this IS research

We continue with our special “Ask us anything” episode to celebrate the centenary of the This IS Research podcast. This time, we handle questions such as “do we have to worry about ontology?" - No; "should we engage in community building?" Yes; and “what have you learned from the podcast?” A whole lot - and we hope you have learned a thing or two along the way as well. Episode reading list Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363. James, W. (1907). Pragmatism:  A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking. Hackett Publishing. Gal, U., Berente, N., & Chasin, F. (2022). Technology Lifecycles and Digital Innovation: Patterns of Discourse Across Levels of Abstraction: A Study of Wikipedia Articles. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 23(5), 1102-1149. Faik, I., Barrett, M., & Oborn, E. (2020). How Information Technology Matters in Societal Change: An Affordance-Based Institutional Perspective. MIS Quarterly, 44(3), 1359-1390. Leonardi, P. M. (2010). Digital Materiality? How Artifacts Without Matter, Matter. First Monday, 15(6), . Goebeler, L., Hukal, P., & Xiao, X. (2024). Four Roles of Physicality in Digital Innovation: A Theoretical Review. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 33(4), 101862. Faulkner, P., & Runde, J. (2019). Theorizing the Digital Object. MIS Quarterly, 43(4), 1279-1302. Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., . . . Wright, R. T. (2023). "So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Opportunities, Challenges and Implications of Generative Conversational AI for Research, Practice and Policy. International Journal of Information Management, 71, 102642. 

We have an anniversary to celebrate: one hundred episodes of the This IS Research podcast. We mark the occasion by answering questions we received from our audience: Which bear is the best, who likes a hug more... and what advice would we give about starting as an assistant professor, pivoting your research, and what books to read. All this and much more in part one of our “ask us anything” episode. Episode reading list Fort, T. (2003). The Book of Eels. HarperCollins. Nazar, S. (1999). A Beautiful Mind. Simon & Schuster. Frankl, V. E. (1946). Man's Search for Meaning. Beacon Press. Ashby, W. R. (1956). An Introduction to Cybernetics. Chapman & Hall. Card, O. S. (1985). Ender's Game. Tor Books. Beer, S. (1974). Designing Freedom. CBC Learning Systems. Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative Behavior: a Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization. Macmillan. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human Problem Solving. Prentice-Hall. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. John Wiley & Sons. Urquhart, C., Berente, N., Recker, J. (2021). Naughty Grounded Theory. . Zwass, V., Berente, N., Recker, J. (2023). Never create a journal unless it is JMIS. . Berente, N., Recker, J. (2022). Why we love what we do. .  

In 2010, the Association for Information Systems formed a special interest group () to nurture an international community of academics that study the role of digital technologies in fostering environmentally, economically and socially sustainable development. Fifteen years later, we sit down with , the current SIGGreen president, to reflect on the progress we have made. What do we know about how digital technologies help greening our planet? What efforts in empirical, theoretical, and design work is still needed? Is our role to understand the role of digital technologies or do we need to push and enact change ourselves? We conclude that environmental questions and problems are now firmly on the radar screen of our discipline but more work needs to be done for information systems academics to transform the way we think about and use digital technologies.  Episode reading list Corbett, J., & Mellouli, S. (2017). Winning the SDG Battle in Cities: How an Integrated Information Ecosystem can Contribute to the Achievement of the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. Information Systems Journal, 27(4), 427-461. Seidel, S., Recker, J., & vom Brocke, J. (2013). Sensemaking and Sustainable Practicing: Functional Affordances of Information Systems in Green Transformations. MIS Quarterly, 37(4), 1275-1299. Hasan, H., Ghose, A., & Spedding, T. (2009). Editorial for the Special Issue on IT and Climate Change. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 16(2), 19-21. Watson, R. T., Corbett, J., Boudreau, M.-C., & Webster, J. (2011). An Information Strategy for Environmental Sustainability. Communications of the ACM, 55(7), 28-30. Jenkin, T. A., Webster, J., & McShane, L. (2011). An Agenda for 'Green' Information Technology and Systems Research. Information and Organization, 21(1), 17-40. Watson, R. T., Boudreau, M.-C., & Chen, A. J. (2010). Information Systems and Environmentally Sustainable Development:  Energy Informatics and New Directions for the IS Community. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 23-38. Elliot, S. (2011). Transdisciplinary Perspectives on Environmental Sustainability: A Resource Base and Framework for IT-Enabled Business Transformation. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 197-236. Kahlen, M., Ketter, W., & van Dalen, J. (2018). Electric Vehicle Virtual Power Plant Dilemma: Grid Balancing Versus Customer Mobility. Production and Operations Management, 27(11), 2054-2070. Gholami, R., Watson, R. T., Hasan, H., Molla, A., & Bjørn-Andersen, N. (2016). Information Systems Solutions for Environmental Sustainability: How Can We Do More? Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 17(8), 521-536. Corbett, J., & El Idrissi, S. C. (2022). Persuasion, Information Technology, and the Environmental Citizen: An Empirical Study of the Persuasion Effectiveness of City Applications. Government Information Quarterly, 39(4), 101757. Degirmenci, K., & Recker, J. (2023). Breaking Bad Habits: A Field Experiment About How Routinized Work Practices Can Be Made More Eco-efficient Through IS for Sensemaking. Information & Management, 60(4), 103778. Zeiss, R., Ixmeier, A., Recker, J., & Kranz, J. (2021). Mobilising Information Systems Scholarship For a Circular Economy: Review, Synthesis, and Directions For Future Research. Information Systems Journal, 31(1), 148-183. Haudenosaunee Confederacy. (2025). Values. . The Stakeholder Alignment Collaborative. (2025). The Consortia Century: Aligning for Impact. Oxford University Press. Hovorka, D. and Corbett, J. (2012) IS Sustainability Research: A trans-disciplinary framework for a ‘grand challenge”. 33rd International Conference on Information Systems, Orlando, Florida. Hovorka, D. S., & Peter, S. (2021). Speculatively Engaging Future(s): Four Theses. MIS Quarterly, 45(1), 461-466. Gümüsay, A. A., & Reinecke, J. (2024). Imagining Desirable Futures: A Call for Prospective Theorizing with Speculative Rigour. Organization Theory, 5(1), . Kotlarsky, J., Oshri, I., & Sekulic, N. (2023). Digital Sustainability in Information Systems Research: Conceptual Foundations and Future Directions. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 24(4), 936-952. Gray, P., Lyytinen, K., Saunders, C., Willcocks, L. P., Watson, R. T., & Zwass, V. (2006). How Shall We Manage Our Journals in the Future?  A Discussion of Richard T. Watson's Proposals at ICIS 2004. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 18(14), 2-41. Saldanha, T. J. V., Mithas, S., Khuntia, J., Whitaker, J., & Melville, N. P. (2022). How Green Information Technology Standards and Strategies Influence Performance: Role of Environment, Cost, and Dual Focus. MIS Quarterly, 46(4), 2367-2386. Leidner, D. E., Sutanto, J., & Goutas, L. (2022). Multifarious Roles and Conflicts on an Inter-Organizational Green IS. MIS Quarterly, 46(1), 591-608. Wunderlich, P., Veit, D. J., & Sarker, S. (2019). Adoption of Sustainable Technologies: A Mixed-Methods Study of German Households. MIS Quarterly, 43(2), 673-691. Melville, N. P. (2010). Information Systems Innovation for Environmental Sustainability. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 1-21. Edwards, P. N. (2013). A Vast Machine. MIT Press. Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. W. (1972). The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome's Project on the Predicament of Mankind. Universe Books. Over the Hedge. (2006). . McPhearson, T., Raymond, C. M., Gulsrud, N., Albert, C., Coles, N., Fagerholm, N., Nagatsu, M., Olafsson, A. S., Niko, S., & Vierikko, K. (2021). Radical Changes are Needed for Transformations to a Good Anthropocene. npj Urban Sustainability, 1(5), .   

is back on the show and he is bringing decades of experiences as a journal editor.  So we decided we play a game of round robin where each of us is giving rules of what to do (or not to do) as an editor. How long can we sit on papers before we make decisions? On what basis should we offer revise and resubmit decisions? When is it okay to desk reject a paper? How many reviews are enough? So if you want to learn more about the different editorial superhuman powers and supervillain powers – this is your episode. Episode reading list Recker, J. (2020). Reflections of a Retiring Editor-in-Chief. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 46(32), 751-761. Berente, N., Gu, B., Recker, J., & Santhanam, R. (2021). Managing Artificial Intelligence. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1433-1450. Li, J., Li, M., Wang, X., & Thatcher, J. B. (2021). Strategic Directions for AI: The Role of CIOs and Boards of Directors. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1603-1643. Grisold, T., Berente, N., & Seidel, S. (2025). Guardrails for Human-AI Ecologies: A Design Theory for Managing Norm-Based Coordination. MIS Quarterly, 45, forthcoming. Davis, J. L. (2020). How Artifacts Afford: The Power and Politics of Everyday Things. MIT Press. Majchrzak, A., & Malhotra, A. (2019). Unleashing the Crowd: Collaborative Solutions to Wicked Business and Societal Problems. Springer. Gaskin, J., Berente, N., Lyytinen, K., & Yoo, Y. (2014). Toward Generalizable Sociomaterial Inquiry: A Computational Approach for Zooming In and Out of Sociomaterial Routines. MIS Quarterly, 38(3), 849-871. Teodorescu, M., Morse, L., Awwad, Y., & Kane, G. C. (2021). Failures of Fairness in Automation Require a Deeper Understanding of Human–ML Augmentation. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1483-1499. Lee, J., & Berente, N. (2012). Digital Innovation and the Division of Innovative Labor: Digital Controls in the Automotive Industry. Organization Science, 23(5), 1428-1447. Berente, N., Salge, C. A. D. L., Mallampalli, V. K. T., & Park, K. (2022). Rethinking Project Escalation: An Institutional Perspective on the Persistence of Failing Large-Scale Information System Projects. Journal of Management Information Systems, 39(3), 640-672.  

