Advertisement

Cores and Definitions: Building the Cognitive Legitimacy of the Information Systems Discipline Across the Atlantic

  • Frantz Rowe
  • Duane P. TruexIII
  • Lynette Kvasny
Part of the IFIP International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 143)

Abstract

The issue of the legitimacy of Information Systems is important for researchers in this field because other disciplines have begun to lay claim to research topics often thought to belong to the domain of IS research, and the field itself is under challenge in academic intuitions around the world (Avison 2002). Benbasat and Zmud’s (2003) opinion is that IS has gained socio-political legitimacy but not cognitive legitimacy in large measure because the object of study in much IS research is not clearly delineated. In part, they are defining a disciplinary boundary issue and beginning to define criteria by which our field may be distinguished from reference disciplines or other related disciplines. Therefore, to gain more cognitive legitimacy, a clearer understanding of what we mean by “an information system” and of the central issues driving its creation and use is needed if it is at the core of that which we study. This paper advances that discourse by examining the role of a handful of French scholars, many of whom are not well known out of French academic circles, but whose thoughts on the issue are useful in furthering the debate on the ontological grounding of our field.

Keywords

Cores of the discipline ontology information system definition IT enabled solutions social theories 

References

  1. Albert, S., and Whetten, D. A. “Organizational Identity,” Research in Organizational Behavior (7), 1985, pp. 263–295.Google Scholar
  2. Alter, S. “A General, Yet Useful theory of Information Systems,” Communications of the AIS (1:13), 2003.Google Scholar
  3. Avison, D. “The UK Information Systems Perspective: A Personal View,” Systeme d’Infomation et Management (3:7), 2002, pp. 49–54.Google Scholar
  4. Ballé, C., and Peaucelle, J. L. The Power of Data Processing, Paris: Editions d’organisation, 1973.Google Scholar
  5. Banville, C., and Landry, M. “Can the Field of MIS Be Disciplined?,” Communications of the ACM (32:1) 1989, pp. 48–60.Google Scholar
  6. Baskerville, R. L., and Myers, M. D. “Information Systems as a Reference Discipline,” MIS Quarterly (26:1), 2002, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
  7. Benbasat, I., and Zmud, R. “The Identity Crisis within the IS Discipline: Defining and Communicating the Discipline’s Core Properties,” MIS Quarterly (27:2), 2003, pp. 183, 193.Google Scholar
  8. Besson, P., and Rowe F. “ERP Project Dynamics and Enacted Dialogue: Perceived Understanding, Perceived Leeway, and the Nature of Task-Related Conflicts,” DataBase (32:4), 2001, pp. 47–66.Google Scholar
  9. Bijker, W. E. “The Social Construction of Fluorescent Lighting, or How an Aircraft was Invented in its Diffusion Stage,” in W. E. Bijker and J. Law (Eds.), Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Cambridge MA: The MIT Press, 1994, pp. 75–102.Google Scholar
  10. Bijker, W. E., and Law, J. (Eds.). Shaping Technology / Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, Cambridge MA: The MIT Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  11. Bourdieu, M. Le sens pratique, Paris: Editions de Minuit, 1980.Google Scholar
  12. Caillé, A. «La sociologie de l’intérêt est-elle intéressante?» Sociologie du travail (23:3), 1981, pp. 257–274.Google Scholar
  13. Carr, N. “IT Doesn’t Matter,” Harvard Business Review, May 2003, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
  14. Crozier, M. «Le phénmomèn bureaucratique,» Paris: Seuil, 1963.Google Scholar
  15. Crozier, M. «Préface,» in C. Ballé and J. L. Peaucelle, Le pouvoir informatique dans l’entreprise, Paris: Les Editions d’Organisation, 1973, pp. 11–19.Google Scholar
  16. Crozier, M., and Friedberg, E. Actors and System: The Politics of Collective Action, Boston: Ginn and Co., 1977.Google Scholar
  17. Culnan, M. J. “The Intellectual Development of Management Information Systems, 1972–1982: A Co-citation Analysis,” Management Science (32:2), 1986, pp. 156–172.Google Scholar
  18. Culnan, M. J., and Swanson, E. B. “Research in Management Information Systems, 1980–1984: Points of Work and Reference,” MIS Quarterly (10:3), 1986, pp. 288–303.Google Scholar
