Information systems theory as cultural capital: an argument for the development of ‘grand’ theory - Information Systems Foundations: Constructing and Criticising - page 20

systems' 'acquisition' of an influential theory would add considerably to the discipline's
symbolic capital. The phrase 'Einstein's theory of relativity' is an example of a phrase
which states physics' claim to be a discipline of the utmost importance every time it is
used. People with no understanding whatsoever of its theoretical content can instantly
recognise the equation 'E=mc 2 ', and interpret it as a description of the forces behind
nuclear weapons (Bodanis, 2001). As disciplines jockey for power, influence, and partic-
ularly money, in the contemporary university, the theory of relativity is an invaluable
symbolic asset; irrefutable evidence of physics' relevance, importance and intellectual
gravitas.
It may be that physics is a questionable example, given its dominant position, though
arguing so seems more a tribute to the effects of cultural capital than a reflection of
something intrinsic to physics. It can, however, be shown that the same effects can be
seen in other disciplines, and that they occur irrespective of whether or not the grand
theory in question is assumed to be 'true' in some absolute sense. As indicated earlier,
sociology has a high recognition factor stemming from debatable concepts such as
Marxism, but perhaps psychology provides the best example of a powerful theory with
no demonstrable scientific proof to sustain it. Many scientists are still outraged at the
lack of evidence to prove that Freud's theories are 'correct' (Webster, 1996), yet psycho-
analytical theory survives and thrives.
Finding a site for grand information systems theory
Is it reasonable to suggest that IS can be the site for development of a major social theory?
In arguing that the attempt is warranted, two factors are considered. The first of these
has already been discussed, and is that influential theories provide valuable and long-
lived symbolic capital. The second, mentioned briefly earlier, is that there is a gap that
IS can target by providing an analysis and explanation of the social effects of the IS
constructs that are now helping to define social relationships. These constructs are the
sets of standardised data and process definitions that are spreading through organisations
by way of enterprise software packages, EDI-facilitated relationships, and data sharing
agreements.
Existing portfolio-level theory
A further factor influencing the recommendation in this paper is the view that there is
a weakness in existing portfolio-level IS theory that has contributed to management's
loss of faith in IS. That the management of IT issues is important from a bottom line
perspective (Luehrman, 1997) does not equate to an interest in the technology or its
applications for their own sake. The ongoing commitment to IT outsourcing by organ-
isations in both the business and government sectors, now extending to encompass the
off-shore transfer of some functions, seems indicative of a general loss of belief that IT
is strategically significant (Hirschheim and Klein, 2003; Stewart, 2003). As has been
pointed out by various theorists (for instance Hendry, 1995; Harvey and Lusch, 1997),
organisations do not generally outsource functions they perceive to be part of their
strategic core.
IS has had theories that address the relationships between IS and organisational structures
and strategies. The strategic IS planning literature was a vibrant one at a time when
theories of competitive advantage (Porter and Millar, 1985; Kettinger et al., 1995) and
of the benefits of IS integration (Segars and Grover, 1996) were in fashion. But the the-
ories on which the publications in these areas were based ultimately failed to convince,
and the number of papers being produced on portfolio-level theory has fallen drastically.