Is it okay to use large language models in the research process? For what task, exactly, and to automate the task or to augment the researcher? In this episode, we try to explore whether and how LLMs could be used in five aspects of the research process - for paper writing, reviewing, data analysis, as a subject of research, or as a surrogate for research subjects. We also discuss whether they should be used at all, and what some long-term consequences could be of such a choice, and we develop a number of heuristic rules to help researcher make decisions about using LLMs for research. Episode reading list Kankanhalli, A. (2024). Peer Review in the Age of Generative AI. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 25(1), 76-84. Yang, Y., Duan, H., Liu, J., & Tam, K. Y. (2024). LLM-Measure: Generating Valid, Consistent, and Reproducible Text-Based Measures for Social Science Research. arXiv preprint, . Li, J., Larsen, K. R. T., & Abbasi, A. (2020). TheoryOn: A Design Framework and System for Unlocking Behavioral Knowledge Through Ontology Learning. MIS Quarterly, 44(4), 1733-1772. Larsen, K. R., Yan, S., & Lukyanenko, R. (2024). LLMs and Psychometrics: Global Construct Validity Integrating LLMs and Psychometrics. 45th International Conference on Information Systems, Bangkok, Thailand. Anthis, J. R., Liu, R., Richardson, S. M., Kozlowski, A. C., Koch, B., Evans, J., Brynjolfsson, E., & Bernstein, M. (2025). LLM Social Simulations Are a Promising Research Method. arXiv preprint, . Abbasi, A., Somanchi, S., & Kelley, K. (2025). The Critical Challenge of using Large-scale Digital Experiment Platforms for Scientific Discovery. MIS Quarterly, 49(1), 1-28.

Is there a formula for doing and publishing research on digital phenomena? And if so, it is the same formula as the scripts for IS papers of the past, or has it changed? We discuss how our field has historically worked with reference theories from other disciplines and how we have moved beyond this one way of doing and publishing research to a variety of ways in which we can build theory about digital phenomena. We suggest that reference theories should not be viewed as immutable sacred cows but rather as a tentative basis of received wisdom, which we must problematize and adapt to move knowledge forward. Doing so requires us to find puzzles in the real world that point to things being different instead of new. Episode reading list Truex, D. P., Holmström, J., & Keil, M. (2006). Theorizing in Information Systems Research: A Reflexive Analysis of the Adaptation of Theory in Information Systems Research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 7(12), 797-821. Grover, V., & Lyytinen, K. (2015). New State of Play in Information Systems Research: The Push to the Edges. MIS Quarterly, 39(2), 271-296. Ba, S., & Pavlou, P. A. (2002). Evidence of the Effect of Trust Building Technology in Electronic Markets: Price Premiums and Buyer Behavior. MIS Quarterly, 26(3), 243-268. Jiang, L., Hou, J., Ma, X., & Pavlou, P. A. (2025). Punished for Success? A Natural Experiment of Displaying Clinical Hospital Quality on Review Platforms. Information Systems Research, . Grover, V., & Lyytinen, K. (2023). The Pursuit of Innovative Theory in the Digital Age. Journal of Information Technology, 38(1), 45-59. Baiyere, A., Berente, N., & Avital, M. (2023). On Digital Theorizing, Clickbait Research, and the Cumulative Tradition. Journal of Information Technology, 38(1), 67-73. Grisold, T., Kremser, W., Mendling, J., Recker, J., vom Brocke, J., & Wurm, B. (2023). Keeping Pace with the Digital Age: Envisioning Information Systems Research as a Platform. Journal of Information Technology, 38(1), 60-66. Berente, N., Gu, B., Recker, J., & Santhanam, R. (2021). Managing Artificial Intelligence. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1433-1450. Dell'Acqua, F., McFowland, E., Mollick, E. R., Lifshitz-Assaf, H., Kellogg, K., Rajendran, S., Krayer, L., Candelon, F., & Lakhani, K. R. (2023). Navigating the Jagged Technological Frontier: Field Experimental Evidence of the Effects of AI on Knowledge Worker Productivity and Quality. Harvard Business School Technology & Operations Mgt. Unit Working Paper 24-013. Fisher, G., Mayer, K. J., & Morris, S. (2021). From the Editors—Phenomenon-Based Theorizing. Academy of Management Review, 46(4), 631-639. Gregory, R. W., & Henfridsson, O. (2021). Bridging Art and Science: Phenomenon-Driven Theorizing. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 22(6), 1509-1523. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). Free Press. Salge, C. A. D. L., & Karahanna, E. (2018). Protesting Corruption on Twitter: Is It a Bot or Is It a Person. Academy of Management Discoveries, 4(1), 32-49. Abramova, O., Recker, J., Schemm, U., & Barwitzki, L.-D. (2025). Inclusion of Autistic IT Workforce in Action: An Auticon Approach. Information Systems Journal, . Grisold, T., Seidel, S., Heck, M., & Berente, N. (2024). Digital Surveillance in Organizations. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 66(3), 401-410. Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., ... Wright, R. T. (2023). “So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Opportunities, Challenges and Implications of Generative Conversational AI for Research, Practice and Policy. International Journal of Information Management, 71, 102642. 

Our field of information systems is in the fortunate position that we have our own independent and self-governed association (we have more than one, in fact), which publishes one of the true top journals of our field, which means that the journal is entirely in our control as members. But as , the current Editor-in-Chief of the argues, this privileged position also demands from us collective awareness, vigilance, and responsibility. We discuss some of the tensions that exist between journals and publishers and what it means for authors, reviewers, and editors to be mindful about journals and publishing platforms. We also talk about several of the key hallmark features of the Journal of the Association for Information Systems and how to make the best use of them when you submit your best work to the journal. Episode reading list Dennis, A. R., Valacich, J. S., Fuller, M. A., & Schneider, C. (2006). Research Standards for Promotion and Tenure in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(1), 1-12. Adjerid, I., Angst, C. M., Devaraj, S., & Berente, N. (2023). Does Analytics Help Resolve Equivocality in the Healthcare Context? Contrasting Effects of Analyzability and Differentiation. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 24(3), 882-911. Tarafdar, M., Shan, G., Thatcher, J. B., & Gupta, A. (2022). Intellectual Diversity in IS Research: Discipline-Based Conceptualization and an Illustration from Information Systems Research. Information Systems Research, 33(4), 1490-1510. JAIS Workshop: Creating Policy Impact through Information Systems Research. LinkedIn Post by Monideepa Tarafdar, . King, J. L., & Kraemer, K. L. (2019). Policy: An Information Systems Frontier. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 20(6), 842-847. McCarthy, C. (1985). Blood Meridian. Random House. Majchrzak, A., and Markus, M. L. (2013). Methods for Policy Research: Taking Socially Responsible Action (2nd edition). Sage. Yoo, Y. (2024) Evolving Epistemic Infrastructure: The Role of Scientific Journals in the Age of Generative AI. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 25(1), 137-144.

Nick is traveling, Jan is sick - no time to produce a new episode in time. But fear not, we still have a giant archive of episodes that you may have forgotten or not even heard so far. So we picked five of our best episodes and link to them below so that you can re-visit them, or maybe you haven't even gotten around to listening to them yet. All episodes can be found on the major podcasting platforms but you can also listen to them directly on the websites below. Episode links The IS field has no passion (10 November 2021). Episode recorded together with , available at . Writing papers on how to write papers (12 October 2022). Episode available at . The big five theories from the last millennium (17 May 2023). Episode available at . Anything qualitative researchers write has been said before (13 September 2023). Episode recorded together with , available at . How to do a literature review (10 July 2024). Episode available at .   

