Podcasts about mis quarterly

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. 

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.

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. 

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. 

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.

What is technostress in the workplace? How does this type of stress impact individuals and organizations? Join me in this episode of Psychchat, where I will share strategies to mitigate technostress.ReferencesAyyagari, R., Grover, V., & Purvis, R. (2011). Technostress: Technological antecedents and implications. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 831-858. https://doi.org/10.2307/41409963Barber, L. K., & Santuzzi, A. M. (2015). Please respond ASAP: Workplace telepressure and employee recovery. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20(2), 172-189. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038278Brod, C. (1984). Technostress: The human cost of the computer revolution. Addison-Wesley.Hauk, N., Göritz, A. S., & Krumm, S. (2019). The mediating role of coping behavior on the age-technostress relationship: A longitudinal multilevel mediation model. PLoS ONE, 14(3), e0213349. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0213349Maier, C., Laumer, S., Weinert, C., & Weitzel, T. (2015). The effects of technostress and switching stress on discontinued use of social networking services: A study of Facebook use. Information Systems Journal, 25(3), 275-308. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12068Pirkkalainen, H., Salo, M., Tarafdar, M., & Makkonen, M. (2019). Deliberate or instinctive? Proactive and reactive coping for technostress. Journal of Management Information Systems, 36(4), 1179-1212. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2019.1661092Ragu-Nathan, T. S., Tarafdar, M., Ragu-Nathan, B. S., & Tu, Q. (2008). The consequences of technostress for end users in organizations: Conceptual development and empirical validation. Information Systems Research, 19(4), 417-433. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1070.0165Riedl, R., Kindermann, H., Auinger, A., & Javor, A. (2012). Technostress from a neurobiological perspective. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 4(2), 61-69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-012-0207-7Salanova, M., Llorens, S., & Cifre, E. (2013). The dark side of technologies: Technostress among users of information and communication technologies. International Journal of Psychology, 48(3), 422-436. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2012.680460Tams, S., Legoux, R., & Leger, P. M. (2018). Smartphone withdrawal creates stress: A moderated mediation model of nomophobia, social threat, and phone withdrawal context. Computers in Human Behavior, 81, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.026Tarafdar, M., Cooper, C. L., & Stich, J. F. (2019). The technostress trifecta‐techno eustress, techno distress and design: Theoretical directions and an agenda for research. Information Systems Journal, 29(1), 6-42. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12169Tarafdar, M., Pullins, E. B., & Ragu‐Nathan, T. S. (2015). Technostress: negative effect on performance and possible mitigations. Information Systems Journal, 25(2), 103-132. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12042Tarafdar, M., Tu, Q., Ragu-Nathan, T. S., & Ragu-Nathan, B. S. (2011). Crossing to the dark side: Examining creators, outcomes, and inhibitors of technostress. Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, 54(9), 113-120. https://doi.org/10.1145/1995376.1995403Vischer, J. C. (2007). The effects of the physical environment on job performance: Towards a theoretical model of workspace stress. Stress and Health: Journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress, 23(3), 175-184. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.1134 

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.

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.

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. 

Adamantios Diamantopoulos (Ph.D., D.Litt.) is Professorial Research Fellow at the Department of Marketing and International Business, University of Vienna, Austria. He is also Visiting Professor at the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia and Senior Fellow at the Dr. Theo and Friedl Schoeller Research Center, Germany. During 2004-2023, he held the Chair of International Marketing at the University of Vienna. During 2012-13, he was the “Joseph A. Schumpeter Fellow” at Harvard University, USA.   He is the author of 200+ papers with over 54,000 citations (h-index: 93; Google Scholar, November 2023) published, among others, in Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Journal of Service Research, Journal of International Marketing, Journal of Retailing, MIS Quarterly, Organizational Research Methods, Psychological Methods, Information Systems Research, and British Journal of Management.   He ranks #8 worldwide in terms of citations among a total of 13,180 marketing scholars (Ioannidis, 2023) as well #1 in Austria and #94 worldwide in the 2022 Ranking of Top 1000 Scientists in Business and Management (Research.com, 2022). He is the most prolific contributor to Journal of International Marketing (Donthu et al., 2021) and the recipient of four Hans B. Thorelli Awards. He is a Fellow of the Academy of International Business, the British Academy of Management, and the European Marketing Academy. In 2019, he was awarded the JIBS Silver Medal and, in 2021, he received the Significant Contributions to Global Marketing award from the American Marketing Association.   Visit https://www.aib.world/frontline-ib/adamantios-diamantopoulos/ for the original video interview.

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 .

