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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Alvesson M and Kärreman D (2000) Taking the linguistic turn in organizational research. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science 36, 136–158.
Alvesson M and Sköldberg K (2009) Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research, 2nd edn, Sage, London, UK.
ANSI/NISO (1996) Guidelines for Abstracts National Information Standards Organization, American National Standards Institute (ANSI/NISO Z39.14-1997), NISO Press, Bethesda, Maryland.
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.
Bainbridge WS (2007) The scientific research potential of virtual worlds. Science 317 (5837), 472–476.
Banks A and Banks SP (Eds) (1998) Fiction and Social Research: By Ice or Fire. Altamira, Walnut Creek, CA.
Bardin L (2007) L’analyse de contenu. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris.
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.
Biagioli M (2002) From book censorship to academic peer review. Journal for the Study of Media & Composite Cultures 12 (1), 11–45.
Bonet E and Sauquet S (2010) Rhetoric in management and management research. Journal of Organizational Change Management 23 (2), 120–133.
Bouilloud JP and Lecuyer BP (1994) L’invention de la gestion, histoire et pratiques. L’Harmattan (Série Logiques de Gestion), Paris.
Brown JR (1986) Thought experiments since the scientific revolution. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 1 (1), 1–15.
Butler BS and Gray PH (2006) Reliability, mindfulness, and information systems. MIS Quarterly 30 (2), 211–224.
Calás M and Smircich L (1991) Voicing seduction to silence leadership. Organization Studies 12, 567–601.
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.
Charles C and Verger J (1994) Histoire des universités, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France.
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.
Choudrie J and Dwivedi YK (2005) Investigating the research approaches for examining technology adoption issues. Journal of Research Practice 1 (1), Article D1.
Cocheris H (1860) Histoire du journal des savants depuis sa fondation jusqu’à nos jours. A. Durand, Paris.
Cullen P (2006) Conflicting logics in the business school field: academia, practice and identity. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Cambridge.
Czarniawska B (1997) Narrating the Organization: Dramas of Institutional Identities. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Czarniawska B (1999) Writing Management: Organization Theory as a Literary Genre. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Czarniawska-Joerges B and Guillet de Monthoux P (Eds) (1994) Good Novels, Better Management. Harwood Academic, Chur, Switzerland.
Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13 (3), 319–339.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Dickson G (1977) Editor's comment. MIS Quarterly 1 (1), 2–3.
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.
Ellison G (2002) Evolving standards for academic publishing: a q-r theory. Journal of Political Economics 110 (5), 994–1034.
Engwall L and Zamagni V (Eds) (1998) Management Education in Historical Perspective. Manchester University Press, Manchester, U.K.
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.
Feingold DM (Ed) (2008) History of Universities. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
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.
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.
Franks BO (1963) British Business Schools. British Institute of Management, London.
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.
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.
Geertz C (1988) Works and Lives: The Anthropologist as Author. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
Gefen D, Karahanna E and Straub DW (2003) Trust and TAM in online shopping: an integrated model. MIS Quarterly 27 (1), 51–90.
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.
Golden-Biddle K and Locke K (1993) Appealing work: an investigation of how ethnographic texts convince. Organization Science 4 (4), 595–616.
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.
Grey C (2002) What are business schools for? On silence and voice in management education. Journal of Management Education 26 (5), 496–511.
Grey C (2010) Organizing studies: publications, politics and polemic. Organization Studies 31 (6), 677–694.
Grey C and Sinclair A (2006) Writing differently. Organization 13 (3), 443–453.
Grey C and Willmott H (Eds) (2005) Critical Management Studies. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Gross AG (2006) Starring the Text: The Place of Rhetoric in Science Studies. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, IL.
Gross AG, Harmon JE and Reidy MS (2002) Communicating Science: The Scientific Article from the 17th Century to the Present. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
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.
Hartelius EJ and Browning LD (2008) The application of rhetorical theory in managerial research: a literature review. Management Communication Quarterly 22 (1), 13–39.
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.
Hendler J (2007) Reinventing academic publishing – Part 1. IEEE Intelligent Systems 22 (5), 2–3.
Hook O (1999) Scientific communications: history, electronic journals and impact factors. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 31 (1), 3–7.
Hovav A and Gray P (2004) Managing academic e-journals. Communications of the ACM 47 (4), 79–82.
Huff AS (2002) Learning to be a successful writer. In Essential Skills for Management Research (Partington D, Ed), Sage, London, UK.
Huff AS (2009) Designing Research for Publication. Sage Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA.
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.
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.
Ives B (1992) Editor's comments: bridging research and practice. MIS Quarterly 16 (1), 2–3.