Is the journal publishing process and the “game” around journal publishing forcing us to give up on big ideas and instead work on small ideas about trivial matters? We are not so sure. We think that science needs many different types of academics, and they have all sorts of different ideas, big and small, and we need outlets for expressing every single one of them. But outlets, like ideas, are not all equal. Journals are an incremental genre leaning toward rigor and thus risk type-2 errors. Book are an expansive genre learning towards big ideas – and thus risk type-1 errors. So the question is rather what type of scholar you are and whether you can handle the very different processes and mechanisms – those associated with big ideas that take a long time to develop, versus the production of smaller ideas and insights that incrementally push our knowledge forward. References Recker, J., Zeiss, R., & Mueller, M. (2024). iRepair or I Repair? A Dialectical Process Analysis of Control Enactment on the iPhone Repair Aftermarket. MIS Quarterly, 48(1), 321-346. Bechky, B. A., & Davis, G. F. (2025). Resisting the Algorithmic Management of Science: Craft and Community After Generative AI. Administrative Science Quarterly, 70(1), 1-22. Kallinikos, J. (2025). Management and Information Systems (in all shapes and colours) missed the wider significance of computerization and informatization. LinkedIn, . Beniger, J. R. (1989). The Control Revolution: Technological and Economic Origins of the Information Society. Harvard University Press. Zuboff, S. (1998). In The Age Of The Smart Machine: The Future Of Work And Power. Basic Books. Zuboff, S., & Maxmin, J. (2004). The Support Economy: Why Corporations Are Failing Individuals and the Next Episode of Capitalism. Penguin Publishing Group. Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. Profile. Zuboff, S. (1985). Automate/Informate: The Two Faces of Intelligent Technology. Organizational Dynamics, 14(2), 5-18. boyd, d., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230. Zittrain, J. L. (2006). The Generative Internet. Harvard Law Review, 119, 1974-2040. Kahneman, D. (2012). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Penguin. Parker, G., Van Alstyne, M., & Choudary, S. P. (2016). Platform Revolution: How Networked Markets Are Transforming the Economy - and How to Make Them Work for You. W. W. Norton & Company. Harari, Y. N. (2024). Nexus: A Brief History of Information Networks from the Stone Age to AI. Random House. Sauer, H. (2024). The Invention of Good and Evil: A World History of Morality. Profile Books. Harari, Y. N. (2014). Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. Harper. von Briel, F., Davidsson, P., & Recker, J. (2018). Digital Technologies as External Enablers of New Venture Creation in the IT Hardware Sector. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 42(1), 47-69. Davidsson, P., Recker, J., & von Briel, F. (2020). External Enablement of New Venture Creation: A Framework. Academy of Management Perspectives, 34(3), 311-332. Davidsson, P., Recker, J., & von Briel, F. (2025). External Enablement of Entrepreneurial Actions and Outcomes: Extension, Review and Research Agenda. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 12(3-4), 300-470. Safadi, H., Lalor, J. P., & Berente, N. (2024). The Effect of Bots on Human Interaction in Online Communities. MIS Quarterly, 48(3), 1279-1296. Chen, Z., & Chan, J. (2024). Large Language Model in Creative Work: The Role of Collaboration Modality and User Expertise. Management Science, 70(12), 9101-9117. Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J., & Reijers, H. A. (2018). Fundamentals of Business Process Management (2nd ed.). Springer. Harari, Y. N. (2014). Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow. Harvill Secker. Recker, J. (2021). Scientific Research in Information Systems: A Beginner's Guide (2nd ed.). Springer. The Stakeholder Alignment Collaborative. (2025). The Consortia Century: Aligning for Impact. Oxford University Press. 

One of the main reasons article submissions get desk-rejected by journals is for lack of fit. But what does that actually mean? And how can we figure this out before we submit our work? Well there are several tests you can do to evaluate the fitness of your work to an information systems journal: you can evaluate whether you are writing about a discourse that already takes place in information systems journals. You can check whether your arguments have a hook for information systems academics. You can determine whether you have a digital artefact at the core of your paper because while a digital artefact at the core is not required, having such a focus can be good indicator for fitness. Finally, you can establish whether your research is at least to some extent sociotechnical in orientation.

Look at what Santa dropped when he came down the chimney last night. A bunch of valuable ThisISResearch Best paper Awards! As we do at the end of every year, we look back at the finest information systems scholarship our field has produced this year, and we pick some of our favorite papers that we want to give an award too. Like in previous years, we recognize three different kinds of best papers – a paper that is innovative in its use of research methods, a paper that is a fine example of elegant scholarship, and a paper that is trailblazing in the sense that it starts new conversations in our field. References Pujol Priego, L., & Wareham, J. (2023). From Bits to Atoms: White Rabbit at CERN. MIS Quarterly, 47(2), 639-668. Recker, J., Zeiss, R., & Mueller, M. (2024). iRepair or I Repair? A Dialectical Process Analysis of Control Enactment on the iPhone Repair Aftermarket. MIS Quarterly, 48(1), 321-346. Seidel, S., Frick, C. J., & vom Brocke, J. (2025). Regulating Emerging Technologies: Prospective Sensemaking through Abstraction and Elaboration. MIS Quarterly, 49, . Abbasi, A., Somanchi, S., & Kelley, K. (2025). The Critical Challenge of using Large-scale Digital Experiment Platforms for Scientific Discovery. MIS Quarterly, 49, . Lindberg, A., Schecter, A., Berente, N., Hennel, P., & Lyytinen, K. (2024). The Entrainment of Task Allocation and Release Cycles in Open Source Software Development. MIS Quarterly, 48(1), 67-94. Kitchens, B., Claggett, J. L., & Abbasi, A. (2024). Timely, Granular, and Actionable: Designing a Social Listening Platform for Public Health 3.0. MIS Quarterly, 48(3), 899-930. Chen, Z., & Chan, J. (2024). Large Language Model in Creative Work: The Role of Collaboration Modality and User Expertise. Management Science, 70(12), 9101-9117. Matherly, T., & Greenwood, B. N. (2024). No News is Bad News: The Internet, Corruption, and the Decline of the Fourth Estate. MIS Quarterly, 48(2), 699-714. Morse, L., Teodorescu, M., Awwad, Y., & Kane, G. C. (2022). Do the Ends Justify the Means? Variation in the Distributive and Procedural Fairness of Machine Learning Algorithms. Journal of Business Ethics, 181(4), 1083-1095. Hansen, S., Berente, N., & Lyytinen, K. (2009). Wikipedia, Critical Social Theory, and the Possibility of Rational Discourse. The Information Society, 25(1), 38-59. Habermas, J. (1984). Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Heinemann.   

What do academics have to offer that practitioners do not already have? They have the data academics want. They can analyse it by themselves, sometimes better than academics. They are also not reading our articles. So why would academics bother engaging with them? Why should we even bridge that perceived or existing gap between theory and practice? Because academics need to dip their toes into practice, and they need to mingle with industry to stay relevant. So says Jonny Holmström, director and co-founder of the Swedish Center for Digital Innovation. He has been at the forefront of doing academic research that blends theory and practice, rigor and relevance, and he knows a thing or two about how to do so successfully. His secret? Maximize the gap between academics and practitioners, don't close it. References Holmström, J., Magnusson, J., & Mähring, M. (2021). Orchestrating Digital Innovation: The Case of the Swedish Center for Digital Innovation. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 48(31), 248-264. Churchman, C. W. (1972). The Design of Inquiring Systems: Basic Concepts of Systems and Organization. Basic Books. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford University Press. Holmström, J. (2022). From AI to Digital Transformation: The AI Readiness Framework. Business Horizons, 65(3), 329-339. Recker, J., Bockelmann, T., & Barthel, F. (2024). Growing Online-to-Offline Platform Businesses: How Vytal Became the World-Leading Provider of Smart Reusable Food Packaging. Information Systems Journal, 34(1), 179-200. Abbasi, A., Somanchi, S., & Kelley, K. (2025). The Critical Challenge of using Large-scale Digital Experiment Platforms for Scientific Discovery. MIS Quarterly, 49, . Sandberg, J., Holmström, J., & Lyytinen, K. (2020). Digitization and Phase Transitions in Platform Organizing Logics: Evidence from the Process Automation Industry. MIS Quarterly, 44(1), 129-153. Werder, K., Seidel, S., Recker, J., Berente, N., Kundert-Gibbs, J., Abboud, N., & Benzeghadi, Y. (2020). Data-Driven, Data-Informed, Data-Augmented: How Ubisoft's Ghost Recon Wildlands Live Unit Uses Data for Continuous Product Innovation. California Management Review, 62(3), 86-102. Sting, F. J., Tarakci, M., & Recker, J. (2024). Performance Implications of Digital Disruption in Strategic Competition. MIS Quarterly, 48(3), 1263-1278. Tarakci, M., Sting, F. J., Recker, J., & Kane, G. C. (2024). Three Questions to Ask About Your Digital Strategy. MIT Sloan Management Review, July, . Davenport, T. H. (1993). Process Innovation: Reengineering Work Through Information Technology. Harvard Business School Press. Davenport, T. H. (1998). Putting the Enterprise into the Enterprise System. Harvard Business Review, 76(4), 121-131. Schecter, A., Wowak, K. D., Berente, N., Ye, H., & Mukherjee, U. (2021). A Behavioral Perspective on Service Center Routing: The Role of Inertia. Journal of Operations Management, 67(8), 964-988. Sundberg, L., & Holmström, J. (2024). Innovating by Prompting: How to Facilitate Innovation in the Age of Generative AI. Business Horizons, 67(5), 561-570. Kronblad, C., Essén, A., & Mähring, M. (2024). When Justice is Blind to Algorithms: Multilayered Blackboxing of Algorithmic Decision Making in the Public Sector. MIS Quarterly, 48(4), 1637-1662.