Wed, 10 Jan 2024 06:30:00 +0000 https://tap.podigee.io/25-panos-constantinides 422936b8b903af0d2b42983089ebff6c The formation and evolution of digital platforms across ecosystems Panos' Bio: Panos Constantinides is a Professor of Digital Innovation and Digital Learning Lead for Executive Education at Alliance Manchester Business School. He holds a PhD from the Judge Business School at the University of Cambridge and he is a Fellow of the Cambridge Digital Innovation Centre. Panos leads the Digital Transformation Research Group at Alliance Manchester Business School. Panos is also one of the co-founders of the European Digital Platforms Research Network (EUDPRN). His research investigates how organizations use digital technologies to co-create and capture value while facilitating strategic transformation. His recent work has shed light on the formation and evolution of digital platforms across ecosystems, including platforms built on generative AI technologies. He advises senior business leaders and policymakers on how to manage the transition to new technologies and new business models in the digital economy. His research has been published in FT50 journals such as Information Systems Research, MIS Quarterly, and the Journal of Business Venturing and Organisation Studies, among others. His research has also appeared in Concurrences, Competition Policy International, PYMNTS, Thinkers50, MIT Sloan Management Review, ZDnet, and other media outlets. Panos' Google Scholar page: https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=Erxikd8AAAAJ&hl=en Panos on Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/panos-constantinides/?originalSubdomain=uk full The formation and evolution of digital platforms across ecosystems no Daniel Trabucchi, Tommaso Buganza and Philip Meier

Host Casandra Grundstrom is joined by special guest University Lecturer Arto Lanamäki from the University of Oulu in Finland. Much of his research is qualitative and phenomenon-driven research, concerning the role of information technologies in social practices. He is currently working in the Research Council of Finland (Suomen Akatemia) funded AI-REG project (2022-2026) investigating the European Act on Artificial Intelligence. While publishing mostly in the field of IS, he champions a certain research eclecticism and a boundary-breaking ethos. His research has been published in the Journal of Strategic Information Systems (JSIS), Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (JASIST), Communications of the Association for Information Systems (CAIS), among others.In this episode, we first catch-up with Arto's research and new AI legislation, before turning our attention to paradigms in IS.  We consider the historical saturation of positivism in the IS discipline, the leaning into interpretivism before narrowing in on a paradigm gaining attention called 'critical realism'.  What is critical realism? Why is it important for IS? What does Arto think of critical realism? Tune in to find out. Also, colours.References:Barley, S. R. (2006). When I Write My Masterpiece: Thoughts on What Makes a Paper Interesting. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 16-20.Brock, S., & Mares, E. (2014). Realism and Anti-realism. Routledge.  Chen, W., & Hirschheim, R. (2004). A paradigmatic and methodological examination of information systems research from 1991 to 2001. Information Systems Journal, 14, 197-235.  Giere, R. N. (2010). Scientific Perspectivism. University of Chicago press.  Lanamäki, A. (2023). Agnostic Affordances: Challenging the Critical Realist Connection. In M. R. Jones, A. S. Mukherjee, D. Thapa, & Y. Zheng (Eds.), After Latour: Globalisation, Inequity and Climate Change. IFIPJWC 2023 (Vol. 696, pp. 265-279). Springer. Lanamäki, A. (in press). Questioning the Third Way Rhetoric of Critical Realism. The Data Base for Advances in Information Systems. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371492086_Questioning_the_Third_Way_Rhetoric_of_Critical_Realism Lanamäki, A., Väyrynen, K., Laari-Salmela, S., & Kinnula, M. (2020). Examining relational digital transformation through the unfolding of local practices of the Finnish taxi industry. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 29(3), 101622.  Mason, R. (2021). Social kinds are essentially mind-dependent. Philosophical Studies, 178(12), 3975-3994.  Menand, L. (2002). The Metaphysical Club. Flamingo.  Misak, C. (2013). The American Pragmatists. Oxford University Press.  Orlikowski, W. J., & Baroudi, J. J. (1991). Studying Information Technology in Organizations: Research Approaches and Assumptions. Information Systems Research, 2(1), 1-28. Siponen, M., & Tsohou, A. (2018). Demystifying the Influential IS Legends of Positivism. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 19(7), 600-617.  Volkoff, O., & Strong, D. M. (2013). Critical Realism and Affordances: Theorizing IT-Associated Organizational Change Processes. MIS Quarterly, 37(3), 819-834.Weber, R. (2004). Editor's Comments: The Rhetoric of Positivism versus Interpretivism: A Personal View. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), iii-xiiLink to all references

