed) (2008) History of Universities. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  35. Fjällbrant N (1997) Scholarly communication: historical development and new possibilities. Proceedings of the 18th International Association of Scientific and Technical University Libraries, 30th June 1997, Trondheim, Norway, www.iatul.org.
  36. Forgues B (2001) Writing up the research. In Doing Management Research: A Comprehensive Guide (Thietart R-A, Ed), pp 375–388, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Franks BO (1963) British Business Schools. British Institute of Management, London.Google Scholar
  38. 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, 20–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Geelan DR and Taylor PC (2001) Writing our lived experience: beyond the (pale) hermeneutic? Electronic Journal of Science Education 5, 4, http://wolfweb.unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/geelanetal.html.Google Scholar
  40. Geertz C (1988) Works and Lives: The Anthropologist as Author. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  41. Gefen D, Karahanna E and Straub DW (2003) Trust and TAM in online shopping: an integrated model. MIS Quarterly 27 (1), 51–90.Google Scholar
  42. Gleeson RE and Schlossman S (1992) The many faces of the new look: the University of Virginia, Carnegie Tech, and the reform of management education in the postwar era, Part I. Selections 8 (3–4), 9–27.Google Scholar
  43. Golden-Biddle K and Locke K (1993) Appealing work: an investigation of how ethnographic texts convince. Organization Science 4 (4), 595–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Gouadain D and Louart P (1997) Les enseignements de gestion dans les universités avant et après la création des IAE. Entreprises et Histoire 14, 89–95.Google Scholar
  45. Grey C (2002) What are business schools for? On silence and voice in management education. Journal of Management Education 26 (5), 496–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Grey C (2010) Organizing studies: publications, politics and polemic. Organization Studies 31 (6), 677–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Grey C and Sinclair A (2006) Writing differently. Organization 13 (3), 443–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Grey C and Willmott H (Eds) (2005) Critical Management Studies. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  49. Gross AG (2006) Starring the Text: The Place of Rhetoric in Science Studies. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, IL.Google Scholar
  50. Gross AG, Harmon JE and Reidy MS (2002) Communicating Science: The Scientific Article from the 17th Century to the Present. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  51. Harley S and Lee F (1997) Research selectivity, managerialism and the academic labour process: the future of nonmainstream economics in UK universities. Human Relations 50, 1427–1460.Google Scholar
  52. Hartelius EJ and Browning LD (2008) The application of rhetorical theory in managerial research: a literature review. Management Communication Quarterly 22 (1), 13–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hatchuel H and Glise H (2003) Rebuilding management: a historical perspective. In Collaborative Research in Organisations: Foundations for Learning, Change and Theoretical Development (Adler N, Ed), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
  54. Hendler J (2007) Reinventing academic publishing – Part 1. IEEE Intelligent Systems 22 (5), 2–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Hook O (1999) Scientific communications: history, electronic journals and impact factors. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 31 (1), 3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Hovav A and Gray P (2004) Managing academic e-journals. Communications of the ACM 47 (4), 79–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Huff AS (2002) Learning to be a successful writer. In Essential Skills for Management Research (Partington D, Ed), Sage, London, UK.Google Scholar
  58. Huff AS (2009) Designing Research for Publication. Sage Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
  59. Introna LD and Whitley EA (1997) Imagine: thought experiments in information systems research. In Information Systems and Qualitative Research (Lee AS, Liebenau J, Degross JI, Eds), pp 481–496, Chapman and Hall, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Introna LD and Whittaker L (2004) Truth, journals, and politics: the case of the MIS Quarterly. In Relevant Theory and Informed Practice? Looking Forward from a 20-year Perspective on IS Research IFIP Working Group 8.2 Conference, Manchester, U.K. (Kaplan B, Truex III D, Wastell D, Wood-Harper AT and DeGross JI, Eds), 15–17 July 2004, pp 103–120, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  61. Ives B (1992) Editor's comments: bridging research and practice. MIS Quarterly 16 (1), 2–3.Google Scholar