Jackson BG (2000) A fantasy theme analysis of Peter Senge's learning organization. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science 36 (2), 193–208.
Jeffcut P (1993) From interpretation to representation in organizational analysis. In Postmodernism and Organizations (Hassard J and Parker M, Eds), Sage, London.
Kaufer DS and Carley KM (1993) The Influence of Print on Sociocultural Organization and Change. LEA, Hillsdale, NJ.
Keeble S (1992) The Ability to Manage. A Study of British Management, 1890–1990. Manchester University Press, Manchester, U.K.
Kieser A (1989) Organizational, institutional, and societal evolution: medieval craft guilds and the genesis of formal organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 34, 540–564.
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.
Knights D and Willmott H (1999) Management Lives. Sage, London.
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.
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.
Le Goff J (1957) Les intellectuels au Moyen Age. Edition du Seuil, Paris.
Le Goff J (2001) Marchands et banquiers au Moyen Age. Editions Que Sais-Je? Paris.
Liddy ED (1991) The discourse-level structure of empirical abstracts. Information Processing and Management 27 (1), 55–81.
Liebenau J and Smithson S (1991) Editorial. European Journal of Information Systems 1 (1), 1–2.
Linstead S and Grafton-Small R (1992) On reading organizational culture. Organization Studies 13, 331–355.
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.
Locke R (1996) The Collapse of the American Management Mystique. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Manning AD (1990) Abstracts in relation to larger and smaller discourse structures. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 20 (4), 369–390.
McKie D (1948) The scientific periodical from 1665 to 1798. Philosophical Magazine Commemoration issue, 122–132.
Meriläinen S, Tienari J, Thomas R and Davies A (2008) Hegemonic academic practices: experiences of publishing from the periphery. Organization 15 (4), 584–597.
Miles MB and Huberman M (1994) Qualitative Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd edn, Sage, London, UK.
Mingers J (2001) Combining IS research methods: towards a pluralist methodology. Information Systems Research 12 (3), 240–259.
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.
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.
Mylonopoulos NA and Theoharakis V (2001) Perceptions of information systems journals: a worldwide view. Communications of the ACM 44 (9), 29–33.
Orlikowski W and Baroudi JJ (1991) Studying Information Technology in organizations: research approaches and assumptions. Information Systems Research 2 (1), 1–28.
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.
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.
Pierson FC (1959) The Education of American Businessmen. John Wiley, New York.
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.
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.
Richardson HG (1940) Business training in medieval Oxford. American History Review XLIV I940-I, 259–280.
Richardson L (2000) Writing: a method of enquiry. In Handbook of Qualitative Research (Denzin NK and Lincoln YS, Eds), 2nd edn, Sage publications, London.
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.
Rosen M (1985) Breakfast at Spiro's: dramaturgy and dominance. Journal of Management 11, 31–48.
Sanderson M (1972) The Universities and British Industry, 1850–1970. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, UK.
Schön DA (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Temple Smith, London.
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.
Sinclair A (2000) Teaching managers about masculinities: are you kidding? Management Learning 31, 83–102.
Stotesbury H (2003) Evaluation in research article abstracts in the narrative and hard sciences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2 (4), 327–341.
Straub D (2008) Editor's comment. Type II reviewing errors and the search for exciting papers. MIS Quarterly 32 (2), v–x.
Swanson EP (2004) Publishing in the majors: a comparison of accounting, finance, management, and marketing. Contemporary Accounting Research 21 (1), 223–255.
Tiratsoo N (2004) The ‘Americanization’ of management education in Britain. Journal of Management Inquiry 13 (2), 118–126.
Usdiken B (2010) Between contending perspectives and logics: organizational studies in Europe. Organization Studies 31 (6), 715–735.
Van Maanen J (1988) Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
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.
Verger J (1973) Les universités au Moyen Age. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris.
Walsham G (1995) Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method. European Journal of Information Systems 4, 74–81.
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.
Whately DD (1858) Elements of Rhetoric. Morton & Griswold, Publishers, Louisville, KY.
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.
Zuckerman H and Merton RK (1971) Patterns of evaluation in science: institutionalism, structure and functions of referee system. Minerva 9, 66–100.
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.
