answer the following questions
k.b.a1399
2_akhlaghpour_et_al_2013.pdf
Research article
The ongoing quest for the IT artifact: Looking back, moving forward Saeed Akhlaghpour, Jing Wu, Liette Lapointe, Alain Pinsonneault Desautels Faculty of Management, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
Correspondence: S Akhlaghpour, Desautels Faculty of Management, McGill University, 1001 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, QC, Canada H3A 1G5. E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract More than 10 years ago, Orlikowski and Iacono (2001) examined the conceptualization of Information Technology (IT) in Information Systems Research (ISR) articles published in the 1990s. Their main conclusion was that the majority of these articles did not properly conceptualize the IT artifact. They recommended that IS researchers start to theorize about the IT artifact and employ rich conceptualizations of IT. The Orlikowski and Iacono paper provides a strong anchor point from which to analyze the evolution of the IS discipline. In order to obtain an up-to-date image of contemporary IS research, and to assess how the IS field has evolved since the 1990s, we carried out a similar analysis on a more recent and broader set of articles, that is, the full set (N¼644) of papers published between 2006 and 2009 by six top North American (ISR, MISQ, JAIS) and European (JIT, ISJ, EJIS) journals. The statistics in our results reveal no drastic advance in terms of deeper engagement with the IT artifact; more than 39% of the articles in our set are virtually mute about the artifact, and less than 16% employ an ensemble view of IT. Moreover, we note differences among the North American and European journals. Implications of the findings for two perspectives central to the IS research legitimacy debate are discussed. Journal of Information Technology (2013) 28, 150–166. doi:10.1057/jit.2013.10; published online 23 April 2013 Keywords: IT artifact; technology conceptualization; evolution of the IS disciplines
Introduction
M ore than a decade ago, in their seminal paper, ‘Desperately Seeking the “IT” in IT Research – A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact,’ Orlikowski
and Iacono (2001) argued that ‘information technology is not a major player on its own playing field’ (p. 130). They defined the IT artifact as ‘those bundles of material and cultural properties packaged in some socially recognizable form such as hardware and/or software’ (p. 121). Their analysis showed that most of the published studies in the IS field tended to overlook the conceptual significance of the IT artifact by using simplistic measures, disconnecting it from social settings, black-boxing it, or even excluding it entirely. Hence, they called for further theorizing about the IT artifact and for incorporating richer conceptuali- zations of IT within IS studies.
Orlikowski and Iacono have been quite successful in bringing the paucity of ‘technology-aware’ research to the collective attention of the IS community. As pointed out by Robey (2003), they brought to light the fact that the ‘central position of the IT artifact can be addressed in many
different ways’ (p. 357). As of December 2012, according to Google Scholar, Orlikowski and Iacono’s paper has been cited more than 1500 times (396 times from ISI’s Web of Knowledge). Their commentary heated up a significant debate about the identity crisis of the IS field and the role of the IT artifact. In a response to Orlikowski and Iacono’s call for theorizing about the IT artifact, Benbasat and Zmud (2003) published their seminal piece on defining the core properties of the IS field around the IT artifact and its nomological net. In turn, Alter (2003b, c) crafted an exten- sive response to Benbasat and Zmud that was followed by a large number of commentary pieces from other IS scholars.
On the one hand, Benbasat and Zmud (2003) presented the IT artifact and its immediate nomological net as central to the IT domain and thus argued that the IT artifact had to be core in defining the IS discipline (Wu and Saunders, 2003). It has been further argued that conceptualizing the IT artifact is central to the evolution of the field of IS because it allows IS research to be better defined around a central concept (Pinsonneault and Barki, 2012); doing so
Journal of Information Technology (2013) 28, 150–166 & 2013 JIT Palgrave Macmillan All rights reserved 0268-3962/13
palgrave-journals.com/jit/
could help the field to evolve and develop a cumulative tradition in research (Barki, 2008).
On the other hand, Agarwal and Lucas (2005) implied that the IS field identity cannot be tied exclusively to the immediate nomological net surrounding the IT artifact. They further argued that IS researchers should adopt a broader view of the IT artifact. In a similar vein, Alter (2003c) contended that the IS discipline should focus on the concept of ‘systems in organization’ rather than limit itself to the IT artifact concept (Wu and Saunders, 2003). These authors, and many others who engaged in the debate, thus propose a broader alternative vision of the IT domain.
Other complementary views were also offered by several scholars. Some argued that neither position was acceptable for the field (Myers, 2003) since these efforts unnecessarily narrowed the identity of the IS domain. Other authors said that there was a need to continue the reflection and that it would be necessary to reconcile (Gray, 2003) or even go beyond the arguments of both Benbasat and Zmud (2003) and Alter (2003b, c); as the field would evolve, it would by default allow the community to evolve the thinking (Deans, 2003; McCubbrey, 2003; Power, 2003; Ives et al., 2004). Some even argued that it would be necessary to broaden the boundaries of the IS domain beyond organizations (Dufner, 2003; Hirschheim and Klein, 2003; Wattal et al., 2010).
In a nutshell, the debates ‘crystallized in the dia- lectic between the Benbasat-Zmud-Weber position around narrowing the field to center around the core of “the IS artifact” and the Alter position around broadening the field to be a work-centered systemic interconnected view’ (El Sawy, 2003: 588). To this day, the debate is still ongoing.
Despite contentions – at least among the supporters of the first view – that the IT artifact is at the core of the IS field and that it should remain a central focus of interest, Orlikowski and Iacono have shown that the IT artifact has been underrepresented in past IS research; we believe it is time to unearth new evidence to see how IS research has evolved since. Thus, the primary goal of this paper is to uncover how important, over time, the IT artifact has turned out to be in the IS research field, to whom and why. To do so, the paper examines the status of the IT artifact in IS research in six of the top-tier North American and European IS journals in a 4-year period (2006–2009). By providing a historical analysis of how the field has evolved with regard to its conceptualization of the IT artifact, this study provides three main contributions. First, it provides a historical comparison of IT artifact conceptualization in more recent IS studies vs IS studies of the past decade. This comparison is situated vis-à-vis the broader evolution of the IS field and the formation of research traditions and themes. The results confirm that the IS discipline has undergone certain changes in terms of its conceptualization of IT over time, for example, the percentage of articles with a computational view of IT has shrunk considerably in our sample. Nevertheless, our findings show that the discipline has not made much significant progress in terms of incorporating more comprehensive and multi-faceted conceptualizations of the IT artifact. Second, in addition to depicting a big picture of the IS field’s engagement with IT, our study also reports on a more fine-grained look into the supposedly small percentage of articles that portray
ensemble conceptualizations of IT. In particular, we examine how articles in our sample show progress along the five premises that Orlikowski and Iacono (2001) suggest as good starting points for theorizing about the IT artifact. Third, since our set of articles is nearly four times larger than that of the original study and includes papers from six different European and North American journals, our study allows comparisons among the profiles of top-tier IS journals and complements earlier studies, which compare the European and North American traditions of research (e.g., Cordoba et al., 2012). Finally, our study looks back into the debates within the IS community around the IT artifact and its role in IS field, and then explains how the evidence from the published IS research can be used to re-assess and fine-tune the arguments of different sides of those debates.
The remainder of the manuscript is structured as follows: First, we review the findings of the original study conducted in 1999. Subsequently, we explain the coding procedure and report on the results of our assessment of the 2006–2009 set of articles in MISQ, ISR, JAIS, JIT, ISJ and EJIS. We then discuss the implications of our findings for the proponents of both the IT artifact-centric perspective, and inclusive perspective, and conclude the paper.
Background
Orlikowski and Iacono’s observations Orlikowski and Iacono looked for different conceptualiza- tions of the IT artifact in IS research. They analyzed 177 articles published in ISR between 1990 and 1999. Using a grounded theory approach, they identified 14 conceptuali- zations of IT in their set of articles. These were then classified into five general clusters. Table 1 illustrates these conceptualizations and their clustering.
Orlikowski and Iacono found the nominal view to be the largest cluster (24.8% of all articles), while the computa- tional view (24.3%), tool view (20.3%), and proxy view (18.1%) were the next clusters. Yet, only 12.5% of the articles in this population took the ensemble view of tech- nology. They posit that the very nature of technology, including all its fundamental characteristics (e.g., social construction, contextual embeddedness, fragility, complex- ity, emergence and dynamism), is likely to be discounted in other views. Even the ensemble view itself might over- look some of the multi-generational and emergent aspects as ‘designers, developers, users, regulators, and other stake- holders engage with evolving artifacts over time and across a variety of contexts’ (p. 132).
Recognizing this gloomy state of the IT artifact presence in IS research, these authors then called for IS scholars to begin theorizing about the IT artifact and its use, while taking into account the computational, cultural, temporal, and contextual elements associated with it. They aimed at ‘a rich and growing repertoire of useful concepts and theories of IT artifacts’ (p. 132). In the next section, we examine the current state of the IS field and try to find out if richer conceptualizations of IT artifacts have been proposed and incorporated by researchers or not.
The ongoing quest for the IT artifact S Akhlaghpour et al 151
Research method
Journal selection and article coding In this study, we reviewed 4 years (2006–2009) of six journals, namely, Management Information Systems Quar- terly (MISQ), Information Systems Research (ISR), Journal of the Association for Information Systems (JAIS), Journal
of Information Technology (JIT), European Journal of Information Systems (EJIS) and Information Systems Journal (ISJ).
Our sample includes a balanced set of three European and three US journals that are widely considered by scho- lars to be top journals in the field of IS. Table 2 provides a list of the basket of eight journals along with their most recent (2011) impact factors, based on Journal Citation
Table 1 Different views of the IT artifact identified by Orlikowski and Iacono (2001)
Tool view Technology is the engineered artifact, expected to do what its designers intend it to do. Labor substitution IT would substitute for and replace labor. Productivity IT as devices that enable individuals and social institutions to extend their reach and achieve
performance benefits in the course of their ongoing socio-economic activities. Information processing IT alters and enhances the ways that humans and organizations process information. Social relations IT alters social relationships: Social roles may change; hierarchies may become more or less
salient; business processes may be modified; communication may require choices among different media and tasks.
Proxy view Shared assumption: The critical aspects of IT can be captured through some set of surrogate measures. Perception IT is presented in terms of measures of users’ perceptions of the technology, i.e., EOU, PU,
Intention to use. Capital IT is conceptualized and measured in terms of dollars. Diffusion IT is represented by measures of diffusion and penetration of a particular IT artifact within
some socio-institutional context such as a firm, industry, society.
Ensemble view Focus on the dynamic interactions between people and technology. Development project Focus is on the social process of designing, developing, and implementing the technical
artifact, usually in a specific organizational context and over time; examines the roles of key stakeholders in ISD projects and how such roles engender conflict, power moves and symbolic acts and influence methodologies on development processes.