  62. Jackson BG (2000) A fantasy theme analysis of Peter Senge's learning organization. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science 36 (2), 193–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Jeffcut P (1993) From interpretation to representation in organizational analysis. In Postmodernism and Organizations (Hassard J and Parker M, Eds), Sage, London.Google Scholar
  64. Kaufer DS and Carley KM (1993) The Influence of Print on Sociocultural Organization and Change. LEA, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  65. Keeble S (1992) The Ability to Manage. A Study of British Management, 1890–1990. Manchester University Press, Manchester, U.K.Google Scholar
  66. Kieser A (1989) Organizational, institutional, and societal evolution: medieval craft guilds and the genesis of formal organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 34, 540–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. King DW (1980) Electronic alternatives to paper-based publishing in science and technology. In The Future of the Printed World: The Impact and the Implications of the New Communication Technology (Hills P, Ed), pp 99–110, Greenwood, Westport, CT.Google Scholar
  68. Knights D and Willmott H (1999) Management Lives. Sage, London.Google Scholar
  69. Kronick DA (1976) A History of Scientific and Technical Periodicals. The Origins and Development of the Scientific and Technical Press, 1665–1790, 2nd edn, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, MD.Google Scholar
  70. Lee A, Srinivasan A, Valacich J and Weber R (2007) Increasing the number of A+ published papers in the Information Systems discipline: improving the journal review process. MIS Quarterly 31 (3), xv–xviii.Google Scholar
  71. Le Goff J (1957) Les intellectuels au Moyen Age. Edition du Seuil, Paris.Google Scholar
  72. Le Goff J (2001) Marchands et banquiers au Moyen Age. Editions Que Sais-Je? Paris.Google Scholar
  73. Liddy ED (1991) The discourse-level structure of empirical abstracts. Information Processing and Management 27 (1), 55–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Liebenau J and Smithson S (1991) Editorial. European Journal of Information Systems 1 (1), 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Linstead S and Grafton-Small R (1992) On reading organizational culture. Organization Studies 13, 331–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Locke RR (1989) Management and Higher Education since 1940. The Influence of America and Japan on West Germany, Great-Britain and France. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  77. Locke R (1996) The Collapse of the American Management Mystique. Oxford University Press, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Lyytinen K, Baskerville R, Ivari J and Te’eni D (2007) Why the old world cannot publish? Overcoming challenges in publishing high-impact IS research. European Journal of Information Systems 16, 317–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Lyytinen K and King JL (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
  80. Macdonald S and Kam J (2007) Ring a ring o’ roses: quality journals and gamesmanship in management studies. Journal of Management Studies 44 (4), 640–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Maffre P 1984 Les origines de l’enseignement commercial supérieur en France au XIXème siècle. thèse pour le doctorat de troisième cycle en histoire, Université de Paris I – Sorbonne.Google Scholar
  82. Mangematin V and Baden-Fuller CWF (2007) Global contests In the production of business knowledge: the research rankings of business schools. Long Range Planning 41 (1), 1–30.Google Scholar
  83. Manning AD (1990) Abstracts in relation to larger and smaller discourse structures. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 20 (4), 369–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. McKie D (1948) The scientific periodical from 1665 to 1798. Philosophical Magazine Commemoration issue, 122–132.Google Scholar
  85. Meriläinen S, Tienari J, Thomas R and Davies A (2008) Hegemonic academic practices: experiences of publishing from the periphery. Organization 15 (4), 584–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Miles MB and Huberman M (1994) Qualitative Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd edn, Sage, London, UK.Google Scholar
  87. Mingers J (2001) Combining IS research methods: towards a pluralist methodology. Information Systems Research 12 (3), 240–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Mitev N and Venters W (2009) Reflexive evaluation of an academic-industry research collaboration: can Mode 2 management research be achieved? Journal of Management Studies 46 (5), 733–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Muller Mirza N (2005) Literary writing as a research tool. In Proceedings Writing 2004 (Allal L and Dolz J, Eds), Adcom Productions. Proceedings of 9th International Conference of the EARLI Special Interest Group on Writing, 20–22 September 2004, University of Geneva, Switzerland, European Association for Research in Learning and Instruction, www.earli.org.Google Scholar
