Search

Action research (AR) has developed extensively since the 1970s. We reviewed the AR literature within the information systems (IS) discipline and found 16 different methods, which constitutes a problematic situation for researchers. We describe and critique those methods before integrating their strengths to improve the AR method that is most frequently practiced in IS: canonical action research (CAR). The existing set of principles and criteria for CAR is modified and elaborated to enhance the foundation for undertaking AR consistently. We discuss the general implications of this improved form of the method, which we name integrated action research (IAR). We specifically suggest how IAR can be used to investigate the application of disruptive technologies, including those that embody artificial intelligence and enable more flexible and socially distanced work.

At ICIS 2019, the College of Senior Scholars appointed a committee to investigate diversity in the editorial boards of their Basket of Eight Journals. Editorial board diversity is a signal that the journal is open to and inclusive of all authors. The committee compared the gender, regional and ethnic diversity of the editorial boards to that of AIS Academic members of the AIS. This comparison showed that the journals overall have fewer female members than might be reasonably expected, that editorial boards are populated by members from Region 1 more, and Region 3 less, than might be reasonably expected. There are more editorial board members of Indian ancestry than expected, while several other ethnicities appear on editorial boards in smaller numbers than expected, compared to AIS Academics. The individual journals differ a great deal among themselves with respect to these diversity criteria, with every journal falling below what might be reasonably expected with respect to either gender, regional or ethnic diversity. The report concludes with recommendations for the College of Senior Scholars, for the EICs of the Basket of Eight Journals, and for AIS Council (and leaders of other organizations of IS scholars).

The deep embeddedness of Information Systems (IS) in many areas of human activity poses a dual challenge to the IS discipline: advancing an expanding disciplinary boundary that includes an increasing set of IS topics; and engaging with other disciplines in order to understand IS-enabled phenomena. An inability to meet these challenges could lead to conceptually stunted development of the IS discipline, missed opportunities to inform other disciplines and a failure to effectively contribute to solving the pressing problems of our time. We undertook this study to investigate both how IS research has addressed these challenges in the past and how it can continue to do so in the future. Drawing on the concept of knowledge-materialization through knowledge-creating practice, and based on approaches for disciplinary and interdisciplinary knowledge creation, we theorize four different types of knowledge contribution that IS researchers can produce, encompassing both an intra-disciplinary and an inter-disciplinary view. We then analyse a wide-ranging sample of research studies published in 176 papers in the AIS basket of eight journals to investigate the nature of their contribution vis-a-vis these types. We find that the predominant types of knowledge contribution are intra-disciplinary, with relatively few inter-disciplinary contributions. Based on our analysis, we explain why each type of knowledge contribution is important to the IS discipline and provide guidance for IS scholars in planning their research strategies for these contributions. We comment on the implications of our study for IS scholars and for the vigour and growth of the IS discipline.

The quality of research published in journals is not only dependent on the work performed by authors, but also on the service undertaken by peer reviewers. In this paper, we take a twopronged qualitative approach to establish an integrated set of criteria for reviewers, for the reviews they produce, and for the papers they review in the IS domain. These criteria are intended to be of value to three sets of stakeholders: authors, reviewers and editors. Authors should find them useful as they write, knowing in advance how reviewers are evaluating their work; reviewers should find them useful to improve the quality of the reviews of manuscripts; editors should use them to ensure that manuscripts are well written and that reviewers performed their tasks effectively. We discuss the implications of these criteria for the review process and identify areas for future research.

In this paper, we discuss the AIS Code of Research Conduct approved by AIS Council at its December 2003 meeting. We explain the purpose of the Code, its focus, who developed the code, and indicate the participation of many leading scholars in our community. We discuss how the Code may be used as an instrument to assist in maintaining the integrity of our journals and conference proceedings. We identify processes by which scholars who were victimized may seek redress and, in the Appendix, how the editors involved may deal with alleged offenders. The adoption of this code of research conduct is an important step in the maturing of our IS community.

This paper presents an extended discussion of issues associated with the role of information privacy in IS research. This discussion was initiated in conjunction with a panel session at ICIS 2002. Following the conference, each of the panelists reworked and extended their position statements, and provided a commentary on the position statements of the other panelists. The paper is framed with head and tail pieces written by the panel chair. The result is a (unique and provocative) blend of opinion and commentary on a topic that is of importance to IS research in the globally networked society in which we all live. IS researchers will find research questions, research conundrums, and research advice in equal measure.

This article contains the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Member Misconduct which was presented to the AIS Council at its meeting on December 15, 2002 in Barcelona, Spain. The committee was established in response to an inquiry on plagiarism that was placed before the Council. The report includes an overview of the literature on plagiarism, the views of eight editors of IS journals, and guidelines for dealing with the issue. The Committee makes four recommendations

Discussants play an important role in conferences, yet little practical advice exists to help them make best use of their time beyond informal guidelines. Two new approaches to the intellectual discussion of conference papers are introduced: Group Support Systems and Conversational Learning. The discussant’s role is illustrated with reference to each of these approaches. Recommendations for discussant practice are presented.

The ethical conduct of research is a mark of integrity in the academic and professional worlds. This paper, which draws upon discussions conducted in a panel at the 21 ICIS conference in Brisbane, Australia, examines ethical issues associated with three key components of the research process: design, data collection and analysis; writing; and reviewing. The implications of these issues for the IS research community are discussed. Example scenarios are used to illuminate the issues faced by authors and reviewers of articles. After considering the alternatives of strict guidelines enforced by bureaucratic structures, self regulation without guidelines, and self regulation through norms set by a code of practice, the last option is recommended because it can lead to better practice in a constructive fashion without either excessive bureaucratic intervention or a "free-for-all" where "anything goes".