Data Rich and Data Poor Scholarship: Where Does IS Research Stand?

作者: Kenneth L. Kraemer , Vallabh Sambamurthy , Kalle Lyytinen , Michel Avital , Steve Sawyer

DOI:

关键词:

摘要: So far, the discourse around nature of IS discipline has focused on centrality theory in defining and legitimating field. In contrast, we re -position this debate focus data. Specifically, panel discuss how sy stematic approaches to data sharing practices, improved collection instrumentation as well increased access (and use s of) large institutionally managed corpora can play a critical role evolution shaping scholarly fi eld study. Subsequently, explore current position status research , ask : does it affect prevailing practices legitimacy field? And how, if at all, should address situation? We submit tha t whole been poor field with inadequate preservation reuse relatively less advanced instrumentation. Overall, argue that producing, maintaining using dat assets fields result economic deficiency, ineffectiveness, missed opportunities. Furthermore, aim highlight some emerging enrichment opportunities encourage more researchers think abo ut programs . The community’s lack attention towards developing scale cumulative IT -related subject matters begs question: afford staying poo r

参考文章(6)
Peter G. W. Keen, MIS RESEARCH: REFERENCE DISCIPLINES AND A CUMULATIVE TRADITION international conference on information systems. pp. 9- ,(1980)
Heinz Klein, , Crisis in the IS field? A critical reflection on the state of the discipline Journal of the Association for Information Systems. ,vol. 4, pp. 10- ,(2003) , 10.17705/1JAIS.00037
Izak Benbasat, Ron Weber, Research Commentary: Rethinking “Diversity” in Information Systems Research Information Systems Research. ,vol. 7, pp. 389- 399 ,(1996) , 10.1287/ISRE.7.4.389
Kalle Lyytinen, John Leslie King, Nothing At The Center?: Academic Legitimacy in the Information Systems Field Journal of the Association for Information Systems. ,vol. 5, pp. 8- ,(2004) , 10.17705/1JAIS.00051