Production network Technology development is viewed at the level of industry/nation-state: national and international IT policies and the market forces operating within specific countries and regions.
Embedded system Focus on better understanding of how technology is used in a particular way: Technology is neither a DV nor IDV; it is enmeshed with the conditions of its use; it is an evolving system embedded in a complex and dynamic social context with conditions of its use.
Structure Focus is also on the ways in which technology is enmeshed in the conditions of its use, yet the conceptualization is grounded in ideas drawn from structuration theory. Technology is seen to embody social structures built-in by designers.
Computational view Focus on the capabilities of technology to represent, manipulate, store, retrieve, and transmit information, thereby supporting, processing, modeling, or simulating aspects of the world. Algorithm Algorithmic endeavor to build new or enhance existing computational systems; name and
describe in technical detail the computational system; report on the prototyping and testing of the system (modeled, implemented and operating).
Model Represent social, economic, and informational phenomena through methodology of data modeling/simulation; develop mathematically specified mechanisms, techniques and approaches; intent to build computational capabilities that facilitate the representational and modeling work of the researcher.
Nominal view The IT artifact is absent IT/IS is used as background information; the conceptual and analytical emphasis is
elsewhere; the IT artifact is not described, conceptualized or theorized, constituting neither DV nor IDV.
The ongoing quest for the IT artifact S Akhlaghpour et al 152
Reportss (JCR, 2012) and the geographical location of their publishers.
Inclusion of MISQ and ISR as the best representatives of the field seems clear as these two have been consistently ranked as the most influential IS journals in the recent IS journal-ranking studies (Lowry et al., 2007). Regarding JAIS, although it is a relatively new online publication, it is widely considered to be a top journal in IS (Dennis et al., 2006; Saunders and Benbasat, 2007) whose quality and recognition have constantly increased over time (Lowry et al., 2007). According to a 2006 survey conducted by the journal itself, several schools ranked JAIS ‘a notch’ below MISQ and ISR and had plans to include it in their Aþ journal set as soon as it was indexed in ISI (as was done in 2007) (JAIS, 2012). In addition, the JAIS publishes articles on a wide variety of topics, which are representative of most research streams in the field. We also included three top European journals (ISJ, JIT and EJIS). Inclusion of European IS outlets allows us to minimize the biases in our sample of journals and capture a more robust and com- prehensive image of the field. This allows us to examine similarities and differences between North American and European journals in their treatment of the IT artifact.
While we realize that our sample is not exhaustive, we think that studying over 600 articles published in three top North American and three top European journals can provide a good and precise portrait of how the IT artifact has been conceptualized in IS research recently.
From the above set of journals, a total of 939 articles were found. Following Orlikowski and Iacono, we removed
294 articles, which were editorial commentaries or papers providing general opinions on literature or disciplinary issues. Examples of these include Hirschheim’s (2008) com- mentary on reviewing conceptual papers, and Klein and Rowe’s (2008) paper on IS doctoral programs. The remain- ing 644 articles were analyzed (Table 3).
Orlikowski and Iacono used a grounded theory app- roach, that is open coding, and identified 14 conceptuali- zations of IS. Because they do not provide detailed elucidation of their coding or clustering procedure, an exact replication of their method is not possible.1 We adopted their 14 conceptualizations in our coding process. The process was as follows.
The first and the second author coded all the articles in the population independently, based on their own understanding of Orlikowski and Iacono’s classification, and without any a priori discussion. Coding of a paper normally demanded a thorough assessment of its abstract, theoretical backgrounds, hypothesis/models, and key con- clusions. In certain cases the authors had to read through the arguments and sometimes the whole text. This round resulted in a joint probability of agreement of 0.69 and a Cohen’s kappa (Cohen, 1960) of 0.58. Landis and Koch (1977) propose the following scale for interpreting the degree of inter-coder reliability measured by Kappa: (0.21–0.40): ‘Fair,’ (0.41–0.60): ‘Moderate,’ (0.61–0.80): ‘Substantial,’ (0.81–1.00): ‘Almost Perfect.’ Hence, our inter-coder reliability in the first round taps into the ‘mode- rate’ level (we will discuss this issue in the following section). After this round, all the authors went through
Table 2 AIS senior scholars’ basket of journals
Journal name Impact factor (2011)
Published in Included in this study
MIS Quarterly 4.447 North America Yes Journal of Information Technology 2.321 Europe Yes Information Systems Research 2.146 North America Yes Information Systems Journal 2.067 Europe Yes Journal of AIS 1.667 North America Yes European Journal of Information Systems 1.5 Europe Yes Journal of Strategic Information Systems 1.457 Europe No Journal of MIS 1.423 North America No
Table 3 Identified set of articles
Journal Issues covered Total no. of items (incl. credits, tables of references, etc.)
Relevant scholarly articles
ISR Vol 17, Issue 1 (Mar. 2006) Vol 20, Issue 4 (Dec. 2009) 147 92 MISQ Vol 30, Issue 1 (Mar. 2006) Vol 33, Issue 4 (Dec. 2009) 150 121 JAIS Vol 7, Issue 1 (Jan. 2006) Vol 10, Issue 12 (Dec. 2009) 157 94 JIT Vol 21, Issue 1 (Jan. 2006) Vol 24, Issue 4 (Dec. 2009) 124 85 ISJ Vol 16, Issue 1 (Jan. 2006) Vol 19, Issue 6 (Nov. 2009) 110 74 EJIS Vol 15, Issue 1 (Feb. 2006) Vol 18, Issue 6 (Dec. 2009) 251 178
Total 939 644
The ongoing quest for the IT artifact S Akhlaghpour et al 153
the patterns of discrepancies in coding and tried to recon- cile their understandings of Orlikowski and Iacono by means of establishing certain conventions for coding (e.g., not considering IT-related standards as IT artifacts). Then, in light of these conventions, once again the first two authors discussed each disagreement and achieved consen- sus. According to Larsson (1993), resolving discrepancies using a consensus approach is a ‘superior way to correct coding mistakes’ (p. 1521). Still, for 31 articles, an agree- ment could not be reached; these were presented to another author who arbitrated the differences and a consensus was reached on all papers.
Findings Our research objective is to assess the conceptualization of the IT artifact in the 4-year history of six major IS journals: MISQ, ISR, JAIS, JIT, EJIS, and ISJ. We used the entire population of the articles. Likewise, Orlikowski and Iacono examined the whole population of ISR articles from 1990 to 1999. Since we are studying the population and there has been no sampling of data, we employ descriptive statistics rather than inferential statistics. Table 4 and the radar chart in Figure 1 provide a means to compare the findings of Orlikowski and Iacono with the current status of the field.
An examination of the above data reveals several points. First and foremost, it seems that nearly 10 years after the original call by Orlikowski and Iacono, we are still ‘desperately seeking the IT in IT research.’ Still, a relatively small percentage of studies (around 16%) employ a rich conceptualization of IT artifacts, and the IT artifact is essentially absent from nearly 40% of IS articles, which
forms the largest cluster among the five views. Second, a comparison of percentages from our sample and that of Orlikowski and Iacono shows a huge drop (24.3-5.8%) in the relative number of articles in the computational view. This observation is consistent with Robey’s assertion that ‘IS has shifted its identity from a narrow preoc- cupation on computer programming and application development methodologies to an identity that encom- passes the social context of IS development and use’ (Robey, 2003: 353). It is also in line with the results of
Table 4 Classification of articles by conceptualization of IT (current study vs the original)
Cluster Conceptualization of technology
Original study (1990–1999)
Current study (2006–2008)
Change %
Freq. % Freq. %
Nominal view 44 24.86 255 39.60 14.74 Computational view 43 24.29 37 5.75 #18.55
Algorithm 6 3.39 11 1.71 #1.68 Model 37 20.90 25 3.88 #17.02
Tool view 36 20.34 103 15.99 #4.35 Labor substitution 1 0.56 2 0.31 #0.25 Productivity 12 6.78 30 4.66 #2.12 Information processing 15 8.47 39 6.06 #2.42 Social relations 8 4.52 32 4.97 0.45
Proxy view 32 18.08 148 22.98 4.90 Perception 8 4.52 95 14.75 10.23 Diffusion 8 4.52 47 7.30 2.78 Capital 16 9.04 6 0.93 #8.11
Ensemble view 22 12.43 101 15.68 3.25 Development project 7 3.95 33 5.12 1.17 Production network 2 1.13 12 1.86 0.73 Embedded system 7 3.95 38 5.90 1.95 Structure 6 3.39 18 2.80 #0.59
Total 177 100.00 644 100.00 0.00
Figure 1 Percentage of views – current vs original studies.
The ongoing quest for the IT artifact S Akhlaghpour et al 154
Sidorova et al.’s (2008) latent semantic analysis that shows that the IS field pays decreasing attention to IS develop- ment. These authors attribute this trend to the institutional affiliation of IS scholars within the business school (and not engineering departments) and also to general business trends such as reliance on pre-packaged software, which makes the practice of development less relevant to many organizations. Finally, within the second level categories, conceptualizing technology as perception shows a con- siderable increase (its relative proportion is more than tripled, i.e., from 4.5 to 14.75%). This can be partially attributed to the boom in technology acceptance studies in recent years (Figure 2). These articles typically rely on
users’ perceptions of technology and assess their attitudes and intentions towards using an IT.
Figure 3 shows the change in the percentage of each view over time. It also provides an alternative representation of the differences between the articles in the original study and in our sample. Perhaps the most notable pattern in this figure is the constant increase in the percentage of nominal papers, which are virtually mute about the IT artifact. This is observed not only between the Orlikowski and Iacono’s sample and ours, but also within the 4-year period of our study. Put simply, these results suggest that our field is headed towards accommodating more ‘nominal view’ studies. For the other views, the ‘quota’ remains relatively unchanged during the 4-year period. This is also true for the computational view, despite its considerable drop in percentage from the original sample.
More detailed results can be used for comparing the six journals in our sample in terms of their approach to IT conceptualization. Table 5 and the radar chart in Figure 4 illustrate the breakdown by journal of the number of articles in each view. As shown in Table 5, some variation can be observed among different journals. For example, the percentage of articles with an ensemble view in ISR seems strikingly low (i.e., 5.4%). This, however, can be reconciled with Orlikowski and Iacono’s observations in which they found the same measure to be less than 2% in 10 years of ISR. If it had not been for a special ISR issue that caused the ensemble percentage to reach 28% in 1996, we probably would have seen comparable results between the original study and ours. Similarly, our results show that over the 4-year period, there has not been a single study with the computational view published in ISJ, and only one computational paper was found in JIT.