You set up an assumption, you have a theory, you analyze your data, and you show that the assumption does not hold. Doing good qualitative research is that simple. Except that it's not, of course. On the ground, in the research and writing process, these basic rules can be quite tricky to implement. So we discuss some heuristics researchers can use to limit their conversants, settle on suitable theoretical lenses to examine their data, and collecting more data than what they thought was necessary.   References Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation Of Cultures. Basic Books. Goodall, J. (1986). The Chimpanzees of Gombe: Patterns of Behavior. Harvard University Press. Popper, K. R. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Basic Books. Durkheim, E. (1895). The Rules of Sociological Method. Free Press. Giddens, A. (1976). New Rules of Sociological Method. Hutchinson. Barley, S. R. (1986). Technology as an Occasion for Structuring: Evidence from Observations of CT Scanners and the Social Order of Radiology Departments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(1), 78-108. Kellogg, K. C. (2022). Local Adaptation Without Work Intensification: Experimentalist Governance of Digital Technology for Mutually Beneficial Role Reconfiguration in Organizations. Organization Science, 33(2), 571-599. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1445 Mertens, W., Recker, J., Kummer, T.-F., Kohlborn, T., & Viaene, S. (2016). Constructive Deviance as a Driver for Performance in Retail. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 30, 193-203. Markus, M. L. (1983). Power, Politics, and MIS Implementation. Communications of the ACM, 26(6), 430-444. Berente, N., Lyytinen, K., Yoo, Y., & King, J. L. (2016). Routines as Shock Absorbers During Organizational Transformation: Integration, Control, and NASA's Enterprise Information System. Organization Science, 27(3), 551-572. Alashoor, T., Keil, M., Smith, H. J., & McConnell, A. R. (2023). Too Tired and in Too Good of a Mood to Worry about Privacy: Explaining the Privacy Paradox through the Lens of Effort Level in Information Processing. Information Systems Research, 34(4), 1415-1436. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4th ed.). Sage. Berente, N., Recker, J., & Leonardi, P. (2023). . This IS Research podcast, 13 September 2023. Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15-31. Lebovitz, S., Levina, N., & Lifshitz-Assaf, H. (2021). Is AI Ground Truth Really “True”? The Dangers of Training and Evaluating AI Tools Based on Experts' Know-What. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1501-1525. Ryle, G. (1949). The Concept of Mind. University of Chicago Press. Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691-711. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis (2nd ed.). Sage. Cramton, C. D., & Hinds, P. J. (2014). An Embedded Model of Cultural Adaptation in Global Teams. Organization Science, 25(4), 1056-1081. 

Did you know there is someone who published a MIS Quarterly paper in its inaugural issue in 1977 and has another one forthcoming in 2024? Hard to fathom but has published at least one paper in our top journal in every decade of its existence. Izak has been doing IS scholarship for almost fifty years, which makes him the perfect researcher to talk to about how the field has changed, where it is going, whether we are progressing well, and whether we maintain the optimal balance between social and technical, internal and external views of IS phenomena in our research. References Benbasat, I., & Schroeder, R. G. (1977). An Experimental Investigation of Some MIS Design Variables. MIS Quarterly, 1(1), 37-49. Jussupow, E., Benbasat, I., & Heinzl, A. (2024). An Integrative Perspective on Algorithm Aversion and Appreciation in Decision-Making. MIS Quarterly, . Benbasat, I., & Zmud, R. W. (2003). The Identity Crisis Within The IS Discipline: Defining and Communicating The Discipline's Core Properties. MIS Quarterly, 27(2), 183-194. Gregor, S., & Benbasat, I. (1999). Explanations from Intelligent Systems: Theoretical Foundations and Implications for Practice. MIS Quarterly, 23(4), 497-530. Berente, N., Gu, B., Recker, J., & Santhanam, R. (2021). Managing Artificial Intelligence. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1433-1450. Lyytinen, K., & King, J. L. (2004). Nothing At The Center? Academic Legitimacy in the Information Systems Field. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 5(6), 220-246. Sarker, S., Chatterjee, S., Xiao, X., & Elbanna, A. R. (2019). The Sociotechnical Axis of Cohesion for the IS Discipline: Its Historical Legacy and its Continued Relevance. MIS Quarterly, 43(3), 695-719. Wand, Y., & Weber, R. (1995). On the Deep Structure of Information Systems. Information Systems Journal, 5(3), 203-223. Banville, C., & Landry, M. (1989). Can the Field of MIS be Disciplined? Communications of the ACM, 32(1), 48-60. Benbasat, I., & Wang, W. (2005). Trust In and Adoption of Online Recommendation Agents. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 6(3), 72-101. Benbasat, I., & Barki, H. (2007). Quo Vadis TAM? Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(4), 211-218. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press. Kim, D., & Benbasat, I. (2006). The Effects of Trust-Assuring Arguments on Consumer Trust in Internet Stores: Application of Toulmin's Model of Argumentation. Information Systems Research, 17(3), 286-300. Qiu, L., & Benbasat, I. (2009). Evaluating Anthropomorphic Product Recommendation Agents: A Social Relationship Perspective to Designing Information Systems. Journal of Management Information Systems, 25(4), 145-182. Applegate, L., & King, J. L. (1999). Rigor and Relevance: Careers on the Line. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 17-18. Mason, R. O., Mason, F. M., & Culnan, M. J. (1995). Ethics of Information Management. Sage. Mason, R. O. (2022). On the Evolution to PAPA. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 51(2), 7-22. Keen, P. G. W., & Scott Morton, M. S. (1978). Decision Support Systems: An Organizational Perspective. Addison-Wesley. Davis, G. B. (1974). Management Information Systems: Conceptual Foundations, Structure and Development. McGraw-Hill. Alaimo, C., & Kallinikos, J. (2024). Data Rules: Reinventing the Market Economy. MIT Press. Burton-Jones, A., Butler, B. S., Scott, S. V., & Xu, S. X. (2021). Next-Generation Information Systems Theorizing: A Call to Action. MIS Quarterly, 45(1), 301-314. Leidner, D. E., & Tona, O. (2021). The CARE Theory of Dignity Amid Personal Data Digitalization. MIS Quarterly, 45(1), 343-370. Parker, G., Van Alstyne, M., & Jiang, X. (2017). Platform Ecosystems: How Developers Invert the Firm. MIS Quarterly, 41(1), 255-266. Pujol Priego, L., & Wareham, J. (2023). From Bits to Atoms: White Rabbit at CERN. MIS Quarterly, 47(2), 639-668. Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., & Lyytinen, K. (2010). The New Organizing Logic of Digital Innovation: An Agenda for Information Systems Research. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 724-735. Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192-222. 

We continue our discussion around theorizing about digital phenomena and publishing conceptual papers. Today, we are joined by , who has published several theoretical articles on digital technology in Academy of Management Review. He is also an AMR editor for a special issue on and he heads the Theory section as senior editor in the Journal of the Association for Information Systems. With Robert, we talk about the AMR publishing process, how it is different from mainstream IS journals and what we need to look out for when we generate theory about new digital phenomena. References Gregory, R. W., Henfridsson, O., Kaganer, E., & Kyriakou, H. (2021). The Role of Artificial Intelligence and Data Network Effects for Creating User Value. Academy of Management Review, 46(3), 534-551. Sieber, S., & Gregory, R. W. (2018). Facebook's Data Debacle in 2018. How to Move on? IESE Teaching Case, Number SI-200-E. Gregory, R. W., Henfridsson, O., Kaganer, E., & Kyriakou, H. (2021). Data Network Effects: Key Conditions, Shared Data, and the Data Value Duality. Academy of Management Review, 47(1), 189-192. Gregory, R. W., & Henfridsson, O. (2021). Bridging Art and Science: Phenomenon-Driven Theorizing. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 22(6), 1509-1523. Afuah, A., & Tucci, C. L. (2012). Crowdsourcing as a Solution to Distant Search. Academy of Management Review, 37(3), 355-375. Fisher, G., Mayer, K. J., & Morris, S. (2021). From the Editors—Phenomenon-Based Theorizing. Academy of Management Review, 46(4), 631-639. Raisch, S., & Fomina, K. (2024). Combining Human and Artificial Intelligence: Hybrid Problem-Solving in Organizations. Academy of Management Review, . Baiyere, A., Berente, N., & Avital, M. (2023). On Digital Theorizing, Clickbait Research, and the Cumulative Tradition. Journal of Information Technology, 38(1), 67-73. Grover, V., & Lyytinen, K. (2023). The Pursuit of Innovative Theory in the Digital Age. Journal of Information Technology, 38(1), 45-59. Gregory, R. W., Beck, R., Henfridsson, O., & Yaraghi, N. (2024). Cooperation Among Strangers: Algorithmic Enforcement of Reciprocal Exchange with Blockchain-Based Smart Contracts. Academy of Management Review, . Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational Theories: Some Criteria for Evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 496-515. Rivard, S. (2021). Theory Building is Neither an Art Nor a Science. It is a Craft. Journal of Information Technology, 36(3), 316-328. Leidner, D. E., & Gregory, R. W. (2024). About Theory and Theorizing. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 25(3), 501-521.

