The project involves a study of IS academia in Australia. From individual case studies in each of the Australian states, and the Australian Capital Territory, an Australian multiple case study report will be prepared to be published in the AJIS (phase one of the study). This research project is planned as a preliminary to a similar study across the Asia-Pacific region.
|
QLD |
Guy Gable (editor) |
Bob Smyth |
|
|
WA |
Janice Burn |
Craig Standing |
Chad Lin |
|
NSW |
Jim Underwood |
Ernie Jordan |
|
|
ACT |
Shirley Gregor |
Ed Lewis |
Craig McDonald |
|
SA |
Paula Swatman |
Andy Koronios |
Mike Metcalfe |
|
VIC |
Carol Pollard |
Elsie Chan |
|
|
TAS |
Gail Ridley |
Since separate researchers will undertake the individual state case studies, this protocol seeks to be somewhat more detailed than might otherwise be necessary. It is hoped that this protocol will facilitate some:
comparability across the states
consistency across the individual case studies
efficiency in the conduct of the case studies, with potential for data gathering and some analysis being delegated to research assistants or other junior researchers.
The protocol draws heavily on the approach suggested by Yin (2003), incorporating some of the ideas of Walsham (1995). In particular, this protocol seeks an interpretive approach directed at what Walsham calls ‘rich insight’.
Each case study should be viewed as an opportunity to collect and record perceptions of the interviewees (as well as other forms of evidence). In keeping with an interpretive slant, subjectivity on the part of the interviewees and the researchers is accepted. The case studies are to be descriptive and to focus on perceived points of differentiation across universities within a state (other, more readily comparable data might be available from existing surveys). The framework used to guide the study provides a theoretical context for the study, and was derived from the PhD thesis of team member Gail Ridley. It is expected that a historical perspective on the evolution of IS in each university will inform the current state of IS in the university and across the state.
This Australian multi-state case study is a precursor to a wider Pacific-Asia study (‘IS-in-PA’). This study seeks to draw on, and complement, other recent or planned studies of the state of the IS discipline, notably those of Avgerou et al. (1999), Huff and Lehmann (2007), and Pervan and Shanks (2006).
There is a body of knowledge that suggests that many of the characteristics of IS are consistent with those observed across emerging disciplines in the early stages of their development. For example, some of the characteristics that manifested themselves in the early evolution of management as a discipline have been seen more recently in the development of IS. Some of these characteristics include:
a heavy reliance on reference disciplines
a paucity of theory specific to the discipline
a perceived lower status than for established disciplines, leading to the adoption of methods from the higher-status disciplines
limited numbers of textbooks that review the discipline
poor definition of the boundaries of study
incorporation organisationally as a subset of an established discipline.
The framework proposed is based on two constructs: 1) the degree of professionalism as a discipline, and 2) maturity as a scientific field. Both are derived from Whitley’s theory of scientific change (1984a, 1984b).
The first construct concerns the degree of ‘professionalisation’ of the discipline, which is expected to increase as the impact of local contingencies decreases. Where a discipline is not highly professionalised, local contingencies such as political pressures have a high impact. Consequently, the degree of professionalisation of IS can be evidenced by the extent of variation in the nature of its research among the ‘states’ of Australasia over time.
The second construct has been derived from Whitley’s three conditions for the establishment of a distinct scientific field:
scientific reputations become socially prestigious and ‘control critical rewards’—that is, those in the discipline have the potential for prestige and power through prominence in that discipline
standards of research competence and skills become established
a unique symbol system is developed that allows the exclusion of outsiders and unambiguous communication between initiates within the discipline.
Based on evidence deriving from interviews conducted, and supplemented by documentary and other archival evidence, it is expected that you will ultimately develop a rich description of the state of IS across your state. It is intended that interviews be used as the principal form of data gathering. Where available, existing documentary and archival material should be gathered to supplement the interview data and to provide some triangulation of observations. The interviews are to be semi-structured, with emphasis on factors relating to the emergence of IS, broad perceptions of the interviewee on IS in his/her university, points of differentiation and distinctive features of IS in that state. You should seek answers to the broad themes outlined below, using the supplementary questions only as deemed appropriate. Each interview should last about one hour. Where face-to-face interviews are impractical, telephone interviews will suffice. They will normally be of shorter duration (30 minutes plus) than the face-to-face interviews.
You should ensure that all interviews are conducted with due concern for the ethical standards that guide research procedures at the Queensland University of Technology and at your university. Before starting the interview, you should seek from interviewees their written approval to participate in a recorded interview. You should retain one copy of the signed consent, to be stored with the interview recording. The recorded interview need not be transcribed. The recording should be referenced by the interviewer to assist in the preparation of summary interview notes.
Prospective interviewees should be selected from academics within each (if possible) university running IS courses in your designated state. A minimum of one interviewee per institution is recommended where this is practical. In states where there are several universities, a feasible approach to data gathering might involve just two or three ‘full’ interviews supported by shorter interviews in the other universities. Where resources permit, it will be useful to interview more than one person from each university as a means of gaining a more balanced perspective. In states with few universities, one-to-one interviews might be better replaced with focus groups.
Start the interview by introducing yourself and explaining the purpose of the interview viz. to gather data on the condition of IS in universities in the state. Emphasise that we are seeking particularly broad perceptions on points of differentiation in the approach to IS in the interviewee’s university.
Outline our agreed definition of IS, as distinct from other ICT disciplines such as computer science and computer engineering.
The original 1994 Asia Pacific Directory of Information Systems Researchers (APDISR) observed, ‘The question, “Who is an Information Systems academic?” is not easily answered.’ The APDISR goes on to ‘loosely define an IS researcher as “one concerned with analysis, design, implementation, evaluation, and management of information systems, from a managerial or user perspective, rather than from a computer science perspective”’. In consultation with your interviewees, therefore, you will need to decide which organisational entities, which parts of the curriculum and which people you consider to relate to IS for the purposes of this study.
Note that rich data are to be sought as indicated by the italicised headings below. The interviewer might use the specific questions to elicit the sort of data that might be useful if this is overlooked by the interviewee. It is not vital that each question below be asked. We accept that the individual state teams will likely have differing emphases in their data collection and interpretation. We feel this will give richness to the individual reports without unduly affecting comparability. Where interviewees can access relevant statistical data outside the interviews, these matters can be considered by the interviewer without being sought during the interview. You might, however, confirm any such statistical data with interviewees, either at the time of the interview or when interview notes are sent to the interviewee for checking.
Confirm the name of the interviewee; the institution the interviewee represents; and the position of the interviewee in that institution.
Explain that you are seeking information about IS courses and IS research. Check whether the interviewee is comfortable answering questions about each area in his/her institution. Where the interviewee has knowledge principally with regard to either research or teaching only, you should try to get the name of, and an introduction to, a suitable person to subsequently cover the other area.
How many people teach IS subjects at the institution?
Which administrative groupings (for example, business faculty, school of IT) do the IS teaching staff belong to? Outline how this has evolved over the years.
What is the total number of students in your institution? (What is the full-time equivalent?)
Look for approximate numbers. Do not let the discussion bog down in details. Use existing statistical sources if they are readily available to you.
What are the undergraduate and postgraduate IS courses offered at your institution (separate course-work courses from research-based courses)?
How many students are currently enrolled in each of the IS courses just referred to?
Look for approximate numbers. Do not let the discussion bog down in details. Use existing statistical sources if they are readily available to you.
Discuss the extent to which IS curriculum and research at your university is affected by local factors (for example, local industry, political pressures).
Do you think that IS is any more or less affected by local factors than other disciplines at your university?
Discuss the extent to which IS has a separate identity at your university.
What factors distinguish IS subjects and research from those that would be found in business and computer science at your university?
Do you feel that your position as an IS academic gives you greater or lesser status in your university relative to your colleagues in business and computer science?
Is there anything about the terminology of IS at your university that would be foreign/unfamiliar to your business and computer science colleagues?
Discuss the extent to which IS curriculum and research at your university is affected by local factors (for example, local industry, political pressures).
Discuss the place of service teaching of IS at your institution, as opposed to teaching in IS courses.
What do you see as distinctive features (if any) of IS as taught at your institution? Themes?
How do you see your institution’s IS courses in relation to those offered by other institutions in your state? Similar in emphasis? Complementary? Sharply different?
Are there particular tools, techniques or technologies used in the teaching of IS at your university that are distinctive?
Approximately what percentage of your IS course-work students are ‘international students’? Which nations are represented most strongly? Has there been any significant change in this pattern in the past three years?
Approximately what percentage of your IS research students are ‘international students’? Which nations are represented most strongly? Has there been any significant change in this pattern in the past three years?
What proportion of IS students at your institution are taught by ‘distance education’? Discuss the form/s of distance education used and where most of these distance students are located (locally, interstate, overseas). Is your university distinctive in its approach to IS distance education?
To what extent have enrolments in IS at your institution been affected by the recent downturn in ICT employment?
What do you see as the main issues relating to the teaching of IS in your institution?
What changes are planned for teaching/curriculum in IS in your institution in the next three years?
How would you rate the average level of research output across the IS staff in your institution? Discuss your assessment.
What is the balance between IS research and IS teaching in your institution, with respect to incentives for each?
How is IS research primarily funded in your institution?
What are the main areas of focus in IS research in your institution?
What are the main IS research methods used in your institution?
How many students are currently enrolled in IS PhDs in your institution? Has there been a decrease or increase in these numbers in the past three years?
To what extent do you think that the emphasis of research in your institution is consistent with IS research themes in other institutions in your state?
Discuss conference attendance by IS researchers in your institution: on average, how many conferences a year would your IS researchers attend? Which conferences are most popular with your IS researchers, and why?
What local factors have an impact on IS research in your state?
What do you see as the main issues related to IS research in your institution?
What changes are planned for IS research in your institution in the next three years? Changes of focus? Changes in funding? Changes in research group structure?
What general information can you provide about IS teaching and research across tertiary education institutions in your state?
Can you name some significant individuals (politicians, bureaucrats, academics, members of professional societies, members of advisory committees) who have had a significant impact on IS in your university? Outline the nature of the impact in each case.
Can you give names of suitable people from other institutions in your state who might be usefully interviewed for this study?
Conclude the interview, with thanks to the interviewee. Give a commitment on when the interview notes will be made available to the interviewee for checking. Seek permission for access to the interviewee again for any incidental follow-up.