Among these journals, JIT has the highest percentage (28.2%) of articles with ensemble view, MISQ publishes the highest percentage (29.8%) of proxy view, ISR retains the highest percentage of tool view (31.5%), JAIS publishes the highest percentage (13.8%) of computational view, and finally, ISJ has 50% of its articles in the nominal view category. As evident from the figures, JAIS displays a more balanced profile in terms of publishing articles from all five views. Variations among journals can be attributed to several other factors including the differences in the European/North American traditions of research and the editorial policies of each journal.
Aggregating data from these European and North American journals reveals certain differences between the profiles of research in these two geographical regions
Figure 2 Percentage of articles mentioning ‘technology acceptance’ in MISQ, ISR, JAIS, ISJ, EJIS, and JIT (1990–2011).
Figure 3 Change in the percentage of views over time.
Table 5 Classification of articles by conceptualization of IT among the six journals
Cluster MISQ ISR JAIS JIT ISJ EJIS
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %
Nominal view 41 33.9 33 35.9 28 29.8 35 41.2 37 50.0 81 45.5 Computational view 5 4.1 10 10.9 13 13.8 1 1.2 0 0.0 8 4.5 Tool view 27 22.3 29 31.5 15 16.0 8 9.4 12 16.2 12 6.7 Proxy view 36 29.8 15 16.3 21 22.3 17 20.0 16 21.6 43 24.2 Ensemble view 12 9.9 5 5.4 17 18.1 24 28.2 9 12.2 34 19.1
Total 121 100 92 100 94 100 85 100 74 100 178 100
The ongoing quest for the IT artifact S Akhlaghpour et al 155
(see Table 6 and radar chart in Figure 5). This different pattern in European publications further confirms some of the earlier assertions in the literature regarding the difference between European and North American styles of research, such as the dominance of qualitative or inter- pretive research methodology in Europe vs the dominance of quantitative and positivist research in North America (Baskerville, 2012; Cordoba et al., 2012). For example, in their analysis of the European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS) proceedings, Galliers and Whitley (2007) found Yin (1989), on case studies, and Walsham (1993), on interpretivist approaches, as two of the most cited papers of that conference. It is predictable that the prominence of interpretivist and/or case study research as a tradition in European IS research would lead to more studies with an
ensemble view of IT, which inherently demands the presence of rich contextual and historical data from cases. Likewise, high citation of Gidden’s (1984) seminal work on structuration theory and Zuboff’s (1988) detailed ethno- graphic study of ‘informated’ work practices, both in Galliers and Whitley’s (2007) sample, illustrate European researchers’ interest in theories that take into account the social dimensions of the IT artifact in their ensemble conceptualization.
The high percentage of studies with the nominal view in European research outlets can be attributed to the large number of articles that are focused on IT management tech- niques (such as managing mega-programs, IT strategy, knowledge management and IT outsourcing), without mentioning any specific IT artifact being used for executing
Figure 4 Percentage of views for six IS journals (2006–2009).
Table 6 Classification of articles by conceptualization of IT – European vs North American journals
Cluster North-American journals European journals IS field
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %
Nominal view 102 33.2 153 45.4 255 39.6 Computational view 28 9.1 9 2.7 37 5.7 Tool view 71 23.1 32 9.5 103 16.0 Proxy view 72 23.5 76 22.6 148 23.0 Ensemble view 34 11.1 67 19.9 101 15.7
Total 307 100.0 337 100.0 644 100.0
The ongoing quest for the IT artifact S Akhlaghpour et al 156
these techniques, or any IT artifact to which these techniques were applied (e.g., making a reference to the outsourcing of a particular type of IS). We will discuss this observation later in the paper.
Discussion Our main objective in this paper was to determine how IS research has conceptualized the IT artifact recently, com- pared with the 1990s (i.e., Orlikowski and Iacono’s 2001 sample covered the period of 1990–1999). Our analysis suggests that little progress has been made in terms of the conceptualization of the IT artifact. While some journals (e.g., JIT, EJIS and JAIS) have published a significant number of articles that rely on an ensemble view of IT (28.2%, 19.1% and 18.1%, respectively), this view still constitutes a small percentage of the total IS research (15.7%). Also important to note is the fact that a relatively high percentage of articles rely on the nominal view of the IT artifact, which has in fact increased from 24.9% in the original sample to 39.6% in our sample.
The debate about the legitimacy of the IS field has been made from a variety of points of view. Ultimately, two main perspectives emerged over the years: the IT artifact-centric perspective and a wider, more inclusive perspective. These two perspectives can be used to make sense of our findings, guide our reflections about the state of the IS field, and inform us as to what can and should be done to influence its evolution. The implications of our results in view of both perspectives are presented next.
The IT artifact-centric perspective This perspective assumes that the IT artifact is important and central to our field and that we should prescriptively define the IS field around the IT artifact (e.g., Benbasat and Zmud, 2003; Robey, 2003). The main issue in this pers- pective is not whether the IT artifact is or is not critical to the IS domain, but rather how broad the nomological net surrounding the IT artifact should be. While it has always been commonly accepted within this perspective that the IT artifact should be a central focus of interest,
Orlikowski and Iacono (2001) showed that the IT artifact was under-represented and conceptualized in past IS research. Our results can be interpreted in a similar way and suggest that little progress has been made about this issue since the 1990s, which, it can be argued, might jeopardize the legitimacy of our field. From this viewpoint, three key issues need to be addressed.
First, if IT is central to our field, there is a need to better define the concept of the IT artifact. Historically, the term ‘IT artifact’ has not been very commonly used in the field; ‘When I first heard about the IS identity crisis/ domain controversy, my question was “Are Decision Support Systems IT artifacts?” ’ (Power, 2003: 540). Scholars have also raised questions about the definition of the IT artifact and have called for abandoning the term (e.g., Alter, 2003a) or better refining its meaning (Wu and Saunders, 2003). Orlikowski and Iacono (2001) defined IT artifacts as ‘those bundles of material and cultural properties pack- aged in some socially recognizable form such as hardware and/or software’ (p. 121). The definition is equivocal about whether management processes or techniques are included in IT artifacts or not. However, as stated by Alter (2003b), the way the term IT artifact is used throughout the paper is ‘less like “bundles of material and cultural properties” and more like hardware and software’ (p. 614). In particular, Orlikowski and Iacono (2001) cite Beath and Orlikowski (1994) as an article in the nominal category because it is about a systems development methodology (Information Engineering) and does not make references to a particular technology. Hence, on the one hand, a literal reading of Orlikowski and Iacono suggests that IT management techniques are not included in the IT artifact. On the other hand, there are elements in Orlikowski and Iacono’s text that indicate the contrary. For example, when Orlikowski and Iacono discuss the notion of technology as ‘diffusion’ view, they indicate that ‘techniques’ are a class of IT arti- facts (p. 124). This suggests that IT management techniques would be part of the IT artifact. Benbasat and Zmud (2003) conceptualize the IT artifact differently, as ‘ythe applica- tion of IT to enable or support some task(s) embedded within a structure(s) that itself is embedded within a context(s)’ (p. 186). This includes the hardware and soft- ware design as well as the routines, norms, and values implicit in the context. Yet, others define the concept of IT artifact more narrowly as being made of hardware, software systems and IT applications (Iivari, 2002; Weber, 2003). Still others suggest that, rather than the IT artifact, the concepts of ‘IT-reliant work systems’ (Alter, 2003a) or ‘information systems’ (Iivari, 2002; Weber, 2003) should be the core of IS.
The above examples show one of the ambiguities inherent in this perspective vis-à-vis what constitutes the core of the IS field. However, the fundamental premise of this perspective is that the field of IS rests on a core concept and therefore must be defined clearly. Herein lies one of the key challenges of this perspective: What constitutes the core of the IS discipline? This implies that we need to determine how this concept can be defined clearly, with appropriate scope and breadth (i.e., not too narrow or too broad), and how we can reach a socially agreed-upon consensus about the core of the discipline. Our results suggest that these issues remain unresolved.
Figure 5 Percentage of views in European and North American journals.
The ongoing quest for the IT artifact S Akhlaghpour et al 157
Given that this perspective assumes that the IT artifact is central to the IS discipline, a second implication of our study is that work and efforts are needed to conceptualize – and theorize – the IT artifact. Studies need to provide expli- cit considerations and theoretical explanations of the IT artifact they analyze. Scholars need to carefully engage with the IT artifact. While there might be numerous ways to theorize the IT artifact, Orlikowski and Iacono (2001) suggest five premises that represent a good starting point for this theorizing effort. To illustrate, Table 7 presents the five premises and their respective implications for con- ducting research. Then, extant studies are used to illustrate how the premises can help theorize the IT artifact.
Table 7 illustrates how properly conceptualizing the IT artifact can provide significant insights into different pheno- mena including how IT relates to team performance (Fuller and Dennis, 2009), how integration is achieved (Hepsø et al., 2009), or how contexts influence technology appropriation (Venkatesh and Ramesh, 2006).
A third implication of our paper for this perspective is that there is a need for new theoretical approaches that can provide a fresh view and understanding of the IT artifact and help to further theorize IT. Indeed, in extant research, there is a paucity of theories that conceptualize the multi- faceted nature of technology and address its relationship with organizational phenomena (Orlikowski and Scott, 2008; Pinsonneault and Barki, 2012). This is also reflected in recurring editorials and calls for papers on further theori- zation about IT, see, for example, Weber (2003), Zammuto et al. (2007), Cecez-Kecmanovic et al. (2010), and a recent editorial by Baskerville (2012), titled ‘Reviving the IT in the IS.’ The situation looks even more dire if one looks for theories that take into account the ‘material properties’ and the social and contextual dimensions of technologies (Leonardi and Barley, 2008; Leonardi and Barley, 2010). There exist numerous potential ways to address this issue including some relatively new concepts such as functional affordance (Markus and Silver, 2008), which captures both the technical features of technology as well as their appro- priation by users. Likewise, in recent years there have been efforts to initiate a new genre of research on socio- materiality (Orlikowski, 2008; Orlikowski and Scott, 2008), which challenges the traditional taken-for-granted app- roach of conceptualizing the technology, work and organi- zations separately. This new genre assumes an inherent inseparability of the technical and social materialities and proposes that technologies, people, and organizations should be seen as constitutively entangled entities. From this pers- pective, one would argue that technologies, people, and organizations do not have intrinsically established mean- ings, boundaries, or properties (Barad, 2007). In fact, the sociomaterial view considers that it is the actual inter- action between people and material agencies that creates the routines and technologies that people use to work (Leonardi, 2011). Building on sociomateriality is a pro- mising avenue that not only attends to both the social and material dimensions of the IT artifact but also goes further and calls for dissolving the conceptual bounda- ries between the two. Because it is still in its infancy (the discourse around this topic is fairly recent, e.g., Leonardi, 2011; Orlikowski, 2007; Orlikowski and Scott, 2008; Cecez- Kecmanovic et al., 2010), the idea of sociomateriality has Ta
b le
7 T
h e o ri z in
g a lo
n g
O rl ik
o w
s k i a n d
Ia c o n o ’s
fi v e
p re
m is
e s
P re
m is
es Im
p li
ca ti
o n
s fo
r re
se a
rc h
Il lu
st ra
ti ve
p a
p er
s IT
a rt
if a
ct a
n d
co n
te x
t (c
la ss
if ic
a ti
o n
in O
rl ik
o w
sk i
a n
d Ia
co n
o )
Il lu
st ra
ti o
n o
f th
e p
re m
is e
IT ar
ti fa
ct s
ar e
n o
t n
at u
ra l,
n eu
tr al
, u
n iv
er sa
l, o
r g
iv en
. T
h ey
ar e
d es
ig n
ed ,
co n
st ru
ct ed
, an
d u
se d
b y
p eo
p le
. A
s su
ch ,
th ey
ar e
sh ap
ed b
y th
e in
te re
st s,
v al
u es
, an
d as
su m
p ti
o n
s o
f d
ev el
o p
er s,
in v
es to
rs ,
u se
rs ,
et c.