  19. Davis, G. B. Management Information Systems: Conceptual Foundations, Structure, and Development, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1974.Google Scholar
  20. Davis, G. B., and Olson, M. H. Management Information Systems: Conceptual Foundations, Structure, and Develompent (2nd ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1985.Google Scholar
  21. Dehaene, P. “Organization, Project and Strategy as Symbols,” in Proceedings of the Third Conference Economique et Intelligence Artificielle (CECOIA III-CEMIT), Tokyo, JASMIN, Volume I, 1992, pp. 243–247.Google Scholar
  22. Desq, S.; Fallery, B.; Rodhain, F.; and Reix R. «25 ans de recherches en systèmes d’informations,» Systèmes d’Information et Management (7:3), 2002, pp. 5–33.Google Scholar
  23. GRASCE. Entre systémique et complexité chemin faisant: mélanges en l’honneur du Professeur Jean-Louis LeMoigne, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1999.Google Scholar
  24. Gray, R. “A Brief Historical Review of the Development of the Distinction Between Data and Information in the Information Systems Literature,” in J. Ross and D. Galletta (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Americas Conference on Information Systems, Tampa, FL, 2003, pp. 2843–2849.Google Scholar
  25. Hirschheim, R., and Klein, H. K. “Crisis in the IS Field? A Critical Reflection on the State of the Discipline,” Journal of the Association for Information Systems (4:5), 2003, pp. 237–293.Google Scholar
  26. Hirschheim, R.; Klein, H. K.; and Lyytinen, K. Information Systems Development and Data Modeling: Conceptual and Philosophical Foundations, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  27. Husserl, E. Idées directrices pour une phénoménologie (3rd ed.), Paris: Gallimard, 1950 (1st ed., 1913).Google Scholar
  28. Jones, M. R. “The Moving Finger: The Use of Social Theory in WG8.2 Conference Papers, 1975–1999,” in Baskerville, J. Stage, and J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Organizational and Social Perspectives on Information Technology, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000, pp. 15–31.Google Scholar
  29. Kallinikos, J. “Reopening the Black Box of Technology: Artefacts and Human Agency,” in L. Applegate, R. Galliers, and J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Information Systems, Barcelona, Spain, 2002, pp. 287–294.Google Scholar
  30. Karahanna, E.; Davis, G. B.; Mukhopadhyay, T.; Watson, R., and Weber, R. “Embarking on Information Systems’ Voyage to Self-Discovery: Identifying the Core of the Discipline,” Panel Presentation at the 24th International Conference on Information Systems, Seattle, WA, 2003.Google Scholar
  31. Kvasny, L. “A Conceptual Framework For Examining Digital Inequality,” in R. Ramsower and J. Windsor (Eds.), Proceedings of 8th the Americas Conference on Information Systems, Dallas, TX, August 2002a, pp. 1798–1805.Google Scholar
  32. Kvasny, L. Problematizing the Digital Divide: Cultural and Social Reproduction in a Community Technology Initiative, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Computer Information Systems, Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University, 2002b.Google Scholar
  33. Kvasny, L., and Keil, M. “The Challenges of Redressing the Digital Divide: A Tale of Two Cities,” in L. Applegate, R. Galliers, and J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Proceedings of 23rd the International Conference on Information Systems, Barcelona, December 2003, pp. 817–828.Google Scholar
  34. Kvasny, L., and Truex, D. “Defining Away the Digital Divide: A Content Analysis of Institutional Influences on Popular Representations of Technology,” in B. Fitzgerald, N. Russo, and J. I. DeGross (eds.), Realigning Research and Practice in Information Systems Development: The Social and Organizational Perspective, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001, pp. 399–414.Google Scholar
  35. Kvasny, L., and Truex, D. “Information Technology and the Cultural Reproduction of Social Order: A Research Program,” In R. Baskerville, J. Stage, and J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Organizational and Social Perspectives on Information Technology, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000, pp. 277–294.Google Scholar
