[AISWorld] [EXTERNAL] Re: "IS not capable of coming up with native theories" says its senior scholar

Thu Dec 16 22:44:31 EST 2021

Reading all these responses I am a little perplexed, as a phd student I had
to read Kuhn's book on what made a discipline and frankly, I think we've
done all this.  Perhaps the problem is that we are relying on senior
scholars and top journals to decide all this for us rather then looking at
the research being done and published in the middle journals.  The top
journals are so focused on creating and proving theory that they have
forgotten research that works.  I rarely use or cite research from top
journals, they are behind in what is current plus by the time the research
is published it has gone through 3 or 4 levels of review with the result
that the research is watered down. On the other hand, the mid level
journals allow researchers to publish results with impacts and explanations
for why they happen.  It is the discussion and counter discussion on these
results that are driving the discipline forward.  I'm not sure what the
discussion on mathematics has to do with any of this. If you want to get to
the base theory then discuss logic and philosophy, and frankly everyone has
an opinion on logic and philosophy.  I published an article in 2017 in
Database for advances in IS where I proposed a modification to the
knowledge pyramid, specifically that we have much more wisdom than data
(very simplified) with this being the case because with a finite set of
data we still generate all sorts of different interpretations.  My ultimate
point here is that it seems to me we are enjoying the argument more than
making the research advancement. I focus on knowledge management, I believe
we have native theory with respect to knowledge sharing and transfer. Is it
IS theory? Probably not and I don't care as the theory works and helps us
progress.  I would remind all of us that Einstein was pursuing a Unified
Field Theory and to me, this means that all disciplines are related in
native theory and it is what we do with those theories and the research
that makes the difference.....murray jennex

On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 7:26 PM Eric Bachura <eric.bachura at utsa.edu> wrote:

> Who said math is 100% pure?
>
> We can arrange the numbers 1 through 9 by quantity, but none are 10. We
> could arrange disciplines by purity without any of them being absolutely
> pure. Arrangements, like most things, are relative.
>
> Sent from my Verizon LG Smartphone
>
> ------ Original message------
> From: Jose Manuel Mora Tavarez
> Date: Thu, Dec 16, 2021 9:12 PM
> To: Eric Bachura;Torkil Clemmensen;aisworld at lists.aisnet.org;
> Cc:
> Subject:Re: [AISWorld] [EXTERNAL] Re: "IS not capable of coming up with
> native theories" says its senior scholar
>
> ... but 100% of purity implies 0% of imperfection, so does 100% of purity
> imply 100% of perfection?
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Prof. Dr. José Manuel Mora Tavarez
> Depto. de Sistemas de Información
> Centro de Ciencias Básicas
> Universidad Autónoma de Aguascalientes
> Ave. Universidad 940
> Aguascalientes, AGS. México 20131
> Email: jose.mora at edu.uaa.mx
> <
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fprofile%2FManuel_Mora&data=04%7C01%7Ceric.bachura%40utsa.edu%7Ce89dd994371e41cbaad508d9c10b1e91%7C3a228dfbc64744cb88357b20617fc906%7C0%7C1%7C637753075786666870%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=xYxdqndoXFknA3GecvvpcxcmdeNUjTtST%2BO0ECZ3tv4%3D&reserved=0
> >
> ResearchGate Weblink<
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fprofile%2FManuel_Mora&data=04%7C01%7Ceric.bachura%40utsa.edu%7Ce89dd994371e41cbaad508d9c10b1e91%7C3a228dfbc64744cb88357b20617fc906%7C0%7C1%7C637753075786666870%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=xYxdqndoXFknA3GecvvpcxcmdeNUjTtST%2BO0ECZ3tv4%3D&reserved=0
