[AISWorld] Most Influential Information Systems Papers - "pure science" v...

[MurphJen at aol.com]

just to point out the earlier discussion on not understanding language,  
most KM researchers would have used the terms tacit and explicit knowledge  
instead of deep knowledge and hands on knowledge, or perhaps procedural  
knowledge and declarative knowledge.  I've always felt it was the purpose  of 
journals to build a body of knowledge.  A couple of years ago I  published an 
article from Bo Chang looking at Chinese culture and how it works  with 
knowledge management in my journal International Journal of Knowledge  
Management, I've also published a couple of other articles on using KM with the  
Chomorro people in the Philippines, capturing tribal knowledge from tribal  
elders in Africa, etc.  The point is that this research won't make the most  
influential list but it is essential to doing much of what this thread has  
discussed with respect to understanding terms and a body of knowledge. This  
also points out the value of qualitative research that ties things  together.  
So even though we almost automatically go to quantitative  research as our 
standard for most influential research, we also need to keep in  mind that 
without the interpretive, qualitative work that has been done that  ties 
theories together and builds our body of knowledge these most influential  papers 
would not be so influential....murray jennex
 
 
In a message dated 7/20/2016 5:49:08 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
is.tpliang at gmail.com writes:

I concur  Merrill's comments.

Knowledge itself is beautiful asset​ of human  beings. Knowledge includes
those with short-term value (what, who and how  to solve problems) and those
that may not have immediate practical value  (such as why and why not).
There is a Chinese proverb "knowing is harder  than doing." I believe what
carries a discipline longer is its deep  knowledge (in addition to its
hands-on practice). These two types of  knowledge should complement each
other.

T.P.  Liang



2016-07-19 23:39 GMT+08:00 Warkentin, Merrill  <m.warkentin at msstate.edu>:

> Colleagues: Further to Kevin's  response to Mike's medical analogy below
> (in the stream initiated by  Samir), ...  Whereas physicians are
> practitioners (albeit with  scientific training and perspective), I would
> argue that the true  audience of much scientific research in medicine is
> other medical  researchers who (in the best tradition of "basic science" 
or
> "pure  science" rather than applied science or engineering) are truly
>  building medical science knowledge piece by piece ("block by block").   
The
> pursuit of knowledge for its own sake has value.  We never  know which
> scientific discovery may someday have practical value, but  even if a
> discovery does not have direct immediate value, it can add  to our overall
> understanding of phenomena of interest.   Researchers in Physiology and
> Medicine, for example, have been awarded  Nobel Prizes "for the discovery
> that proteins have intrinsic signals  that govern their transport and
> localization in the cell" and "for  their discovery of G-proteins
>   and the role of these  proteins in signal transduction in cells."  Some
> early  Nobel-awarded discoveries led to later breakthrough cures for
> diseases  and others did not, but we should not reject scientific
> discoveries  with no immediate practical value.  (Similarly, early
> scientific  discoveries about magnetism, electricity, and optics were
> motivated by  pure curiosity, but led to the technologies that we now use
> every  day!  I'm glad no one told them to quit chasing their crazy
>  experiments.)
>
> The word "science" originated in Middle English  to denote the pursuit of
> knowledge.  The English word "science"  comes to us from Old French, from
> Latin scientia, from scire  'know'
> (source: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=science  )
>
> So as "teacher-scholars," we surely want to teach, train,  and educate our
> students to be capable future IT professionals by  imparting practical
> knowledge.  However, I would also argue that  we should seek deeper 
nuanced
> understanding of information systems,  including how they work, how they 
are
> built and used, how IT interacts  with and influences individuals, groups,
> organizations, and society,  and (plug in your favorite sub-discipline
> here).  All scientific  discoveries, rigorously obtained, have value 
because
> they facilitate  knowledge and discovery.
>
> Footnote: It is interesting to  reflect on the early influence of SIM on
> our field, such as partially  funding MISQ when they wrote "Executive
> Summaries" for each paper for  CIOs to read! (remember the purple pages in
> our pubs back in the 80s  and early 90s?), which has partially led to an
> ethos in our scientific  discipline for always including "Implications for
> Practice" and  similar requirements in our manuscripts that is often 
absent
> in other  scientific disciplines.
>
> So, though my cybersecurity research  findings may have practical value 
for
> organizations seeking to  ameliorate the threats to their information, I
> think the basic  knowledge my co-authors and I pursue (such as results 
from
> MRI), even  if it has no immediate practical value, is equally important.
> Let's  all continue to seek knowledge!
>
>
>
> Merrill  Warkentin
>
> Mississippi State University
>
>  www.MISProfessor.us<http://www.MISProfessor.us>
>
>
>
>  From: Kevin G Crowston  <crowston at syr.edu<mailto:crowston at syr.edu>>
>
> To:  "aisworld at lists.aisnet.org<mailto:aisworld at lists.aisnet.org>"  <
>  aisworld at lists.aisnet.org<mailto:aisworld at lists.aisnet.org>>
>
>
>
>  Michael Myers wrote:
>
> 2. Most patients do not understand the  language of medical research. Does
> that mean that medical research has  no value ? Of course not! I don't 
think
> we should expect practitioners  and the general public - most of whom have
> not had any research  training - to understand the language of  research.
>
>
>
> I'm not sure if patients is the  right analogy. Doctors are the
> practitioners who use medical research,  not the patients directly. And 
many
> doctors do consider themselves  scientists (they do get a fair amount of
> training in science) and  follow medical research. I was surprised when I
> asked my doctor about  a recent set of findings and he said was still 
making
> up his mind  (i.e., he wanted to evaluate the studies himself). There does
> seem to  be a different relationship between research and practice in that
>  domain.
>
>
>  
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
>
>  _______________________________________________
> AISWorld mailing  list
>  AISWorld at lists.aisnet.org
>
_______________________________________________
AISWorld  mailing  list
AISWorld at lists.aisnet.org