Since 1994, Dr. Barb Wixom's research has explored how organizations generate business value from data assets. Her methods include large-scale surveys, meta-analyses, lab experiments, and in-depth case studies; five cases have been placed in the Society for Information Management Paper Awards competition. Barb is a leading academic scholar, publishing in such journals as Information Systems Research, MIT Sloan Management Review, MIS Quarterly, and MIS Quarterly Executive. She regularly presents her work to academic and business audiences around the world.Before MIT CISR, Barb was a tenured faculty member at the University of Virginia (UVA), where she twice earned the UVA All-University Teaching Award (2002, 2010), which recognizes teaching excellence in professors. 2017, she was awarded the Teradata University Network Hugh J. Watson Award for contributions to the data and analytics academic community. Most recently, she won the 2021 Association for Information Systems AIS Outreach Practice Publication Award for her data monetization research.Barb authored her new book Data is Everybody's Business (MIT Press, September 2023) to inspire workers across organizations to monetize data. She actively works to encourage women, young people, and underrepresented populations to learn about data and pursue data-related careers.Dr. Perry Kaneriya, MD, MBA, is a Harvard-trained Neuroradiologist with 18 years of clinical experience in medical imaging. MBA from Darden School of Business with Distinguished Performances in Operations Management, Healthcare Innovation, Finance, Valuations, Accounting, Economics, Entrepreneurship and Creative Design Thinking. Able to leverage extensive real-world experience and unique MD/MBA skill set to develop and execute innovative medical strategies to improve healthcare quality metrics by advancing cost-effective technology-based solutions and data-driven innovations.We are committed to delivering exceptional medical solutions aligned with corporate goals and company mission—passion for lifelong learning driven by genuine curiosity about emerging trends in healthcare and innovations in medical imaging.This episode is made possible by a generous sponsorship from  Physician Computer Company. PCC emSupport the show

Building muscle from experiences with confronting crises. Tremblay, M. C., Kohli, R., & Rivero, C. (2023). 'Data is the New Protein: How the Commonwealth of Virginia Built Digital Resilience Muscle and Rebounded from Opioid and COVID Shocks', MIS Quarterly, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 423-449. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2022/17260

Dr. Dave Chatterjee is an Associate Professor in the Management Information Systems (MIS) department at the University of Georgia (UGA) and a Visiting Scholar at Duke University's Pratt School of Engineering. His expertise spans various aspects of information technology management, with a current focus on cybersecurity and enterprise digitization. Dr. Chatterjee's work, which has been published in prominent outlets like The Wall Street Journal and MIS Quarterly, has received over 2700 citations. His book, 'Cybersecurity Readiness: A Holistic and High-Performance Approach,' was published by SAGE Publishing in March 2021.  In this episode of the 'Let's Talk About SecurIT' podcast, host Philip de Souza engages with Dr. Dave Chatterjee in a riveting discussion covering a range of cybersecurity topics. They explore the landscape of password-less authentication and the influence of generative AI tools in developing innovative cybersecurity solutions. Dr. Chatterjee emphasizes the significance of proactive threat detection and modeling, facilitated by the use of sophisticated AI technologies.  A key theme of the conversation revolves around organizational resilience. No organization can be entirely immune to cyberattacks, but the focus should be on recovery speed and proactive preparedness instead of merely reactive measures. The importance of running automated checks to identify various digital assets on a network is discussed, emphasizing monitoring, logging, processing, and acting on findings promptly.  Dr. Chatterjee presents his Commitment, Preparedness, and Discipline (CPD) framework, also known as the holistic cybersecurity governance framework, containing 17 success factors. A critical point raised during the talk is the necessity to view cybersecurity governance as a core capability. Dr. Chatterjee suggests that strong legislation can motivate higher cybersecurity effectiveness.  In conclusion, both Philip and Dr. Chatterjee share a vision for a global task force, with representatives from across the world, committed to unifying their intellect and resources to tackle the persistent and evolving cybersecurity threats. Tune in for a comprehensive understanding of today's cybersecurity scenario, actionable strategies, and a glimpse into the future.

In this episode: Dr. Destinee Prete, Asif Haider, Tom Bradshaw, Rich Cruz, LindaAnn Rogers, Aaron Helton, Dr. Martha Grajdek, Dr. Casey DeBruyn, Dr. Arieana Thompson.   Visit us https://www.seboc.com/ Follow us on LinkedIn: https://bit.ly/sebocLI Join an open-mic event: https://www.seboc.com/events   References "The Happiness Factor: How to be Happy no Matter What" by Kirk Wilkinson.   Burström, T., Parida, V., Lahti, T., & Wincent, J. (2021). AI-enabled business-model innovation and transformation in industrial ecosystems: A framework, model and outline for further research. Journal of Business Research, 127, 85-95.   Huang, M., & Rust, R. (2018). Artificial intelligence in service. Journal of service research, 21(2), 155-172.   Reim, W., Åström, J., & Eriksson, O. (2020). Implementation of artificial intelligence (AI): a roadmap for business model innovation. AI, 1(2), 11.   Tams, S. (2022). Helping older workers realize their full organizational potential: A moderated mediation model of age and IT-enabled task performance. MIS Quarterly, 46(1)

Our top journal is called MIS Quarterly, not Causality Quarterly. Or is it? How should we go about building and testing causal explanations in our research and how do different approaches to causality complement each other? We invited , , , and as our guests. They recently published an editorial on this topic and we use this opportunity to pick their brains about experiments, econometrics, counterfactual, correlational and configurational views of establishing causality. As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

