[AISWorld] From Influential Papers to Influential Ideas - The Discourse Continues - Part 2

[mmora at securenym.net]

Must we learn from the best ones? I share the re-definition of a field
from MIT (from systems engineering invented by them in the 50's to
engineering systems invented for them in the present times):

1)What is “engineering systems”? The term “engineering systems” can have
two key meanings:

1) A class of systems characterized by a high degree of technical
complexity, social intricacy, and elaborate processes, aimed at fulfilling
important functions in society. Such systems include electrical grids,
transportation, manufacturing supply chains, and health care delivery.

2) An emerging field of scholarship that seeks solutions to important,
multi-faceted socio-technical problems.

What is the difference between “engineering systems” and “systems
engineering”?  “Engineering systems” can refer to a field of scholarship
that includes systems engineering, which is an engineering discipline that
considers multiple complex factors in an effort to create and implement
successful systems. Engineering systems approaches encompass an even
broader set of disciplines, focusing on social, environmental,
technological, and political contexts.

What are some practical applications of engineering systems research?
Engineering systems research tackles real-life challenges, addressing
issues such as rebuilding critical infrastructures, working toward energy
security, making health care affordable and available, managing global
supply chains, and containing communicable diseases. To read more about
the domains and approaches of ESD researchers, click here.

https://esd.mit.edu/about/faqs.html
------------------------------------------
Manuel Mora


Manuel Mora, EngD.
Full Professor and Researcher Level C
ACM Senior Member / SNI Level I
Department of Information Systems
Autonomous University of Aguascalientes
Ave. Universidad 940
Aguascalientes, AGS
Mexico, 20131


On Wed, July 20, 2016 12:34 am, Samir Chatterjee wrote:
> Dear IS Colleagues:
>
>
> My simple query on ISWorld has generated passionate debates on all sides.
>  It is clear to me that like myself, many scholars (seniors and juniors)
> are concerned about the status quo when it comes to IS research. I have
> received many direct responses sent only to me and many of you have said
> your comments publicly. A number of different (but related) issues have
> come up. I don’t think my intention was to address all of them. In fact
>  while I appreciate the public discourse, I am a man of action and would
> like to make progress.
>
>
> I will briefly share a comment that a colleague has made privately to me.
>
>
>
> €œIt takes a lot of conviction to point out that the emperor has no
> clothes. This should have been done a long time ago, many thanks for doing
> it. I have seen even people with technical training dive into behavioral
> work as if that's where the gold lies.” If IS research has had low value
> and contribution to society let us address that and may be take steps to
> rectify the situation so that our next generation scholars can be proud
> of our legacy.
>
>
> I know that we publish for mutual admiration, we all want to pat our
> backs, and we have created an academic culture where research is evaluated
> by bean counting, that is, how many hits we have in an obscure basket. Of
> course there are promotion and tenure issues and business schools in
> particular are obsessed with rankings. However, we all should take note of
> the fact that our research should provide value and hopefully societal
> benefits.
>
>
> That brings me to a question that has been raised: “How do we measure
> influence or impact?”
>
>
> I can think of numerous variables that can be combined to create a score
> for influence. Some obvious variables would include citation count,
> patents, funding from national agencies, commercialization, actual
> end-users testimony etc etc. I do not want to come up with a formulae
> here. But I definitely feel that a panel on this topic should be held at
> ICIS or
> some other major AIS conference where we can hear from many scholars
> worldwide.
>
> A colleague mentioned: “Quite how they will measure impact remains to
> be seen, but I suspect that mere citations will be insufficient. Instead,
> they will look for (even if not find) evidence that the said research has
> made a difference. This has been the call from Geoff Walsham (2012) for
> some time - to use IS to make the world a better place. Studies of Green
> IS, where
> the real beneficiary is the Planet Earth, should be framed by this ambit,
> for instance.
>
> Walsham, G. (2012). Are we making a better world with ICTs? Reflections
> on a future agenda for the IS field. *Journal of Information Technology*,
> *27*(2),
> 87-93.”
>
>
> I also agree that collectively as an academic community we should not
> worry about what journal the paper is in.  But we must list highly
> influential and cited papers regardless of the journal. The problem with
> FT-45 or if
> you consider IS from an economics or social science perspective is that
> you leave out some of the very best people who work on the border e.g.
> software engineering or data analytics. We are increasingly noting that
> when new position openings are announced, institutions want people who can
> teach programming, do low-level systems development, but are supposed to
> have a track record in (and only in) behavioristic journals. These are
> conflicting demands.
>
>
> The language we use in our IS research, the fact that we are publishing
> "more and more about less and less" – and as others have observed, that
> the publish-or-perish dynamic has gone out of control are all relevant
> issues but I don’t think we should lump them into the effort to create a
> set of influential papers or ideas list.
>
>
> I agree with Juhani that individual papers may not be the right unit when
>  one considers the practical relevance of research. Perhaps we should
> focus on ideas (innovations) and their histories.
>
>
> Identifying innovations that can clearly be attributed to IS research is
> challenging because of the heavy dominance of "the behavioral science
> research" orientation of mainstream IS research during the last 30 years.
>
>
>
> The acceptance of Design Science as a research methodology was a welcome
> change in the community. But many of us now agree that we are still
> talking about the philosophy of DSR rather than doing it. The reason is
> that top journals keep rejecting relevant and interesting papers sighting
> lack of theory contribution. The world is changing but our editors are
> not. The more we do that, the less likely we are going to have an impact
> or influence to society.
>
> Lastly I want to mention that I am very cognizant that research has two
> ends: basic (deep knowledge which is foundational) and applied (one that
> industry excels in by creating applications). But let us not kid ourselves
>  into believing that IS is a fundamental science field. It is highly
> applied and we should be proud of it.
>
>
> In conclusion I would mention that while many people responded, I hardly
> received any papers that one could argue has had influence and was
> originated by IS community.
>
> One colleague brought out a paper. “To my knowledge one of the most
> influential contributions from IS research has been the business model
> canvas, presented in the Business Model Generation book by Osterwalder &
> Pigneur (2010). This relatively simple yet effective idea has been
> adopted in start-up business circles everywhere. Osterwalder & Pigneur
> published their research in CAIS in 2005, and in JAIS in 2013.
>
> Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2013). Designing Business Models and
> Similar Strategic Objects: The Contribution of IS. Journal of the
> Association for Information Systems, 14(5), 237-244.
> Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., & Tucci, C. L. (2005). Clarifying Business
> Models: Origins, Present, and Future of the Concept. Communications of the
>  Association for Information Systems, 16.”
>
>
>
> I am going to start a Wiki Page with some important IS contributions. We
> may have to debate how we measure influence. I am willing to participate.
> Are you?
>
>
> Samir
>
>
> --
> Dr. Samir Chatterjee
> Professor
> School of Information Systems & Technology
> Claremont Graduate University
> 130 East 9th Street, Claremont, CA 91711
> (P) 909-607-4651; (cell) 909-730-8898
> profsamir1 at gmail.com http://sites.cgu.edu/chatterjees/
> Director, *Innovations Design Empowerment Applications Laboratory* (IDEA
> Labs) http://www.idea-labs.net/
> Associate Editor: Health Systems, IJBDCN
> Editorial Board: Journal of AIS
> Member: IEEE (senior), ACM (senior), AIS, AMIA
> Author: http://designscienceresearch.wordpress.com/about/
> 2015 Lifetime Achievement Award Winner for Contributions to Design Science
>  (by AIS DSR community)
> _______________________________________________
> AISWorld mailing list
> AISWorld at lists.aisnet.org
>
>