In the theoretical framework that guides this meta-analysis, the first construct proposed included a core body of knowledge, comprising the four components: research and teaching methods and standards; a unique symbol set; key research and teaching IS topics; and laws, rules and evidenced guidelines. Each component will be considered in turn below, by reviewing the data derived from the case studies presented in this monograph.
The theoretical framework underpinning this study suggests that a discipline will show consensus in research and teaching methods and standards. The degree to which this holds for IS groups in Australian universities will be examined next, using data from the case studies from each of the seven regions.
Diversity of research methods was reported in many of the regions, including in Western Australia and Queensland. The reason for research diversity was accounted for in a range of ways, including being driven by staff research interests, by the nature and requirements of grant funding sought or obtained and appointing new staff who had existing research interests. Other IS staff saw the diversity in research methods as a response to the RQF, a proposed Australian government approach that linked the allocation of research funding to Australian universities with an assessment of research quality. A shortage of supervisory capacity was reported at the University of Canberra, which intended to restrict the future number of IS PhD students at that university. This characteristic was expected to impact on that university’s capacity to attract government funding for research, as the RQF proposed to link the allocation of some research funds to PhD completions. An IS group’s publication output would also be affected by limited PhD numbers.
In Victoria, IS research was seen to be predominantly interpretivist, and aligned more to European approaches than to those from North America. Consequently, diverse blended approaches to research were not reported as common in IS research in Victoria, which was interpreted by the authors of the case study from that state as inconsistent with practice in mature disciplines.
Diversity of research administration was also reported. For example, in Queensland universities, no consistent patterns were seen in the organisational approaches taken to promote IS research. Strategies that were evident ranged from the formation of formal research groups and research centres to voluntary collaboration initiated by researchers. Research undertaken in Queensland universities varied from those having a tight IS focus to others where broad interdisciplinary collaboration was evident. NSW universities commented that there were few large IS research projects, and research activity was fragmented and diverse.
In contrast, the ANU reported an increased quantity and quality of IS research in recent years, and recognised plurality in research methods. Universities from several Australian regions referred to research seminars that were held regularly, and the ANU reported that it hosted a biennial workshop on ‘IS foundations’.
Relatively few comments on teaching methods and standards were made in the reports from the seven regions. WA universities reported much variety in teaching methods and standards, while in the Australian Capital Territory, lectures, seminars, tutorials, group projects, case studies, presentations, use of online learning management systems (WebCT) and laboratory sessions were used for IS delivery.
As suggested earlier, where an IS group teaches IS within another degree or discipline, it is likely to have limited control over delivery. A number of IS groups referred to delivering an introductory IS unit to large numbers of students in a commerce or business degree. As an example of the restrictions such an arrangement could impose, at the UniSA, where IS is taught in association with an accounting program, CPA accreditation determines not only the content, but the standards of the teaching.
Distance-education methods are used in some universities for the delivery of IS, including at the NSW regional university, Charles Sturt, and at the University of Southern Queensland. At ADFA, most postgraduate course-work programs are taught through distance education, using WebCT until 2007, and then ILIVE from that year. Other IS groups referred to the delivery of their programs using WebCT.
The applied nature of IS is reflected in some of the IS delivery styles and requirements for teaching. For example, at the University of Canberra, tutors and guest lecturers are often appointed from industry, while ADFA uses ‘problem-based learning’. At the UTS, all IS students were required to undertake work experience before graduation, until 2002, which resulted in the students either studying part-time or in a ‘sandwich’ mode that interwove study and professional work experience. A different approach to ensuring that graduates of IS programs were equipped to apply their learning in the workplace was referred to by the University of Canberra and the University of Tasmania; both taught interpersonal and group skills through group projects, role-plays, case studies and similar methods.
Several universities reported high numbers of international students, including those located offshore. Such arrangements necessitate changes to delivery arrangements. For example, the University of Tasmania used local staff and visiting staff from Australia to deliver its IS programs in Shanghai.