  36. Lamb, R., and Kling, R. “Reconceptualizing Users as Social Actors in Information Systems Research,” MIS Quarterly (27:2), 2003, pp. 197–235.Google Scholar
  37. Landry, M., and LeMoigne J. L. “Towards a Theory of Organizational Systems: A General System Perspective,” in B. Gilchrist, Proceedings of the IFIP Congress’ 77, Amsterdam: Elsevier-Science, 1977, pp. 801–805.Google Scholar
  38. Latour, B. We Never Have Been Modern (Nous n’avons jamain été modernes), C. Porter (trans), Hemel Hempstead, England: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1993.Google Scholar
  39. Latour, B. “Social Theory and the Study of Computerized Work Sites,” in W. J. Orlikowski, G. Walsham, M. R. Jones, and J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Information Technology and Changes in Organizational Work, London: Chapman & Hall, 1966, pp. 295–307.Google Scholar
  40. LeMoigne, J. L. «La conception des systèmes d’information organisationnels: de l’ingénierie informatique à l’ingéniérie systémique,» in J. A. Bartoli and J. L. LeMoigne (Eds.), Organisation intelligente etsystéme d’information stratégique, Paris: Economica, 1996, pp. 25–52.Google Scholar
  41. LeMoigne, J. L. La Modelisation des sytèmes complexes, Paris: Dunod, 1990.Google Scholar
  42. LeMoigne, J. L. La theorie du systeme general, theorie de la modelisation, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1977.Google Scholar
  43. LeMoigne, J. L. Les systèmes d’information dans les organisations, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1973.Google Scholar
  44. LeMoigne, J. L. Vers un système d’information organisationnel? Revue Française de Gestion, Novembre-Décembre, 1986, pp. 20–31.Google Scholar
  45. LeMoigne, J. L., and Pascot, D. (Eds.). Les processus collectifs de mémorisation, Aix-en-Provence: Librairie de l’Université d’Aix-en-rovence, 1979.Google Scholar
  46. LeMoigne, J. L., and Van Gigch J. P. “The Design of an Organization Information System: Intelligent Artifact for Complex Organizations,” Information and Management (19), 1990, pp. 325–331.Google Scholar
  47. Marciniak, R., and Rowe F. Systèmes d’information et dynamique des organisations, Paris: Economica, 1997.Google Scholar
  48. Mélèse, J. Approche systémique des organisations, Paris: Editions d’organisation, 1979.Google Scholar
  49. Michaux, V., and Rowe, F., Complémentarité entre système d’information informatisé, communautés de pratiques et vigilance dans la haute fiabilité: le cas d’une compagnie d’assistance, Systèmes d’information et Management (9:1), 2004.Google Scholar
  50. Monod, E. «Epistémologie de la recherche en systèmes d’information,» in F. Rowe (Ed.), Faire de la recherche en systèmes d’information, Paris: Vuibert, 2002, pp. 21–56.Google Scholar
  51. Morley, C. “Information Systems Development Methods and User Participation: A Contingency Approach,” in D. Avison, J. E. Kendall, and J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Human, Organizational, and Social Dimensions of Information Systems Development, Amsterdam: North Holland, 1993, pp. 127–142.Google Scholar
  52. Orlikowski, W. J., and Iacono, C. S. “Research Commentary: Desperately Seeking the ‘IT’ in IT-A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact,” Information Systems Research (1:2), 2001, pp. 121–134.Google Scholar
  53. Parsons, J., and Wand, Y. “Emancipating Instances from the Tyranny of Classes in Information Modeling,” ACM Transactions on Database Systems (25:2), 2000, pp. 228–268.Google Scholar
  54. Peaucelle J.-L. Les systèmes d’information-la représentation, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1981.Google Scholar
  55. Postman, N. Conscientious Objections: Stirring up Trouble about Language, Technology and Education, New York: Vintage Books, 1988.Google Scholar
  56. Purao, S.; Rossi, M.; and Bush, A. “Towards an Understanding of the Use of Problem and Design Spaces During Object-Oriented System Development,” Information and Organization (12:4), 2002.Google Scholar
  57. Reix, R., and Rowe, F. «La recherche en systèmes d’information: de l’histoire au concept,» in F. Rowe (Ed.), Faire de la recherche en systèmes d’information, Paris: Vuibert, 2002, pp. 1–21.Google Scholar