> >
> <
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com.mx%2Fcitations%3Fuser%3D97rTgbkAAAAJ%26hl%3Den%26oi%3Dsra&data=04%7C01%7Ceric.bachura%40utsa.edu%7Ce89dd994371e41cbaad508d9c10b1e91%7C3a228dfbc64744cb88357b20617fc906%7C0%7C1%7C637753075786666870%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=50%2B4%2FRxUJ%2FN9GBjESbYIQiWOUWlfCnrab5uVOSHlUiQ%3D&reserved=0
> >
> Scholar Google Weblink<
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com.mx%2Fcitations%3Fuser%3D97rTgbkAAAAJ%26hl%3Den%26oi%3Dsra&data=04%7C01%7Ceric.bachura%40utsa.edu%7Ce89dd994371e41cbaad508d9c10b1e91%7C3a228dfbc64744cb88357b20617fc906%7C0%7C1%7C637753075786666870%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=50%2B4%2FRxUJ%2FN9GBjESbYIQiWOUWlfCnrab5uVOSHlUiQ%3D&reserved=0
> >
> Linkedin Weblink<
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fmanuel-mora-engd-37b03a1%2F&data=04%7C01%7Ceric.bachura%40utsa.edu%7Ce89dd994371e41cbaad508d9c10b1e91%7C3a228dfbc64744cb88357b20617fc906%7C0%7C1%7C637753075786666870%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=Bi8djxoybGx6qkpcAs7v1H572iwYQns1KAl9HFngzCA%3D&reserved=0
> >
> SCOPUS Weblink<
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scopus.com%2Fauthid%2Fdetail.uri%3FauthorId%3D25823339800&data=04%7C01%7Ceric.bachura%40utsa.edu%7Ce89dd994371e41cbaad508d9c10b1e91%7C3a228dfbc64744cb88357b20617fc906%7C0%7C1%7C637753075786666870%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=bwDO%2FSv7pS1vUXG%2FD1bWXVcbCJ%2B4AAyKLLg1SepSkK8%3D&reserved=0
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Eric Bachura <eric.bachura at utsa.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2021 8:47 PM
> To: Jose Manuel Mora Tavarez <jose.mora at edu.uaa.mx>; Torkil Clemmensen <
> tc.digi at cbs.dk>; aisworld at lists.aisnet.org <aisworld at lists.aisnet.org>
> Subject: Re: [AISWorld] [EXTERNAL] Re: "IS not capable of coming up with
> native theories" says its senior scholar
>
> I would first ask for a sample of those that think mathematics is perfect.
> I have not yet encountered such a person. Arrangement of fields by purity,
> in jest or in earnest, does not imply a belief of perfection (or more
> accurately, a belief in completeness). It only implies a belief in relative
> hierarchical dependence (which is, after all, what follows the work of
> Godel).
>
> Sent from my Verizon LG Smartphone
>
> ------ Original message------
> From: Jose Manuel Mora Tavarez
> Date: Thu, Dec 16, 2021 8:14 PM
> To: Eric Bachura;Torkil Clemmensen;aisworld at lists.aisnet.org;
> Cc:
> Subject:Re: [AISWorld] [EXTERNAL] Re: "IS not capable of coming up with
> native theories" says its senior scholar
>
>
> Why do people think that Mathematics is perfect? IS top-ranked researchers
> and EiCs of top-ranked journals should read about it (i.e. a part of the
> Mathematics is not decidable, not consistent, and not complete):
>
>
>   *   "Even if no finitary consistency proof of arithmetic can be given,
> the question of finding consistency proofs is nevertheless of value: the
> methods used in such proofs, although they must go beyond Hilbert’s
> original sense of finitism, might provide genuine insight into the
> constructive content of arithmetic and stronger theories. What Gödel’s
> result showed was that there can be no absolute consistency proof of all of
> mathematics; hence work in proof theory after Gödel concentrated on
> relative results, both: relative to the system for which a consistency
> proof was given, and relative to the proof methods used"
>
> Zach, Richard, "Hilbert’s Program", The Stanford Encyclopedia of
> Philosophy (Fall 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). <