In this episode of Cyber Ways, Dr. Jeffrey Proudfoot of Bentley University joins Tom and Craig to discuss his research on how cybersecurity regulations affect cybersecurity maturity. Dr. Proudfoot is collaborating with Dr. Stuart Madnick of MIT's Sloan School of Business on this program of research. Dr. Proudfoot is an associate professor on information and process management in Bentley's business school and is also a research affiliate at MIT's "Cybersecurity at MIT Sloan" research group. He holds a Ph.D. in management information systems from the University of Arizona. Dr. Proudfoot's research focuses on various aspects of cybersecurity. He has published over 40 scholarly works, including articles in some of our top journals, including MIS Quarterly, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, and Journal of Management Information Systems. He has also received over $1 million in research funding from agencies such as the National Science Foundation.Citation: Proudfoot, J. and Madnick, S. (2022). Regulatory facilitators and impediments impacting cybersecurity maturity, Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Minneapolis.Cyber Ways is brought to you by the Center for Information Assurance, which is housed in the College of Business at Louisiana Tech University. The podcast is made possible through a "Just Business Grant," which is funded by the University's generous donors.Intro audio for the Cyber Ways Podcast Outro audio for Cyber Ways PodcastCyber Ways is brought to you by the Center for Information Assurance, which is housed in the College of Business at Louisiana Tech University. The podcast is made possible through a "Just Business Grant," which is funded by the University's generous donors.https://business.latech.edu/cyberways/

In this episode of The Remarkable Project Jay speaks with the incredible Dr Michael Rosemann, Professor, author and thought-leader, as well as the Director of the Centre for Future Enterprise at the Business School of Queensland University of Technology (QUT) in Brisbane, Australia. The conversation touched on how trust continues to climb the business problem solving agenda, why trust design could soon become critical to competitive advantage, and the particular nuance native to core trust and extreme trust. Dr Michael Rosemann is the Director of the Centre for Future Enterprise and a Professor for Information Systems at the Business School, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, Australia. The Centre for Future Enterprise aims to identify, understand and professionalise those attributes that matter most to future enterprises, and their leaders.Dr Rosemann has a comprehensive higher education teaching portfolio, which currently includes delivering units on ‘Future Enterprise', ‘Business Process Design' and ‘Smart Decision Making' as part of QUT's Bachelor of Business and MBA programs. Michael's main areas of research are corporate innovation, revenue resilience, process management and trust management. His work is focused on creating compelling future worlds with today's possibilities that make current practices obsolete. As a researcher and advisor to board rooms and senior executives he is committed to advancing research-informed knowledge and confidence in order to appreciate the emerging design space and to create an increased ‘sense of ambition' and innovation appetite. He has been Chair of and a Keynote Speaker at leading business conferences the world over for many years and is currently the Vice President for Strategic Partnership of the global Association for Information Systems.Dr Rosemann is the author/editor of nine books, more than 350 refereed papers in outlets such as MIS Quarterly, European Journal of Information Systems, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Information Systems and Journal of the Association of Information Systems, Editorial Board member of nine international journals and co-inventor of US and European patents.Previously, he has been QUT's Executive Director, Corporate Engagement and Head of both QUT's Information Systems Discipline their Information Systems School. Under his leadership as a Head of School, he established three industry-funded Chairs in the Information Systems School, i.e. the Woolworths Chair in Retail Innovation, the Brisbane Airport Corporation Chair in Airport Innovation and the PwC Chair in Digital Economy. More recently, as Director of the Centre for Future Enterprise, he established the Cisco Chair in Trusted Retail.Remarkable TakeawaysHow the big question of business problem solving has evolved from “what's broken?” and “what more's possible?” to “why will they trust us?”.Why trust design could soon become fundamental to competitive advantage, just like visionary leadership, ingenious engineering and amazing marketing.The differences between core and extreme trust, and how to identify the moments where they really matter during the customer journey.Connect with MichaelFind him on LinkedInLearn more about Michael and his work via his websiteDownload the Trusted Retail Innovation White PaperExplore QUT's Centre for Future Enterprise

