[AISWorld] Most Influential Information Systems Papers - 'pure science' v...
mmora at securenym.net
mmora at securenym.net
Thu Jul 21 06:30:24 EDT 2016
I support the evidences provided by Helen and Murray (fired from Samir's
core post on the sickness not of our discipline but of some biased top
group controlling top journals on irrelevant topics for IT engineering and
management areas). Top journals want just "intellectual pieces of great
600+ toefl style and close the doors for relevant research from
Latinamerican, African, and East Europe countries, but it is useful and
necessary for the socio-technical discipline of IT/MIS with a real
worldwide scope. The Thompson list is also a bias on these publication
system. on Helen's comments, green IT cannot be considered a fashion topic
for intellectual purposes (translated on 1 or 2 special issues on MISQ or
ISR) but in a vast research stream with hundred required papers on the
real problematic of environmental sustainability. On it I collaborates
with a German colleague that has organized during the last 28 years
international conferences on Environmental Management Information Systems,
totally unknown in the top journal contexts, and when we pursue a special
guest edition, we are rejected because we are not in the special club.
I respect totally the intellectual hierarchy of intelligent talents but
the problem here is that top journals are controlled not for the correct
people at present. I have 30 years in the computing arena (more than
academic than researcher) but having 1 paper published in a IEEE
Transaction journal, 1 in a systems engineering management journal, and
several ones in Thompson MIS journals, I have acquired a broad vision of
our field (last normal paper was on Strategic MIS planning: a 40 years
review rejected by 3 top journals by a weak analysis or a weak toefl
language or maybe a bias on racist issues). Well, this the real problem in
our discipline. We need intelligent people NOT biased on top journals.
Manuel Mora
PS. I am co-editing a book on data centers for a top worldwide publisher
(Springer) and the number of chapters posted from this AIS list was zero !
It is absurd when data centers investments are in the range of 10-1000
million of dollars and holds all IT services operations at present. Are we
losing the focus on the real relevant research in our discipline?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
http://X3620-LABDC.UAA.MX:8080/web/drmora/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, July 21, 2016 1:37 am, MurphJen at aol.com wrote:
> 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 assetâ 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
> _______________________________________________
> AISWorld mailing list
> AISWorld at lists.aisnet.org
>
>
More information about the AISWorld
mailing list