The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Nothing At The Center?: Academic Legitimacy in the Information Systems Field
Open accessAbstract
Researchers in the information system (IS) field have recently called for the field to legitimate itself by erecting a strong theoretical core at its center. This paper examines this proposition, and concludes that it is logically invalid and does not recognize ample evidence to the contrary from the history of other disciplines. We construct a broader concept of academic legitimacy around three drivers: the salience of the issues studied, the production of strong results, and the maintenance of disciplinary plasticity. This analysis suggests that to remain successful, the IS field needs intellectual discipline in boundary spanning across a ¡°market of ideas¡± concerning the application of information technology in human enterprise.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches
Suchman, M. C. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258788 · Cited by 19,903
Design science in information systems research
(2004) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.5555/2017212.2017217 · Cited by 8,254
Cited by
Sarker, S., Chatterjee, S., Xiao, X., & Elbanna, A. (2019) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2019/13747 · Cited by 576
Beyond the organizational ‘container’: Conceptualizing 21st century sociotechnical work
Winter, S., Berente, N., Howison, J., & Butler, B. (2014) · Information and Organization · doi:10.1016/j.infoandorg.2014.10.003 · Cited by 178
Some Guidelines for the Critical Reviewing of Conceptual Papers
Louisiana State University, U., & Hirschheim, R. (2008) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00167 · Cited by 163
Post-positivist Review of Technology Acceptance Model.
University of Houston, & Silva, L. (2007) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00121 · Cited by 120
Investigating the use of "Grounded Theory" in information systems research
Matavire, R., & Brown, I. (2008) · Proceedings of the 2008 annual research conference of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists on IT research in developing countries: riding the wave of technology · doi:10.1145/1456659.1456676 · Cited by 81
Barber, C. S., & Bettez, S. C. (2021) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1080/0960085x.2020.1816146 · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Case Western Reverse University, Lyytinen, K., King, J., & University of Michigan, U.
- Venue
- Journal of the Association for Information Systems
- Publisher
- Association for Information Systems
- Published
- 2004-06
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 220-246
- ISSN
- 1536-9323 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2156193217
- Cited by
- 269
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 56.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
