Information systems theory as cultural capital: an argument for the development of ‘grand’ theory - Information Systems Foundations: Constructing and Criticising - page 13

2. Information systems theory as
cultural capital: an argument for the
development of 'grand' theory
Douglas Hamilton, School of Information Management and
Systems, Monash University, Victoria
Abstract
Bourdieu's concepts of social fields and social power provide a theoretical basis for the
view that the IS field is engaged in an ongoing struggle with other disciplines for aca-
demic prestige and support. While IS has produced a considerable amount of high
quality theory and research, it is by no means clear that this is understood either by the
academy or by the general public. The issue has become problematic to the extent that
IS now faces something of a public identity crisis. It is claimed that broad or 'grand'
theories play valuable roles as items of cultural capital for other disciplines, and that an
IS theory of this type would help to address the visibility problem. It is further proposed
that an opportunity to develop such a theory is currently available, and that IS academics
are ideally placed to interpret phenomena generated by the spread of standardised IS
concepts throughout the business world.
Introduction
The proposal in this paper is that the development of a prestigious grand theory in the
information systems (IS) field is possible, opportune, and would be of considerable be-
nefit to the field. 'Prestigious' is taken in this context to mean achieving a degree of
renown, ideally with the public at large, but at least within the academy. While signi-
ficant benefits could derive from the application of such a theory in research and practice,
its primary value to the discipline would be as a resource contributing to its public image.
An influential theory is a statement that its originating discipline is a source of marketable
ideas, and worthy therefore of interest and respect.
The theoretical grounding for the paper is derived primarily from Bourdieu's concepts
of social power and social fields (Bourdieu, 1980; Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992; Swartz,
1997). On this, the IS field -comprising an array of academics, professionals, and insti-
tutions - is conceptualised as engaged in a more or less continuous struggle for relative
power and status with other disciplines. The assets supporting or enabling participation
in such struggles include both economic and cultural capital, where cultural capital is
the combination of ideas, knowledge and research that are seen as intrinsically linked
to the field, and which form the basis for its academic and community standing (Bourdieu,
1980). Major theories are, in this perspective, items of symbolic capital that have value
as the end products of significant intellectual efforts.
While popular theory is always likely to be of benefit to a discipline (Abbott, 1988),
such a development would be particularly opportune within the IS field at a time when
talk of disciplinary crisis is in the air (Markus, 1999; Khazanchi and Munkvold, 2000;
Benbasat and Zmud, 2003; Hirschheim and Klein, 2003). In relating the development of