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

[Hefley, William]

The editorial just published by BISE is instructive as it specifically
addresses many of the points that Professor Mora makes.

Heinzl, A., Bichler, M. & van der Aalst, W. Bus Inf Syst Eng (2016) 58:
243. doi:10.1007/s12599-016-0436-2 [Accessed 21 July 2016 at

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12599-016-0436-2]

Best Regards,
   Bill

Bill Hefley, Ph.D., CDP, COP
Clinical Professor
Naveen Jindal School of Management
The University of Texas at Dallas
800 West Campbell Rd., SM 33
Richardson, TX 75080-3021
Tel: 1-972-883-5006
Office: JSOM 3.420
Email: William.Hefley at utdallas.edu
Books: 
http://www.amazon.com/William-E.-Hefley/e/B002D1CTD0/
http://www.vanharen.us/index.php?route=product/search&filter_name=Hefley


Faculty Advisor, Project Management Club
Member, Academic Senate
Member, Academic Council






On 7/21/16, 5:30 AM, "AISWorld on behalf of mmora at securenym.net"
<aisworld-bounces at lists.aisnet.org on behalf of mmora at securenym.net> wrote:

>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 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> AISWorld mailing list
>> AISWorld at lists.aisnet.org
>>
>>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>AISWorld mailing list
>AISWorld at lists.aisnet.org