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fplato.stanford.edu%2Fentries%2Fhilbert-program%2F&data=04%7C01%7Ceric.bachura%40utsa.edu%7Ce89dd994371e41cbaad508d9c10b1e91%7C3a228dfbc64744cb88357b20617fc906%7C0%7C1%7C637753075786666870%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=lkd4i4GfjXUO7nnS5tyiB6885avDLrkBJN6burRAn6U%3D&reserved=0>
> <
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fplato.stanford.edu%2Fentries%2Fhilbert-program%2F&data=04%7C01%7Ceric.bachura%40utsa.edu%7Ce89dd994371e41cbaad508d9c10b1e91%7C3a228dfbc64744cb88357b20617fc906%7C0%7C1%7C637753075786666870%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=lkd4i4GfjXUO7nnS5tyiB6885avDLrkBJN6burRAn6U%3D&reserved=0
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Prof. Dr. José Manuel Mora Tavarez
> Depto. de Sistemas de Información
> Centro de Ciencias Básicas
> Universidad Autónoma de Aguascalientes
> Ave. Universidad 940
> Aguascalientes, AGS. México 20131
> Email: jose.mora at edu.uaa.mx
> <
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fprofile%2FManuel_Mora&data=04%7C01%7Ceric.bachura%40utsa.edu%7Ce89dd994371e41cbaad508d9c10b1e91%7C3a228dfbc64744cb88357b20617fc906%7C0%7C1%7C637753075786666870%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=xYxdqndoXFknA3GecvvpcxcmdeNUjTtST%2BO0ECZ3tv4%3D&reserved=0
> >
> ResearchGate Weblink<
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fprofile%2FManuel_Mora&data=04%7C01%7Ceric.bachura%40utsa.edu%7Ce89dd994371e41cbaad508d9c10b1e91%7C3a228dfbc64744cb88357b20617fc906%7C0%7C1%7C637753075786666870%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=xYxdqndoXFknA3GecvvpcxcmdeNUjTtST%2BO0ECZ3tv4%3D&reserved=0
> >
> <
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com.mx%2Fcitations%3Fuser%3D97rTgbkAAAAJ%26hl%3Den%26oi%3Dsra&data=04%7C01%7Ceric.bachura%40utsa.edu%7Ce89dd994371e41cbaad508d9c10b1e91%7C3a228dfbc64744cb88357b20617fc906%7C0%7C1%7C637753075786666870%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=50%2B4%2FRxUJ%2FN9GBjESbYIQiWOUWlfCnrab5uVOSHlUiQ%3D&reserved=0
> >
> Scholar Google Weblink<
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com.mx%2Fcitations%3Fuser%3D97rTgbkAAAAJ%26hl%3Den%26oi%3Dsra&data=04%7C01%7Ceric.bachura%40utsa.edu%7Ce89dd994371e41cbaad508d9c10b1e91%7C3a228dfbc64744cb88357b20617fc906%7C0%7C1%7C637753075786666870%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=50%2B4%2FRxUJ%2FN9GBjESbYIQiWOUWlfCnrab5uVOSHlUiQ%3D&reserved=0
> >
> Linkedin Weblink<
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fmanuel-mora-engd-37b03a1%2F&data=04%7C01%7Ceric.bachura%40utsa.edu%7Ce89dd994371e41cbaad508d9c10b1e91%7C3a228dfbc64744cb88357b20617fc906%7C0%7C1%7C637753075786666870%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=Bi8djxoybGx6qkpcAs7v1H572iwYQns1KAl9HFngzCA%3D&reserved=0
> >
> SCOPUS Weblink<
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scopus.com%2Fauthid%2Fdetail.uri%3FauthorId%3D25823339800&data=04%7C01%7Ceric.bachura%40utsa.edu%7Ce89dd994371e41cbaad508d9c10b1e91%7C3a228dfbc64744cb88357b20617fc906%7C0%7C1%7C637753075786666870%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=bwDO%2FSv7pS1vUXG%2FD1bWXVcbCJ%2B4AAyKLLg1SepSkK8%3D&reserved=0
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: AISWorld <aisworld-bounces at lists.aisnet.org> on behalf of Eric
> Bachura <eric.bachura at utsa.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2021 12:02 PM
> To: Torkil Clemmensen <tc.digi at cbs.dk>; aisworld at lists.aisnet.org <
> aisworld at lists.aisnet.org>
> Subject: Re: [AISWorld] [EXTERNAL] Re: "IS not capable of coming up with
> native theories" says its senior scholar
>
> Good comments that can, at the very least, be taken as motivation to prove
> otherwise (at least from a dissenting perspective).