R eq
u ir
em en
t to
ex p
li ci
tl y
th eo
ri ze
sp ec
if ic
te ch
n o
lo g
ie s
an d
th ei
r d
is ti
n ct
iv e
cu lt
u ra
l an
d co
m p
u ta
ti o
n al
ca p
ab il
it ie
s. W
e n
ee d
to ta
k e
th e
v ar
io u
s so
ci al
, h
is to
ri ca
l, an
d in
st it
u ti
o n
al co
n te
x ts
in to
ac co
u n
t.
V en
k at
es h
an d
R am
es h
(2 0
0 6
) W
eb an
d w
ir el
es s
si te
u sa
b il
it y
(P ro
x y
- d
if fu
si o
n )
R ec
o g
n iz
in g
th at
u sa
b il
it y
m ay
b e
d if
fe re
n t
in d
if fe
re n
t co
n te
x ts
(d ig
it al
p la
tf o
rm ,
co u
n tr
y an
d in
d u
st ry
), th
is p
ap er
ac co
u n
ts fo
r co
n te
x t
in th
re e
m ai
n w
ay s:
(1 )
It ac
co u
n ts
fo r
d if
fe re
n ce
s b
et w
ee n
th e
U n
it ed
S ta
te s
an d
F in
la n
d an
d ex
am in
es w
ei g
h ts
an d
ra ti
n g
s o
f u
sa b
il it
y d
im en
si o
n s;
(2 )
T h
e re
se ar
ch sp
ec if
ic al
ly th
eo ri
ze s
th e
d if
fe re
n ce
in th
e ca
te g
o ri
es an
d su
b ca
te g
o ri
es th
at w
o u
ld b
e m
o re
im p
o rt
an t
in th
e co
n te
x t
o f
w eb
si te
s vs
w ir
el es
s si
te s;
The ongoing quest for the IT artifact S Akhlaghpour et al 158
(3 )
D if
fe re
n ce
s w
er e
st u
d ie
d ac
ro ss
in d
u st
ri es
. T
h e
fi n
d in
g s
re v
ea le
d th
at th
er e
ar e
si g
n if
ic an
t d
if fe
re n
ce s
b et
w ee
n W
eb an
d w
ir el
es s
u sa
b il
it y
: E
as e
o f
u se
an d
m ad
e- fo
r- th
e- m
ed iu
m w
er e
m o
re im
p o
rt an
t in
w ir
el es
s si
te s
w h
er ea
s em
o ti
o n
w as
m o
re im
p o
rt an
t in
w eb
si te
s. T
h e
p ap
er il
lu st
ra te
s w
el l
th e
co n
te x
t- sp
ec if
ic it
y o
f IT
ar ti
fa ct
s an
d th
e fa
ct th
at th
er e
is n
o si
n g
le ,
o n
e- si
ze -f
it s-
al l
co n
ce p
tu al
iz at
io n
o f
th e
IT ar
ti fa
ct .
IT ar
ti fa
ct s
ar e
al w
ay s
em b
ed d
ed in
so m
e ti
m e,
p la
ce ,
d is
co u
rs e,
an d
co m
m u
n it
y .
T h
e h
is to
ri ca
l an
d cu
lt u
ra l
as p
ec ts
o f
o n
g o
in g
d ev
el o
p m
en t
an d
u se
in fl
u en
ce IT
m at
er ia
li ty
. W
e n
ee d
to ac
co u
n t
fo r
th e
m at
er ia
l an
d cu
lt u
ra l
co n
d it
io n
s o
f u
se .
S ah
ay et
a l.
(2 0
0 9
) H
ea lt
h e-
in fr
as tr
u ct
u re
(E n
se m
b le
-e m
b ed
d ed
sy st
em )
T h
e p
ap er
lo o
k s
at th
e in
te rp
la y
b et
w ee
n th
e p
o li
ti ca
l an
d te
ch n
ic al
co n
fi g
u ra
ti o
n s
th at
ar is
e d
u ri
n g
th e
in te
g ra
ti o
n p
ro ce
ss o
f m
u lt
ip le
IT sy
st em
s. T
h e
p ap
er sh
o w
s h
o w
d if
fe re
n t
u se
rs (p
o w
er fu
l vs
p o
w er
le ss
) u
se d
p o
li ti
ca l
m an
eu v
er in
g to
in fl
u en
ce th
e co
n fi
g u
ra ti
o n
o f
an IT
ap p
li ca
ti o
n .
F o
r ex
am p
le :
(1 )
T h
e se
le ct
io n
o f
en tr
y p
o in
ts an
d st
ra te
g y
o f
th e
p o
li ti
ca ll
y w
ea k
er ac
to r
in fl
u en
ce th
e d
ev el
o p
m en
t o
f th
e e-
in fr
as tr
u ct
u re
; (2
) T
h e
p ap
er al
so d
o cu
m en
ts h
o w
th e
fl ex
ib il
it y
o f
th e
so ft
w ar
e al
lo w
ed fo
r si
g n
if ic
an t
p o
li ti
ca l
m an
eu v
er in
g s.
T h
e IT
ar ti
fa ct
is co
n ce
p tu
al iz
ed as
b ei
n g
em b
ed d
ed in
sp ec
if ic
so ci
al an
d h
is to
ri ca
l co
n te
x ts
. T
h e
p ap
er ac
co u
n ts
fo r
th e
co m
p le
x an
d ch
an g
in g
te ch
n o
- so
ci al
p ro
ce ss
es th
at ex
is t
in th
e o
rg an
iz at
io n
an d
h o
w th
ey ev
o lv
e o
v er
ti m
e. IT
ar ti
fa ct
s ar
e m
ad e
u p
o f
a m
u lt
ip li
ci ty
o f
o ft
en fr
ag il
e an
d fr
ag m
en te
d co
m p
o n
en ts
. T
h ei
r in
te rc
o n
n ec
ti o
n s
ar e
o ft
en p
ar ti
al an
d p
ro v
is io
n al
an d
re q
u ir
e in
te g
ra ti
o n
an d
ar ti
cu la
ti o
n in
o rd
er fo
r th
em to
w o
rk to
g et
h er
.
IS re
se ar
ch er
s n
ee d
to fo
cu s
o n
h o
w d
if fe
re n
t IT
ar ti
fa ct
s ar
e p
u t
to g
et h
er an
d in
te g
ra te
d w
it h
ex is
ti n
g IT
in fr
as tr
u ct
u re
.
H ep
sø et
a l.
(2 0
0 9
) M
ic ro
so ft
S h
ar eP
o in
t e-
In fr
as tr
u ct
u re
th at
w as
in te
n d
ed to
in te
g ra
te th
e m
an y
d if
fe re
n t
in fo
rm at
io n
so u
rc es
, fo
rm at
s, an
d p
re se
n ta
ti o
n s
ac ro
ss fu
n ct
io n
al ,
d is
ci p
li n
ar y
, an
d g
eo g
ra p
h ic
al b
o u
n d
ar ie
s in
an o
il co
m p
an y
. (E
n se
m b
le -e
m b
ed d
ed sy
st em
)
In th
is p
ap er
, e-
in fr
as tr
u ct
u re
is co
n ce
p tu
al iz
ed as
a se
t o
f ri
ch an
d v
ar ie
d u
se r
m ic
ro -p
ra ct
ic es
th at
o p
er at
e w
it h
in an
ec o
lo g
y o
f n
u m
er o
u s,
p ar
tl y
o v
er la
p p
in g
, n
ic h
e- o
ri en
te d
in fo
rm at
io n
sy st
em s
(p .
4 3
1 ).
T h
e m
et ap
h o
r o
f ‘e
co lo
g y
’ ev
o k
es st
ro n
g co
n n
o ta
ti o
n s
o f
d iv
er si
ty ,
h et
er o
g en
ei ty
, v
ar ia
ti o
n ,
n ic
h es
an d
re d
u n
d an
cy .
T h
is co
n ce
p tu
al iz
at io
n al
lo w
ed th
e ex
am in
at io
n o
f th
e d
ev el
o p
m en
t o
f e-
in fr
as tr
u ct
u re
in b
o th
a g
lo b
al an
d a
lo ca
l se
tt in
g an
d th
e d
o cu
m en
ta ti
o n
o f
th e
te n
si o
n b
et w
ee n
im p
li ci
t an
d ex
p li
ci t
to p
-d o
w n
d em
an d
s fo
r ti
g h
te r
in te
g ra
ti o
n em
b ed
d ed
in th
e S
h ar
eP o
in t
e- In
fr as
tr u
ct u
re .
IT ar
ti fa
ct s
ar e
n ei
th er
fi x
ed n
o r
in d
ep en
d en
t, b
u t
th ey
em er
g e
fr o
m o
n g
o in
g so
ci al
an d
ec o
n o
m ic
p ra
ct ic
es .
IS re
se ar
ch n
ee d
s to
ta k
e th
e em
er g
en ce
o f
IT p
ro p
er ti
es in
to ac
co u
n t.
H ep
sø et
a l.