Welcome to an episode with a well-recognized professor, Ben M. Bensaou. Get Ben's book here: https://amzn.to/3xpI9Zb Many people think that you need a genius leader or need to become a start-up to innovate. But we all have the potential to innovate. In this episode, Ben speaks about everyone's role in innovation and how it can be performed like a habit in our everyday lives. He also discussed the need to develop a deeper understanding of customers and create a culture of collaborating with customers to offer the ideal combination of performance, attributes, price, and other characteristics that customers need and want, or produce a product and service with a powerful market appeal. Ben M. Bensaou is a Professor of Technology Management and Professor of Asian Business and Comparative Management at INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France. He served as Dean of Executive Education in 2018–2020. He was a Visiting Associate Professor at Harvard Business School in 1998-1999, a Senior Fellow at the Wharton School of Management in 2007-2008, and a Visiting Scholar at the Haas School of Business at the University of California Berkeley in 2013-2015. He received his PhD in Management from MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, US, and his MA in Management Science from Hitotsubashi University, Tokyo, Japan; his Diplôme d'Ingénieur (MSc) in Civil Engineering and DEA in Mechanical Engineering from respectively the Ecole Nationale des TPE, Lyon and the Institut National Polytechnique de Grenoble, two Grandes Ecoles in France. His research and teaching activities focus on: (1) how to create innovating capabilities and competencies as a way to build an innovating organization and culture; (2) Blue Ocean Strategy and value innovation implementation, and roll out processes across the whole organization; (3) how to build social capital within firms; (4) new forms of organizations, in particular networked corporations, strategic alliances, joint ventures, and value-adding partnerships; and (5) the impact of information technology on innovation. Professor Bensaou addresses these issues from an international comparative perspective, with a special focus on Japanese organizations. Professor Bensaou's research on buyer-supplier relations in the US and Japanese auto industries won him the Best Doctoral Dissertation Award in the field of information systems and a finalist nomination for the Free Press Award for outstanding dissertation research in the field of business policy and strategy. His case studies on innovation won the 2006, 2008 and 2009 ECCH Best Case Awards (with Kim & Mauborgne). His publications include papers in Academy of Management Journal, Management Science, Information Systems Research, Organization Science, Strategic Management Journal, Journal of International Business Studies, Harvard Business Review, Sloan Management Review, book chapters and conference proceedings. He has been a member of the Editorial Board of Information Systems Research, MIS Quarterly and MISQ Executive. He has been listed in the Who's Who in the World since 1998. He has been consulting for Asian, European and US corporations since 1993. At INSEAD, Professor Bensaou developed two new MBA courses: 'Managing Networked Organisations' and 'Understanding Japanese Business.' He also teaches courses on Competitive Strategy, Innovation, Blue Ocean Strategy and Value Innovation, Information Technology and Comparative Management (in English and French). He was a Visiting Professor at Aoyama Gakuin University, Tokyo, where he taught his 'Information Technology and Corporate Transformation' course. He has also been teaching (in Japanese) in Executive Education programs at Keio Business School, Tokyo, Japan. Get Ben's book here: Built to Innovate: Essential Practices to Wire Innovation into Your Company's DNA. Ben M. Bensaou: https://amzn.to/3xpI9Zb Enjoying this episode? Get access to sample advanced training episodes here: www.firmsconsulting.com/promo

Welcome to Strategy Skills episode 227, an episode with a well-recognized professor, Ben M. Bensaou. Many people think that you need a genius leader or need to become a start-up to innovate. But we all have the potential to innovate. In this episode, Ben speaks about everyone's role in innovation and how it can be performed like a habit in our everyday lives. He also discussed the need to develop a deeper understanding of customers and create a culture of collaborating with customers to offer the ideal combination of performance, attributes, price, and other characteristics that customers need and want, or produce a product and service with a powerful market appeal. Ben M. Bensaou is a Professor of Technology Management and Professor of Asian Business and Comparative Management at INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France. He served as Dean of Executive Education in 2018–2020. He was a Visiting Associate Professor at Harvard Business School in 1998-1999, a Senior Fellow at the Wharton School of Management in 2007-2008, and a Visiting Scholar at the Haas School of Business at the University of California Berkeley in 2013-2015. He received his PhD in Management from MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, US, and his MA in Management Science from Hitotsubashi University, Tokyo, Japan; his Diplôme d'Ingénieur (MSc) in Civil Engineering and DEA in Mechanical Engineering from respectively the Ecole Nationale des TPE, Lyon and the Institut National Polytechnique de Grenoble, two Grandes Ecoles in France. His research and teaching activities focus on: (1) how to create innovating capabilities and competencies as a way to build an innovating organization and culture; (2) Blue Ocean Strategy and value innovation implementation, and roll out processes across the whole organization; (3) how to build social capital within firms; (4) new forms of organizations, in particular networked corporations, strategic alliances, joint ventures, and value-adding partnerships; and (5) the impact of information technology on innovation. Professor Bensaou addresses these issues from an international comparative perspective, with a special focus on Japanese organizations. Professor Bensaou's research on buyer-supplier relations in the US and Japanese auto industries won him the Best Doctoral Dissertation Award in the field of information systems and a finalist nomination for the Free Press Award for outstanding dissertation research in the field of business policy and strategy. His case studies on innovation won the 2006, 2008 and 2009 ECCH Best Case Awards (with Kim & Mauborgne). His publications include papers in Academy of Management Journal, Management Science, Information Systems Research, Organization Science, Strategic Management Journal, Journal of International Business Studies, Harvard Business Review, Sloan Management Review, book chapters and conference proceedings. He has been a member of the Editorial Board of Information Systems Research, MIS Quarterly and MISQ Executive. He has been listed in the Who's Who in the World since 1998. He has been consulting for Asian, European and US corporations since 1993. At INSEAD, Professor Bensaou developed two new MBA courses: 'Managing Networked Organisations' and 'Understanding Japanese Business.' He also teaches courses on Competitive Strategy, Innovation, Blue Ocean Strategy and Value Innovation, Information Technology and Comparative Management (in English and French). He was a Visiting Professor at Aoyama Gakuin University, Tokyo, where he taught his 'Information Technology and Corporate Transformation' course. He has also been teaching (in Japanese) in Executive Education programs at Keio Business School, Tokyo, Japan. Get Ben's book here: Built to Innovate: Essential Practices to Wire Innovation into Your Company's DNA. Ben M. Bensaou  Enjoying this episode? Get access to sample advanced training episodes here: www.firmsconsulting.com/promo

