The contextual framework introduces the IS-in-Oz study, and the book, including background on study rationale and motivation, a summary of the study aims and conceptual design and main outcomes. Contributions include a cogent synthesis of the literature on previous studies of the IS academic discipline. The approach described offers valuable methodological guidance for the replication and extension of the overall study approach within Australia, the region and to other world regions, and represents one of few attempts to study methodically the evolution of a discipline. With 18 core team members in 12 sub-study teams, and in excess of 50 interviewees and a similar number of reviewers across Australia, the study serves also as a useful example of large-scale research project management. Most importantly, the contextual framework offers a meta-view of the underpinning sub-studies.

In Chapter 2, Clarke, referring to three main eras, offers cogent discussion of the evolution of the IS discipline in Australia, suggesting that it did not follow on from development overseas, but rather emerged in parallel. During the ‘emergence era’ (up to 1965), a highly consequential federal government initiative was the Programmer-in-Training (PIT) scheme (from 1963), the syllabus of which emphasised systems analysis and design, and which produced hundreds of ultimately influential senior managers in the public and private sectors.

Early in the ‘establishment era’ (1965–73), departments were created in colleges of advanced education (CAEs) to assist practice with the application (particularly application development) of computers in business and government. In parallel, topics about how to apply the technology began to emerge in university accounting departments—these being relatively more concerned with the ‘information’ than with the system. The transfer of PIT to CAEs towards the end of this era heralded formalised IS education, which expanded to institutes of technology. Much of this early effort was service teaching, with IS in universities migrating forward from ‘undergraduate service topics and units to sub-majors, majors and only later postgraduate teaching and research’.

At the outset of the ‘consolidation era’ (1974–90), the University of New South Wales (UNSW) appointed the first Professor of Information Systems, Cyril Brookes, and formed the first university IS department. In 1978, the first Australian was awarded a PhD in IS (Ron Weber at Minnesota under Gordon Davis’s supervision). Weber was the second professor of IS (in 1981), with several further such appointments in the late 1980s and about 20 in the 1990s, resulting in more than 30 IS professors by 2005. Early published curricula from the United Kingdom and the United States was too comprehensive and either too computer-science or business-oriented for the mostly IS service subjects being taught; the ‘local’ IS curriculum thus sometimes became almost insular. Long-awaited recognition of IS within the Australian Computer Society (ACS) Accreditation Guidelines (Clarke and Lo 1989) proved to be a watershed—their core body of knowledge in 1990 evidencing 50 per cent IS content.

Clarke suggests that during the 1970s and the 1980s the vigour of the discipline in the United States resulted in that country establishing leadership in the IS discipline. Philosophies and methods of research were debated through this period, with some acceptance of pluralism. Clarke (in Maynard 1992) depicts IS as occupying ‘space between the technical and business disciplines, encompassing a range of applied and instrumentalist topics, and interacting closely with many other disciplines and sub-disciplines’.

Clarke lists seven main clusters of topics or themes in Australian IS since 1965 (with much cross-fertilisation among the themes): 1) technology as enabler and driver; 2) applications of technology; 3) data management; 4) organisations; 5) systems thinking; 6) business-school thinking; and 7) information management. The apparent diversity of curricula and research domains appears perhaps more varied even than that of Europe or the United States.

Clarke’s chapter reveals the slow emergence of a governance framework for the IS discipline in Australia, relative to the growth of the discipline itself. He points out that until 1990 the ACS guidelines for accreditation of tertiary-level courses made no specific provision for IS courses (as distinct from computer science courses). He observes also, however, that a person from an IS background has been president of the ACS for 34 of its 40 years’ existence. Clarke observes that none of the business professional groups sought to assume a governance role over IS in Australia and that the business-oriented professional group, the Australian Institute of Systems Analysts (AISA), after prominence in the 1970s, ceased to have a role in IS governance in Australia. In 1990, the first Australian Conference in Information Systems (ACIS) was held, but it was not until 1994 that the AJIS was established. The ACPHIS was formally established in 1995; however, it was not until 2001 that an Australian chapter of the Association for Information Systems (AIS) was established.

