Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
A critical point is whether IS benefits from an extreme diversity of topics (Banville and
Landry, 1989), so that the development of new conference tracks is therefore a sign of
disciplinary health (Baskerville and Myers, 2002, p. 11). That view is questioned here
on the grounds that the persistent search for new issues to explore requires a constant
probing into contested academic territories, and is therefore counter-productive for the
development of cumulative discipline-specific knowledge. While this trend reflects the
vitality and excitement of working in a new field (Avgerou, 2000), it does not improve
the discipline's chances of defining and sustaining a distinctive academic profile. Perhaps
what the issue shows is the potential for the interests of individual academics to clash
to some extent with those of the other field, and these are matters that cannot be resolved
on principle.
A problem of visibility
The author's experience first as a practitioner of more than twenty-five years standing
and then as an academic dealing with business people as well as students-to-be and their
parents, is that the capacity of people outside the discipline to 'recognise' IS has been
steadily decreasing for some years. Anecdotal evidence from other academics strongly
supports this view. Students signing up for undergraduate courses appear to have little
or no background on which to base their understanding of the topics IS addresses. Nor
is it easy to identify promising career lines that are specific to IS, and it appears in this
regard that the lack of any concept of the elite IS professional is a critical problem for
the profession. While it was originally anticipated that CIO positions might fill this gap,
it now seems that the vast majority of these positions require strictly management skills
(Earl and Feeny, 1994).
One way to illustrate the visibility issue is to consider the IS field's poor performance
during the Y2K crisis. While the media influence on the presentation of events was
strong, it was notable that the public discussion was led by a small number of self-ap-
pointed experts, rather than professional bodies such as the ACS (Australian Computer
Society), and that decisions on acceptable mitigation practice were taken by a range of
commercial and governmental organisations apparently without formal input from IS
bodies. One of the most frequently cited 'authorities' on Y2K was Dr Yardeni, an eco-
nomist with Deutschbank, whose perceived expertise was related to the presentation of
a variety of estimates on the likelihood of various types of economic meltdown
throughout the period of apparent crisis. His use of figures such as a '70%' probability
of a Y2K-triggered recession (Dr Yardeni, quoted in Anon., 1998) revived memories of
the economist who claimed high status as an authority on the grounds that he had suc-
cessfully predicted 11 of the last four recessions. What became evident throughout the
course of the crisis was a lack of IS theories and frameworks on which to base an assess-
ment of the impact of minor changes to internal data and process structures. IS was ef-
fectively relegated to the role of providing low-level technical solutions rather than ex-
planatory insights.
A number of papers in recent years have expressed concerns with IS and its directions
(e.g. Benbasat and Zmud, 2003; Hirschheim and Klein, 2003; Weber, 2003; Lee et al.,
2002; Lucas, 1999; Markus, 1999; Paton, 1997). Whether explicitly or implicitly, they
share a concern with the visibility of the discipline, and a worry that its very real
achievements may be lost in something of an IS diaspora, as topics, researchers and
findings become spread as the fragments of a once coherent discipline. Two leading
theorists state, for instance: 'we feel that some underlying structural patterns in IS are
in definite need of attention because they could portend trouble in the longer run (pos-
Search WWH ::
Custom Search