List of acronyms
- CAIS :
Communication for the Association of Information Systems
- EJIS :
European Journal of Information Systems
- ESC :
Ecole Supérieure de Commerce
- ESSEC :
Ecole Supérieure des Sciences Economiques et Commerciales
- ESCP :
Ecole Supérieure de Commerce de Paris
- HEC :
Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales
- IAE :
Institut d’Administration des Entreprises
- I&M :
Information and Management
- ICIS :
International Conference on Information Systems
- IS :
- ISJ :
Information Systems Journal
- ISR :
Information Systems Research
- JAIS :
Journal of the Association for Information Systems
- JIT :
Journal of Information Technology
- JSIS :
Journal of Strategic Information Systems
- JMIS :
Journal of Management Information Systems
- MIS :
Management Information Systems
- MISQ :
Management Information Systems Quarterly
- MISQE :
Management Information Systems Quarterly Executive
- SIM :
Systèmes d’Information et Management
- SJIS :
Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems
- TIS :
Technologie, Information et Société
See Table B1
Examples of the main argumentative strategies and their typical reasoning sequence
DEEP: Example of first argumentative strategy (‘deepening of knowledge’)
An example of this rhetoric may be found in Arnold et al.'s (2006) abstract below, in which we show our sequential coding into several sequences S 1–S n :
[Explanation facilities are considered essential in facilitating user interaction with knowledge-based systems (KBS). Research on explanation provision and the impact on KBS users has shown that the domain expertise affects the type of explanations selected by the user and the basis for seeking such explanations.] S 1
[The prior literature has been limited, however, by the use of simulated KBS that generally provide only feedback explanations (i.e., ex post to the recommendation of the KBS being presented to the user).] S 2
[The purpose of this study is to examine the way users with varying levels of expertise use alternative types of KBS explanations and the impact of that use on decision making.] S 3
[A total of 64 partner/manager-level and 82 senior/staff-level insolvency professionals participated in an experiment involving the use of a fully functioning KBS to complete a complex judgment task. In addition to feedback explanations, the KBS also provided feedforward explanations (i.e., general explanations during user input about the relationships between information cues in the KBS) and included definition type explanations (i.e., declarative-level knowledge).] S 4
[The results show that users were more likely to adhere to recommendations of the KBS when an explanation facility was available. Choice patterns in using explanations indicated that novices used feedforward explanations more than experts did, while experts were more likely than novices to use feedback explanations. Novices also used more declarative knowledge and initial problem solving type explanations, while experts used more procedural knowledge explanations. Finally, use of feedback explanations led to greater adherence to the KBS recommendation by experts – a condition that was even more prevalent as the use of feedback explanations increased. The results have several implications for the design and use of KBS in a professional decision-making environment.] S 5
Its reasoning sequence is:
RS 1 (S 1): There is a consequent literature about knowledge-based systems, the explanation provision and end-users.
RS 2 (S 2): Nonetheless, the ‘use of simulated KBS’ has limited potential contributions (a weakness is identified).
RS 3 (S 3 and S 4): A specific research is designed to fill this gap. It aims at identifying the way ‘users with varying levels of expertise use alternative types of KBS explanations and the impact of that use on decision making’. It relies on 64 partner/ manager-level and 82 senior/staff-level insolvency professionals all involved in an experiment.
RS 4 (S 5): With this original approach, new contributions are put forward: ‘The results show that users were more likely to adhere to recommendations of the KBS when an explanation facility was available. Choice patterns in using explanations indicated that novices used feedforward explanations more than experts did (…)’. Current state-of-the-art research is extended by this work.
This string of reasoning sequences is very close to that describing the DEEP category. The logical anchorage is the literature (which is extended by this work about KBS).
ENIG: Second example of argumentative strategies (‘solving an enigma’)
An example of this rhetoric may be found in Weitzel et al.'s (2006) abstract below in which we show our sequential coding into several sequences S 1–S n :
[This paper is motivated by the following question: What drives the diffusion of a communication standard and what diffusion results can we expect?] S 1
[Past literature provides many instructive but mostly unrelated answers. Findings relate to startup problems, penguin effects [reluctance to move first for fear of failure] and tendencies toward monopoly, but substantial problems in applying the models to concrete standardization problems reveal that the dynamics are probably more complex. A single standard attracting a critical number of users does not ultimately guarantee adoption by a network. Not all diffusion results are complete nor do they provide standardization.] S 2
[The conditions of specific diffusion behaviors are addressed by developing a formal standardization model that captures all fragmented phenomena in a unified approach. Drawing upon findings from other research, we incorporate the structure of the underlying user network as an important determinant for diffusion behaviors.] S 3
[The approach allows us to disclose varying conditions that generate frequently observed standardization behaviors as special parameter constellations of the model. Using equilibrium analysis and computer simulations, we identify a standardization gap that reveals the magnitude of available standardization gains for individuals and the network as a whole. The analysis shows that network topology and density have a strong impact on diffusion of standards and that the tendency toward monopoly is far less common than thought.] S 4
[We also report how the model can be used to solve corporate standardization problems.] S 5
Its reasoning sequence is:
RS 1 (S 1): In the literature, there is still an obscure unexplained point: what encourages the diffusion of a standard, with what effects?
