MGD423 – Assignment 2

CRITICISMS ON INFORMATION SYSTEMS RESEARCH

By: Joyce Tanjuakio

In the articles by Lyytinen, Markus and Robey, and Benbasat and Zmud, the purpose of information systems research is undefined. These three articles immediately launch into a discussion about the debate between rigor and relevance of information systems research. However, all three articles do not make references to how these two aspects affect what the goals of information systems research is in the context of the academic institution. According to an older article by Lyytinen and Heinz, the purpose of management information system research is “To promote and foster the improvement of the field of management information systems through study, education, research, and the cooperative exchange of ideas.” (Lyytinen and Heinz, 1985) With reference to this definition, the ‘improvement of the field of management information systems’ needs to be further defined. For the purposes of this paper, the improvement of the field of management information systems will be defined as contributions to a paradigm, eventually resulting to the usage and application of the body of knowledge. In other words, the end result is the usage of the information by either further research by academics and usage by the industry.

These rigors versus relevance issue an inherent problem in applying scientific theory in a non-scientific field. In comparison to scientific research for science fields such as biology and chemistry, the findings of the research are generally targeted to the scientific community who are also the practical users of the information. However, in management of information systems, the academic researchers, if the goal is to have the body of knowledge implemented by the industry, must consider its audience when developing the research. In this vein, I agree with Markus and Robey’s suggestions of creating consumable research. (Markus and Robey, 1998) However, there are a few criticisms to their arguments.

First of all, pursuing sponsorship from practitioners contradict the seemingly neutral stance of academic research even though the research meets the needs of the practitioners. There is tension between the academic integrity with the proprietary needs of practitioners. For example, Forrester Research creates reports that respond to practitioner’s needs by obtaining demographic information and interests from practitioners who register for Forrester’s services. In turn, Forrester contacts these practitioners and asks them to volunteer in research initiatives. Academic research may apply similar tactics when creating research that is relevant to practitioners without sacrificing commitments to scholarly values and principles. As well, academic researchers may also use trade magazines such as CIO, Harvard Business Review and Forrester Research to gain insight on technological forecasts in order to research leading edge technologies and upcoming issues. This point also mitigates the problem of academicians having limited exposure to relevant contexts according to Benbasat and Zmud’s article. (Benbasat and Zmud, 1999)

Second, Markus and Robey suggests applying new models of research, highlighting the importance of creating reports targeted to specific audiences. (Markus and Robey, 1998) I agree with this approach since an increased consideration in the financial aspects of information systems, and not only its sociological affects. In this way, academic research can still have its rigor but the research will have greater relevance to practitioners of every level with financial implications integrated within the research. Academic research can benefit from using simpler jargon especially when the information is still in tact. For instance, Lyytinen states that he “…would not trade off academic writing style” (Lyytinen, 1999) in the way that Benbasat and Zmud suggests as the “…clear, simple and concise explanation.” (Benbasat and Zmud, 1999) Lyytinen’s adamant resistance only displays the pretences of academic writing. It is with these superficial factors that cause researchers to lose sight of the original goal of the research – to communicate findings.

Finally, Markus and Robey suggests supporting other non-traditional publication outlets such as trade magazines, Sloan Management Review and Communications of the ACM. (Markus and Robey, 1998) However, this defeats the purpose of making information systems research appeal to the practitioners. Additionally, these publication channels will have their own procedures and protocols, which may require to distill research information or choosing topics according to what gatekeepers deem appropriate to the masses resulting in the degradation of the academic integrity of the study. Researchers will have even less control over their research.

After surveying articles by Benbasat and Zmud, Lyytinen and specifically Markus and Robey, my stance in the rigor versus relevance argument is that management information systems research must align its research and reporting according to the goals and target audience. It seems that the problem surrounding rigor and relevance stems from a problem of publication channel and institutional bureaucracy. In this paper, I will focus on information systems research that occurs in academic journals such as Management of Information Systems Quarterly (MISQ). The rigor versus relevance depends on the overarching purpose of information systems as I mentioned before however, publishing bureaucracies, for instance, editors and universities will ultimately hinder the final product. This is a matter that cannot be ignored. Keeping these limitations in mind, I agree with Markus and Robey’s suggestions of collectively making the IS field more relevant to practice. A final criticism of Markus and Robey’s concluding suggestion is that they do not make further suggestions on how this change can be achieved.

WORKS CITED

Benbasat, Izak and Robert W. Zmud (1999) Empirical Research in Information Systems: The Practice of Relevance. In MIS Quarterly. Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 3-16

Lyytinen, Kalle J. (1999) Empirical Research in Information Systems: On the Relevance of Practice in Thinking of IS Research. In MIS Quarterly. Vol 23 No. 1, pp 25-28.

Lyytinen, Kalle J. and Heinz K. Klein (1985) The Critical Theory of Jurgen Habermas as a Basis for a Theory of Information Systems. In Research Methods in Information Systems, ed. Enid Mumford, Rudy Hirschheim, Guy Fitzgerald and Tervor wood-Harper: 219-236. Amsterdam: North Holland.

Robey Daniel and M. Lynne Markus (1998) Beyond Rigor and Relevance: Producing Consumable Research about Information Systems. In Information Resources Management Journal. Vol. 11, No. 1 pp. 7-15.