Diversity of research methods and standards was seen in IS groups across Australian universities. Approaches to administering IS research were also varied, with a lack of consensus on research methods and standards. Many regions regarded the lack of consensus on research approaches as an indicator of restricted progress in the development of IS. At least one region, however, considered that having a single predominant research approach suggested a lack of maturity for IS. Limited data on teaching methods and standards hamper the interpretation that can be made in this area. Some evidence was seen of matching delivery methods to the applied nature of IS; however, other teaching methods and delivery styles appeared to be in part an outcome of mechanisms adopted for pragmatic reasons to compensate for declining IS enrolments and staff reductions. Arrangements made for offshore delivery, distance education, use of online learning management systems and IS delivery in non-IS programs or disciplines might be examples of this characteristic.
Although relatively few comments were made by the authors of each state report regarding whether a unique symbol set existed for IS in their universities, the comments made were remarkably consistent.
In Western Australia, IS was seen as an area that could be transposed readily from one discipline grouping to another, while at the University of Canberra there was a history of integration of IS with other information and communication technologies (ICTs). Both characteristics suggest that IS does not have a unique symbol set. At the University of Adelaide, the placement of IS in a school of commerce acted to dissipate shared assumptions and language. Information systems staff of the University of Adelaide did not believe that IS had its own terminology, as IS was seen as a bridge between business and computing. Staff at the University of Tasmania also believed that IS terminology was broadly familiar to business and computing academics, while some ACT IS groups accepted the commonalities with allied fields such as software engineering and computing. The Queensland report found no evidence of a unique symbol set, attributing this to the diversity in the content of the curriculum and research topics.
The ACT report noted with concern that much of the symbol system of IS was used also by application areas when using IS and IT as tools. Consequently, people from outside IS feel able to teach IS within their own areas, as there is little barrier to doing so posed by a unique symbol set. The problem is compounded further by a poor understanding from outside IS of the meaning of information systems, and continuing debate within IS about how to define the discipline.
Australian IS staff members believe that IS has no unique symbol set. Information systems terms are used by related disciplines such as business and computing, and also for teaching in application areas by those not associated with IS. Consequently, IS is not able to exclude outsiders from its domain through use of an IS symbol set as a barrier, or to clearly delineate its boundaries. Both characteristics suggest that IS will experience continued incursions on its borders.
The theoretical framework for this study suggests that key research and teaching topics will become more consistent as the IS discipline develops. This section evaluates the degree to which consensus exists on the key IS research and teaching topics in Australian universities, using the considerable evidence provided in the state reports.
Circumstances surrounding IS teaching that impacts on the topics taught are considered first. It is acknowledged that the structural placement within which the IS teaching is undertaken affects the teaching topics. For example, the NSW authors commented that the least distinctive IS curriculum was found in IS support classes in commerce, and some IS groups were required to conform to CPA accreditation requirements when delivering IS within accounting programs. The integration of IS with other areas for teaching at the University of Canberra affected the topics taught. To illustrate, the co-location of IS with computing at that university resulted in the integration of the two fields, which meant that IS curriculum was not presented in a theoretical way, but in an applied way. In South Australia, relocating IS within the university brought about a re-examination of how IS courses related to IT and computing.
The nature of the degree programs and the organisational location of the IS staff influence the IS topics taught. Victoria identified the trend that from about 2004 students preferred to enrol in a double degree, one of which was IS, while before this time there was greater preference for a single IS degree, such as a Bachelor of Information Systems. Victoria also commented on a big increase in IS and IT course-work Masters degrees in the past decade. A wide range of IS programs was noted in Queensland. Other influences on IS teaching topics were also identified. For example, at the University of Canberra, many of the students were Australian government employees.
Numerous IS groups, including those at the UniSA and in Queensland universities, pointed to broad and diverse teaching topics. Victoria reported a diversity in IS degrees and their curricula, which made it challenging to identify an IS core body of knowledge. Consequently, few key teaching topics could be identified across programs or units in Victoria. The Queensland report suggested a reason for the variety in IS teaching topics in its universities. The Queensland authors identified a lack of consistency regarding the boundary for curriculum content between IS and related areas, and therefore the core body of knowledge. For example, databases and web-related topics are sometimes considered to be included within IS, while elsewhere they are seen as falling outside of IS.
Some states and universities were able to identify principles that guided the development of IS teaching topics. In Tasmania, the IS curriculum included little technical content, but focused on IS management and strategy. As mentioned above, at the Universities of Tasmania and Canberra, the IS curriculum included a focus on professional development, including interpersonal and group skills. At ADFA, a systems approach was adopted for the IS curriculum. In Western Australia, the IS body of knowledge of the four universities with an IS presence reflected local needs and developments, and their links with local industry and professions.