Ridley’s theoretical explorations are based on a review of the literature on the development of disciplines, ultimately deriving a theoretical framework for the broader study. The framework considers 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. In the revised version of the framework employed for this second phase of the study, Ridley proposes that maturity of a discipline is characterised by the development of a core body of knowledge for the discipline and by the establishment by practitioners of that discipline of strong mechanisms of control leading to enhanced reputations and critical rewards. The framework also proposes that the degree of professionalism is inversely proportional to the extent to which a discipline responds to local contingencies. This ad hoc framework was applied as a guide to the collection and analysis of the state data.

The next seven studies are ‘state’ case studies, for Queensland, the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia.

Data was gathered from all nine universities in Queensland (including the Australian Catholic University, which has common approaches in all its Australian campuses), as all teach IS on at least one campus (Table 1.3). The study found that the condition of IS in Queensland reflected the highly decentralised nature of the state. Relative to its population, Queensland has a large number of universities, each of which is engaged in IS teaching and research. The study reveals little evidence of a distinctive Queensland flavour of IS; rather, there is a diversity of curriculum approaches and an equally broad range of research topics and methods. Two of the state’s regional universities are notable for the relative strength of their IS presence—in terms of the number of IS staff, the number of IS students and the range of campuses across which IS is taught. The breadth of topics and approaches to IS in Queensland is evidenced by the existence of separate, competing IS groups in each of two of the largest universities; in each case, one of the IS groups is highly technical in orientation while the other is business oriented. Across the eight Queensland universities, there is wide variability in terms of the administrative location of the IS academic staff in the university structure.

Vignettes are presented of Ed Fitzgerald, Alan Underwood and Ron Weber, as three of the many individuals who have been important to the development of the IS discipline in Queensland. Fitzgerald can be seen to have been one of the powerful forces in the evolution of IS curriculum in Queensland, with an innovative practitioner-focused approach. Underwood for many years led the largest IS group at a Queensland university and promoted IS strongly through his involvement with the ACS. Weber has been perhaps the most prominent and admired Australian IS academic internationally. The study assesses the state of IS in Queensland universities in relation to criteria indicative of the maturity of a discipline. Measured against these criteria, IS in Queensland universities cannot be considered a mature, distinct academic discipline but emerges, nonetheless, as vigorous and innovative.

The ACT case study was prepared by three leaders in IS (Gregor, Lewis and McDonald) from the territory’s three universities. The authors briefly discuss Roger Clarke, Igor Hawryszkiewycz, Errol Martin and Penny Collings as individuals who had—as well as the authors—contributed strongly to the development of the IS academic discipline in the Australian Capital Territory. The chapter depicts a vibrant IS group in each university but voices concerns about the disparate administrative locations of the IS academics (Table 1.4) and the relative lack of a strong identity for IS in the territory’s universities.

Information systems is prominent at all three universities, each having a distinctive background that reflects its position in Canberra, the seat of Australia’s federal government. The Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA, University of New South Wales) is essentially a private university for the Australian Defence Organisation; The Australian National University was set up to be a national research institution; and the University of Canberra group for many years focused on meeting the training needs for computing professionals for the federal government. Despite these distinguishing characteristics, the subject matter taught and researched in the three groups has much in common and ‘each group regards itself as “vibrant” and happy with what it does’. Nonetheless, a low degree of professionalisation is reported relative to longer-standing disciplines, it being suggested that this is to some extent due to the fact that there exists ‘a disjunction between what is taught as core knowledge and what is taught as research methods’, a lack of social prestige and a lack of acceptance as a discipline with a unique symbol system.

