Advertisement

Reflections on Computer Science and Information Systems Research

  • Salvatore T. March
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1920)

Abstract

Computer and related information and communication technologies have profoundly affected the shape of modern society. Shepherding the creation and utilization of effective and efficient computational technologies are the joint tasks of Computer Science and Information Systems researchers. Their realm is to understand and explicate the nature of those technologies and how and why they come into existence. This knowledge forms the foundation of theories to explain and, hopefully, to predict their impacts on individuals, groups, organizations, and society as a whole. The very creation of an innovative technology focused on a specific problem in a specific context can have far reaching effects, completely unpredicted and unintended by the innovator. We argue that researchers in Computer Science and Information Systems must be cognizant of the broader implications of their work and encourage their interaction with practitioners and researchers in a variety of disciplines to identify fruitful areas of scientific inquiry.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aboulafia, M., Philosophy, Social Theory, and the Thought of George Herbert Mead(SUNY Series in Philosophy of the Social Sciences), State University of New York Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  2. Batra, D., Hoffer, J. A. and Bostrom, R. P., “A Comparison of User Performance Between the Relational and the Extended Entity-Relationship Models in the Discovery Phase of Database Design,” Communications of the ACM, (33, 2) February 1990.Google Scholar
  3. Benbasat, I. And Zmud, R. W., “Empirical Research in Information Systems: The Practice of Relevance,” MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 1, March 1999, pp. 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brooks, F. P., “The Computer Scientist as Toolsmith II,” Communications of the ACM, Vol. 39,No. 3, March 1996, pp. 61–68.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. Bubenko, J., “The Temporal Dimension in Information Modeling,” in Nijssen, G (ed) Architecture and Models in Data base Management Systems, North-Holland, 1977.Google Scholar
  6. Chen, P. P-S. “The Entity-Relationship Model-Toward a Unified View of Data.” ACM Transactions on Database Systems, (1, 1) 1976.Google Scholar
  7. Davis, G. B., Management Information Systems, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York,1974.Google Scholar
  8. Davis, G. B. and Olson, M. H., Management Information Systems, (second edition), McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1985.Google Scholar
  9. Denning, Peter J., “Can There Be a Science of Information?” ACM Computing Surveys, Vol.27, No. 1, March 1995.Google Scholar
  10. Denning, Peter J., “The New Social Contract for Research,” Communications of the ACM, Vol.40, No. 2, February 1997, pp. 132–134.Google Scholar
  11. Denning, Peter J., “Computing the Profession,” Educom Review, Vol. 33, No. 6,November/December, 1998, pp. 26–30, 46–59.Google Scholar
  12. Encarta, “Science,” Microsoft Encarta 98 Encyclopedia, Microsoft Corporation 1998.Google Scholar
  13. Ferg, S., “Modeling the Time Dimension in an Entity-Relationship Diagram,” Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Entity-Relationship Approach, Chicago, IEEE Computer Society Press, Silver Spring, MD, 1985.Google Scholar
  14. Hammer, M. and Champy, J., Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution, Harperbusiness, reprint 1994.Google Scholar
  15. Hartmanis, J., “On the Complexity and the Nature of Computer Science,” Communications of the ACM, Vol. 37, No. 10, October 1994, pp. 37–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Johnson, H. T. and Kaplan, R. S., Relevance Lost The Rise and Fall of Management Accounting, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA 1987.Google Scholar
  17. Kim, Y-G. and March, S. T., “Comparing EER and NIAM Data Modeling Formalisms for Representing and Validating Information Requirements,” Communications of the ACM, December 1995.Google Scholar