(2 0
0 9
) M
ic ro
so ft
S h
ar eP
o in
t e-
In fr
as tr
u ct
u re
th at
w as
in te
n d
ed to
in te
g ra
te th
e m
an y
d if
fe re
n t
in fo
rm at
io n
T h
ro u
g h
a h
is to
ri ca
l re
co n
st ru
ct io
n o
f th
e w
h o
le d
ev el
o p
m en
t p
ro ce
ss o
f th
e e-
in fr
as tr
u ct
u re
, th
e p
ap er
d ep
ic ts
th e
b u
si n
es s,
le g
is la
ti o
n an
d te
ch n
ic al
en v
ir o
n m
en ts
th ro
u g
h w
h ic
h p
ro p
er ti
es o
f th
e e-
in fr
as tr
u ct
u re
em er
g ed
. O
n e
ex am
p le
is th
e
The ongoing quest for the IT artifact S Akhlaghpour et al 159
T a b
le 7
C o n ti n u e d
P re
m is
es Im
p li
ca ti
o n
s fo
r re
se a
rc h
Il lu
st ra
ti ve
p a
p er
s IT
a rt
if a
ct a
n d
co n
te x
t (c
la ss
if ic
a ti
o n
in O
rl ik
o w
sk i
a n
d Ia
co n
o )
Il lu
st ra
ti o
n o
f th
e p
re m
is e
so u
rc es
, fo
rm at
s an
d p
re se
n ta
ti o
n s
ac ro
ss fu
n ct
io n
al ,
d is
ci p
li n
ar y
an d
g eo
g ra
p h
ic al
b o
u n
d ar
ie s
in an
o il
co m
p an
y .
(E n
se m
b le
- em
b ed
d ed
sy st
em )
d ev
el o
p m
en t
o f
co ll
a b
u la
ry (b
le n
d o
f co
ll ab
o ra
ti v
e an
d v
o ca
b u
la ry
) as
th e
co m
p ro
m is
e b
et w
ee n
th e
h ie
ra rc
h ic
al m
et a-
m o
d el
d ev
el o
p ed
b y
a te
am o
f cl
as si
fi ca
ti o
n ex
p er
ts an
d th
e fo
lk so
n o
m y
th at
em er
g ed
fr o
m d
o m
ai n
p ro
fe ss
io n
al s
in v
ar io
u s
p ar
ts o
f th
e b
u si
n es
s. T
h e
p ap
er d
o cu
m en
ts h
o w
th e
e- in
fr as
tr u
ct u
re re
su lt
ed fo
r o
n g
o in
g so
ci al
an d
ec o
n o
m ic
p ra
ct ic
es ev
o lv
ed o
v er
ti m
e. T
h e
p ap
er h
el p
s to
m ak
e se
n se
o f
th e
co m
p le
x te
ch n
o -s
o ci
al p
ro ce
ss es
w h
er e
in te
rc o
n n
ec te
d IT
ar ti
fa ct
s co
-e v
o lv
e w
it h
v ar
io u
s so
ci al
in st
it u
ti o
n s
an d
co m
m u
n it
ie s
(b o
th lo
ca l
an d
g lo
b al
) th
at d
ev el
o p
, re
g u
la te
, u
se ,
an d
ch an
g e
th em
.
IT ar
ti fa
ct s
ar e
n o
t st
at ic
o r
u n
ch an
g in
g ,
b u
t ar
e d
y n
am ic
.
U n
d er
st an
d in
g h
o w
an d
w h
y IT
ar ti
fa ct
s co
m e
to b
e ‘s
ta b
il iz
ed ’
in ce
rt ai
n w
ay s
at ce
rt ai
n ti
m es
an d
p la
ce s
ar e
cr it
ic al
as p
ec ts
o f
u n
d er
st an
d in
g th
e ra
n g
e o
f so
ci al
an d
ec o
n o
m ic
co n
se q
u en
ce s
as so
ci at
ed w
it h
p ar
ti cu
la r
te ch
n o
lo g
ie s
in v
ar io
u s
so ci
o -
h is
to ri
ca l
co n
te x
ts .
F u
ll er
an d
D en
n is
(2 0
0 9
) H
o w
T as
k -T
ec h
n o
lo g
y F
it (T
T F
) o
f G
ro u
p S
u p
p o
rt S
y st
em s
(G S
S )
in fl
u en
ce s
te am
p er
fo rm
an ce
. (E
n se
m b
le -s
tr u
ct u
re )
T h
is p
ap er
ta k
es a
d y
n am
ic p
er sp
ec ti
v e
o f
G S
S an
d ex
am in
es h
o w
fi t
in fl
u en
ce s
te am
p er
fo rm
an ce
o v
er ti
m e.
G S
S is
an al
y ze
d to
g et
h er
w it
h th
e te
am an
d th
e ta
sk ch
ar ac
te ri
st ic
s o
v er
ti m
e. T
h e
st u
d y
d o
cu m
en ts
h o
w ap
p ro
p ri
at io
n o
f te
ch n
o lo
g y
so o
n af
te r
it is
im p
le m
en te
d ca
n le
ad te
am s
to p
er ce
iv e
fe w
m is
al ig
n m
en ts
an d
d is
cr ep
an ci
es ,
an d
h en
ce ,
to q
u ic
k ly
ro u
ti n
iz e
u sa
g e,
w h
ic h
in tu
rn im
p ed
es fu
rt h
er ap
p ro
p ri
at io
n an
d p
er fo
rm an
ce im
p ro
v em
en t.
T h
e p
ap er
sh o
w s
th at
th e
p at
te rn
o f
te ch
n o
lo g
ic al
ap p
ro p
ri at
io n
w as
d if
fe re
n t
fo r
g ro
u p
s w
it h
p o
o r
in it
ia l
ta sk
-t ec
h n
o lo
g y
fi t.
L o
w fi
t m
o ti
v at
ed u
se rs
to ap
p ro
p ri
at e
th e
te ch
n o
lo g
y m
o re
su b
st an
ti al
ly an
d d
ev el
o p
d if
fe re
n t
w o
rk in
g st
ru ct
u re
s, w
h ic
h re
su lt
ed in
im p
ro v
ed te
am p
er fo
rm an
ce .
B ec
au se
o f
th e
th eo
re ti
ca l
le n
s u
se d
, th
is st
u d
y w
as ab
le to
sh o
w th
at ev
en af
te r
a te
ch n
o lo
g ic
al ar
ti fa
ct ap
p ea
rs to
b e
fi x
ed an
d co
m p
le te
, it
s st
ab il
it y
is co
n d
it io
n al
o n
m an
y fa
ct o
rs su
ch as
w h
en u
se rs
ad ap
t th
e ar
ti fa
ct to
n ew
an d
d if
fe re
n t
co n
d it
io n
s an
d u
se s.
The ongoing quest for the IT artifact S Akhlaghpour et al 160
received very limited attention in the IS literature to date; in the set of articles analyzed for this paper, it is mentioned only once (Baptista, 2009).
The inclusive perspective This perspective calls for a wider and more varied defini- tion of the field. From this point of view, a field cannot be defined normatively. Rather, it is defined by what people do, by the topics they research, and the issues they are concerned about. This perceptive proposes that IS acade- mics should accept a more fluid and contingent notion of the discipline, with very few or even no predefined concep- tual boundaries (Bryant, 2008). Building on the works of Foucault and Bauman, Bryant (2008: 697) writes:
[D]isciplinary practices have to be seen as fluid projects not as structural and structuring strategies. The task is endless; at its core is not a single, clear objective but an unremitting process of continual explanation, explication and dialogue.
While it would be difficult to argue that studies focusing on the IT artifact do not belong to the IS discipline, trying to force the IT artifact to the core of our field might not be the solution. Researchers who adhere to this perspective con- sider that such a dictate simply does not correspond to the fundamental nature of the IS field. In light of these argu- ments, the fact that an increasing number of papers rely on the nominal view is not a dire state of affairs. From this perspective, there are two key implications of our results.
First and foremost, proponents of this perspective can use the findings of our paper to question the very usefulness of the IT artifact concept in defining IS research. Currently, the reality is that there are ambiguities in the definitions of the IT artifact and the relatively narrow scope for the concept pushes many influential IS articles into the nominal category. For example, these would include many of the studies on the IT workforce, IT outsourcing/ offshoring, IS planning, online auctions, and IT strategy/ governance. Table 8 illustrates these categories of the nominal view in our sample and provides specific examples. Orlikowski and Iacono (2001) categorized 24.9% of ISR articles in the Nominal category; in our results this percentage (39.6%) is even larger. In other words, some could argue that the IT artifact was conceptually defined in a too limited manner to adequately measure what IS researchers studied 10 years ago and that it is even more inadequate to measure what IS researchers study today.2 Thus there is a need to widen the scope of the IS field subject matter which can be done through different approaches. For example, there were recent calls for IS go ‘beyond the traditional focus on business and the organization and tackle larger societal issues’ (Wattal et al., 2010: 680).
The second implication ties to the evolution and future of the IS domain. Our results echo concerns with the fact that a definition of the IS field centered on the IT artifact might be defined in a too narrow manner, as argued by several IS researchers a decade ago (Ives et al., 2004). For example, it has been claimed that while ‘an IT-centric view, at prudent dosage, may help ensure the uniqueness of the IS discipline y diversity is conducive for creativity, instrumental for Ta
b le
8 C
a te
g o ri e s
o f
n o m
in a l p a p e rs
in o u r
s a m
p le
So m
e m
a jo
r ca
te go
ri es
o f
n o
m in
a l
p a
p er
s
D es
cr ip
ti o
n o
f th
e ca
te go
ry Su
b ca
te go
ri es
E x
a m
p le
p a
p er
s P
a p
er su
m m
a ri
es
IT g
o v
er n
an ce
P ap
er s
in th
is ca
te g
o ry
d is
cu ss
o rg
an iz
at io
n al
IT -r
el at
ed d
ec is
io n
- m
ak in
g w
it h
o u
t co
n ce
p tu
al iz
in g
sp ec
if ic
IT ar
ti fa
ct .
IT o
u ts
o u
rc in
g T
an an
d S
ia (2
0 0
6 )
T h
is p
ap er
d ev
el o
p s
a fr
am ew
o rk
to cl
as si
fy ex
is ti
n g
p ra
ct ic
es in
m an
ag in
g o
u ts
o u
rc in
g fl
ex ib
il it
y ,
ex am
in es
th e
re la
ti o
n sh
ip s
b et
w ee
n th
e v
ar io
u s
st ra
te g
ic m
an eu
v er
s an
d th
e d
if fe
re n
t d
im en
si o
n s
o f
o u
ts o
u rc
in g
fl ex
ib il
it y
, an
d d
is cu
ss es
th e
m o
d er
at in
g im
p ac
t o
f su
ch m
an eu
v er
s o
n o
u ts
o u
rc in
g su
cc es
s.
IS p
la n
n in
g C
o rd
o b
a an
d M
id g
le y
(2 0
0 8
) T
h is
p ap
er u
se s
th e
sy st
em s
th eo
ry o
f b
o u
n d
ar y
cr it
iq u
e to
fa ci
li ta
te th
e in
cl u
si o
n o
f so
ci et
al co
n ce
rn s
in in
fo rm
at io
n sy
st em
s p
la n
n in
g .