The main NSW chapter, by Underwood and Jordan, identifies 12 separate IS academic groups across nine universities in the state. Unlike in the other state reports, the authors choose to address only a subset of the NSW universities—those they consider the most prominent in IS (some might disagree with their selection). They observe that students undertaking strongly identified IS undergraduate degrees can be found at few universities, with most offering a variety of majors within other programs. The size of the IS presence would therefore appear to depend on the university’s enrolment in the core programs that offer the majors and the extent of compulsory IS subjects in their programs. Large accounting programs mean that many students will need to do IS, thereby requiring larger IS staff numbers. Growing enrolments in commerce during two decades has advantaged IS units and staff in that faculty. Nonetheless, IS would appear not to have a common home, but resides in a variety of locations—especially science and computer science—as shown in Table 1.5. Most IS groups remain as ad hoc or informal groups within larger departments.

The NSW chapter includes vignettes from Dubravka Cecez-Kecmanovic and Igor Hawryszkiewycz. Cecez-Kecmanovic has made a significant contribution to IS research through her effective promotion of critical theory-informed IS research. Hawryszkiewycz has had a long-term impact on IS curriculum and research and has authored IS textbooks important to the development of IS in Australia. While the universities reported by Underwood and Jordan display some structural recognition of IS as a separate field, it was widely believed by their interviewees that the distinctiveness of IS was not well known in the wider university communities. Indeed, the interviewees themselves appeared to hold diverse definitions of IS. Research activity tends to be fragmented and diverse. Small research groups, especially of doctoral students, have tended to exist without undergraduate programs to build the staff numbers to critical mass.

Wilson provides a response to the conclusions developed by Underwood and Jordan. While Underwood and Jordan conclude that the prospects for IS in most NSW universities are poor—they speak of ‘an environment threatening the continuing existence of IS in some of the state’s universities’—Wilson argues for a much more positive future. Wilson’s arguments are that New South Wales has by far the largest information and communications technology (ICT) presence in Australia and that the greatest demand among ICT graduates is for those with ‘a business-centric focus’—that is, IS graduates.

The South Australian chapter emphasises the leading role of the University of South Australia. Data gathered suggest that South Australia’s IS offerings were influenced heavily during the 1990s by the soft systems and critical systems approaches to the discipline—a situation that began to change at the turn of the century—and that the curriculum depended more heavily on industrial than on political factors. Though the authors report several substantive research centres or labs, it is also noted that there is little local funding for research, and while the three universities work together fairly well and have created some highly successful technical joint ventures, with IS playing such a minor role in the state, obtaining funding for any research activities is extremely difficult. The administrative placement of IS in South Australian universities is shown in Table 1.6.

A vignette is provided from Terry Robbins-Jones, head of the first School of Information Systems in South Australia and innovative leader in the promotion of IS.

The Tasmanian case study is distinctive in several respects. First, it reports on just one university. Also, the data-gathering approach applied is somewhat different. Where reports in the other states used interviews from one or two senior academics in each university, in Tasmania it was possible to draw on data from a wide range of academics—current and former staff members from the University of Tasmania. The chapter includes vignettes from Chris Keen, a man who had a formative impact on the development of the IS discipline in Tasmania, and Arthur Sale, one of the father figures of ICT in Australia and a major proponent of IS at the University of Tasmania. The author of the Tasmanian report is also the author of the framework developed for the overall case-study protocol. The administrative placement of IS at the University of Tasmania is shown in Table 1.7.

The Tasmanian case-study findings suggest that an inverse relationship exists between the impact of local factors and the degree of professionalism in this IS setting. A surprising finding was that the relationship found varied for research and teaching issues.