  18. Lee, A., “Inaugural Editor—s Comments,” MIS Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 1, March, 1999, pp. v–xi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lee, J. Y. and Elmasri, R. A., “An EER-Based Conceptual Model and Query Language for Time-Series Data”, Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Entity-RelationshipApproach, Singapore, Springer, 1998.Google Scholar
  20. Ling, T., “A Normal Form for Entity-Relationship Diagrams,” Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Entity-Relationship Approach, Chicago, IEEE Computer Society Press, Silver Spring, MD, 1985.Google Scholar
  21. Madnick, S. E., “The Challenge: To Be Part of the Solution Instead of Being the Problem,” Proceedings of the Workshop on Information Technologies and Systems, Dallas, TX, Dec.12–13, 1992.Google Scholar
  22. March, S. T. and Smith, G. F., “Design and Natural Science Research on Information Technology,” Decision Support Systems, Vol. 15, No. 4, 1995, pp 251–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McCarthy, W. E. “The REA Accounting Model: A Generalized Framework For Accounting Systems In A Shared Data Environment,” The Accounting Review. (58, 3) 1982.Google Scholar
  24. Newell, A and Simon, H. A., “Computer Science as Empirical Inquiry: Symbols and Search,” Communications of the ACM, Vol 19, No 3, March 1976, pp. 113–126.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. Peckam, J. and Maryanski, F., “Semantic Data Models,” ACM Computing Surveys, (20, 3)September 1988.Google Scholar
  26. Petroski, H., “Making Headlines,” American Scientist, Volume 88, May-June 2000.Google Scholar
  27. Rossi, M. and Brinkkemper, S. “Complexity Measures for Systems Development Methods and Techniques,” Information Systems, Vol 21, No 2, pp. 209–227, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shapiro, C. and Varian, H. R., Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy,Harvard Business School Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  29. Shoval, P. and Frumermann, I., “OO and ER Conceptual Schemas: A Comparison of User Comprehension,” Journal of Database Management, (5, 4) Fall 1994.Google Scholar
  30. Simon, H. A., The Sciences of the Artificial, Third Edition, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press,1996.Google Scholar
  31. Stewart, N. F., “Science and Computer Science,” ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 27, No. 1,March 1995.Google Scholar
  32. Tarjan, R. E., “Algorithm Design,” Communications of the ACM, Vol 30, No 3, March 1987,pp. 205–212.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  33. Teorey, T., Yang, D., and Fry, J. P., “A Logical Design methodology for Relational Databases Using the Extended Entity-Relationship Model,” ACM Computing Surveys, (18, 2) June 1986.Google Scholar
  34. Tsichritzis, D., “The Dynamics of Innovation,” Beyond Calculation: The Next Fifty Years of Computing, Copernicus, 1997, pp. 259–265.Google Scholar
  35. Tsichritzis, D., “Reengineering the University,” Communications of the ACM, Vol 42, No 6, June 1999.Google Scholar
  36. Wand, Y. and Weber, R., “On the Ontological Expressiveness of Information Systems Analysis and Design Grammars,” Journal of Information Systems, (5, 3) July 1995.Google Scholar
  37. Weber, R., “Toward a Theory of Artifacts: A Paradigmatic Base for Information Systems Research,” Journal of Information Systems, Spring 1987, pp 3–17.Google Scholar
  38. Weems, Jr., C. C., “Computer Science,” Microsoft Encarta 98 Encyclopedia, Microsoft Corporation, 1998.Google Scholar
  39. Wulf, W. A., “Are We Scientists or Engineers?” ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 27, No. 1, March 1995.Google Scholar
  40. Zak, A., “ Musings on Space Mission Development and Information Systems Support,” in Zupancic, J., Wojtkowsji, W., Wojtkowsji, W. G., and Wrycza, S. (eds) Evolution in System Development, Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers, New York, 1999.Google Scholar
  41. Zelkowitz, M. and Wallace, D., “Experimental Models for Validating Technology,” IEEE Computer, Vol. 31, No. 5, May 1998.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Salvatore T. March
    • 1
  1. 1.David K. Wilson Professor of Management Owen Graduate School of ManagementVanderbilt UniversityNashvilleTN

Personalised recommendations