Editorials are spaces in journals where the key stewards of the field leave advice for others about what type of research the journals they lead are looking to publish. We discuss some of our favorite editorials and dissect the advice to dish out for finding important research problems, theorizing effectively, and writing persuasively. References Rai, A. (2016). Celebrating 40 Years of MIS Quarterly: MISQ's History and Future Through the Lenses of its Editors-in-Chief. MIS Quarterly, 40(4), iii-xvi. Lee, A. S. (2001). Editor's Comments: Research in Information Systems: What We Haven't Learned. MIS Quarterly, 25(4), v-xv. Saunders, C. (2005). Editor's Comments: Looking for Diamond Cutters. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), iii-viii. Rai, A. (2017). Editor's Comments: Avoiding Type III Errors: Formulating IS Research Problems that Matter. MIS Quarterly, 41(2), iii-vii. Weber, R. (2003). Editor's Comments: The Problem of the Problem. MIS Quarterly, 27(1), iii-ix. Berente, N., Gu, B., Recker, J., & Santhanam, R. (2021). Managing Artificial Intelligence. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1433-1450. Dietvorst, B. J., Simmons, J. P., & Massey, C. (2015). Understanding Algorithm Aversion: Forecasters Erroneously Avoid Algorithms After Seeing them Err. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(1), 114-126. Jussupow, E., Benbasat, I., & Heinzl, A. (2024). An Integrative Perspective on Algorithm Aversion and Appreciation in Decision-Making. MIS Quarterly, . Li, J., Li, M., Wang, X., & Thatcher, J. B. (2021). Strategic Directions for AI: The Role of CIOs and Boards of Directors. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1603-1643. Sparrowe, R. T., & Mayer, K. J. (2011). Publishing in AMJ—Part 4: Grounding Hypotheses. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1098-1102. Straub, D. W. (2009). Editor's Comments: Why Top Journals Accept Your Paper. MIS Quarterly, 33(3), iii-x.

Conceptual papers that offer new theories are hard to write and even harder to publish. You do not have empirical data to back up your arguments, which makes the papers easy to reject in the review cycle. We are also typically not well trained in theorizing, and there isn't even a clear process to theorizing we could learn or follow. Does that mean that we shouldn't even try to write theory papers? We ponder these questions, figure out what is so hard in writing conceptual papers – and share a few tricks that might help if you still wanted to write such a paper.  References Berente, N., Gu, B., Recker, J., & Santhanam, R. (2021). Managing Artificial Intelligence. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1433-1450. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine Publishing Company. Watson, R. T., Boudreau, M.-C., & Chen, A. J. (2010). Information Systems and Environmentally Sustainable Development:  Energy Informatics and New Directions for the IS Community. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 23-38. Lee, A. S., & Baskerville, R. (2003). Generalizing Generalizability in Information Systems Research. Information Systems Research, 14(3), 221-243. Tsang, E. W. K., & Williams, J. N. (2012). Generalization and Induction: Misconceptions, Clarifications, and a Classification of Induction. MIS Quarterly, 36(3), 729-748. Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., & Lyytinen, K. (2010). The New Organizing Logic of Digital Innovation: An Agenda for Information Systems Research. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 724-735. Yoo, Y. (2010). Computing in Everyday Life: A Call for Research on Experiential Computing. MIS Quarterly, 34(2), 213-231. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of Perception Routledge. Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K. B. (2000). Design Rules, Volume 1: The Power of Modularity. MIT Press. Weick, K. E. (1989). Theory Construction as Disciplined Imagination. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 516-531. Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75-105. Sætre, A. S., & van de Ven, A. H. (2021). Generating Theory by Abduction. Academy of Management Review, 46(4), 684-701. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291. Farjoun, M. (2010). Beyond Dualism: Stability and Change As a Duality. Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 202-225. Recker, J., & Green, P. (2019). How do Individuals Interpret Multiple Conceptual Models? A Theory of Combined Ontological Completeness and Overlap. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 20(8), 1210-1241. Jabbari, M., Recker, J., Green, P., & Werder, K. (2022). How Do Individuals Understand Multiple Conceptual Modeling Scripts? Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 23(4), 1037-1070. Cornelissen, J. P. (2017). Editor's Comments: Developing Propositions, a Process Model, or a Typology? Addressing the Challenges of Writing Theory Without a Boilerplate. Academy of Management Review, 42(1), 1-9. Recker, J., Lukyanenko, R., Jabbari, M., Samuel, B. M., & Castellanos, A. (2021). From Representation to Mediation: A New Agenda for Conceptual Modeling Research in a Digital World. MIS Quarterly, 45(1), 269-300. Haerem, T., Pentland, B. T., & Miller, K. (2015). Task Complexity: Extending a Core Concept. Academy of Management Review, 40(3), 446-460. Kallinikos, J., Aaltonen, A., & Marton, A. (2013). The Ambivalent Ontology of Digital Artifacts. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 357-370. Ho, S. Y., Recker, J., Tan, C.-W., Vance, A., & Zhang, H. (2023). MISQ Special Issue on Registered Reports. MIS Quarterly, . Simon, H. A. (1990). Bounded Rationality. In J. Eatwell, M. Milgate, & P. Newman (Eds.), Utility and Probability (pp. 15-18). Palgrave Macmillan. James, W. (1890). The Principles of Psychology. Henry Holt and Company. Watson, H. J. (2009). Tutorial: Business Intelligence - Past, Present, and Future. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 25(39), 487-510.  Baird, A., & Maruping, L. M. (2021). The Next Generation of Research on IS Use: A Theoretical Framework of Delegation to and from Agentic IS Artifacts. MIS Quarterly, 45(1), 315-341.

Did you know that when you spend time on an online platform, you could be experiencing between six to eight different experimental treatments that stem from several hundred A/B tests that run concurrently? That's how common digital experimentation is today. And while this may be acceptable in industry, large-scale digital experimentation poses some substantial challenges for researchers wanting to evaluate theories and disconfirm hypotheses through randomized controlled trials done on digital platforms. Thankfully, the brilliant has a new paper forthcoming that illuminates the orthogonal testing plane problem and offers some guidelines for sidestepping the issue. So if experiments are your thing, you really need to listen to what is really going on out there. References Abbasi, A., Somanchi, S., & Kelley, K. (2024). The Critical Challenge of using Large-scale Digital Experiment Platforms for Scientific Discovery. MIS Quarterly, . Miranda, S. M., Berente, N., Seidel, S., Safadi, H., & Burton-Jones, A. (2022). Computationally Intensive Theory Construction: A Primer for Authors and Reviewers. MIS Quarterly, 46(2), i-xvi. Karahanna, E., Benbasat, I., Bapna, R., & Rai, A. (2018). Editor's Comments: Opportunities and Challenges for Different Types of Online Experiments. MIS Quarterly, 42(4), iii-x. Kohavi, R., & Thomke, S. (2017). The Surprising Power of Online Experiments. Harvard Business Review, 95(5), 74-82. Fisher, R. A. (1935). The Design of Experiments. Oliver and Boyd. Pienta, D., Vishwamitra, N., Somanchi, S., Berente, N., & Thatcher, J. B. (2024). Do Crowds Validate False Data? Systematic Distortion and Affective Polarization. MIS Quarterly, . Bapna, R., Goes, P. B., Gupta, A., & Jin, Y. (2004). User Heterogeneity and Its Impact on Electronic Auction Market Design: An Empirical Exploration. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 21-43. Somanchi, S., Abbasi, A., Kelley, K., Dobolyi, D., & Yuan, T. T. (2023). Examining User Heterogeneity in Digital Experiments. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 41(4), 1-34. Mertens, W., & Recker, J. (2020). New Guidelines for Null Hypothesis Significance Testing in Hypothetico-Deductive IS Research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 21(4), 1072-1102. GRADE Working Group. (2004). Grading Quality of Evidence and Strength of Recommendations. British Medical Journal, 328(7454), 1490-1494. Abbasi, A., Parsons, J., Pant, G., Liu Sheng, O. R., & Sarker, S. (2024). Pathways for Design Research on Artificial Intelligence. Information Systems Research, 35(2), 441-459. Abbasi, A., Chiang, R. H. L., & Xu, J. (2023). Data Science for Social Good. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 24(6), 1439-1458. Babar, Y., Mahdavi Adeli, A., & Burtch, G. (2023). The Effects of Online Social Identity Signals on Retailer Demand. Management Science, 69(12), 7335-7346. Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75-105. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291. Benbasat, I., & Zmud, R. W. (2003). The Identity Crisis Within The IS Discipline: Defining and Communicating The Discipline's Core Properties. MIS Quarterly, 27(2), 183-194. Gregor, S., & Hevner, A. R. (2013). Positioning and Presenting Design Science Research for Maximum Impact. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 337-355. Rai, A. (2017). Editor's Comments: Avoiding Type III Errors: Formulating IS Research Problems that Matter. MIS Quarterly, 41(2), iii-vii. Burton-Jones, A. (2023). Editor's Comments: Producing Significant Research. MIS Quarterly, 47(1), i-xv.  Abbasi, A., Dillon, R., Rao, H. R., & Liu Sheng, O. R. (2024). Preparedness and Response in the Century of Disasters: Overview of Information Systems Research Frontiers. Information Systems Research, 35(2), 460-468.