>
> The philosophy of science was driven forward by dissenting views {Popper
> -> (Lakatos, Kuhn, Feyerabend)}. Our discipline would risk becoming a
> derivative and boring facsimile of what we borrow without dissent.
>
> I am reminded of the xkcd purity comic (below with link to original).
>
> [cid:image001.png at 01D7F274.7499E5D0]
>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fxkcd.com%2F435%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cjose.mora%40edu.uaa.mx%7Cb52f2e10a46e4fb63e7408d9c0bef881%7Ce1e2e29221d64849b7104d47d9578ad0%7C0%7C0%7C637752748706783226%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=92OrxDNnHYNVbD4j3Wy7iU5UE3r3cL%2F6RWXBfM1gFoA%3D&reserved=0
> <
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fxkcd.com%2F435%2F&data=04%7C01%7Ceric.bachura%40utsa.edu%7Ce89dd994371e41cbaad508d9c10b1e91%7C3a228dfbc64744cb88357b20617fc906%7C0%7C1%7C637753075786823113%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=G8Ccg%2F1hm9DOb%2FLY0spebDeekipEU0Tuc%2BbU7uRYNzQ%3D&reserved=0
> >
>
> When I was a PhD student I had a printout of that on my lab door with a
> Business, Cyber, and Information Systems trio pounding on the top of the
> frame trying to get noticed. Identity crisis and all.
>
> Sent from Mail<
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.microsoft.com%2Ffwlink%2F%3FLinkId%3D550986&data=04%7C01%7Cjose.mora%40edu.uaa.mx%7Cb52f2e10a46e4fb63e7408d9c0bef881%7Ce1e2e29221d64849b7104d47d9578ad0%7C0%7C0%7C637752748706783226%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=FlTGusHjg2lXvpDf6xRhyKlXW0XZ6%2B1dDI2%2FSmpGHzw%3D&reserved=0
> <
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.microsoft.com%2Ffwlink%2F%3FLinkId%3D550986&data=04%7C01%7Ceric.bachura%40utsa.edu%7Ce89dd994371e41cbaad508d9c10b1e91%7C3a228dfbc64744cb88357b20617fc906%7C0%7C1%7C637753075786823113%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=XiRN2qsJ9JCDF14C2%2Far94AoRC%2BJtLRYFzO7iqJElyI%3D&reserved=0>>
> for Windows
>
> From: Torkil Clemmensen<mailto:tc.digi at cbs.dk>
> Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2021 11:44 AM
> To: aisworld at lists.aisnet.org<mailto:aisworld at lists.aisnet.org>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [AISWorld] "IS not capable of coming up with
> native theories" says its senior scholar
>
>   **EXTERNAL EMAIL**
>   This email originated outside of The University of Texas at San Antonio.
>   Please exercise caution when clicking on links or opening attachments.
>
>
>
> I am probably not saying anything new, just trying to disagree with
> Conways view that there is nothing unique to study in IS😊
>
> Seen from the periphery of IS, I thought that the *unique* subject matter
> or phenomenon that IS studies is "organisational use of IT". And that
> sociotechnical theory is the closest thing to 'native' theory in IS that we
> have, though this theory is also used in several other fields such as hci,
> cscw, sts, environmental studies, and more. This theory theorizes the
> intersection between people and technology.
>
> I believe that the relation (intersection, interaction) between the social
> and the technical, which is captured in sociotechnical theorizing, is not
> fully contained in theories from other fields in social sciences, because
> the other fields are occupied with other phenomena.
>
> A good example is psychology (itself an example of applied philosophy)
> which study the "psyche" but which also consists of a large number of
> largely unrelated subfields each conceptualising their own phenomena,
> sports psychology, clinical psychology, etc. Of course some of these
> subfields do deal with technology, such as "engineering psychology" and
> "design psychology", and may produce research that should be publishable in
> IS or adjacent fields of HCI, CSCW, STS, etc.
