Information Systems: An Emerging Discipline?

Citation

Powell, P. (1999), "Information Systems: An Emerging Discipline?", Information Technology & People, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 14-16. https://doi.org/10.1108/itp.1999.12.2.14.4

Just as information systems in the US suffered when the American Association of Schools of Business decided to exclude IS from the core curriculum for accredited business schools, in the UK the decision not to give IS its own panel in the peer‐review Research Assessment Exercise, prompted a great deal of soul searching. This manifested itself partly as a questioning by IS academics of whether or not information systems constituted a discipline. A number of seminars at Warwick Business School were held and the culmination is this text. It is an edited book of 13 chapters “from leading members of the European IS community” (p. xix). Its principal aim is to raise and address fundamental (this word appears a lot throughout the text) questions arising from the debate about whether IS can be seen to be a discipline and why.

Chapter 1 by the editors, Stowell and Mingers, introduces the debate. It suggests we are in need of some collective thought as to where we are going. The background is that, although there are IS courses in universities, chairs of IS, departments, journals and societies, IS does not have the status that some other subjects seem to have. IS is seen to “emerge” from computer science and the authors suggest “that the fundamental difference between CS and IS is that computer science is centred upon the functionalist paradigm and IS needs to consider alternative concepts” (p. 5). Indeed, “IS is actually the most recent stage in the development of that uniquely human characteristic, language and communication” (p. 6). The authors feel that, so far, IS is fulfilling a necessary but limited role and the chapter suggests that a wider, more significant role might be on offer.

Part one consists of four chapters on the philosophical issues of IS as a discipline. Probert, in chapter 2, argues that as there are “real, genuine” (p. 21) problems, then IS should exist. IS is problem driven ‐‐ ultimately the problems are those of “management within organisations” (p. 22). However, some might argue that the real emerging problems are those of managing between organisations as this requires a different agenda to be addressed, but this issue is not touched on. Probert identifies three fallacies for IS not being a discipline. The essentialist fallacy is that a discipline should have a core theory of some sort, but as many other “established” disciplines do not, then IS can hardly be expected to; “so in IS not only is the search for a core of method or procedure likely to be futile, the demand for one is also” (p. 26). The reductionist fallacy argues that IS is really a branch, or component, of something else. But again, as lots of other disciplines can be reduced by this, it would be unfair to stop IS being a discipline just for this reason. The final fallacy, the epiphenomenalistic, is that disciplines reflect and interact with an ontologically static and unchanging world. But this is not so ‐‐ emergence and the creation of new ontological categories by academic disciplines takes care of that. What IS needs is techniques for analysing the actual relationships between the subjects conducting the analysis and the objects in the study. This interesting and thought‐provoking chapter ends by dismissing SSM (soft systems methodology) advocates′ “facile tendency to treat IS as, by and large, subjective constructs” (p. 48). This raises a point which has wider applicability to the whole text. It would have been interesting to get a rebuttal of such a view and, if we really want to know how IS is viewed then perhaps get views from people outside IS ‐‐ the computer scientists, psychologists, sociologists etc. (or even practitioners) who have not “converted” to IS.

Chapter 3 by Spaul suggests that disciplines have a sense of their own worth and that this is both necessary and permanent. He argues for the need for nomadic intellectuals and cautions against exclusion and prescription. In chapter 4 Jones highlights the confusion over the three meanings of discipline ‐‐ as a branch of learning, as order and as chastisement. He suggests three views of disciplines, subscripted 1‐3, where the first is normative, emphasising the existence of established rules, the second is descriptive and concerns what is included, while the third is a mechanism of control. IS is found not to meet the requirements for the first; it probably does for the second ‐‐ but does not deserve it and it might be better to see IS as a field or area of study. Just because IS is not a “discipline”, it doesn′t mean that those involved in the field are not “disciplined”′ (p. 109). In chapter 5, Avison reflects on teaching research and practice in IS.

Part 2 looks at research issues. By and large this section is very interesting and useful but some does not fit so well with the rest of the book. Chapter 6 contains Galliers′ reflections on IS research, while Stowell, West and Stansfield investigate action research in chapter 7. This contains a useful set of practical lessons. In essence, they argue that researchers should conduct a risk analysis of a potential research project to highlight and plan for potential pitfalls. Chapter 8 introduces critical systems thinking and discusses what it has to offer to IS research. Jackson feels IS can benefit from critical systems thinking and gives a nice, extended example. Chapter 9 is an excellent review of interpretive research. Myers succinctly takes us through issues of interpretive research in IS, arguing that it offers rigour and insight into real‐world situations. Stamper offers organisational semiotics as a research tool in chapter 10. Again, as an introduction to the topic, this is very useful. There are no chapters which offer thoughts on quantitative or positivist research.

Part 3 is about practice and education. Chapter 11 looks out of place as it is not about IS research nor IS as a discipline but it is a piece of IS research looking at the success of strategic information systems. Given what precedes it and the tone of the book, this chapter sits very uneasily with the rest. Indeed, the editors introduce it as “a contribution to IS research” (p. 285). And it is, but why it is here is something of a mystery. The ending of this paper states that “it is concluded that the research framework is able to explain the fundamental reasons for the degree of success with strategic information systems” (p. 317). This is a substantial claim and a particularly strong one given the nature of this text. In the second chapter in this part, work reflects on IS curricula and states that the author does not want an official one. Rather, he argues for a reversion to liberal education.

The concluding chapter is different. It is an “alternative” view by Angell. Those familiar with Angell′s views will have met the basic thrust before. Readers who stumble onto this anew will be fascinated, challenged and probably disturbed, but certainly not bored. This chapter is interesting and, agree or not, we need someone to say this sort of thing. The chapter concludes by asking “do you have the vision to win?”.

Production of this text is a good idea; it is a text that we need. It is a good drawing together of a number of strands on which IS needs to reflect before it marches on. Whether this is the “truly exciting time for IS” that the foreword suggests remains to be seen, but certainly we stand at a crossroads in IS and need to be clearer about what we are or want to be. Who is this book for? Well, the foreword suggests that it is “a marvellous source material for undergraduate and postgraduate students studying IS” (p. xvii). While it is very good and has many valuable chapters, it is very difficult to see how it would fit into an undergraduate course in IS. However, it should be required reading for postgraduates and anyone researching in IS. The editors are to be congratulated on producing this work. It is to be recommended.