We are back with the usual dose of fortnightly folksy academic wisdom sprinkled in with some serious and substantive conversations. We kick this new season off by discussing observations we made at this year's Academy of Management conference in Chicago. We talk about how to get the most out of doctoral and junior faculty consortia, how to pick which session to go to, how papers get reviewed at conferences, which papers tend to get selected for presentation – and how to use your session as a platform to pitch your work and yourself and finish with a crescendo and a mic drop. References Kallinikos, J., Yoo, Y., Baldwin, C., Van Alstyne, M., Tucci, C. L., & Saar-Tsechansky, M. (2024). Perspectives on Digital Innovation. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, . Baskerville, R., Kaul, M., & Storey, V. C. (2017). Establishing Reliability in Design Science Research 38th International Conference on Information Systems, Seoul, Korea, . Aaltonen, A., Stelmaszak, M. (2024). Innovating in Data-based Reality: New Perspectives on Data as a Research Object. Academy of Management Professional Development Workshop, August 9, 2024, Chicago, Illinois. Meurer, M. M., Chalmers, D., Recker, J. (2024). Digital Technologies as Catalysts for Entrepreneurial Activities. Academy of Management Professional Development Workshop, August 9, 2024, Chicago, Illinois. Davidsson, P., Recker, J., & von Briel, F. (2020). External Enablement of New Venture Creation: A Framework. Academy of Management Perspectives, 34(3), 311-332.

Many people think of summer as the best time to read. On the beach, on the airplane to a vacation, in between semesters… Sounds like a perfect time to do a literature review. But there are many ways to do a literature review, and in all honesty, we think most people choose the wrong type of review – the “systematic” literature review where they select papers about a phenomenon, do a supposedly structured but not exhaustive search across IS journals, and then criticize the knowledge others have created. We discuss a few alternatives that we think hold more promise: qualitative and quantitative meta analyses, or narrative and integrative reviews. We also point to a few papers that have helped us organize the conversations we read about in the literature – which really, is what literature reviewing is all about.  References Berente, N., Lyytinen, K., Yoo, Y., & Maurer, C. (2019). Institutional Logics and Pluralistic Responses to Enterprise System Implementation: A Qualitative Meta-Analysis. MIS Quarterly, 43(3), 873-902. Noblit, G. W., & Hare, R. D. (1988). Meta-Ethnography: Synthesising Qualitative Studies. Sage. King, W. R., & He, J. (2006). A Meta-analysis of the Technology Acceptance Model. Information & Management, 43(6), 740-755. Zaza, S., Joseph, D., & Armstrong, D. J. (2023). Are IT Professionals Unique? A Second-Order Meta-Analytic Comparison of Turnover Intentions Across Occupations. MIS Quarterly, 47(3), 1213-1238. Trang, S., Kraemer, T., Trenz, M., & Weiger, W. H. (2024). Deeper Down the Rabbit Hole: How Technology Conspiracy Beliefs Emerge and Foster a Conspiracy Mindset. Information Systems Research, . Berente, N., Salge, C. A. D. L., Mallampalli, V. K. T., & Park, K. (2022). Rethinking Project Escalation: An Institutional Perspective on the Persistence of Failing Large-Scale Information System Projects. Journal of Management Information Systems, 39(3), 640-672. Skinner, R. J., Nelson, R. R., & Chin, W. (2022). Synthesizing Qualitative Evidence: A Roadmap for Information Systems Research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 23(3), 639-677. vom Brocke, J., Simons, A., Niehaves, B., Riemer, K., Plattfault, R., & Cleven, A. (2009). Reconstructing the Giant: On the Importance of Rigour in Documenting the Literature Search Process. 17th European Conference on Information Systems, Verona, Italy. vom Brocke, J., Simons, A., Riemer, K., Niehaves, B., Plattfault, R., & Cleven, A. (2015). Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Challenges and Recommendations of Literature Search in Information Systems Research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37(9), 205-224. Bunge, M. A. (1977). Treatise on Basic Philosophy Volume 3: Ontology I - The Furniture of the World. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Burton-Jones, A., Recker, J., Indulska, M., Green, P., & Weber, R. (2017). Assessing Representation Theory with a Framework for Pursuing Success and Failure. MIS Quarterly, 41(4), 1307-1333. Recker, J., Indulska, M., Green, P., Burton-Jones, A., & Weber, R. (2019). Information Systems as Representations: A Review of the Theory and Evidence. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 20(6), 735-786. Saghafi, A., & Wand, Y. (2020). A Meta-Analysis of Ontological Guidance and Users' Understanding of Conceptual Models. Journal of Database Management, 31(4), 46-68. Leonardi, P. M., & Vaast, E. (2017). Social Media and their Affordances for Organizing: A Review and Agenda for Research. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 150-188. Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the Separation of Technology, Work and Organization. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433-474. Felin, T., Foss, N. J., & Ployhart, R. E. (2015). The Microfoundations Movement in Strategy and Organization Theory. Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 575-632. Cronin, M. A., & George, E. (2023). The Why and How of the Integrative Review. Organizational Research Methods, 26(1), 168-192. Paré, G., Trudel, M.-C., Jaana, M., & Kitsiou, S. (2015). Synthesizing Information Systems Knowledge: A Typology of Literature Reviews. Information & Management, 52(2), 183-199. Rivard, S. (2014). Editor's Comments: The Ions of Theory Construction. MIS Quarterly, 32(2), iii-xiii. Leidner, D., Berente, N., & Recker, J. (2023). What's been done, what's been found, and what it means. This IS research podcast, . Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future:  Writing a Literature Review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), xiii-xxiii. Grisot, M., & Modol, J. R. (2024). Special Section Introduction: Reflecting and Celebrating Ole Hanseth's Contribution to the IS Community. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 36(1), 39-40. Association for Information Systems (2023. History of AIS. .

Time to reflect a bit. After our conversations with three excellent but very different IS researchers, we sit down and ponder the lessons we learnt from the three previous podcasts with , , and . So did we learn anything? You betcha. We talk about the balancing humble scholarship with the need to popularize important new insights, the difference between rigor and importance of research, and the different career pathways in industry and academia. References Miranda, S. M., Berente, N., Seidel, S., Safadi, H., & Burton-Jones, A. (2022). Computationally Intensive Theory Construction: A Primer for Authors and Reviewers. MIS Quarterly, 46(2), i-xvi. Alaimo, C., & Kallinikos, J. (2024). Data Rules: Reinventing the Market Economy. MIT Press. Miranda, S. M., Wang, D., & Tian, C. (2022). Discursive Fields and the Diversity-Coherence Paradox: An Ecological Perspective on the Blockchain Community Discourse. MIS Quarterly, 46(3), 1421-1452. Miranda, S. M., Kim, I., & Summers, J. D. (2015). Jamming with Social Media: How Cognitive Structuring of Organizing Vision Facets Affects IT Innovation Diffusion. MIS Quarterly, 39(3), 591-614. Watson, R. T., Boudreau, M.-C., & Chen, A. J. (2010). Information Systems and Environmentally Sustainable Development:  Energy Informatics and New Directions for the IS Community. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 23-38. Malhotra, A., Melville, N. P., & Watson, R. T. (2013). Spurring Impactful Research on Information Systems for Environmental Sustainability. MIS Quarterly, 37(4), 1265-1274. Sein, M. K., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., & Lindgren, R. (2011). Action Design Research. MIS Quarterly, 35(2), 37-56. Gregor, S., Chandra Kruse, L., & Seidel, S. (2020). The Anatomy of a Design Principle. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 21(6), 1622-1652. Lukyanenko, R., Parsons, J., Wiersma, Y. F., & Maddah, M. (2019). Expecting the Unexpected: Effects of Data Collection Design Choices on the Quality of Crowdsourced User-generated Content. MIS Quarterly, 43(2), 623-647. Recker, J., Lukyanenko, R., Jabbari, M., Samuel, B. M., & Castellanos, A. (2021). From Representation to Mediation: A New Agenda for Conceptual Modeling Research in a Digital World. MIS Quarterly, 45(1), 269-300. Abbasi, A., Dobolyi, D., Vance, A., & Zahedi, F. M. (2021). The Phishing Funnel Model: A Design Artifact to Predict User Susceptibility to Phishing Websites. Information Systems Research, 32(2), 410-436. vom Brocke, J., Simons, A., Riemer, K., Niehaves, B., Plattfault, R., & Cleven, A. (2015). Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Challenges and Recommendations of Literature Search in Information Systems Research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37(9), 205-224.