Eric W. K. Tsang received his Ph.D. from the University of Cambridge. Before joining academia, he worked as corporate banker at HSBC in Hong Kong. He is the Dallas World Salute Distinguished Professor at the Jindal School of Management, University of Texas at Dallas, and is an AIB fellow. Dr. Tsang's research interests include foreign direct investment, strategic alliances, organizational learning, entrepreneurship, and philosophical analysis of methodological issues. He has published in top-tiered journals, such as Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, Journal of International Business Studies, MIS Quarterly, Marketing Science, and Strategic Management Journal. He has served on the editorial boards of most major IB journals − Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of International Management, Journal of World Business and Management International Review − in addition to other management journals. Besides being an IB researcher, Dr. Tsang is a leading scholar in applying philosophy to solve methodological problems related to assumption, explanation, generalization, ontology, replication, and theory testing. Some of these research results were included in his book The Philosophy of Management Research (Routledge, 2017). His 2016 Academy of Management Review article “A Realist Perspective of Entrepreneurship: Opportunities as Propensities” (with Stratos Ramoglou) contributes to the debate about the ontological nature of entrepreneurial opportunities. Dr. Tsang's publications have been well cited and have made significant contributions to the IB and other literatures. For example, his article “Social Capital, Networks, and Knowledge Transfer” (with Andrew Inkpen) won the 2015 Academy of Management Review Decade Award. Visit https://www.aib.world/frontline-ib/eric-tsang/ for the original video interview.

After some hobby chat, Camila tells Ana about the French videotex network ‘Minitel'. Launched in the early 80s, it was the most successful version of an online service before the World Wide Web. While other similar networks struggled, this episode looks at how the specifics of Minitel allowed it to become integrated into everyday life and what happened when France began adopting the Internet.We're on Instagram!And Twitter!Main research for the episode was done by Camila. Ana with the audio editing.Music by Nelson Guay (SoundCloud: fluxlinkages)References:- Amougou, Jules, and James S. Larson. “Comparing Implementation of Internet Diffusion in the United States and France: Policies, Beliefs, and Institutions.” Policy Research 25, no. 6 (2008): 563-578.- Arceneaux, Noah. Review of Minitel: Welcome to the Internet, by Julien Mailland and Kevin Driscoll. Journalism History 44, no. 1 (Spring 2018).- Benghozi, Pierre-Jean, and Christian Licoppe. “Technological National Learning: From Minitel to Internet.” In The Global Internet Economy, edited by Bruce Kogut, 153-189. MIT Press, 2003.- Cats-Baril, William L., and Tawfik Jelassi. “The French Videotex System Minitel: A Successful Implementation of a National Information Technology Infrastructure.” MIS Quarterly 18, no.1 (March 1994): 1-20.- Chrisafis, Angelique. “France says farewell to the Minitel – the little box that connected a country.” The Guardian, June 29, 2012. - Kessler, Jack. “Electronic Networks: A View from Europe.” Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science (April/May 1994): 26-27.- Mailland, Julien. “Minitel, the Open Network Before the Internet.” The Atlantic, June 16, 2017.- Mailland, Julien, and Kevin Driscoll. “Minitel: The Online World France Built Before the Web.”  IEEE Spectrum, June 20, 2017. https://spectrum.ieee.org/minitel-the-online-world-france-built-before-the-web- Schofield, Hugh. “Minitel: The rise and fall of the France-wide web.” BBC News, June 28, 2012.