RS 2 (S 2): Past literature brought some (fragmented and desultory) answers.
RS 3 (S 3): An evaluation of existing models underlines simplistic dynamics.
RS 4 (S 4 and S 5): A unified formal approach is proposed. It is elaborated with the help of a meta-analysis of results. The model is tested through a numerical simulation. The effect of the network topology is isolated.
The focus of the sequence is anchored in an institutionalized research question. The work aims at going beyond the fragmented literature dealing with the issue of communication standards’ diffusion and addresses an enigma.
Other abstracts we also coded as enigma either developed radical alternatives or suggested the institutionalization of a new research question (more relevant than previous ones).
PRACT: Third example of argumentative strategies (‘practical issue’)
An example of this rhetoric may be found in Butler & Gray's (2006) abstract below in which we show our sequential coding into several sequences S 1–S n:
[In a world where information technology is both important and imperfect, organizations and individuals are faced with the ongoing challenge of determining how to use complex, fragile systems in dynamic contexts to achieve reliable outcomes.] S 1
[While reliability is a central concern of information systems practitioners at many levels, there has been limited consideration in information systems scholarship of how firms and individuals create, manage, and use technology to attain reliability.] S 2
[We propose that examining how individuals and organizations use information systems to reliably perform work will increase both the richness and relevance of IS research.] S 3
[Drawing from studies of individual and organizational cognition, we examine the concept of mindfulness as a theoretical foundation for explaining efforts to achieve individual and organizational reliability in the face of complex technologies and surprising environments.] S 4
[We then consider a variety of implications of mindfulness theories of reliability in the form of alternative interpretations of existing knowledge and new directions for inquiry in the areas of IS operations, design, and management.] S 5
Its reasoning sequence is:
RS 1 (S 1): The issue of IS reliability is essential for IS practitioners.
RS 2 (combines S 2 and S 3): This issue is congruent with academic literature.
RS 3 (S 4): The authors propose to use the concept of ‘mindfulness’ in order to shed light on the studied phenomenon (through a literature review on cognition).
RS 4 (S 5): Implications for IS design and management.
This string of reasoning sequences is very close to that describing the PRACT category. The logical anchorage is a practitioner's concern (or at least what is perceived as a practitioner's concern) about IS reliability. Implications are drawn for IS design and management.
Example of a hybrid logic: fourth example of argumentative strategy DEEP-PRACT
An example of this rhetoric may be found in Whitley & Hosein's (2008) abstract below in which we show our sequential coding into several sequences S 1–S n :
[The U.K. Government, in presenting its proposals for biometric identity cards, made strong claims about the technology and science underlying the proposed National Identity Scheme.] S 1
[In this paper, we use insights from science and technology studies (STS), particularly Latour's ‘Politics of Nature’ argument, to analyse the parliamentary debates about the technological and scientific aspects of the proposals.] S 2
[The authors were part of a team that produced a report that raised a series of perplexities about the Scheme in an attempt to counter the short-circuiting of discussion of these perplexities in the parliamentary debate.] S 3
[The paper analyses the government's attempts at short-circuiting in light of Latour's argument and the introduction of perplexities by our report. It demonstrates the extent to which this form of STS can enhance political debate about technological decisions.] S 4
RS 1 (S 1): The U.K. government has developed a policy about biometric identity cards with some underlying assumptions about science and technology. There is a gap, something missing in our knowledge about the national identity scheme (NIS);
RS 2 (S 2): Based on STS, these underlying assumptions are illuminated;
RS 3 (S 3): Authors have been involved as actors in the debate, and use this experience to push further analysis and its implications;
RS 4 (S 4): This work of deconstruction is used to demonstrate ‘the extent to which this form of STS can enhance political debate about technological decisions’. This practical experience is used to stimulate reflexivity.
In this paper, two logical anchorages can be identified: practitioners (public managers or politicians) and the literature (interested in extending our knowledge of the NIS and also the applicability of a theoretical framework). Here, the authors of the abstract (and the paper) appear to adopt both rhetorical approaches and corresponding argumentative strategies. On the one hand, the authors were ‘part of a team that produced a report’, they participated in the public debate, they insist on their action-oriented stance. On the other hand, they analyse their action (and the difficulties of this action) and suggest that their work show ‘the extent to which this form of STS can enhance political debate about technological decisions’. The move from S 2 to S 4 thus epitomizes a hybrid reasoning sequence (combining two logical anchorages).
About this article
Cite this article
de Vaujany, F., Walsh, I. & Mitev, N. An historically grounded critical analysis of research articles in IS. Eur J Inf Syst 20, 395–417 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.13
- argumentative strategies
- academic writing