M an
ag em
en t
o f
IT F
in k
an d
M ar
k o
v ic
h (2
0 0
8 )
T h
is p
ap er
ex p
lo re
s en
te rp
ri se
sy st
em so
ft w
ar e
m ar
k et
s’ se
g m
en ta
ti o
n ,
an d
p ro
p o
se s
a m
at ch
b et
w ee
n en
te rp
ri se
sy st
em so
ft w
ar e
p ro
v id
er s’
o rg
an iz
at io
n al
si ze
an d
sc o
p e
an d
d if
fe re
n t
v er
ti ca
li za
ti o
n st
ra te
g ie
s.
IS fi
el d
P ap
er s
in th
is ca
te g
o ry
d is
cu ss
th e
m et
h o
d o
lo g
ic al
ch al
le n
g es
, R
es ea
rc h
m et
h o
d o
lo g
y S
il v
a (2
0 0
7 )
T h
is p
ap er
ex am
in es
th e
ep is
te m
o lo
g ic
al an
d th
eo re
ti ca
l ch
al le
n g
es fo
r st
u d
y in
g p
o w
er an
d p
o li
ti cs
in IS
.
The ongoing quest for the IT artifact S Akhlaghpour et al 161
T a b
le 8
C o n ti n u e d
So m
e m
a jo
r ca
te go
ri es
o f
n o
m in
a l
p a
p er
s
D es
cr ip
ti o
n o
f th
e ca
te go
ry Su
b ca
te go
ri es
E x
a m
p le
p a
p er
s P
a p
er su
m m
a ri
es
p ro
b le
m s,
o p
p o
rt u
n it
ie s
fo r
ex is
ti n
g IS
re se
ar ch
, an
d re
fl ec
t o
n th
e d
ev el
o p
m en
t o
f th
e IS
fi el
d as
w el
l IS
ed u
ca ti
o n
.
IS ed
u ca
ti o
n H
at za
k is
et a
l. (2
0 0
7 )
T h
is p
ap er
u se
s a
p ro
g ra
m m
an ag
em en
t ap
p ro
ac h
to en
su re
cu rr
ic u
lu m
co h
er en
ce in
IS h
ig h
er ed
u ca
ti o
n .
R ef
le ct
io n
o n
IS fi
el d
G al
li v
an an
d B
en b
u n
an -F
ic h
(2 0
0 7
)
T h
is p
ap er
ex am
in es
th e
as su
m p
ti o
n s
ab o
u t
w h
ic h
IS p
u b
li ca
ti o
n o
u tl
et s
sh o
u ld
b e
in cl
u d
ed as
h ig
h -q
u al
it y
sc h
o la
rl y
IS jo
u rn
al s,
an d
d ev
el o
p s
n ew
ar g
u m
en ts
fo r
w h
ic h
jo u
rn al
s sh
o u
ld b
e in
cl u
d ed
in ev
al u
at io
n s
o f
re se
ar ch
er p
ro d
u ct
iv it
y .
S y
st em
d ev
el o
p m
en t
P ap
er s
in th
is ca
te go
ry d
o n
o t
lo ok
in to
th e
d ev
el o
p m
en t
o f
a sp
ec if
ic te
ch n
ic al
ar ti
fa ct
, b
u t
in st
ea d
th e
d es
ig n
an d
im p
ro ve
m en
t o
f sy
st em
d ev
el o
p m
en t
m et
h o
d s,
te ch
n iq
u es
an d
p ro
ce ss
es in
ge n
er al
, o
r th
e so
ci al
is su
es ar
o u
n d
p ro
je ct
d ev
el o
p m
en t
in co
n te
xt o
f an
IT p
ro je
ct .
S y
st em
d ev
el o
p m
en t
m et
h o
d s
P it
ts an
d B
ro w
n e
(2 0
0 7
) T
h is
p ap
er d
es ig
n s
p ro
ce d
u ra
l p
ro m
p ts
to o
v er
co m
e th
e co
g n
it iv
e li
m it
at io
n s
o f
re q
u ir
em en
ts el
ic it
at io
n .
P ro
je ct
m an
ag em
en t
P an
et a
l. (2
0 0
6 )
T h
is p
ap er
p re
se n
ts a
co m
m it
m en
t tr
an sf
o rm
at io
n fr
am ew
o rk
fo r
an al
y zi
n g
th e
ch an
g e
in ac
to rs
’ co
m m
it m
en t
d u
ri n
g th
e tr
an si
ti o
n fr
o m
es ca
la ti
o n
to d
e- es
ca la
ti o
n in
IT p
ro je
ct s.
K n
o w
le d
g e
m an
ag em
en t
P ap
er s
in th
is ca
te g
o ry
lo o
k in
to th
e cr
ea ti
o n
, tr
an sf
er an
d d
is se
m in
at io
n o
f k
n o
w le
d g
e in
a b
ro ad
ra n
g e
o f
so ci
al co
n d
it io
n s
w it
h o
u t
sp ec
if ic
al ly
co n
ce p
tu al
iz in
g th
e ro
le o
f IT
in it
.
O sh
ri et
a l.
(2 0
0 8
) T
h is
p ap
er ex
p lo
re s
th e
ro le
o f
tr an
sa ct
iv e
m em
o ry
in en
ab li
n g
k n
o w
le d
g e
tr an
sf er
b et
w ee
n g
lo b
al ly
d is
tr ib
u te
d te
am s.
IT w
o rk
fo rc
e P
ap er
s in
th is
ca te
g o
ry ex
am in
es m
ai n
ly H
R is
su es
fo r
IT w
o rk
fo rc
e, su
ch as
th ei
r p
ro fe
ss io
n al
d ev
el o
p m
en t,
w o
rk -
li fe
b al
an ce
, as
w el
l as
et h
ic al
, so
ci et
al ,
an d
le g
al is
su es
re la
te d
to IT
p ro
fe ss
io n
al s.
E m
p lo
y ee
tu rn
o v
er M
o u
rm an
t et
a l.
(2 0
0 9
) T
h is
p ap
er d
ev el
o p
s a
co m
p re
h en
si v
e m
o d
el to
u n
d er
st an
d th
e fa
ct o
rs an
d p
ro ce
ss es
th at
in fl
u en
ce tu
rn o
v er
b eh
av io
r fo
r p
ro sp
ec ti
v e
IT en
tr ep
re n
eu rs
.
S ec
u ri
ty /l
eg al
is su
es M
y y
ry et
a l.
(2 0
0 9
) T
h is
p ap
er ex
am in
es th
e in
fl u
en ce
o f
m o
ra l
re as
o n
in g
o n
em p
lo y
ee s’
co m
p li
an ce
w it
h in
fo rm
at io
n se
cu ri
ty p
o li
ci es
.
G en
d er
an d
o th
er is
su es
T ra
u th
et a
l. (2
0 0
9 )
T h
is p
ap er
lo o
k s
in to
th e
g en
d er
im b
al an
ce in
th e
IT p
ro fe
ss io
n ,
an d
ex am
in es
o rg
an iz
at io
n al
fa ct
o rs
th at
af fe
ct w
o m
en ’s
re te
n ti
o n
in th
e IT
fi el
d .
V ir
tu al
w o
rl d
P ap
er s
in th
is ca
te g
o ry
ar e
th eo
re ti
ca ll
y fo
cu se
d o
n b
eh av
io rs
/p h
en o
m en
a th
at o
cc u
r in
th e
v ir
tu al
w o
rl d
(e .g
., co
n fl
ic t,
b u
ll y
in g
, et
c. ),
an d
/o r
m an
ag er
ia l
O n
li n
e co
m m
u n
it y
C am
p b
el l
et a
l. (2
0 0
9 )
T h
is re
se ar
ch o
ff er
s an
in te
rp re
ti v
e p
er sp
ec ti
v e
th at
fo cu
se s
o n
th e
li n
k b
et w
ee n
id en
ti ty
sh ap
e sh
if ti
n g
b eh
av io
rs an
d th
e p
o w
er re
la ti
o n
s w
it h
in an
o n
li n
e fi
n an
ci al
co m
m u
n it
y .
The ongoing quest for the IT artifact S Akhlaghpour et al 162
improving the rigor of IS research, and critical, in the past and at present, for avoiding myopia and tunnel vision’ (Wu and Saunders, 2003: 567). Similarly, Ives et al. (2004) have argued that ‘the IS field should recognize the validity of both the existing research domains and those topics that lie at the periphery’ (p. 120). Different lenses have been suggested for analyzing the IS field and its evolution. Ives et al. (2004) identify two lenses: power and colonial sys- tems. The first one examines the evolution of IS based on a set of core properties whereas the second views the diver- sity of the IS domain as ‘a necessary stage in the evolution of the field’ (p. 116). For her part, DeSanctis (2003) suggested considering the legitimacy of the IS field through the lens of community of practice. According to these authors and many others, research that does not focus on the IT artifact might even be crucial for the future of the discipline because these studies represent sub-populations that are particularly important for the survival of the field.
In short, there seems to be growing scholarly interest and calls for research in understanding the relationship between artifacts, humans, and organizations. More speci- fically, the unique characteristics and complexities of a typical IT artifact – such as high degree of malleability and customizability – both intensify the need and bring about an opportunity for IS scholars to develop theories that put more emphasis on the material features of technology as well as on those constraints and affordances that stem from these features. Whether this requires that the IT artifact be clearly conceptualized and defined is debatable. The fact that little ‘progress’ in theorizing the IT artifact has been made in the last 10 years can be problematic or not, depending on the perspective that one assumes. In the perspective that the field should concentrate around a tight nomological net that is within one degree of separation from the IT artifact (e.g., Benbasat and Zmud, 2003), a lack of theorization of the artifact can be critical. However, in the view that the field’s nomological net can be broader and studies phenomena that are further away from the IT arti- fact (e.g., Alter, 2003b; Agarwal and Lucas, 2005), then a limited theorization of the artifact might not be critical. Perhaps, as in many other debates, the fact that the IS field has made little progress in defining the IT artifact while still evolving might suggest that this issue may not be critical to the survival of the IS field.2
Conclusion Our main goal in this paper was to provide a historical look at the IS field’s engagement with the concept of IT artifact. We did so by examining a large set of scholarly articles published in six top-tier European and North American IS journals over a 4-year period (2006–2009), and compar- ing the results with a similar study conducted more than 10 years ago (Orlikowski and Iacono, 2001). We observed a considerable decline in papers adopting a computational view of IT. In addition, our results show very little progress in terms of incorporating an ensemble view of IT. However, the most striking finding was the notable increase in the number of papers in the nominal view.
All in all, some will always contend that the IT artifact needs to be central to our discipline and that we should build the field’s boundaries around it. There are actors and
is su
es o
n v
ir tu
al te
am s/
o rg
an iz
at io
n s.