Behavioral research is alive and well ... online Some time ago, we wondered whether survey research is dead. Today, we speak with , who argues the exact opposite. He gives us plenty of advice on how to design online experiments, sample rigorously on platforms like Prolific, build reliable psychometric measurements, and embed surveys in robust research designs. And because Jason is not only a prolific scholar and senior editor in our field but also very active on LinkedIn, we also talk about reviewing practices and how social media can help communities address topics that need to be spoken about. . 

is with us today. She has done some amazing theory construct research using computational methods before this was really an accepted thing. We discuss which work she built her research around to give it legitimacy, what good stopping rules are for authors or reviewers to know when enough is enough, and how we can engage in humble generalizations of interesting and general regularities. References Miranda, S. M., Kim, I., & Summers, J. D. (2015). Jamming with Social Media: How Cognitive Structuring of Organizing Vision Facets Affects IT Innovation Diffusion. MIS Quarterly, 39(3), 591-614. Walsh, I., Holton, J. A., Bailyn, L., Fernandez, W. D., Levina, N., & Glaser, B. G. (2015). What Grounded Theory Is ... A Critically Reflective  Conversation Among Scholars. Organizational Research Methods, 18(4), 581-599. Levina, N., & Vaast, E. (2015). Leveraging Archival Data from Online Communities for Grounded Process Theorizing. In K. D. Elsbach & R. M. Kramer (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Organizational Research: Innovative Pathways and Methods (pp. 215-224). Routledge. Berente, N., Seidel, S., & Safadi, H. (2019). Data-Driven Computationally-Intensive Theory Development. Information Systems Research, 30(1), 50-64. Miranda, S. M., Wang, D., & Tian, C. (2022). Discursive Fields and the Diversity-Coherence Paradox: An Ecological Perspective on the Blockchain Community Discourse. MIS Quarterly, 46(3), 1421-1452. Fügener, A., Grahl, J., Gupta, A., & Ketter, W. (2021). Will Humans-in-the-Loop Become Borgs? Merits and Pitfalls of Working with AI. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1527-1556. Lindberg, A., Schecter, A., Berente, N., Hennel, P., & Lyytinen, K. (2024). The Entrainment of Task Allocation and Release Cycles in Open Source Software Development. MIS Quarterly, 48(1), 67-94. Sahaym, A., Vithayathil, J., Sarker, S., Sarker, S., & Bjørn-Andersen, N. (2023). Value Destruction in Information Technology Ecosystems: A Mixed-Method Investigation with Interpretive Case Study and Analytical Modeling. Information Systems Research, 34(2), 508-531. Miranda, S. M., Berente, N., Seidel, S., Safadi, H., & Burton-Jones, A. (2022). Computationally Intensive Theory Construction: A Primer for Authors and Reviewers. MIS Quarterly, 46(2), i-xvi. Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75-105. Adamic, L. A., & Glance, N. (2005). The Political Blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. Election: Divided They Blog. Paper presented at the 3rd International Workshop on Link Discovery, Chicago, Illinois. Pentland, B. T., Vaast, E., & Ryan Wolf, J. (2021). Theorizing Process Dynamics with Directed Graphs: A Diachronic Analysis of Digital Trace Data. MIS Quarterly, 45(2), 967-984. Sarker, S., Xiao, X., Beaulieu, T., & Lee, A. S. (2018). Learning from First-Generation Qualitative Approaches in the IS Discipline: An Evolutionary View and Some Implications for Authors and Evaluators (PART 1/2). Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 19(8), 752-774. Lee, A. S., & Baskerville, R. (2003). Generalizing Generalizability in Information Systems Research. Information Systems Research, 14(3), 221-243. Tsang, E. W. K., & Williams, J. N. (2012). Generalization and Induction: Misconceptions, Clarifications, and a Classification of Induction. MIS Quarterly, 36(3), 729-748. Hume, D. (1748/1998). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding [Reprint]. In J. Perry & M. E. Bratman (Eds.), Introduction to Philosophy: Classical and Contemporary Readings (3rd ed., pp. 190-220). Oxford University Press.   Exemplar Computationally-intensive Theory Construction Papers Bachura, E., Valecha, R., Chen, R., & Rao, H. R. (2022). The OPM Data Breach: An Investigation of Shared Emotional Reactions on Twitter. MIS Quarterly, 46(2), 881-910. Gal, U., Berente, N., & Chasin, F. (2022). Technology Lifecycles and Digital Innovation: Patterns of Discourse Across Levels of Abstraction: A Study of Wikipedia Articles. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 23(5), 1102-1149. Hahn, J., & Lee, G. (2021). The Complex Effects of Cross-Domain Knowledge on IS Development: A Simulation-Based Theory Development. MIS Quarterly, 45(4), 2023-2054. Indulska, M., Hovorka, D. S., & Recker, J. (2012). Quantitative Approaches to Content Analysis: Identifying Conceptual Drift Across Publication Outlets. European Journal of Information Systems, 21(1), 49-69. Lindberg, A., Majchrzak, A., & Malhotra, A. (2022). How Information Contributed After an Idea Shapes New High-Quality Ideas in Online Ideation Contests. MIS Quarterly, 46(2), 1195-1208. Nan, N. (2011). Capturing Bottom-Up Information Technology Use Processes: A Complex Adaptive Systems Model. MIS Quarterly, 35(2), 505-532. Pentland, B. T., Recker, J., Ryan Wolf, J., & Wyner, G. (2020). Bringing Context Inside Process Research With Digital Trace Data. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 21(5), 1214-1236. Vaast, E., Safadi, H., Lapointe, L., & Negoita, B. (2017). Social Media Affordances for Connective Action: An Examination of Microblogging Use During the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill. MIS Quarterly, 41(4), 1179-1205. 

According to the internet, Elon Musk is often praised for his visionary mindset, innovation, risk-taking attitude, and energy. is just like that, we think. With the positivity he brings into every project and meeting, Jan has been right at the center of many seminal developments in our field over the past twenty years, from the rise of design science to the inception of NeuroIS, the development of literature reviews, and more recently the creation of process science. We take the opportunity to reflect with him on his work, the way he builds and steers highly successful research groups, and how he manages to do research that is both impactful and engaging to many different audiences. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

In science, citations are used to give credit to sources that are relevant to the topic that is being discussed where the citation appears.  They are a key vehicle through which we establish a cumulative knowledge tradition – we use them to acknowledge material that informs our arguments. But citations are much more than that. They have become a key metric of academic success in their own right, providing a quantifiable basis to measure a scholar's impact, reputation, and fame. And as any metrics-based systems, also the citation system can be gamed, and is being gamed. Time to unpack the role that citations play and discuss which citations are legit – and which may just be a bit flunky. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

Research is a conversation. Every scholar must become a professional writer. But how do we learn these things? Most graduate school programs do not include a writing course and books on how to write are read even less than other types of books. Is good writing maybe all either genetics or just experience? Or does it depend on how we approach research, either phenomena- or theory-driven? We think both things matter – but there are also some practical steps people can take to get their writing going and maintain the flow of writing. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

The thing is, special issues are special. Hence the name. But what is it that makes them special? We look at some of the hottest special issues out there for information systems researchers and we discuss three key aspects of special issues – topical fit, competition, and process – that provide both advantages and disadvantages to researchers thinking about submitting to them. And for some weird reason we end up discussing our experiences at doctoral and junior faculty consortia and why everyone should attend them, always. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

Jan has a boy crush on IS Econ researchers while Nick thinks they reduce all phenomena to regressions. Time to put both myths – and a few others – to rest. We brought on the inimitable and wonderful and to talk about everything you ever wanted to know about economics, econometrics, difference-in-difference designs, mechanism identifications, analytical modeling, and forbidden comparisons. At the end of it all, Jan's boy crush has subsided a little bit – which is probably good – and Nick's theory that every study is just a case study is, well, still a theory. But Gordon and Brad share a wealth of insights and tricks about how to do good econometric research in IS and how to get it published. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on . Also, just to be clear – the 2024 SIG DITE paper development workshop keynote speakers are not yet confirmed, but it will definitely be worthwhile to attend. In case you are interested, follow .