Host Casandra Grundstrom is joined by special guest Professor Sandeep Purao. He is a Trustee Professor in the Information and Process Management Group and Associate Director of the Hoffman Center for Business Ethics at Bentley University. He is also a Visiting Professor at Agder University in Norway. His current research focuses on the design and evaluation of digital solutions for complex societal problems. Sandeep's work has been published in MIS Quarterly, Information Systems Research, Journal of MIS, ACM Computing Surveys, ACM Transactions, Journal of the Medical Internet Research and others, and funded by federal agencies, private foundations, and industry consortia. He holds a Ph.D. in Management Information Systems from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.In this episode, we finish our design theme series by exploring designing for societal good through projects on a more micro-scale for elderly communities when practicing self-management of illness and empathy as part of the design process, as well as designing counters to political polarization in fake news and echo chambers.  Commencing the new year off on a positive note, with insights from Sandeep about bringing about change in a world and finding joy in what we do. We are academic superheroes!References:Hao, H., Garfield, M. and Purao, S. 2021. Risk Factors that Contribute to the Length of Homeless Shelter Stays: Evidence-based Regression Analyses. International Journal of Public Health,  Forthcoming.Herwix, A., Haj-Bolouri, A., Rossi, M., Chiarini-Tremblay, M., Purao, S., and Gregor, S. 2022. Ethics in Information Systems and Design Science Research: Five Perspectives. Communications of the AIS,  Forthcoming.Khouri, Y., Purao, S., & Duffy, M. 2018. The Influence of Values on the Use of Citizen Services: The Elderly Perspective. In Proceedings of the 24th Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS).Purao, S., Murungi, D. M., & Yates, D. 2021. Deliberative Breakdowns in the Social Representation Process: Evidence from Reader Comments in Partisan News Sites. ACM Transactions on Social Computing, 4(2), 1-35.Purao, S., Hao, H., and Meng, C. 2021. The Use of Smart Home Speakers by the Elderly: Exploratory Analyses and Potential for Big Data. Big Data Research. Elsevier.Purao, S., & Garfield, M. 2020. Process Modeling in Humanitarian Settings: A Case Study and Lessons Learned. In Proceedings of the 28th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS).Purao, S. 2002. Design research in the technology of information systems: Truth or dare. Unpublished Manuscript, Georgie State University.Selected References on Design:Baldwin, C.Y., Clark, K.B. and Clark, K.B., 2000. Design rules: The power of modularity (Vol. 1). MIT press.Cross, N., 1982. Designerly ways of knowing. Design studies, 3(4), pp.221-227.Simon, H.A., 1996. The sciences of the artificial. MIT press.Suh, N.P. and Suh, P.N., 1990. The principles of design (No. 6). Oxford University Press. Other References:Al Gore's Budgets' - https://www.ccair.org/guest-blog-what-i-learned-from-spending-three-days-with-al-gore/Sandeep Purao's Website - https://purao.us/research-projects/ Vanessa Otero Political Polzarization- https://libguides.geneseo.edu/newsliteracy/identifying-major-news-sources  

In this episode of Cyber Ways, Tom and Craig discuss a classic behavioral security paper that explores how users rationalize their purposeful violations of security policy. Listen and learn the six common rationalizations and what security managers can do to reduce their effects.Citation:Siponen, M., & Vance, A. (2010). Neutralization: new insights into the problem of employee information systems security policy violations,  MIS Quarterly, 34(3), 487-502.Intro audio for the Cyber Ways Podcast Outro audio for Cyber Ways PodcastCyber Ways is brought to you by the Center for Information Assurance, which is housed in the College of Business at Louisiana Tech University. The podcast is made possible through a "Just Business Grant," which is funded by the University's generous donors.https://business.latech.edu/cyberways/

Every day we are bombarded with security warnings that all look more-or-less the same. Over time, we tend to tune out these warnings through a process called habituation. In this episode of Cyber Ways, we discuss this problem and how to address it with Dr. Anthony (Tony) Vance of Virginia Tech. Dr. Vance and his colleagues have conducted fascinating research using sophisticated technologies including functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and eye tracking to gain an understanding of the extent of the habituation to warnings problem. They also demonstrate how changing the look of warnings can reduce habituation. Their research shows strong results, and has clear implications for security professionals.Citation: Vance, A., Jenkins, J. L., Anderson, B. B., Bjornn, D. K., & Kirwan, C. B. (2018). Tuning out security warnings: A longitudinal examination of habituation through fMRI, eye tracking, and field experiments. MIS Quarterly, 42(2), 355-380.Cyber Ways is a production of the Louisiana Tech University's Center for Information Assurance, which is housed in of the College of Business, Department of Computer Information Systems. Cyber Ways is funded by the College's Just Business grant program.For more information contact Craig Van Slyke (vanslyke@latech.edu).Intro audio for the Cyber Ways Podcast Outro audio for Cyber Ways PodcastCyber Ways is brought to you by the Center for Information Assurance, which is housed in the College of Business at Louisiana Tech University. The podcast is made possible through a "Just Business Grant," which is funded by the University's generous donors.https://business.latech.edu/cyberways/

We humans, like all animals, are wired to respond to fear.  When a wildebeest senses a lion's presence, they go on alert and flee. Humans react similarly -- fear brings reaction. In this episode of Cyber Ways, we talk with Dr. Dennis Galletta from the Katz School of Business at the University of Pittsburg about his research into how to leverage users' fear to bring about protective behaviors, such as using antimalware software or backing up data. Boss, S. R., Galletta, D. F., Lowry, P. B., Moody, G. D., & Polak, P. (2015). What do systems users have to fear? Using fear appeals to engender threats and fear that motivate protective security behaviors. MIS Quarterly, 39(4), 837-864.Intro audio for the Cyber Ways Podcast Outro audio for Cyber Ways PodcastCyber Ways is brought to you by the Center for Information Assurance, which is housed in the College of Business at Louisiana Tech University. The podcast is made possible through a "Just Business Grant," which is funded by the University's generous donors.https://business.latech.edu/cyberways/