V ir
tu al
te am
s/ o
rg an
iz at
io n
s R
ie m
er an
d K
le in
(2 0
0 8
) T
h is
p ap
er in
tr o
d u
ce s
th e
V -f
o rm
o rg
an iz
at io
n as
an id
ea l
ty p
e o
f v
ir tu
al o
rg an
iz at
io n
s th
at su
cc ee
d in
a tu
rb u
le n
t en
v ir
o n
m en
t, an
d ex
am in
es th
e p
re co
n d
it io
n s
fo r
su cc
es sf
u l
v al
u e
cr ea
ti o
n in
v ir
tu al
o rg
an iz
at io
n s
E -c
o m
m er
ce P
ap er
s in
th is
ca te
g o
ry fo
cu s
o n
m an
ag er
ia l/
b eh
av io
ra l
is su
es re
la te
d to
E -c
o m
m er
ce (e
.g .,
E -a
u ct
io n
, E
-s tr
at eg
y ,e
tc .)
w it
h o
u t
sp ec
if ic
al ly
ex am
in in
g th
e ro
le o
f IT
in it
.
S u
tt o
n et
a l.
(2 0
0 8
) T
h is
st u
d y
ex am
in es
th e
cr it
ic al
ri sk
fa ct
o rs
th at
ca n
b e
u se
d to
as se
ss th
e im
p ac
t o
f B
2 B
e- co
m m
er ce
o n
o v
er al
l en
te rp
ri se
ri sk
B u
si n
es s
is su
es P
ap er
s in
th is
ca te
g o
ry d
is cu
ss b
ro ad
b u
si n
es s
is su
es th
at ar
e re
la te
d to
IT .
B u
si n
es s
ag il
it y
O o
st er
h o
u t
et a
l. (2
0 0
6 )
T h
is st
u d
y re
p o
rt s
o n
a cr
o ss
-i n
d u
st ry
an al
y si
s o
f ch
an g
e fa
ct o
rs re
q u
ir in
g ag
il it
y an
d as
se ss
es ag
il it
y g
ap s
th at
co m
p an
ie s
ar e
fa ci
n g
in fo
u r
in d
u st
ry se
ct o
rs in
th e
N et
h er
la n
d s.
B u
si n
es s
p ro
ce ss
so u
rc in
g an
d m
o d
el in
g
C le
g g
an d
S h
aw (2
0 0
8 )
T h
is p
ap er
d es
cr ib
es th
e p
ro ce
ss -o
ri en
te d
h o
lo n
ic m
o d
el in
g m
et h
o d
o lo
g y
an d
h o
w it
ca n
h el
p m
o d
el er
s in
d es
ig n
in g
b u
si n
es s
p ro
ce ss
es an
d as
so ci
at ed
IS .
The ongoing quest for the IT artifact S Akhlaghpour et al 163
mechanisms that can help shape the field in some kind of top-down manner in order to institutionalize a common core for IS. To do so would require strong theorizing of the IT artifact and of IT phenomena in general. Our results indicate that although Orlikowski and Iacono’s call for theorizing the IT artifact and employing richer concep- tualizations was issued over 10 years ago, the field has not witnessed much improvement in these regards. The number of IS theories are found to be ‘depressingly few’ (Markus and Saunders, 2007). This situation can be attributed to several elements in our field such as heavily relying on the mechanistically adopted theories from reference disciplines (Grover et al., 2008), that is, researchers prefer to borrow a well-developed theory, tweak it and apply it to an IT phenomenon rather than to follow the risky business of theorizing. The structure of several IS doctoral programs that emphasize theory-based research in a sense discourage novel out-of-the-box ideas and suggest that ‘all research must start with an existing theory and make a small addi- tion to it’ (Goodhue, 2007: 221). There is also the promi- nence of the ‘culture of rejection’ (Straub and Ang, 2008) among top IS journals, which tends to give the upper hand to rigor (as opposed to relevance) and ‘[to] focus on technical issues rather than to relish fundamental ideas.’ Review panels also tend to see themselves as gatekeepers of the field (as opposed to what Saunders (2005) calls ‘diamond-cutters’). In this context, developing theories and doing avant-garde research that creates novel theories of technology is quite risky. From this perspective, the field will be defined mostly in a top-down manner and it is mainly up to senior scholars in the field and mainstream journal editors to revisit and address these issues.
Others will continue to argue that IS research is actually defined in a bottom-up manner by the IS research that is conducted. From this perspective, the IS field is evolving constantly, like all scientific domains (Kuhn and Hacking, 2012). It is true that ‘what was seen as core at one particular point in time was not seen as core later’ (Myers, 2003: 585). Given the specificities of the IS discipline and the fast pace of development of technology, these constant changes might well be at the core of the IS discipline identity. In light of the fact that scientific progress is tied to evolution and cannot be static (Kuhn and Hacking, 2012), this might in fact be a positive trait of our domain. For years, we were told over and over again that the IS discipline is in crisis and that there is a ‘bleak future for the field’ (Hirschheim and Klein, 2003: 238). Yet, IS researchers are increasingly productive, IS conferences attract large numbers of academics (ICIS, 2012 website lists nearly 1400 registrants), and ‘the scholarly readers seem to be comfortable with the idea of IS as an academic discipline’ (Baskerville, 2012). Ultimately, we might want to trust the research done by the IS community to provide an actual answer to what IS research is all about, whether centered on the IT artifact or not.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the senior editor, Jaana Porra, for her guidance throughout the reviewing process and the three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. The research was supported financially by the Fonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Société et la Culture (FQRSC).
Notes 1 We contacted Dr. Orlikowski and Dr. Iacono, in this regard.
Unfortunately the data from the original paper are not available anymore.
2 We thank the senior editor for suggesting this idea.
References
Agarwal, R. and Lucas, H.C. (2005). The Information Systems Identity Crisis: Focusing on high-visibility and high-impact research, MIS Quarterly 29(3): 381–398.
Alter, S. (2003a). 18 Reasons Why IT-Reliant Work Systems Should Replace ‘The IT Artifact’ as the Core Subject Matter of the IS Field, Communications of the AIS 12(1): 365–394.
Alter, S. (2003b). The IS Core XI: Sorting out issues about the core, scope and identity of the IS field, Communications of the AIS 12(1): 607–628.
Alter, S. (2003c). Sidestepping the IT Artifact, Scrapping the IS Silo, and Laying Claim to ‘Systems in Organizations’, Communications of the AIS 12(1): 494–526.
Baptista, J. (2009). Institutionalisation as a Process of Interplay between Technology and its Organisational Context of Use, Journal of Information Technology 24(4): 305.
Barad, K.M. (2007). Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Barki, H. (2008). Thar’s Gold in them Thar Constructs, SIGMIS Database 39(3): 9–20.
Baskerville, R. (2012). Reviving the IT in the IS, European Journal of Information Systems 21(6): 587–591.
Beath, C.M. and Orlikowski, W.J. (1994). The Contradictory Structure of Systems Development Methodologies: Deconstructing the IS-user relationship in information engineering, Information Systems Research 4(5): 350–377.
Benbasat, I. and Zmud, R. (2003). The Identity Crisis within the IS Discipline: Defining and communicating the discipline’s core properties, MIS Quarterly 27(2): 183–194.
Bryant, A. (2008). The Future of Information Systems – Thinking informatically, European Journal of Information Systems 17(6): 695–698.
Campbell, J., Fletcher, G. and Greenhill, A. (2009). Conflict and Identity Shape Shifting in an Online Financial Community, Information Systems Journal 19(5): 461–478.
Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., Galliers, B., Henfridsson, O., Newell, S. and Vidgen, R. (2010). On sociomateriality of information systems and organizing, (Call for Papers – MISQ Special Issue) [WWW document] http://www.misq.org/skin/ frontend/default/misq/pdf/CurrentCalls/SI_Sociomateriality.pdf (accessed 1 September 2012).
Clegg, B. and Shaw, D. (2008). Using Process-oriented Holonic (PrOH) Modelling to Increase Understanding of Information Systems, Information Systems Journal 18(5): 447–477.
Cohen, J. (1960). A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales, Educational and Psychological Measurement 20(1): 37–46.
Cordoba, J.R. and Midgley, G. (2008). Beyond Organisational Agendas: Using boundary critique to facilitate the inclusion of societal concerns in information systems planning, European Journal of Information Systems 17(2): 125–142.
Cordoba, J.R., Pilkington, A. and Bernroider, E.W.N. (2012). Information Systems as a Discipline in the Making: Comparing EJIS and MISQ Between 1995 and 2008, European Journal of Information Systems 21(5): 479–495.
Deans, P.C. (2003). The IS Core III: The core domain debate and the international business discipline: A comparison, Communications of the AIS 12(1): 546–552.
Dennis, A.R., Valacich, J.S., Fuller, M.A. and Schneider, C. (2006). Research Standards or Promotion and Tenure in Information Systems, MIS Quarterly 30(1): 1–12.
DeSanctis, G. (2003). The Social Life of Information Systems Research A Response to Benbasat and Zmud’s Call for Returning to the IT Artifact, Journal of the Association for Information Systems 4(7): 360–376.
Dufner, D. (2003). The IS Core I: Economic and systems engineering approaches to IS identity, Communications of the AIS 12(1): 527–538.
The ongoing quest for the IT artifact S Akhlaghpour et al 164
El Sawy, O.A. (2003). The IS Core IX: The 3 faces of is identity: con- nection, immersion, and fusion, Communications of the AIS 12(1): 588–598.
Fink, L. and Markovich, S. (2008). Generic Verticalization Strategies in Enterprise System Markets: An exploratory framework, Journal of Information Technology 23(4): 281–296.
Fuller, R.M. and Dennis, A.R. (2009). Does Fit Matter? The Impact of Task-Technology Fit and Appropriation on Team Performance in Repeated Tasks, Information Systems Research 20(1): 2–17.
Galliers, R.D. and Whitley, E.A. (2007). Vive les Differences? Developing a Profile of European Information Systems Research as a Basis for International Comparisons, European Journal of Information Systems 16(1): 20–35.
Gallivan, M.J. and Benbunan-Fich, R. (2007). Analyzing IS Research Productivity: An inclusive approach to global IS scholarship, European Journal of Information Systems 16(1): 36–53.
Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the theory of structuration, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Goodhue, D.L. (2007). Comment on Benbasat and Barki’s Quo Vadis TAM article, Journal of the Association for Information Systems 8(4): 219–222.
Gray, P. (2003). Introduction to the Debate on the Core of the Information Systems Field, Communications of the AIS 12(1), Article 42.
Grover, V., Lyytinen, K., Srinivasan, A. and Tan, B.C.Y. (2008). Contributing to Rigorous and Forward Thinking Explanatory Theory, Journal of the Association for Information Systems 9(2): 40–47.
Hatzakis, T., Lycett, M. and Serrano, A. (2007). A Programme Management Approach for Ensuring Curriculum Coherence in IS (higher) Education, European Journal of Information Systems 16(5): 643–657.