Generative AI is the biggest tech issue of our time. We might be witnessing history in the making. At least, so says , who is not only but also has been studying AI and innovation for years and who is part of an inter-disciplinary team that explores the impact of generative AI on professional practices. Together, we decipher what is new and what is not, what is different and what is the same, before and after tools such as ChatGPT and Midjourney entered society at large. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

Trivia question: which information systems scholar was a division one tennis professional and has an award-winning MIS Quarterly paper to her name? Of course, it can only be . She joins us today to talk about bots and cyborgs, how to deal with publishing pressures, and how to find a perfect co-author. Our solution is to build a Tinder platform that allows finding the perfect co-author match for your next project. And we agree that you should never put your name on a paper where you do not agree with every single sentence. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

One of the biggest cases of academic misconduct in recent times has been the case involving Francesca Gino, Dan Ariely, and Max Bazerman. Is there anything we can learn from this case and how it was handled? Nick and Jan are back from the winter break and dig straight into questionable research practices, whistleblowers, senior co-authors and what we as a field should be doing to prevent fraud to undermine our research contributions. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

As the year draws to a close, it is time for us to revisit some of the best IS scholarship that got published this year. Yes, time for the 3rd annual thisISresearch podcast awards.  This year, it was particularly tough to choose so we just invented a new award! Tune in to find out who won the trailblazing research award, the innovative method award, and our brand-new elegant scholarship award! As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

What is so special about digital technology? Is digital innovation about architecture or is it about data? We talk with the enigmatic – truly one of the great thinkers in our field. Our conversation covers the ambivalence of digital objects, the role of data as records in organizations, the role of books in expressing broader ideas in scholarship, and whether information systems can or should delve into metaphysics at all. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

Nick and Jan venture into new publishing territory. We talk with the fabulous , one of the information systems department editors at , about journal procedures, reviewer expectations, and innovations in the review process. We discuss how our field nurtures multiple communities that all share the aim of advancing information systems knowledge and scholarship. And it's fair to say that both Nick and Jan now have Management Science more on the radar screen as an information systems outlet than before we produced this episode. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

ChatGPT is back in our podcast one more time. Last time we talked about its impact on the academic enterprise. But ChatGPT is also the key digital technology issue of our time. It should be researched, of course, and we information systems researchers should jump on the opportunity to learn more about it. What are some of the questions that surround ChatGPT and similar forms of generative artificial intelligence? We look at a few research ideas at the individual, collective, firm, and economic level. And we conclude that whatever topic people are researching, their key challenge will be to theorize about what's different with generative artificial intelligence and what is not. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

Or maybe it did not. Who knows? ChatGPT is here for the world to see and not even our podcast can avoid talking about it. All the firms we know have long started exploring ChatGPT and other generative AI technologies. Will generative AI also change the academic enterprise? Some suggest it already has. We think we are at the cusp of changes, both in degree and in kind. ChatGPT may help people get started and may even alleviate some of the laborious research tasks but at the end of the day, the academic profession is a person-centric profession built around individual expertise, trust, and honesty of knowledgeable academics. You cannot automate that.  As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

IS as a field has the same problem that IT departments have in organizations - we think those other people should come to us with their questions about digitalization and benefit from our decades of wisdom! But we argue that this is not going to happen. It is our job (as it is the IT manager's job) to make the case for how we can help. OK, so that's a portion of what we talk about today. We actually meander a bit. We jump across a whole lot of topics, from IS' status as a reference discipline, the quarrels of IT departments with other business divisions, what our favorite conferences are, how to engage with conversations occurring in other fields, and what is so special about Taylor Swift. So it's all over the place. But the good news is we laugh a lot and future episodes will be more focused again, we promise. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

Someone asked us to do an episode on books that shifted our thinking. So here we are and we each brought two books that changed the way we look at the world when we read them. We discuss these books and what new things they told us. And of course, it's turning into a showoff about who remembers more from these books. And suffice to say: Jan loses this battle.   As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

What are the secrets to publishing qualitative papers? We have no idea but does – after all he is one of the most prolific and impactful scholars on technology and organizing of our time. We grab the opportunity and ask him for his secret tricks. Together, we reflect on fancy words, detailed method descriptions, obligatory Glaser and Strauss citations, and how many books you really need to read before doing an inductive study. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

Summer is over, all wine is consumed, and all vegetables harvested. Time for this IS research to get back to work. We kick off the new season by talking about questionable research practices – HARKing, p-hacking, fishing for asterisks, data dredging, and so on. Nick digs out an old paper Jan wrote, and we use it to discuss the situations in which HARKing might be commonsense or outright unethical and we try to identify how best to protect against questionable research practices.  As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

After talking about the big theories from the past millennium, it is time to talk about the ideas that emerged after the year 2000. From sociomaterality and two-sided markets to temporal networks, modularity, and routine dynamics – contemporary scholarship is ripe with new ideas that warrant further development, empirical exploration, and rigorous testing. It is truly a wonderful time to be an information systems scholar! And just on the side, we set a new record for material referenced on the podcast. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

It feels like a long time ago now but one of the main reasons we started this podcast was because there was a pandemic going on that impacted our ability to manage work and private life. Is there anything we should have learned from that time? What changed since then if anything and what may still need changing? We talk about this with . She did research on the impact of the pandemic on the productivity of IS researchers, which allows us now to discuss what the broader takeaways are from that time for our field. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on . 

Many people do service to their community but usually one thing at a time. Today we speak with someone who is not only president of our global association and co-chair of our main conference at the same time but also the editor-in-chief of one of our top journals, .  clearly cannot say no – he even agreed to talk with us on the podcast. We discuss the expanding scope of scholarship that he wants to see published in Information Systems Research, the different roles that editors must play, how the Association for Information Systems made our field truly global, and what wonderful things we can expect from in Hyderabad, India.  As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

We have a very special guest, , who is both the founding and current editor-in-chief of the . He founded the journal in 1984 and he has been the only editor-in-chief ever since. Also, he has no intention of handing the reins to anyone else soon. We discuss what sets JMIS apart from the other top journals in our field, what the IS world looked like at the time when the journal was founded, and whether our discipline has moved into a better space since those early days (spoiler alert: yes, it has).  As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

What are the big ideas and streams of thinking from before the turn of the millennium that have shaped our field and may still be relevant today? For once, we did some homework to review some of the theories from before the year 2000 that we think everyone should know about. So whether you are studying AI or algorithmic aversion, digital transformation or digital innovation, you have no business continuing your research without knowing these gems from the past. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

Time to tie up some loose ends. We learned so much from our guests in the previous three episodes and we touched on so many topics that we feel we need to revisit some of these. So we once again discuss what we think about the new list of eleven premier journals, we discuss what good career advice looks like in different regions of IS scholarship, and we begin to wonder whether all theories are truly equal. And of course, we are figuring out which of us is the alpha male on this podcast. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

We continue our series of episodes in which we talk about several of the most important journals in our field. Today, we speak with , editor-in-chief of the . We talk about several innovations the journal has implemented and the range of genres that are welcome. We also talk about what makes truly great papers different and what distinguishes a literature review from a theoretical paper. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

We are starting a new series of episodes in which we talk about several of the most important journals in our field. We kick things off with , the editor-in-chief of the . We talk about the history and the role of the journal in our field, what initiatives are underway to move the field forward, and of course what matters when you are trying to publish in this journal. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

The decided to expand their list of designated “premier journals” in our field from 8 to 11. What does this mean? How are these decisions being made? Who makes these decisions? We explore these questions with our good old friend who has been a member of the task force that championed this decision. With her, we discuss politics in the information systems community, the governance of our community, and the question of how our journals and conferences could or should operate. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

We can talk about impactful, joyful, and meaningful research all we want, but most of us just want to get published. Literally, our careers depend on it. So how do we do it? what are little secrets that turn good research into great papers, that get you over the line from rejection candidate to conditional acceptance? We discuss some of the techniques we use ourselves, that we see others use, and that we come across as editors. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

Research is a collaborative effort. Most of the time, we are not writing papers alone but together with others. Sometimes we lead the effort, sometimes we are the second author, sometimes we only have a small role to play. Coauthoring papers often leads to tensions, frustrations and disappointments. Are there any rules about co-authorship? We think there are. We give you four rules about how to be the best co-author. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .