Abstract
Information systems (IS) emerged as a discipline in the 1960s. It has struggled to define itself, its scope and its relationship with its neighbouring disciplines in the computing and management arenas. Despite that, it has grown into a diverse and busy community. The discipline in Australia numbers some 700 people, and it has had impacts on the international stage. This chapter charts key events in its first four decades, identifies what appear to the author to be the key themes, provides a body of references for future historians to consider in greater detail and from other perspectives and raises questions for the future.
Table of Contents
The IS discipline has mostly been too concerned about ensuring its future to spend much time celebrating its past, or even understanding it. As pioneers retire, however, the time has come to consolidate sources and memories and provide some historical background to this vibrant but often troubled field.
Research into the discipline’s birth led to 1965 and 1967 as the most tenable start dates. The analysis reaches beyond 1995 only selectively. This is partly because of the scale of the undertaking, and partly because lack of perspective makes it much more difficult to write convincingly about ‘recent history’ than about ‘ancient history’. For further comments on author bias, see the acknowledgements.
A history can be approached from a variety of directions. Because it is something of a ‘trail-blazing’ exercise, this chapter is intentionally eclectic. It blends (or perhaps muddles) the approaches of the chronicler (Who did what when?), the historian of ideas (Where were concepts, models and theories appropriated from? What scope has been evident? Which topics have been important? Which propositions were debated?) and the political historian (What power bases existed? What skirmishes were fought? Who won?). Little time is spent on historiography or critical thinking (Who wrote what, with what biases, and for what purpose?). First, we need some sources. Only then can the battle to own history begin.
The author’s own perspectives and biases regarding the scope of the IS discipline will become apparent progressively through the chapter, but two aspects need to be addressed at the outset. Rather than beginning with a discussion about what IS is and what it should be, this chapter sets out with the pragmatic approach that ‘IS is what IS does’. Reflection on the rich and at times tumultuous debates about those questions belongs elsewhere. The second limitation is that the traditions with which the author is most familiar are those of Australian IS, US management information systems (MIS), UK IS and information management (IM) and Wirtschaftsinformatik in German-speaking countries (which is translated most appropriately as ‘business information systems’). These provide ample evidence, firstly, of different flavours but secondly of a measure of unanimity about the discipline’s scope in action, and the matters that, at any given time, have been proper topics to be considered by the discipline’s members.
The research method adopted was based heavily on secondary research, starting with the author’s own substantial archives dating from 1970, followed by searches for relevant published resources. The modest literature that was uncovered is listed in the bibliography in Clarke (2007). Information from publications was supplemented with face-to-face interviews with a number of key players during the early years and e-mail exchanges and telephone conversations with a substantial number of people—in Australia and overseas. Many of these discussions resulted in further references that needed to be reviewed. The acknowledgements section lists the individuals on whom the author has placed greatest reliance. The now-compulsory ‘web trawl’ delivered some hits of consequence. Relevant resources are also listed in Clarke (2007). The intended review of IS departments’ sites for historically relevant material was not undertaken, because the sampling that was performed suggested that there were more promising avenues in which to invest the available time. The only formalised departmental histories that were unearthed were Greig and Levin (1989) regarding computing at Caulfield/Chisholm (1965–88), Dreyfus (2004) regarding the University of Melbourne’s IS department (1994–2004) and Burrows (2006) regarding the same university’s accounting department (1925–2004).
The ‘IS-in-Oz’ team reviewed and provided substantial feedback on the proposal in March 2005, on a sketch in May 2005, on an interim report in November 2005 and on a draft in January 2006. The version of May 2006 was released with a request for comment sent to about 40 senior members of the discipline in Australia and overseas. This elicited important feedback, which has been reflected in this version. An article-length version was extracted and published (Clarke 2006).
The chapter begins by considering the intellectual origins of the IS discipline. Building on this foundation, key events are identified that are associated with the establishment of the discipline—overseas and in Australia. The development of the discipline is then traced, using a variety of metrics. The later parts of the chapter identify some key themes, of a political and an intellectual nature.