The meta-analysis chapter consolidated and interpreted the data from earlier chapters in this monograph, to set out an overview of the IS academic discipline in Australian universities, using the theoretical framework developed for the investigation.

Although IS has broad (but not universal) acceptance in Australian universities as a teaching and research program, considerable variation was noted in staff and student numbers from one IS group to another, and in the staff/student ratio. The organisational location and independence of the IS groups also varied, sometimes being fragmented across departments and faculties, although most were located in science or business. This fragmentation, and the pressure for restructuring placed on IS groups more recently as student enrolments have declined, has eroded autonomy for IS in Australian universities. Despite the rapid growth in IS professorial appointments in Australian universities between 1998 and 2004, and the strongly identified IS programs in some universities, reduced opportunities for control of critical rewards have been seen since that time. Diversity of research methods and standards, and of teaching methods and standards, was reported.

Australian IS staff considered that the discipline did not have a unique symbol set, which could help to explain the diversity in the organisational location of IS groups. Without a recognised unique symbol set, there are few limitations on other disciplines to deliver IS teaching programs or undertake IS research. Teaching topics varied broadly, although many IS groups delivered programs that were consistent with the ACS guidelines. Although IS research topics were viewed as being very diverse across the universities, analysis of topics across the states and, in particular, across Australia, revealed considerable commonality. The consensus reached about IS teaching, and in particular research topics, could offer some potential for the future development of an IS symbol set. One barrier that would need to be overcome is the perception from Australian IS university academics that IS topics studied by one group have little in common with those examined by another. Increased mechanisms for communication among Australian IS researchers and lecturers might reduce this obstacle and limit silos. Having core topics for Australian IS research and increasing focus on high-quality journal publications brought about through the RQF process could act to increase the professionalism of Australian IS research. Conversely, recent restructuring of IS groups in Australia could work to reduce the professionalism of IS research and teaching.

The study findings suggest that laws and rules, as understood by the natural sciences, are not appropriate for the IS discipline. Evidenced guidelines and normative guidelines are more suitable. This recognition of the most relevant theory types for the discipline could signal increasing maturity for the IS discipline in Australia, rather than having IS apply less suitable theory types to emulate high-status disciplines.

Although a range of local pressures acted on research and teaching, there were some signs of increasing professionalism, including Victorian IS curricula responding to global influences, as well as the responses of Australian IS researchers to the proposed RQF process. Reduced student enrolments in recent times resulted in some organisational relocation of IS groups, changes to the ICT curriculum and reduced IS staff numbers, but these outcomes had not hampered the quantity or quality of IS research.

Just as the diversity found in different aspects of IS in Australian universities implied that some groups were more successful than others across a range of criteria, including publication output, success in gaining external funding, reduced staff/student ratios and group autonomy, some IS groups were able to strengthen their position in comparison with other ICT disciplines during recent organisational restructuring. The ANU and some Victorian IS groups stood out on several criteria, as reported in the study. Although beyond the scope of this current volume, it is interesting to conjecture on possible reasons for these differences. The historical origins of some of the universities in which the IS groups appear might offer some explanation, as might the nature of the leadership of IS groups. Certainly, the achievements of key Australian IS leaders, as reported in this monograph, have helped some groups gain greater access to resources and status.

With the reduced student enrolment in IS programs in universities around the world in recent years, it would be easy to dwell on this phenomenon, as data collection and analysis took place at one time during this period. Yet this study also examined indirectly the achievements to date of Australian IS as a discipline, in addition to the relative change to that position in recent times.

The framework’s first construct referred to mechanisms of control and the core body of knowledge. Although achievements for mechanisms of control were mixed, considerable progress had been made towards this component in the past decades in IS, including the number of professorial appointments, the inclusion of IS representation on ARC panels and the establishment and recognition of a national IS journal, a national conference and ACPHIS. Of the four components that make up the core body of knowledge, acknowledgement needs to be made that key research topics have been established, and ACS teaching topics have been developed and are recognised. The framework’s second construct referred to the impact of local contingencies versus the degree of professionalism. Local contingencies were found to have impacted on the degree of professionalism; however, the study was not able to confirm that the two components were inversely related.

One broad aim of this current investigation was to consider whether IS in the Australian context should be labelled a discipline or a field, using the definitions of both reported in Chapter 3 and restated below for the reader’s convenience. The contributions of significant international IS researchers to this study suggest that the answer to this question will be one that is common to IS groups outside Australia.

If a discipline is defined as

the findings of the current investigation from IS academics in Australian universities demonstrate that IS cannot satisfy this definition of a discipline. Although the types of theory that are appropriate for IS have been distinguished (see Gregor et al. 2006), few of the theories so developed interrelate the concepts, provide explanations of observed phenomena and permit predictions from them. Further, using this definition of a discipline and the nature of IS theory discussed in this study, as distinct from the laws and rules found in some other disciplines, it appears that IS has some way to go to become a discipline. Analysis on a national scale revealed that core IS research topics existed in Australia; however, this characteristic did not yet have consensus recognition by individual researchers or groups. Also, since the first Australian IS professor was appointed only just more than two decades ago, such a period is insufficient to have allowed IS to have developed into a discipline. If IS is not then a discipline, can it be considered as a field, where a field is

Certainly, it appears that IS cannot be accepted as a discipline as yet and it is a recent area of scholarship. This study indicates that the boundaries of IS are fuzzy, and its concepts are debated; for example, there is no accepted symbol set that would enable common terms to be used to represent concepts. Although IS has a history of borrowing from its reference disciplines for its methodologies and ‘conceptualisations’, this study has revealed some signs that IS is starting to reflect on both that are of particular relevance, as is seen in the recent focus on ‘design science’ (see Hevner et al. 2004; Gregor and Jones 2007). Overall, this study of IS in Australian universities provided evidence that IS is more like a field than a discipline.