Articles discussing the state of IS tend to revolve around one of several themes: 1) the identity crisis within IS; 2) IS as an academic field; 3) the state of IS research; and 4) the evolution of the field of IS. (This section offers a very brief overview of past studies of the IS discipline. Individual chapters in this book make more specific reference to relevant literature.)
One dominant theme is the existence or otherwise of an identity crisis within IS, the concern being that the discipline’s central identity is ambiguous (Benbasat and Zmud 2003). There are several articles debating the core and scope of IS. The debate in recent times culminated in a series of 11 articles published in the Communications of the AIS (CAIS). This is an important debate, as the degree of convergence of a discipline can have political implications. ‘Convergent communities are favourably placed to advance their collective interests since they know what their collective interests are, and enjoy a clear sense of unity in promoting them’ (Becher 1989:160).
The academic field of IS is another recurring theme. Avgerou et al. (1999) comprehensively discuss the academic field of IS in Europe, while other authors tend to focus on one area: the status of IS as an academic discipline (Introna 2003; Khazanchi and Munkvold 2000); IS educational programs (Ang and Jiwahhasuchin 1998; Lo 1989); or the location of IS departments in universities (Sherer 2002).
Articles on the state of IS research include: paradigmatic and methodological examinations of IS research (Chen and Hirschheim 2004; Orlikowski and Baroudi 1991; Vessey et al. 2002); regional differences in IS research (Evaristo and Karahanna 1997); and themes of IS research (Bacon and Fitzgerald 2001; Palvia et al. 2004).
There are two types of articles on the evolution of IS: those that assess the current status of the field by tracing its historical evolution and the driving forces that shape it (Adam and Fitzgerald 2000), and those that gauge the status of IS development and evolution by examining changes over time in topics, themes and research strategies in the literature (Alavi and Carlson 1992; Claver et al. 2000; Farhoomand and Drury 1999).
The study reported in this volume (as well as the phase-one study reported in AJIS) aims to investigate the IS academic discipline in Australia from historical and current perspectives, collecting evidence across a range of dimensions. To maximise the descriptive potential of the study, the results need to be capable of integration, so that the relationships within and across the dimensions and geographical units are understood. A meaningful theoretical framework helps relate the results of the different dimensions of the study to characterise the discipline in the region, and assist in empowering the Australian IS research community. The Ridley theory chapter (Chapter 3) reviewed literature on the development of disciplines, before deriving a theoretical framework for the broader study reported elsewhere in this book. The framework considered the current and past state of IS in Australian universities from the perspective of the development of a discipline. The components of the framework were derived and validated through a thematic analysis of the IS and non-IS literature. The framework developed in the Ridley paper—which has been guided partly by Whitley’s theory of scientific change (1984a, 1984b)—was used to analyse data collated from the Australian regions.