A framework to account for the nature and development of a discipline was prepared, using the components and their relationships identified in the review and analysis of the literature. Whitley’s theory of scientific change and related concepts influenced the development of the theoretical framework. The framework has been used to consider the historical and present position of IS in Australian universities, in combination with a ‘body of knowledge’, using Fitzgerald’s understanding of the term. The two constructs from Whitley discussed below were utilised in the framework.
The first construct that sets out Whitley’s three conditions for the establishment of a distinct scientific field has been used in part for the theoretical framework. As set out earlier, these are: a) scientific reputations to become socially prestigious and to ‘control critical rewards’; b) establishing standards of research competence and skills; and c) a unique symbol system to allow exclusion of outsiders and unambiguous communication between initiates within the field.
As outlined earlier, the first condition from Whitley is a collection of mechanisms of control, or social processes, while the second and third conditions relate in part to a core body of knowledge. Whitley’s second and third conditions, however, were found insufficient to cover all aspects of a discipline’s body of knowledge. For example, the second condition excluded teaching issues, even though IS academic teaching is largely the means by which an understanding of the discipline is imparted to future academics and practitioners. As demonstrated in the analysis of the literature, the ‘laws, rules or evidenced guidelines’ component of ‘body of knowledge’ (Fitzgerald 2003; Paul 2002), which has not been incorporated into the first construct above, also needs to be considered when examining progress towards the development of IS in Australia. Furthermore, key topics were also shown by analysis to be an essential component of the body of knowledge, and included relevant research and teaching topics. The second construct concerns the degree of professionalisation of the discipline, which is expected to decrease as the impact of local contingencies increases.
Consequently, a two-part framework was developed as a result of the literature analysis that includes mechanisms of control for the discipline and the core body of knowledge, or knowledge base—both considered against time. The framework has been used to guide some of the regional data collection and analysis for the Australian study. The second condition from Whitley was adapted and incorporated into the core body of knowledge, as research and teaching methods and standards (or knowledge gain plus knowledge transfer), while the third condition was included as the unique symbol set. Two additional components, laws, rules and evidenced guidelines (or knowledge types), and research and teaching key topics (or IS knowledge domain), have also been included in the framework. Figure 3.1 illustrates the first part of the framework used for the study and sets out the components that characterise the nature and development of a discipline. The second part of the framework is set out in Figure 3.2, which shows the inverse relationship between the impact of local contingencies on the IS discipline and the degree of professionalism.