  90. Mylonopoulos NA and Theoharakis V (2001) Perceptions of information systems journals: a worldwide view. Communications of the ACM 44 (9), 29–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Orlikowski W and Baroudi JJ (1991) Studying Information Technology in organizations: research approaches and assumptions. Information Systems Research 2 (1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Paré G, Bourdeau S, Marsan J, Nach H and Shuraida S (2008) Re-examining the causal structure of information technology impact research. European Journal of Information Systems 17, 403–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Peffers K and Tang Y (2003) Identifying and evaluating the universe of outlets for information systems research: ranking the journals. The Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application 5 (1), 63–84.Google Scholar
  94. Pierson FC (1959) The Education of American Businessmen. John Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  95. Reix R, Desq S, Fallery B and Rhodain F (2002) Vingt-cinq ans de recherche en Systèmes d’Information. Systèmes d’information et Management 7 (3), 10–17.Google Scholar
  96. Reix R and Rowe F (2002) La recherche en systèmes d’information: de l’histoire au concept. In Faire de la recherche en systèmes d’information (Reix R and Rowe F, Eds), pp 1–17, Vuibert, Paris.Google Scholar
  97. Richardson HG (1940) Business training in medieval Oxford. American History Review XLIV I940-I, 259–280.Google Scholar
  98. Richardson L (2000) Writing: a method of enquiry. In Handbook of Qualitative Research (Denzin NK and Lincoln YS, Eds), 2nd edn, Sage publications, London.Google Scholar
  99. 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 (1), Article 15.Google Scholar
  100. Rosen M (1985) Breakfast at Spiro's: dramaturgy and dominance. Journal of Management 11, 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Sanderson M (1972) The Universities and British Industry, 1850–1970. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, UK.Google Scholar
  102. Schön DA (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Temple Smith, London.Google Scholar
  103. Sère B (2007) La disputatio dans l’université médiévale, esquisse d’un usage public du raisonnement?. Papier de recherche du LAMOP, http://lamop.univ-paris1.fr/W3/espacepublic/sere.pdf.Google Scholar
  104. Sinclair A (2000) Teaching managers about masculinities: are you kidding? Management Learning 31, 83–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Stotesbury H (2003) Evaluation in research article abstracts in the narrative and hard sciences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2 (4), 327–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Straub D (2008) Editor's comment. Type II reviewing errors and the search for exciting papers. MIS Quarterly 32 (2), v–x.Google Scholar
  107. Swanson EP (2004) Publishing in the majors: a comparison of accounting, finance, management, and marketing. Contemporary Accounting Research 21 (1), 223–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Tiratsoo N (2004) The ‘Americanization’ of management education in Britain. Journal of Management Inquiry 13 (2), 118–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Usdiken B (2010) Between contending perspectives and logics: organizational studies in Europe. Organization Studies 31 (6), 715–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Van Maanen J (1988) Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  111. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis G and Davis FD (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 27 (3), 425–478.Google Scholar
  112. Verger J (1973) Les universités au Moyen Age. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris.Google Scholar
  113. Walsham G (1995) Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method. European Journal of Information Systems 4, 74–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Weitzel T, Beimborn D and König W (2006) A unified economic model of standard diffusion: the impact of standardization cost, network effects, and network topology. MIS Quarterly 30 (Special Issue), 489–514.Google Scholar
  115. Whately DD (1858) Elements of Rhetoric. Morton & Griswold, Publishers, Louisville, KY.Google Scholar
  116. Whitley EA and Hosein IR (2008) Doing the politics of technological decision making: due process and the debate about identity cards in the UK. European Journal of Information Systems 17 (6), 668–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Zuckerman H and Merton RK (1971) Patterns of evaluation in science: institutionalism, structure and functions of referee system. Minerva 9, 66–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Operational Research Society 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • François-Xavier de Vaujany
    • 1
    Email author
  • Isabelle Walsh
    • 2
  • Nathalie Mitev
    • 3
  1. 1.Management et Organisation (CREPA), Université Paris-DauphineParisFrance
  2. 2.EM Strasbourg Business School, Strasbourg UniversityStrasbourgFrance
  3. 3.Department of ManagementLondon School of EconomicsLondon

Personalised recommendations