Uncovering the intellectual core of the information systems discipline
By Anna Sidrova, Joseph S. Valacich, Nicholas Evangelopoulos and Thiagarajan Ramakrishnan
MIS Quarterly 32(3), pp. 467-482
This paper raises an interesting question: what is the identity of Information Systems? As a matter of fact, since I got the admission and was going to be a PhD student in the field of Information Systems in this April, this question bothered me so much. This interesting question was asked by my father who was curious about what my major is. The whole story is that, one day, my father asked me what major are you going to study? I replied “information systems." My father nodded his head and kept asking, "is that a programming, studying computer or what?" This question made me think for a while and replied to my father unconfidently. I said " it is a discipline about how to effectively and efficiently apply information technologies into a business. Obviously, my father might not really understand what I mean. After all, I am not sure about my answer either. So, the question "what is the exact meaning of Information Systems?" is really interesting one. Of course, I have a rough and abstract idea about that, but I just cannot systemically organize the key concept of it and logically talk to anyone. After reading this paper and attempting to criticize it, I eventually and ironically got the idea of how to tell someone regarding what my major is?
|
Based on this research findings, the definition of Information Systems is: |
The information Systems academic discipline focuses on how IT systems are developed and how individuals, groups, organizations, and markets interact with IT.
So, next time, when people ask me about my major, this definition will be my official answer.
Even though this paper finally answers my question which kept in mind for a long time, it seems to make a wrong assumption of what IDENTITY is. After all, identity is not equal to definition. Here is what I though:
I do not understand why the authors tried to explore the identity of IS field. To me, one academic field can only be separated into two parts - Pure and Applied disciplines. Pure discipline is the core value of that field which creates the exclusive identity in the field. In fact, every field all has its own pure discipline. For example, Art can be classified into pure Art and Applied Art. Chemistry has pure chemistry and applied chemistry. The same logics can be applied to mathematics, statistics, physics, and biology. The pure discipline of information systems is, I believe, the development of IT. The applied information systems are to use IT into the different levels of contexts - individuals, groups, organizations, and markets. Therefore, this is why I feel weird that the authors attempted to find out the identity of Information Systems.
Deeply thoughts, what is exact the meaning of identity?
Identity is an umbrella term used throughout the social sciences to describe a person's conception and expression of their individuality or group affiliations (such as national identity and cultural identity). A psychological identity relates to self-image (a person's mental model of him or herself), self-esteem, and individuality. Psychologists most commonly use the term "identity" to describe personal identity, or the idiosyncratic things that make a person unique. (Cited from Wiki)
I think identity is a very unique and exclusive quality that is different from others and hard to imitate. So, based on this concept, we may make a finial conclusion that the identity of information systems is the development of IT, the pure discipline, which can be applied into different disciplines, the applied discipline.
C w C
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)