Research Commentary: Desperately Seeking the “IT” in IT Research—A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact
Abstract
The field of information systems is premised on the centrality of information technology in everyday socio-economic life. Yet, drawing on a review of the full set of articles published in Information Systems Research (ISR) over the past ten years, we argue that the field has not deeply engaged its core subject matter—the information technology (IT) artifact. Instead, we find that IS researchers tend to give central theoretical significance to the context (within which some usually unspecified technology is seen to operate), the discrete processing capabilities of the artifact (as separable from its context or use), or the dependent variable (that which is posited to be affected or changed as technology is developed, implemented, and used). The IT artifact itself tends to disappear from view, be taken for granted, or is presumed to be unproblematic once it is built and installed. After discussing the implications of our findings, we propose a research direction for the IS field that begins to take technology as seriously as its effects, context, and capabilities. In particular, we propose that IS researchers begin to theorize specifically about IT artifacts, and then incorporate these theories explicitly into their studies. We believe that such a research direction is critical if IS research is to make a significant contribution to the understanding of a world increasingly suffused with ubiquitous, interdependent, and emergent information technologies.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Triangulating multiple sources allowed the researchers to examine chatbots in use from different sides and in different embedded contexts.
“This allowed us to examine chatbots in use from different sides and in different embedded contexts (Klein and Myers 1999;Orlikowski and Iacono 2001).”
From How affordances of chatbots cross the chasm between social and traditional enterprise systems (2020) · cites this paper as Orlikowski and Iacono 2001
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 36 · Cited by 2,751
- Authors
- Orlikowski, W. J., & Iacono, C. S.
- Affiliations
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- U.S. National Science Foundation (US)
- Venue
- Information Systems Research
- Published
- 2001-06
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 121-134
- ISSN
- 1047-7047 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5536
- OpenAlex
- W2123601949
- Cited by
- 2,751
- References
- 36
- Citations by year
- 2026: 78 · 2025: 58 · 2024: 80 · 2023: 75 · 2022: 99 · 2021: 83 · 2020: 97 · 2019: 85 · 2018: 106 · 2017: 84 · 2016: 124 · 2015: 155 · 2014: 174 · 2013: 181 · 2012: 171
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Information Systems Research (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Information Technology Governance and Strategy
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Systems Education and Curriculum Development
- Keywords
- information systems research agenda, technological capabilities, ubiquitous information technology
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review