Abstract
The article comments on, and critiques, a view of IS as an independent discipline. It argues that, rather than being a subject that is distinct and distinguishable from existing research disciplines, it cannot be seen as uniquely different, and to attempt to do so would be theoretically and practically unsafe. A number of suggestions as to how IS research might be conducted and assessed in light of this claim are made.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Even if using the broadest definition of a technology, such as those used by the social constructionists (SCOT, for example, see Bijker et al., 1997).
My argument here is not about university research, but I use university departments as the clearest cut exemplars of what disciplines are.
Indeed, some theoreticians argue that this is precisely what science research is (cf. Latour & Woolgar, 1986; Latour, 1987) – a socially constructed vehicle for establishing agreed-upon principles.
References
Bijker WE, Hughes TP and Pinch T (Eds) (1997) The Social Construction of Technological Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Latour B and Woolgar S (1986) Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Latour B (1987) Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Sellen A and Harper R (2002) The Myth of the Paperless Office. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Wilson TD and Allen DK (Eds) (1999) Exploring the Contexts of Information Behaviour. Taylor Graham, London.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Perry, M. (IS)4: is information systems interesting in itself?. Eur J Inf Syst 12, 231–234 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000471
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000471