Several state reports referred to use of the ACS accreditation guidelines in the development of IS curricula. Although the ACS guidelines allow considerable flexibility in development of the curriculum, there is a common understanding of topics usually covered. Examples are systems analysis and design, database design and management, project management, managerial and organisational issues, ethical and social implications, professional practice and interpersonal communications. Two of the three ACT universities with an IS program use the ACS guidelines, in combination with specialist knowledge that reflects staff interests and expertise. Programming and software construction was included in the IS curriculum of one university in the Australian Capital Territory, but not in the other two.
South Australian universities indicated that software engineering, computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW), electronic commerce and business information management were key IS teaching topics. The major IS teaching themes in Tasmania were project management, data modelling, data management and electronic commerce, most of which appeared in the ACS guidelines.
The ACT case reported an inconsistency between the topics in the core body of knowledge and IS research methods. Although the core body of knowledge involved construction of artefacts, graduate research students were not exposed to design theory, apart from at the University of Canberra.
Several IS groups identified that their research was applied—for example, ADFA works in the nexus between consultancy and research. The applied nature of much IS research could be seen from the research topics listed for each region.
There was great breadth in the IS research topics studied in Australian universities. To illustrate, the two primary IS research groups at the UniSA had 12 main research foci, while 33 separate research areas were identified at the nine Queensland universities. Six research themes were pinpointed by the IS group at the University of Tasmania.
Despite some differences in the terminology used by different research groups, considerable commonality was found in many of the research topics after analysis. For example, seven of the research foci from the UniSA could be matched to research interests from Queensland universities. Five of the six research themes from the Tasmanian IS were also common to the Queensland research topics. Appendix 12.1 lists the collated research topics identified from all seven regions, showing the common topics. Note, however, that the NSW report identified only a few research topics.
As expected from the diversity in the organisational location of IS teachers, the extent of autonomy of IS groups and the degree programs within which IS teaching took place, IS teaching topics in Australian universities varied enormously. While many of the regions pointed out the difficulty in identifying key IS teaching topics, a number of IS groups taught programs that were consistent with the ACS guidelines. Even though the ACS guidelines allow considerable discretion for curriculum development, many IS groups have a common view of key IS teaching topics from the ACS guidelines.
The topics researched by IS groups were found to be broad and diverse; however, some frequently recurring research topics could be identified that appeared in many of the Australian regions. It is clear that key IS research and teaching topics are influenced by a variety of factors that will vary from one IS group to another, including staff interests and expertise. These factors help account for the breadth of the teaching and research topics seen. Despite the diversity in teaching and research topics, some consensus in key IS topics for both appears possible.
Laws, rules and evidenced guidelines is the last component of the core body of knowledge from the first framework construct. Laws or rules are similar to those found in the natural sciences, while evidenced guidelines arise from practice. Little reference was made to laws, rules and evidenced guidelines in the state case studies. The Victorian authors remarked that limited reference to use of an IS theory was made, although the emphasis on interpretive research methods could suggest that agreement exists on a set of evidenced guidelines for research. The Queensland authors reported that no evidence of a theory base was found. The ANU recognised plurality in theory types, while the ACT chapter indicated that little core knowledge from IS could be classified as laws or rules in the way that the natural sciences regarded these theory types. Instead, the authors from the Australian Capital Territory consider that evidenced guidelines are used in IS, which are derived from practice. An example provided was software cost-estimation practices. An additional kind of ‘theory’ or ‘knowledge type’, called normative guidelines, was also identified by the same writers. Design theory was seen to be a normative guideline, such as Codd’s relational database theory.
Although only one region made significant mention of laws, rules and evidenced guidelines for IS, the omission by the others could confirm the view from the ACT authors that laws and rules, as developed in the natural sciences, are largely irrelevant for IS. Instead, the ‘more well-grounded, participative style’ of knowledge type, such as evidenced (and normative) guidelines, is more appropriate in a field that is at the junction of ‘science, technology and human and organisational behaviour’ (Gregor et al. 2006:190).