>
> However, most of the theory in psychology (and other social sciences)
> cannot simply be directly imported and used in IS to study IT use in
> organisations in a meaningful way. Rather it needs a (lot of) translation
> and extension (e.g., connecting 'psyche' with 'technology') which is
> (should be) done by (IS) researchers who have spent their career doing
> that😊 That translated and extended theory becomes, if contextualised
> enough, native to the IS context, me thinks.
>
> Torkil Clemmensen
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: AISWorld <aisworld-bounces at lists.aisnet.org> On Behalf Of wombat
> Sent: 15 December 2021 16:24
> To: aisworld at lists.aisnet.org
> Subject: Re: [AISWorld] "IS not capable of coming up with native theories"
> says its senior scholar
>
> The most successful theory in IS is TAM. Which is an application of TRA
> and then TPB to the specific domain of IS. This should tell you something
> to start with. :-)
>
> In order to create "native" theories (which I interpret as "theories which
> are unique to IS"), IS would have to have something which makes it unique.
>
> It does not.
>
> As others have said, it's a field of the intersection of technology
> (specifically, "information systems", which, in practice, means
> "computers") and people/organizations. It is an *applied* field, which
> means that, by definition, it is an *application* of another, more
> fundamental, field or fields.
>
> The people are fully described by theories from sociology, anthropology,
> psychology, social psychology, and others that I'm probably leaving out.
>
> "Technology" is fully described by fields such as physics, chemistry,
> mathematics, and computer science, and again others that I'm probably
> leaving out.
>
> We would not expect to have native theories of carpentry, for example.
> We describe how the tools work using physical sciences, how the people
> work using social sciences, and their intersection also with social
> science. There aren't going to be theories unique to carpentry. Or
> plumbing. Or electrical engineering. Or any other applied field. The
> theories are always going to be specific applications of the more general
> category.
>
> And, let's be real: there is no fundamental scientifically interesting
> difference between an abacus, a slide rule, a calculator, or a computer.
> They do exactly the same things, just faster and faster. Even the
> currently faddish AI research is still fundamentally performed on Von
> Neumann architecture machines, and therefore still ruled by mathematics and
> physics. A quantum computer might *conceivably* (not definitely!) make a
> difference. However, I am still far from convinced that quantum computers
> are possible, and that the current purported progress in the field is more
> than experimental artifact, without an actual quantum foundation. I have a
> gut feeling that Gödel has something to say about the achievability of real
> quantum computing. And, even if achievable, isn't it an application of
> quantum mechanics and mathematics?
>
> Hence, our theories are always going to be grounded in either social
> science, or computer science. Which latter, itself, is an applied field at
> the intersection of mathematics and electrical engineering (no computer
> science theory lacks applicability in one of those fields). And electrical
> engineering itself is an applied field of physics, and has no theories
> which are not applications of physical theories of electro-magnetism. Some
> CS research also overlaps with social sciences, also, of course, but most
> of its work is outside that realm, and this only supports that IS isn't
> unique.
>
> Since the field is fully contained within these other fields, its theories
> are of necessity fully contained in those other fields. Hence, there can be
> no unique IS theory which is not just as applicable to other technology
> and/or people. Any "IS unique" theory is a special case of a more general
> theory.
>
> Does this really matter? No. But it should be something that is considered
> when deciding when something is "new" and "theoretically interesting" in
> our publications. Because, really, it won't be. Ever. If it is "new" and
> "theoretically interesting", it's generalizable to fields outside of IS,
> and is part of a more general theory-- and therefore should actually be
> published in its more general form in that field.
>
> The lack of replication, the lack of replicability, the unpublishability
> of those two (save for AIS Transactions on Replication Research, the one
> bright spot in the field!), and abuse and misunderstanding of statistics
> are far greater problems and threats to the field of IS than the lack of
> "native theory".
>
> Just my two cents. Make of it what you will.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AISWorld mailing list
> AISWorld at lists.aisnet.org
> _______________________________________________
> AISWorld mailing list
> AISWorld at lists.aisnet.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> AISWorld mailing list
> AISWorld at lists.aisnet.org
>