3. Characterising academic information systems in Australia: developing and evaluating a theoretical framework

Information systems is a relatively new discipline in the Australian context, as is discussed in Clarke elsewhere in this monograph. Its contribution to Australia has increased with the growing understanding of the importance of computer systems in assisting organisations and individuals to achieve their goals. Given the growing contribution of the IS academic discipline to Australia, the study reported in this publication is timely, as it aims to investigate the state of IS in the universities of the region. The strategic benefits of gathering data in order to access increased power, status and resources for the IS discipline in Australia in the future are obvious. To maximise the future strategic benefits of doing so, however—particularly as this Australian study could act as a pilot for future Association for Information Systems (AIS) studies in other regions—the investigation needs to consider common questions in common ways. This chapter develops a theoretical framework to provide a common way of looking at data collected over a range of dimensions from different geographical areas in Australia. It also considers whether the framework is capable of accommodating future changes to the nature of IS.

It is tempting to view the development of IS in Australian universities as a unique case. There is, however, a body of knowledge that attempts to explain changes in fields of knowledge, including the emergence of new disciplines. An understanding of the past development of IS will help those in the discipline to better position the future of IS in Australia. Much of the literature on the development of disciplines comes from the sociology and philosophy of science and dates from the 1950s to the early 1980s. Since that period the philosophy of technology has emerged as another branch of philosophy, which includes study of the role of technology within the development of society (Gorokhov 1998). Some literature from both sources is relevant to a consideration of IS, as it is possible that many characteristics of its development arose because it was a new discipline, with involvement in technology. Therefore, the features and milestones of the development of IS might be typical of the early development of all or many disciplines and not unique. This reasoning was supported in the IS literature by Farhoomand (1992), who contended that the nature of progress in a discipline needed to be examined within a framework of the philosophy of science. The concept accords with Popper’s (1959) argument that discovery needs to be directed by theory, instead of theory being derived from empirical observation. The development of IS as a discipline has been considered in several waves (Fitzgerald 2003) since its first emergence—most recently in 2006. This work has examined the origins and the future of IS. Bauman (1992:76), however, believed that ‘only a [flawed] discipline…feels the need to justify its…exist[ence]’. Neither position, however, has been influential in Australia, where there has been little examination of the nature and development of IS.

At least two different views could be taken on the state of academic IS: an external view from outside the academic field, which includes the view of IS practitioners, and an internal one, as seen by IS academics (Hirschheim and Klein 2003). This chapter, like much of the literature, focuses largely on the internal view of IS, leaving the external view to another time, after an initial examination of the IS discipline in Australian universities has been undertaken. When taking an internal perspective, research and teaching perspectives could be considered in a discussion of the state of IS in Australian universities. Most of the literature on the state and development of IS concentrates on research issues, rather than teaching. Consequently, the review of the literature presented below regarding the state and development of IS places emphasis on research issues rather than on teaching issues.

Many people view IS as an applied science, as evidenced by the accreditation of IS programs in US business schools by ABET (formerly referred to as the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology) (Challa et al. 2005). Science has been described as a convention, in which the norms, expectations and values of the group while searching for understanding are relevant (Klein et al. 1991). As such, social characteristics are important to the development of science. Bunge (1979) differentiated between culture-free pure science and scientific technology, where the latter was applied in nature and involved ethics, while later writers saw science and technology as being interdependent or hybridised (Pitt 2000; Latour 2003). There has been much debate about how scientific progress comes about (Lee 1989) with many explanations put forward. The methods proposed for scientific progress include, for example, incremental verifications (the logical positivists), the increasing consensus of researchers (Polanyi 1958), the use of falsifications (Popper 1959), revolutions that overturn previous paradigms (Kuhn 1970), progressive or degenerative research programs conducted over extended periods (Lakatos 1970), political practices (Foucault 1977) or research trails versus tinkering (Chubin and Connolly 1982).

An overview of some of the literature related to scientific progress and the development of disciplines is presented in this chapter, particularly where it has been linked in the past to IS. It is believed that the literature provides a theoretical context for a study designed to characterise the state of the IS academic discipline in Australia. After an examination of the literature, a framework will be developed to guide the collection and analysis of data for the study reported elsewhere in this monograph. The framework is then examined to assess whether it is sufficiently dynamic to accommodate a more recent development in IS.