Home | Business News | Browse by Publication | M | MIS Quarterly

Operationalizing the essential role of the Information Technology artifact in Information Systems research: gray area, pitfalls, and the importance of strategic ambiguity.

Article Excerpt
Abstract

In this paper we argue that a large gray area of information systems research exists, whose relevance to the information technology artifact is subject to significant debate even among IS scholars who support the essential role of the IT artifact. As we explain, not explicitly addressing this gray area can have negative, although often inadvertent, effects on the innovative nature of IS research; we explore this danger through three pitfalls. We then propose a stance of strategic ambiguity to deal with the gray area. Strategic ambiguity calls for deliberately withholding judgment on the relevance of research in the gray area and acceptance of gray-area research provided it meets the excellence required by professional journals. We believe that strategic ambiguity benefits innovative IS research without harming the essential role of the IT artifact.

Keywords: IS discipline, IT artifact, gray area, strategic ambiguity

**********

Introduction

The Information Systems field faces the challenge of determining the essential characteristics of IS research and defining its difference from research in fields such as law, economics, communication, and computer science. A body of IS research has addressed this "identity crisis" (Benbasat and Zmud 2003; Orlikowski and Iacono 2001; Straub and Watson 2001; Weber 2003). Seminal research by Orlikowski and Iacono (2001, p. 121) identifies the information technology artifact as an essential component of IS research. They define the IT artifact as "those bundles of material and cultural properties packaged in some socially recognizable form such as hardware and/or software." In an important follow-up paper, Benbasat and Zmud (2003) attempt to define which research is relevant to the IT artifact in order to clarify the IS discipline's identity. They propose an immediate nomological net of the IT artifact that consists of five components: the IT artifact; IT managerial, methodological, and operational capabilities; IT managerial, methodological, and technological practices; IT usage; and IT impact. Benbasat and Zmud argue that research falling outside this immediate nomological net may not be suitable for publication in top IS journals.

A spirited and healthy debate immediately followed the publication of Benbasat and Zmud's commentary. This debate has already evolved beyond simply supporting or refuting the concepts of the IT artifact and the immediate nomological net. (2) Among the papers that at least partially support the idea of a collective identity for IS discipline, Alter (2003), Gray (2003), and Robey (2003) express the concern that the IT artifact and the IS discipline's identity are evolving, rather than static, concepts. Therefore, the boundary of IS research is fluid. In addition, Hirschheim and Klein (2003), Alter (2003), Wu and Saunders (2003), and EI Sawy (2003) suggest alternatives to the IT artifact that they believe better define the IS discipline's identity.

While we support the idea of a collective identity, in this paper we intend neither to refine existing ideas nor propose a new one. Instead, we will focus on operational-level issues that may arise if existing ideas are used to define the boundary of IS research. We will argue that some of the issues, if not carefully addressed, may lead to profoundly negative consequences. As the essence of our arguments is best seen in the application of Benbasat and Zmud's ideas, we will focus on their work. Nevertheless, we believe our discussion applies to other existing arguments about the collective identity of the IS discipline as well.

We first argue that a large collection of research exists whose relevance to the IT artifact is subject to significant debate, even among IS scholars who support the essential role of the IT artifact. We call this collection of research the gray area. We further clarify the concept of the gray area through examples and discuss the characteristics of research that falls into this gray area. The gray area in IS is much larger than in other mature disciplines because innovations in IT and its business connections are still rapid. Although the gray area has largely been ignored in the literature, this rapid innovation justifies our attention.

Two principles crucial in sustaining the innovative nature of IS research emerge from our explicit acknowledgment of the gray area. First, the operational criteria for research relevance (3) to the IT artifact must be carefully defined to avoid overly limiting or expanding the IS field. (4) We elaborate on this by showing what might happen if caution is not exercised. For example, a set of ambiguous criteria combined with diverse editorial interpretations would encourage researchers to avoid the gray area, thus overly (although often inadvertently) limiting our field. Second, a policy of strategic ambiguity toward the issue of research relevance is crucial for cultivating innovative IS research and beneficial to the advancement of our field. We define strategic ambiguity as the deliberate and explicit editorial...

View this article FREE - Now for a Limited Time, try Goliath Business News
Free for 3 Days!