Victoria—more than any other state—was impacted heavily by the Dawkins reforms to Australian tertiary education. Amalgamations, mergers and take-overs were widespread in Victoria, sometimes bringing together strong IS groups with different cultures and different aspirations. Although most interviewees expressed the view that local industry had had negligible influence on curriculum, universities in Victoria appeared to be universally seeking increased collaboration with the local community and industry as part of their strategic direction. Distinctive themes taught within the many programs identified varied considerably. Despite diverse topics of research being pursued, IS research output in universities in Victoria was perceived as lesser than in other departments. Efforts are, however, under way to bolster research output. Interestingly, the Victorian report states, ‘The mode of IS research in universities in Victoria is predominantly interpretive.’ Only one university reported using ‘multi-method, with an emphasis on quantitative techniques’. Although research is considered a high priority at almost all universities in Victoria, available funding appears to have a negative correlation with the avowed importance of research. Perceptions of ‘very little funding’, ‘dwindling funding’ and ‘having trouble attracting ARC [Australian Research Council] and other external funding’ were evident in the data. A diversity of administrative placements for IS groups in Victorian universities is shown in Table 1.8.

The Victorian chapter presents vignettes from two individuals as representatives of many important figures in the development of IS in Victoria. The two are Graeme Shanks, a significant contributor to IS research and early representative on the ARC College of Experts, and Gerald Murphy, ‘one of the founding fathers of Australia’s IT education sector’.

The West Australian chapter identifies a degree of isolation, attributable to the size of the state and its relative remoteness from the universities elsewhere in Australia. The report suggests how these factors have impinged on the development of IS in the state’s universities and how responses to local contingencies inhibit the perception of IS as a mature discipline. Research focus within the four universities is very different and this could be one of the reasons why all interviewees identified a low level of collaboration between WA universities. Interviewees stressed the real need for IS leadership and active involvement in IS research by the professoriate. Information systems groups without a professor tended to have a significantly lower profile in their home university than those with a professor. Administrative placement of the IS groups is shown in Table 1.9.

The chapter discusses briefly the roles of Richard Watson, Graham Pervan and Janice Burn as three major contributors to the development of IS in WA universities.

As part of a study to investigate the state of IS research in Australia, surveys of the heads of all IS discipline groups in Australian universities were conducted in 2004, 2005 and 2006. This chapter relates to the findings of the 2006 survey. The study revealed a wide range of topics researched (with rapid growth in electronic commerce and knowledge management), a range of foci, a balance between positivist and interpretive research; that surveys were the most frequently used research method, and that most research was directed towards informing IS professionals.

This chapter provides a consolidation and broad interpretation of the data from the sub-studies described in the earlier chapters. The analysis identifies the recent and current positions of the IS discipline in Australian universities. It uses the revised Ridley framework to guide analysis of the consolidated data from each of the sub-studies, in particular from the case studies from each state.

At a basic level, it is worth noting from this chapter that not all universities across Australia have an IS presence. It is in Western Australia, South Australia and New South Wales that universities are found that do not have a definable IS academic group. Victoria was notable as the state with by far the strongest IS presence in its universities; Queensland has a strong IS presence relative to its population. Universities across Australia reported declines in student enrolments and in IS academic staff numbers.

A diversity of research methods and standards is seen in IS groups across Australian universities. Similarly, there is much variety in teaching curricula for IS courses in Australia. This is most evident in the variability of the relative emphasis on ‘technical’ content among universities; however, the variability does not appear to be based on state-to-state differences.

In relation to the criteria used to evaluate the relative maturity of IS as a discipline, the consolidated data suggest that IS is yet to achieve full maturity. Some of the qualities observed, however, relating to local variability and innovative curriculum, could be viewed as healthy, although they are at odds with the maturity criteria.

The consolidated data show a higher proportion of IS groups administratively separate from business faculties than would be the case in the United States, for instance. The data suggest, however, some slight trend for IS groups in Australian universities to move back to administrative placement within business.

Beyond the assessment of observed data against the proposed framework, this meta-analysis seeks to draw from the Australian data some observations on trends and unresolved tensions, with an emphasis on national and international factors impacting on the status of IS in Australian universities. Among factors discerned was a growing impact on IS groups as a consequence of the proposed introduction of the Research Quality Framework (RQF). The proposed RQF was seen to be affecting, in particular, preferences for research outlets and staffing patterns. Other influences are discussed in the meta-analysis chapter.