  58. Richardson, H. “CRM in Call Centres: The Logic of Practice,” in M. Korpela, R. Montealegre, and A. Poulymenakou (Eds.), Organizational Information Systems in the Context of Globalization, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003, pp. 68–83.Google Scholar
  59. Robey, D. “Diversity in Information Systems Research: Threat, Promise, and Responsibility,” Information Systems Research (7:4), 1996, pp. 400–408.Google Scholar
  60. Rolland, C. «Introduction à la conception des systèmes d’information et panorama des méthodes disponibles,» Revue Génie logiciel (4), June, 1986, pp. 7–62.Google Scholar
  61. Rowe, F., and Struck, D. “Cultural Values, Media Richness and Telecommunication Use in an Organization,” Accounting, Management and Information Technologies (9:3), 1999, pp. 161–92.Google Scholar
  62. Saga, V., and Zmudm R. “The Nature and Determinants of Information Technology Acceptance, Routinization and Infusion,” in L. Levine (Ed.), Diffusion, Transfer and Implementation of Information Technology, Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1994, pp. 67–86.Google Scholar
  63. Sartre J.-P. L’être et le néant: essai d’ontologie phénoménologique, Paris: Gallimard, 1943.Google Scholar
  64. Sawyer, S., and Chen, T. “Conceptualizing Information Technology in the Study of Information Systems: Trends and Issues,” in E. Wynn, E. R. Whitley, M. Myers, and J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Global and Organizational Discourse About Information Technology, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002, pp. 109–131.Google Scholar
  65. Schultze, U. “A Confessional Account of an Ethnography about Knowledge Work,” MIS Quarterly (23:1), 2001 a, pp. 1–39.Google Scholar
  66. Schultze, U. “Reflexive Ethnography in Information Systems Research,” in E. Trauth (Ed.), Qualitative Research in IS: Issues and Trends, Hershey, PA: Idea Group, 2001b, pp. 78–103.Google Scholar
  67. Schultze, U., and Boland Jr., R. J. “Knowledge Management Technology and the Reproduction of Knowledge Wwork Practices,” Journal of Strategic Information Systems (9), 2000, pp. 193–212.Google Scholar
  68. Shapiro, S. “Places and Spaces: The Historical Interaction of Technology, Home, and Privacy,” The Information Society (14), 1998, pp. 275–284.Google Scholar
  69. Soh, C., and Markus L. “How IT Creates Business Value: A Process Theory Synthesis,” in J. I. DeGross, G. Ariav, C. Beath, R. Hoyer, and C. Kemerer (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Conference on Information Systems, Amsterdam: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1985, pp. 29–41.Google Scholar
  70. Tabourier Y. De l’autre côté de MERISE, Paris: Editions d’Organisation, 1986.Google Scholar
  71. Van Maanen, J. Tales from the Field: On Writing Ethnography, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  72. Walsham, G. “Actor Network Theory and IS Research,” in A. S. Lee, J. Liebenau, and J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Information Systems and Qualitative, London: Chapman & Hall, 1997, pp. 446–480.Google Scholar
  73. Walsham, G. “The Emergence of Interpretivism in IS Research,” Information Systems Research (6:4), 1995, pp. 376–394.Google Scholar
  74. Weber, R. “Editors Comments: Theoretically Speaking,” MIS Quarterly (27:3), 2003, pp. iii–xiii.Google Scholar
  75. Weber, R. “Towards a Theory of Artifacts: A Paradigmatic Base for Information Systems Research,” Journal of Information Systems, Spring 1987, pp. 3–19.Google Scholar
  76. Willcocks, L., and Lester, S. “How Do Organizations Evaluate and Control Information Systems Investments? Recent UK Survey Evidence,” in D. Avison, J. E. Kendall, and J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Human, Organizational, and Social Dimensions of Information Systems Development, Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1993, pp. 15–40.Google Scholar
  77. Wilensky, R. Planning and Understanding: A Computational Approach to Human Reasoning, Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, 1983.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frantz Rowe
    • 1
  • Duane P. TruexIII
    • 2
    • 3
  • Lynette Kvasny
    • 4
  1. 1.University of NantesUSA
  2. 2.Florida International UniversityUSA
  3. 3.Georgia State UniversityUSA
  4. 4.Pennsylvania State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations