European Journal of Information Systems (2010) 19, 382–388 & 2010 Operational Research Society Ltd. All rights reserved 0960-085X/10 www.palgrave-journals.com/ejis/
OPINION PIECE
Using the theory of the professions to understand the IS identity crisis Mark John Somers School of Management, New Jersey Institute of Technology & Rutgers Business School, U.S.A. Correspondence: Mark John Somers, School of Management, New Jersey Institute of Technology & Rutgers Business School, NJIT, Newark, NJ 07102, U.S.A. Tel: þ 1 973 596 3279; Fax: þ 1 973 596 3074; E-mail:
[email protected]
Abstract Academic information systems (IS) is struggling with an identity crisis that is grounded in limited consensus about the discipline’s core concepts, its important research questions and its boundaries. The result is a pluralistic discipline that has triggered an ongoing debate about whether the ‘liquidity’ characteristic of IS is a natural consequence of rapidly changing technologies or if it is indicative of a chaotic state that is unsustainable. This paper looks at IS through a new and different lens by using the theory of the professions to gain insight into current and heretofore unidentified problems facing the discipline. Casting IS as a profession presents an integrated view of academic IS, IS practice and IS education grounded in a framework that explores connections among these three elements. The paper concludes with a discussion of the processes by which professions evolve and likely consequences for IS research, practice and education. European Journal of Information Systems (2010) 19, 382–388. doi:10.1057/ejis.2010.26; published online 4 May 2010 Keywords: IS identity; academic IS; professions; IS practice; IS education
Introduction
Received: 29 July 2009 Revised: 29 July 2009 Accepted: 10 March 2010
Questions about the domain and future direction of academic information systems (IS) remain central, unresolved issues within the discipline. Widely differing views about the intellectual core of IS, the proper work of IS scholars and the prospects for the field’s future are evident in the literature (cf., Alter, 2003, 2008; Benbasat & Zmud, 2003; El Sawy, 2003; Bryant, 2008). This debate covers many issues and sub-issues that revolve around the tension between paradigm and pluralism with respect to the future direction of academic IS (Somers, 2008). Progress toward resolution of this debate has been limited at best. If there is one area of consensus, it is that IS has borrowed theory from a broad array of disciplines resulting in a broad and sometimes confusing domain. At issue is whether the amalgam of theory and research findings that define IS constitutes as viable entity or whether IS itself is as transitory as some of the areas that fall within its purview. Thus, while many academic disciplines grapple with questions such as ‘what the most important problems for future study?’ and ‘what methods should we use to study them?’ (Pfeffer, 1993), the pluralism and ‘liquidity’ (Bryant, 2008) characteristic of IS presents IS scholars with a more basic question that is ‘What is IS?’ Not surprisingly, in seeking to answer it, IS scholars have used theory and research from a variety of disciplines, and even less surprisingly, there is little agreement about which theoretical frameworks are best suited to understanding IS. It is useful to briefly examine the approaches that IS scholars have used to analyze IS to get a sense of what they have in common and where they differ.
IS as a profession
In general, this work falls into two camps. The first is normative and seeks to establish clear boundaries and a clear identity for the field. The second is descriptive and allows for flexibility and fluidity as IS evolves. Perhaps the most influential (and most controversial) work in the normative stream is by Benbasat & Zmud (2003) who apply Aldrich’s (1999) derivative of organizational theory to shaping an identity and establishing a core domain for IS. Much of the ensuing controversy stems from Benbasat’s & Zmud’s (2003) attempt to carve out a domain for IS with clear boundaries for the discipline; that is, to establish errors of inclusion and exclusion to use their terms. Other writers have also sought to define what IS is and is not, and in so doing, also place limits on the work of IS scholars (cf., Alter, 2008). Those scholars taking a more descriptive approach have objected to the boundaries placed on IS theory and research arguing that fluidity and flexibility are critical to the discipline’s survival. Some make the argument that rapid advances in technology require IS to be fluid and flexible, so that the pluralism required to do so is seen as neither an advantage nor a liability, but rather is a necessity (cf., Agrawal & Lucas, 2005). Others have used specific theoretical frameworks to argue for more contingent views of the discipline. For example, Bryant (2008) uses the concept of liquid modernity to make a case for a discipline in which the contested nature of its core concepts and the continual infusion of new concepts are seen as defining characteristics rather as than flaws. These radically different views of IS share a common element that is masked by their apparent divergence. Their one common characteristic is that ‘academic IS’ is viewed in isolation; that is, as an in vitro specimen to be analyzed and classified. In so doing, IS is defined solely as an academic discipline with little consideration of the implications and applications of the knowledge that IS scholars generate. Put simply, although this debate has directed a great deal of attention toward establishing parameters for the core domain of IS, hardly any attention has been directed toward what is to be done with the body of knowledge that is generated. Bryant (2008) makes a passing reference to the issue of application of IS knowledge, which can be interpreted (along with the silence of other writers on this topic) as suggesting that application and practice are another debate, and indeed, a dialogue about the relationship between theory and practice also seems to be ongoing within IS (Straub & Ang, 2008). This state of flux can lead to the erroneous conclusion that IS is dynamic and, by its nature, ‘liquid’, or to the equally erroneous edict that there is so much chaos and confusion that a forced order is imperative. Somewhat ironically for a discipline that includes the word ‘systems’ within its nomenclature, IS scholars seeking to define the field have looked at IS in a piecemeal fashion, and, in the process, have done a better job of defining what IS is not rather than what it is. To address this problem, IS is viewed here as a profession, and as such, is defined by three elements: a
383
Mark John Somers
jurisdictional claim over a specific knowledge domain, an academic component and a practice component, each of which is related to the other (Abbott, 1988). Defining IS as a profession, in turn, broadens the debate about the future direction of IS to include in addition to academic IS, IS practice, IS education and training, and the relationship between IS and related professions. The purpose of this paper is not to offer a definitive model of IS along the lines of an IT artifact (cf., Orlikowski & Iacono, 2001), but rather to apply the theory of the professions to the problems that IS is facing. The primary objective of the paper is to help IS scholars understand the implications of the choices they are advocating in light of the precarious position of academic IS and by extension, the broader IS profession.
The system of professions: jurisdiction, knowledge and practice The sociology of the professions is characterized by welldeveloped theory supported by extensive empirical research (cf., Caplow, 1954; Hughes, 1958; Van Maanen & Barley, 1984; Abbott, 1988). This work has been distilled into a theory of the professions that captures the essence of professional work, socialization into the professions, generation and application of specialized knowledge, and the role of professions within society. Jurisdiction is central to the debate about domain and identity within IS and thus is a good entry point for applying the theory of the professions to IS.
Professions and jurisdiction Professions are grounded in the concept of exclusivity gained through application of specialized knowledge. Put simply, professions lay exclusive claim to meaningful problems in society based on the expertise of their members (e.g., medical doctors, attorneys, accountants, etc.). A profession’s status and viability, in turn, is tied to its ability to carve out and hold a jurisdiction or domain; that is, the right to control specific, specialized tasks within society. Abbott (1988) views professions as operating in dynamic social systems in which tasks are both acquired and shed. As such, jurisdictions are in flux as technology, cultural norms and public perceptions shift. Further, professions are seen as competing for specific tasks to increase their prestige and influence so that stronger professions have the means and ability to take higher status tasks from weaker professions. Professional practice: the work of professionals Jurisdiction is best viewed as a process rather than an as an outcome that is supported by several related components. The first is the nature of professional work. For a profession to maintain its jurisdictional claims, its members must perform tasks and services that solve meaningful problems within the claimed jurisdiction using skills and knowledge that cannot be found elsewhere.
European Journal of Information Systems
384
IS as a profession
Professional work, in turn, is defined by three elements: diagnosis, treatment and inference (Abbott, 1988). Diagnosis reinforces jurisdictional claims because it affords professionals with the right to classify important problems using the knowledge and the language of the profession. For example, a dentist offers a more detailed and specialized diagnosis of the problem of a ‘toothache’ than does a lay person, and is seen within society as having the exclusive right to do so. Treatment involves application of specialized knowledge to act upon the problem in an attempt to solve it, and again is seen as exclusively belonging to the profession (Abbott, 1988). Finally, inference refers to the exclusive right to reason or think about problems within a profession’s jurisdiction. Inference is an important part of professional work based on abstract reasoning applied to difficult problems. Inference is used for problems that do not fit into easy diagnostic or treatment categories so that the entire range of a professional’s specialized knowledge and skills is needed to understand and ultimately solve them.
The academic component of a profession All professions have an academic component in which the specialized knowledge needed to support professional practice is generated and disseminated. The academic component of a profession differs from the practice component in that it is less structured and less organized (Abbott, 1988). Nonetheless, the academic part of a profession is central to its legitimacy and jurisdictional claims because academic research generates the knowledge that enables and refines inference, an activity that lies at the core of a profession’s claims to legitimacy. Abbott (1988) has observed that a temporary disconnection between academic research and practice is possible, but he goes on to state that there must eventually be some connection between academic research and professional practice or the profession will weaken and ultimately lose its jurisdictional claims. Further, he notes that if academic research is too concrete and focuses on simple problems, the ensuing loss of specialized knowledge can lead to deskilling and loss of professional status. Conversely, if academic research is too abstract to have tangible connections to professional practice, inference is no longer supported and the profession loses its status within society because the problems that practitioners address are seen as too abstract to be meaningful. Application to IS Viewing IS as a profession provides an integrated, coherent framework for analyzing and understanding academic IS, IS practice and IS education. Further, the theory of the professions allows for the implications of any given path for IS to be evaluated in terms of alternative paths. In this regard, the debate within academic IS about an identity for the field and the related issues of paradigm vs pluralism has focused on the negative consequences of adopting the opposing point of
European Journal of Information Systems
Mark John Somers
view without adequate consideration of the consequences of following the path being advocated. In less general terms, viewing IS as a profession shifts the nature of the debate about academic IS in particular and IS in general from issues related to content to issues related to process. For example, IS scholars have operated under the assumption that the domain of academic IS is an issue to be debated within the field and ultimately resolved. The theory of the professions presents the alternative view that jurisdiction is something to be negotiated and claimed. Put simply, claiming a domain for IS is not an intellectual exercise, but rather is a political process based on a negotiated order that includes related academic disciplines, competing professions and society at large. The actual and desired jurisdiction of IS, in turn, are outcomes to be managed rather than ideas to be debated.
The state of academic IS and the implications for the future of IS The academic component of a profession is critical to the viability and future prospects for the profession; that is, it is important for academic work to support the jurisdictional claims of the profession and to enhance the status of the profession within society (Abbott, 1988).
The state of academic IS In order to assess the current state of IS, it is necessary to understand the process by which academic disciplines gain or lose influence. A comparatively large body of literature has addressed this problem in terms of consensus and conformity using the concept of paradigm development. Pfeffer (1993) provides an excellent summary of this work and defines a high level of paradigm development as ‘agreement that certain methods, certain sequences and programs of study, and certain research questions will advance training and knowledge in the given field’ (p. 600). Outcomes of high paradigm development include greater autonomy in governance of academic departments, greater levels of funded research, stronger connections between productivity and pay for faculty, and greater departmental power within universities (Pfeffer, 1993). Even a cursory review of the IS literature leads to the conclusion that there is little progress with respect to paradigm development within IS. IS scholars have made repeated references in their work about being embarrassed in trying to explain what IS is to academic colleagues in related areas and the IS ‘identity crisis’ remains an ongoing theme within the discipline. As such, there is no agreement about the domain of IS let alone agreement about important research questions for the future. Implications for academic IS A weak identity results in several distinct, important challenges for academic IS. Although IS scholars have
IS as a profession
looked inward and have become concerned about ongoing conflict within the discipline, the theory of the professions offers a different lens and raises far more important problems. Put simply, a weak identity grounded in pluralism greatly weakens the jurisdictional claims of academic IS and of the entire profession. More specifically, the pluralism characteristic of IS presents the opportunity for related disciplines to encroach on the desired domain of IS and claim pieces of it as their own. This is precisely what has happened with respect to IT, which has gained status and prestige in academia at the expense of IS. Further, because jurisdictions are established within a negotiated order and domain areas are gained and lost through bargaining and influence (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1974; Abbott, 1988), the weakened position of IS places IS scholars in a poor position with respect to bargaining and domain control. Put simply, if IS scholars cannot define their field or agree on why it matters within their discipline, how can (potentially hostile) outsiders be convinced of the value and relevance of academic IS? This is an important point because too much of the work on the IS identity crisis and related pluralism treats this state of affairs in intellectual terms. Rather, the problems facing academic IS are socio-political in nature and have the potential to spiral out of control and place the discipline in an tenuous position from which it cannot recover.
Implications for IS practice Viewing IS as a profession increases the salience of the relationship between academic IS and IS practice. It an important relationship in that it affects the status and perceived efficacy of IS within society. Recall that the academic component of a profession must produce knowledge that is neither too abstract nor too concrete for the profession to advance and ultimately survive (Abbott, 1988). Concrete knowledge leads to deskilling because it frustrates inference in professional practice while very abstract knowledge results in tenuous connections between professional practice and the academic knowledge base. Usually, professions suffer from only one of these problems. However, the pluralism characteristic of IS has led to both being experienced contemporaneously. For example, a recent study of the core research areas in academic IS as reflected by publications in leading journals reveals low level pre-professional topics such as training and web site design (Sidorova et al., 2008). In contrast, a recent study casts the challenge of IS development in terms of epistemic divergence and the issue in terms of a highly abstract relationship between ontology and epistemology (Lycett & Partridge, 2009). While the former work might facilitate tangible, low-level enhancements to IS (or treatment to use Abbott’s, 1988 term), the latter area appears to have very little relevance to even the most abstract elements of professional practice.
Mark John Somers
385
In more general terms, the flux and disorganization characteristic of academic IS has not enhanced professional practice. The consequences are evident in the popular business press. A particularly dramatic illustration comes from noted management consultants Jonas Ridderstrale & Keli Nordsrom, who in their best selling book Karaoke Capitalism, liken IS to plumbing suggesting that attempting to use IS to compete is the equivalent of a business competing by upgrading its lavatory facilities. Research and theory on the professions, in turn, point to problems with inference that can be traced back to the state of academic IS. There is little doubt that using information efficiently to gain competitive advantage is an important problem for society that requires highly specialized knowledge. Exclusive control of this knowledge is an excellent jurisdiction for IS and Alter (2008) provides a sound and well-reasoned basis for claiming this jurisdiction. Jurisdictions, however, are held by addressing the abstract problems that fall outside of simple diagnosis and treatment (cf., Abbott, 1988). The flux and chaos characteristic of academic IS has either masked (i.e., made inaccessible) or frustrated the development of a knowledge base that enhances problems related to inference. For example, PC Quest (http://pcquest.ciol.com/content/ ITstrategy/2008/108010301.asp) conducted a survey of CIO’s and found that their primary source of sleepless night was improving organizational competitiveness and the second was aligning IT with business needs. These are clearly problems of inference that require a deep knowledge base grounded in a rich diagnostic base. The article went on to suggest that the CIO was really the ‘Chief Insight Officer’, which aligns closely with Abbott’s (1988) definition of inference. The challenge, therefore, for academic IS is to provide the tools for gaining new insights driven by advances in theory and research. High levels of pluralism frustrate this process because they dilute the intellectual capital base of academic IS and, in the process, weaken its identity and perceived value.
Implications for IS education The role of the academic component of a profession in educating and socializing professionals has been well documented (Geer et al., 1961). Professions extend and defend jurisdictional claims by developing formal educational and degree programs designed to produce effective practitioners. These programs are supported by accrediting bodies and where possible, licensure. They extend the jurisdictional claims of a profession through exclusivity; that is, only the sanctioned academic unit is permitted to offer educational programs that socialize and certify its practitioners. This is clearly not the case for IS. Degree programs using the term ‘information systems’ and/or offering content that falls within the domain of IS using Alter’s (2008) definition can be found in schools of business, colleges of computing, information and library science
European Journal of Information Systems
European Journal of Information Systems
Clear differentiation between IS degree programs and ‘training’ Basis for framing coherent degree programs within and across universities IS education
Better market position for IS programs in academia and society
Strong practitioner organizations that increase the value of IS to organizations and to society Clearer message to society about the types of problems IS professionals solve and why they are important IS practice
Better tools to perform diagnosis, inference and treatment, thereby increasing the value of IS practitioners
Resolution of errors of inclusion and exclusion and agreement on core concepts Clearer position in academia about what IS is and why it matters Academic IS
Better sense within academia of the role and value of IS scholars accompanied by greater influence
Solidify and extend core IS identity IS identity established as an emerging culture Foundation for building an IS identity IS identity
Strong bargaining position with respect to jurisdictional challenges Increased validity of jurisdictional claims through exclusive, specialized knowledge and values Clear indication of the desired jurisdiction of IS and the related skill base (specialized knowledge) Implications for Jurisdictional control
Forging an identity Consensus building
Extending consensus to include shared values, knowledge and sense of community
Stage 2 Stage 1
Table 1
Most of the writing by IS scholars about academic IS is concerned with outcomes; that is, a desired future state for IS supported by logical arguments is articulated, but the path to that state is often unclear. Not unexpectedly, rather than producing consensus through persuasion, these desired future states are frequently seen as an attempt to take over the field and, as such, are attacked or discredited. The result is cycles of conflict and dissensus resulting in increased concern about the problems each desired end state was intended to resolve (e.g., lack or identity, poor image, etc.). Perhaps the most important advantage of viewing IS as a profession is a focus on process rather than on outcomes; that is, emphasis is placed on understanding the processes by which professions evolve rather than on focusing on where they should be. Within this system of professions, three processes are critical. The first concerns the direction of the academic component of the profession. The second concerns the relationship between the academic component and professional practice and the third concerns the relationship of the profession to other professions (cf., Abbott, 1988). Looking at IS through this lens raises the notion of a roadmap. The term is used here to designate those stages that IS must pass through to address the problems facing the discipline. Putting it in the context of prior work in this area, these stages represent benchmarks and choice points for academic IS as IS scholars seek to address what IS is and why it matters. It also highlights the relationship between academic IS, IS practice and related disciplines/ professions. A roadmap for IS is represented in Table 1. It begins with building consensus about important research questions for academic IS to tackle. Consensus is critical because agreement about important research questions serves as the basis for establishing jurisdictional claims. These claims are justified by application of specialized expertise to problems that are important to society and
A roadmap for IS
A roadmap for IS
Building consensus over important research questions and related domain areas
Stage 3
programs, and to a lesser extent, computer science departments. Although the Association for Information Systems has defined curriculum standards for IS programs, its oversight and influence is not nearly as strong as accrediting bodies such as the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology or the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. The result is confusion about what IS is and where it fits into the university. Consequently, academic programs in IS face the very real threat of being subsumed by other disciplines such as IT so that IS becomes part of ‘something else’. This situation is urgent and serious. It is exacerbated by rapidly changing technologies because instability keeps the jurisdiction in flux making it harder to protect. Advocates for pluralism within IS point to rapid technological change as a justification or an ‘open’ domain when, it fact, it is a serious threat to both academic IS and IS practice.
Defining the proper work of IS scholars and practitioners and developing enforcement mechanisms
Mark John Somers
Fundamental challenge
IS as a profession
Socialization
386
IS as a profession
position IS scholars and practitioners as uniquely qualified to solve them. If IS scholars find it useful to refer to these areas of consensus as an ‘IT artifact’ so be it, although the term has proven to be controversial (Alter, 2008). Further, while there is no question that rapid technological change argues against overly strict enforcement of paradigm-driven standards, failure to come to consensus about the key research questions facing the field is a path to a slow death. As indicated in Table 1, it is unreasonable for both universities and society to continue to invest resources in a discipline that is too ‘liquid’ to define its core concepts and their intended application. Once a consensus has emerged about the important research questions, the IS identity crisis can begin to be meaningfully addressed. Research from the theory of the professions points out the importance of an integrated identity that melds academic IS with IS practice. That is, academic IS must support and extend the inferential and diagnostic capabilities of IS practitioners so that the work of IS professionals is seen as relevant and important to society. The identity cannot be restricted to academic IS because in so doing it is not possible to fully explain what IS is and why it matters. Research in the area of socialization of professionals points out that identity is a social and psychological concept; that is, it affects how those within a profession see themselves and how they are seen by outsiders (Van Maanen & Barley, 1984). A strong identity requires shared values, agreed upon methods of inquiry and treatment, and methods of enforcing these agreed upon standards, all of which enhance a profession’s jurisdictional claims and enhance its status. One reason that prior attempts to frame an identity for IS have not fared well is that enforcement has preceded value consensus (and agreement about important research questions). With the best of intentions, IS scholars attempted to restrict the activities of other IS scholars who viewed these efforts not as an attempt to build an identity for IS, but rather as an attempt to control the discipline (cf., Agrawal & Lucas, 2005). The ensuing
Mark John Somers
387
debate is not helpful because it shifts the conversation from what the IS identity should be rather than how an identity for IS should be built. Finally, it is important for IS to take full control over its desired jurisdiction by socializing practitioners through its degree programs. It is here where specialized knowledge that supports both the identity and jurisdiction of IS is transmitted and where the values of IS professionals are inculcated. Formal degree programs are also a second important public face of IS (along with IS practitioners) that reinforce the value and importance of IS to society. More importantly, they qualify a set of practitioners as uniquely suited to address the problems within IS’s jurisdiction. IS has not fared well in this area. As a result, IS degree programs are subject to encroachment from related disciplines resulting in a jurisdiction that is increasingly distributed across an array of technology-related fields. This situation is further complicated by a comparatively weak bargaining position resulting from a weak identity.
Concluding remarks It has become a cliche´ to suggest that an organization or a discipline is at a crossroads. The scenario is always the same in that one path is presented as the ‘right’ choice and all others (especially business as usual) are portrayed as the ‘road to ruin’. This is the implied metaphor for much of the writing on the IS identity crisis. It, however, does not seem to hold because one cannot stand at a crossroads for over 5 years even in academia. A better metaphor for IS seems to be that it is ‘in a hole’ that gets a little deeper every day. This new metaphor offers the more somber view that the pluralism and associated debate within IS is an indulgence that, at some point, is going to become too expensive. My sense is that this time is approaching rapidly, and I urge those who disagree to think long and hard about the consequences of being in error about this point. In order to invent a future for IS, it is first necessary to ensure that its future is secure, and that appears to be a very tenuous assumption at this time.
About the author Mark Somers is a professor of management at New Jeresey Institute of Technology and member of the doctoral faculty of the Rutgers Business School.
His research interests include neural networks, nonlinear dynamics, and professional and occupational socialization.
References ABBOTT A (1988) The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. AGRAWAL R and LUCAS HC (2005) The information systems identity crisis: focusing on high-visibility and high-impact research. MIS Quarterly 29, 381–398. ALDRICH H (1999) Organizations Evolving, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. ALTER S (2003) The IS core XI: sorting out issues about the core, scope and identity of the IS field. Communications of the AIS 12, 607–628.
ALTER S (2008) Defining information systems as work systems: implications for the IS field. European Journal of Information Systems 17, 448–469. BENBASAT I and ZMUD R (2003) The identity crisis within the IS discipline: defining and communicating the discipline’s core properties. MIS Quarterly 27, 183–194. BRYANT A (2008) The future of information systems – thinking informatically. European Journal of Information Systems 17, 695–698.
European Journal of Information Systems
388
IS as a profession
CAPLOW T (1954) The Sociology of Work. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN. EL SAWY O (2003) The IS core IX: the 3 factors of the IS identity: connection, immersion and fusion. Communications of the AIS 12, 588–598. GEER B, HUGHES E, STRAUSS A and BECKER H (1961) Boys in White: Student Culture in Medical School. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. HUGHES E (1958) Men and Their Work. Greenwood Press Reprints, Westport, CT. LYCETT M and PARTRIDGE C (2009) The challenge of epistemic divergence in IS development. Communications of the ACM 52, 127–131. ORLIKOWSKI W and IACONO C (2001) Research commentary: desperately seeking the ‘IT’ in IT research – a call to theorizing the IT artifact. Information Systems Research 12, 121–134. PFEFFER J (1993) Barriers to the advance of organizational science: paradigm development as a dependent variable. Academy of Management Review 18, 599–620.
European Journal of Information Systems
Mark John Somers
RIDDERSTRALE J and NORDSTROM K (2005) Karaoke Capitalism: Daring to be Different in a Copycat World. Praegar, London. SALANCIK G and PFEFFER J (1974) The bases and use of power in organizational decision-making: the case of a university. Administrative Science Quarterly 19, 453–473. SIDOROVA A, EVANGELOPOULOS N, VALACICH J and THIAGARAJAN R (2008) Uncovering the intellectual core of the information systems discipline. MIS Quarterly 32, 467. SOMERS M (2008) Paradigm and pluralism, using theory from the sociology of the professions to frame an identity for IS. Proceedings of the Americas Conference on Information Systems. Toronto, Ontario, Canada. STRAUB D and ANG S (2008) Readability and the relevance versus rigor debate. MIS Quarterly 32, i–x. VAN MAANEN J and BARLEY S (1984) Occupational communities: culture and control in organizations. In Research in Organizational Behavior (STAW B and CUMMINGS L, Eds), JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