Hepsø, V., Monteiro, E. and Rolland, K.H. (2009). Ecologies of e-Infrastructures, Journal of the Association for Information Systems 10(5): 430–446.
Hirschheim, R. (2008). Some Guidelines for the Critical Reviewing of Conceptual Papers, Journal of the Association for Information Systems 9(8): 432–441.
Hirschheim, R. and Klein, H.K. (2003). Crisis in the IS Field? A Critical Reflection on the State of the Discipline, Journal of the AIS 4(5): 237–293.
ICIS (2012). International Conference on Information Systems Registrant List, [WWW document] http://icis2012.aisnet.org/Files/Reg%20List.pdf (accessed 25 December 2012).
Iivari, J. (2002). The IS Core VII: Towards information systems as a science of meta-artifacts, Communications of the AIS 12(1): 568–581.
Ives, B., Parks, M.S., Porra, J. and Silva, L. (2004). Phylogeny and Power in the IS Domain: A response to Benbasat and Zmud’s call for returning to the IT artifact, Journal of the Association for Information Systems 5(3): 108–124.
JAIS (2012). JAIS ranking information, [WWW document] http:// aisel.aisnet.org/jais/distribution.html (accessed 1 September 2012).
JCR (2012). Journal citation reports, [WWW document] http:// webofknowledge.com/JCR:ThomsonReuters (accessed 1 September 2012).
Klein, H.K. and Rowe, F. (2008). Marshaling the Professional Experience of Doctoral Students: A contribution to the practical relevance debate, MIS Quarterly 32(4): 675–686.
Kuhn, T.S. and Hacking, I. (2012). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 4th edn, Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press.
Landis, J.R. and Koch, G.G. (1977). The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data, Biometrics 33(1): 159–174.
Larsson, R. (1993). Case Survey Methodology: Quantitative analysis of patterns across case studies, The Academy of Management Journal 36(6): 1515–1546.
Leonardi, P.M. (2011). Innovation Blindness: Culture, frames, and cross- boundary problem construction in the development of new technology concepts, Organization Science 22(2): 347.
Leonardi, P.M. and Barley, S.R. (2008). Materiality and Change: Challenges to building better theory about technology and organizing, Information and Organization 18(3): 159–176.
Leonardi, P.M. and Barley, S.R. (2010). What’s Under Construction Here? Social Action, Materiality, and Power in Constructivist Studies of Technology and Organizing, The Academy of Management Annals 4(1): 1–51.
Lowry, P.B., Karuga, G.G. and Richardson, V.J. (2007). Assessing Leading Institutions, Faculty, and Articles in Premier Information Systems Research Journals, Communications of AIS 2007(20): 142–203.
Markus, M.L. and Saunders, C. (2007). Looking for a Few Good Concepts y and Theories y for the Information Systems Field – Editor’s Comments, MIS Quarterly 31(1): Iii–Vi.
Markus, M.L. and Silver, M.S. (2008). A Foundation for the Study of IT Effects: A new look at Desanctis and Poole’s concepts of structural features and spirit, Journal of the Association for Information Systems 9(10): 609.
McCubbrey, D.J. (2003). The IS Core IV: IS research: A third way, Communications of the AIS 12(1): 553–556.
Mourmant, G., Gallivan, M.J. and Kalika, M. (2009). Another Road to IT Turnover: The entrepreneurial path, European Journal of Information Systems 18(5): 498–521.
Myers, M.D. (2003). The IS Core – VIII: Defining the core properties of the IS disciplines: Not yet, not now, Communications of the AIS 12(1), Article 38.
Myyry, L., Siponen, M., Pahnila, S., Vartiainen, T. and Vance, A. (2009). What Levels of Moral Reasoning and Values Explain Adherence to Information Security Rules? An empirical study, European Journal of Information Systems 18(2): 126–139.
Oosterhout, M., Waarts, E. and van Hillegersberg, J. (2006). Change Factors Requiring Agility and Implications for IT, European Journal of Information Systems 15(2): 132–145.
Orlikowski, W.J. (2007). Sociomaterial Practices: Exploring Technology at Work, Organization studies 28(9): 1435–1448.
Orlikowski, W.J. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization, The Academy of Management annals 2(1): 433.
Orlikowski, W.J. and Iacono, S. (2001). Research Commentary: Desperately Seeking the ‘IT’ in IT Research: A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact, Information Systems Research 12(2): 121–134.
Orlikowski, W.J. and Scott, S.V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization, The Academy of Management annals 2(1): 433–474.
Oshri, I., Van Fenema, P. and Kotlarsky, J. (2008). Knowledge Transfer in Globally Distributed Teams: The role of transactive memory, Information Systems Journal 18(6): 593–616.
Pan, G., Pan, S.L., Newman, M. and Flynn, D. (2006). Escalation and De-escalation of Commitment: A commitment transformation analysis of an e-government project, Information Systems Journal 16(1): 3–21.
Pinsonneault, A. and Barki, H. (2012). Conceptualizing the Organi- zational IT Artifact via the Construct of Organizational Integration, in Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), (Maui, Hawaii, USA). Washington DC: IEEE Computer Society Press, 5184–5193.
Pitts, M.G. and Browne, G.J. (2007). Improving Requirements Elicitation: An empirical investigation of procedural prompts, Information Systems Journal 17(1): 89–110.
Power, D.J. (2003). The IS Core II: The maturing IS discipline: Institutionalizing our domain of inquiry, Communications of the AIS 12(1): 539–545.
Riemer, K. and Klein, S. (2008). Is the V-form the Next Generation Organisation? An analysis of challenges, pitfalls and remedies of ICT-enabled virtual organisations based on social capital theory, Journal of Information Technology 23(3): 147–162.
Robey, D. (2003). Identity, Legitimacy and the Dominant Research Paradigm: An alternative prescription for the IS discipline, Journal of the AIS 4(7): 352–359.
Sahay, S., Aanestad, M. and Monteiro, E. (2009). Configurable Politics and Asymmetric Integration: Health e-infrastructures in India, Journal of the Association for Information Systems 10(5): 399–414.
Saunders, C. (2005). Editor’s Comments: Looking for Diamond Cutters, MIS Quarterly 29(1): iii–viii.
Saunders, C. and Benbasat, I. (2007). A Camel Going Through the Eye of a Needle, MIS Quarterly 31(3): iv–xviii.
Sidorova, A., Evangelopoulos, N., Valacich, J.S. and Ramakrishnan, T. (2008). Uncovering the Intellectual Core of the Information Systems Discipline, MIS Quarterly 32(3): 467–A20.
The ongoing quest for the IT artifact S Akhlaghpour et al 165
Silva, L. (2007). Epistemological and Theoretical Challenges for Studying Power and Politics in Information Systems, Information Systems Journal 17(2): 165–183.
Straub, D.W. and Ang, S. (2008). Readability and the Relevance Versus Rigor Debate, MIS Quarterly 32(4): Iii–X.
Sutton, S.G., Hampton, C., Khazanchi, D. and Arnold, V. (2008). Risk Analysis in Extended Enterprise Environments: Identification of critical risk factors in B2B e-commerce relationships, Journal of the Association for Information Systems 9(3–4): 151–174.
Tan, C.X. and Sia, S.K. (2006). Managing Flexibility in Outsourcing, Journal of the Association for Information Systems 7(4): 179–205.
Trauth, E.M., Quesenberry, J.L. and Huang, H.Y. (2009). Retaining Women in the US IT Workforce: Theorizing the influence of organizational factors, European Journal of Information Systems 18(5): 476–497.
Venkatesh, V. and Ramesh, V. (2006). Web and Wireless Site Usability: Understanding differences and modeling use, MIS Quarterly 30(1): 181–206.
Walsham, G. (1993). Interpreting Information Systems in Organisations, Chichester: Wiley.
Wattal, S., Schuff, D., Mandviwalla, M. and Williams, C.B. (2010). Web 2.0 and Politics: The 2008 u.s. presidential election and an e-politics research agenda, MIS Quarterly 34(4): 669–688.
Weber, R. (2003). Still Desperately Seeking the IT Artifact, MIS Quarterly 27(2): 3–11.
Wu, Y.A. and Saunders, C. (2003). The IS Core VI: Further along the road to the IT artifact, Communications of the AIS 12(1): 562–567.
Yin, R.K. (1989). Case Study Research: Design and methods, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Zammuto, R.F., Griffith, T.L., Majchrzak, A., Dougherty, D.J. and Faraj, S. (2007). Information Technology and the Changing Fabric of Organization, Organization Science 18(5): 749–762.
Zuboff, S. (1988). In the Age of the Smart Machine: The future of work and power, London: Basic Books.
About the authors Saeed Akhlaghpour is currently a Ph.D. candidate (ABD) in Management (Information Systems) at the Desautels Faculty of Management at McGill University. His research interests include the institutional and discursive aspects of IT innovation diffusion, IT Innovation in healthcare, IT fashions, and the role of industry analysts and consultants in shaping the IT innovation landscape. His research has appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Infor- matics Association, Proceedings of Americas Conference on Information Systems, and the Best Paper Proceedings of Academy of Management, and has won the Best Paper
and Honorable Mention awards from the Administrative Sciences Association of Canada.
Jing Wu is currently a Ph.D. candidate in Management (Information Systems) at the Desautels Faculty of Manage- ment at McGill University. She holds an M.Sc. in Information and Communication Technology in Business from Leiden University and a B.Eng. in Computer Science and Technol- ogy from Zhejiang University. Her research interests are centered on the business value of information technology. She conducts research on the impacts of IT use in managers’ capability to make sense of their business environment, with a focus on the effects of social networks and information quality.
Liette Lapointe is currently an associate professor, Infor- mation Systems Area coordinator, and director of the Business and Management Research Center at the Desautels Faculty of Management at McGill University. She holds an M.Sc. in Healthcare Administration from the Faculty of Medicine at Université de Montréal and a Ph.D. in Administration (Information Systems) from HEC Montréal. Her research in information systems and healthcare management has been presented in confer- ences worldwide and published in scientific journals in management and medicine, such as MIS Quarterly, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Organization Science, Implementation Science, Interna- tional Journal of Medical Informatics, and Canadian Medical Association Journal.
Alain Pinsonneault, Fellow-Royal Society of Canada, is a James McGill Professor and the Imasco Chair of information systems in the Desautels Faculty of Management at McGill University. His current research interests include the orga- nizational and individual impacts of information techno- logy, user adaptation, social networks, ERP implementation, e-health, e-integration, strategic alignment of IT, and the business value of IT. His research has appeared in Manage- ment Science, MIS Quarterly, Information Systems Research, the Journal of MIS, Small Group Research, Decision Support Systems, Organization Science, and the European Journal of Operational Research.
The ongoing quest for the IT artifact S Akhlaghpour et al 166
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.