In this episode of Cyber Ways, Dr. Clay Posey of Brigham Young University, and Dr. Matthew Canham from the University of Central Florida join us to discuss their 2021 paper, “Phishing for Long Tails: Examining Organizational Repeat Clickers and Protective Stewards,” which was published in SAGE Open. The paper discusses an extensive research project that investigated user responses to phishing attempts. Their results indicate that the majority of phishing attempts clicks come from a minority of users. Also, some users not only never click on phishing attempts, but also tend to report the attempts. Clay and Matt discuss ways that security professionals can think differently about their users and security education, training, and awareness programs to make their organizations' systems more secure. You can access their paper here: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244021990656Dr. Posey is an associate professor of information systems at Brigham Young University's Marriott School of Business. Prior to joining BYU, Dr. Posey was on the faculty of the University of Central Florida. He also served as a faculty member at the University of Alabama, where he was Associate Director of the Cyber Institute. He has published extensively in top journals, including MIS Quarterly, Journal of Management Information Systems, and Decision Sciences among many others. His research focuses primarily on behavioral aspects of information security and privacy. He is active in numerous professional organizations, including the IFIP Working Group 8.11/11.13 on Information Systems Security Research. We are proud to say that Dr. Posey is a graduate of Louisiana Tech's doctoral program.Dr. Canham is currently a research professor of cybersecurity at the University of Central Florida's Institute of Simulation and Training. His primary research focus is on defending against synthetic media or deepfake remote online social media attacks, human-AI hybrid defense teams, and preventing inference attacks. Prior to joining UCG. Dr. Canham was the program manager of the Emerging Technologies Program for the Operational Technology Division of the Department of Justice at Quantico, VA. He holds a doctorate in cognition, perception, and cognitive neuroscience from the University of California, Santa Barbara.Dr. Posey and Dr. Canham are founders of Beyond Layer 7, a consultancy that helps organizations better secure the human layer in organizational cybersecurity. See https://www.belay7.com/index.html for more details.Intro audio for the Cyber Ways Podcast Outro audio for Cyber Ways PodcastCyber Ways is brought to you by the Center for Information Assurance, which is housed in the College of Business at Louisiana Tech University. The podcast is made possible through a "Just Business Grant," which is funded by the University's generous donors.https://business.latech.edu/cyberways/

Host Casandra Grundstrom is joined by special guest Professor Maung Sein. Maung is a professor of Information Systems at the University of South-Eastern Norway & Kristiania University College. He has led a holistically nomadic life after completing his PhD in Indiana University and has published in leading IS journals such as MIS Quarterly, Information Systems Research, Information Systems Journal, European Journal of Information Systems and presented his research in several international conferences such as ICIS. Professor Sein is probably best known for his legacy paper on Action Design Research published in MISQ.In this episode, we initiate a short series of podcast episodes on design; breaking the ice by discussing action design research (ADR), some of the politics of publishing, and friendship in academia. Maung is full of stories and metaphors that might seem to take the conversation on a detour but always come back ever so eloquently to the point. Might want to grab a snack before you listen to this episode.References:Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS quarterly, 75-105.Iivari, J. (2007). Nothing is as Clear as Unclear. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 19(2), 6.Lanamäki, A., Thapa, D., & Stendal, K. (2016, December). When is an affordance? Outlining four stances. In Working Conference on Information Systems and Organizations (pp. 125-139). Springer, Cham.Leonardi, P. M. (2011). When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: Affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies. MIS quarterly, 147-167.Mullarkey, M. T., & Hevner, A. R. (2019). An elaborated action design research process model. European Journal of Information Systems, 28(1), 6-20.Sein, M.K., & Rossi, M. (2018). Elaborating ADR while drifting away from its essence: A commentary on Mullarkey and Hevner. European Journal of Information Systems. ISSN: 0960-085X. doi:10.1080/0960085X.2018.1527189.Sein, M.K., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., & Lindgren, R. (2011). Action Design Research. MIS Quarterly. ISSN: 0276-7783. 35 (1). s 37 - 56.Thapa, D., & Sein, M.K. (2017). Trajectory of Affordances: Insights from a case of telemedicine in Nepal. Information Systems Journal. ISSN: 1350-1917. 28 (5). s 796 - 817. doi:10.1111/isj.12160.

We have the brilliant , , and on the show and we talk about a lot of things. We talk about how they constructed their ethnography on , what they initially planned to do (AI in HR), how valuable digital seminars can be, and why Natalia refuses to upgrade her dropbox plan. 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.

We have a truly inter-disciplinary team as guests. is a computer scientist, is a business ethics expert, and is a seasoned information systems researcher. They wrote a really special paper, an issues and opinions commentary about . We talk about their paper, how the different disciplines operate, and what it takes to publish conceptual papers. 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.

Drug discovery is an enormously complicated and important process and artificial intelligence can be a key tool for the bio-pharma industry moving forward. We talk with about her paper with Bowen Lou on "." We learn a lot about this idea came about, how they collaborated and also a few things about chemistry and the bio-pharma field. Wu, L., & Lou, B. (2021). AI on Drugs: Can Artificial Intelligence Accelerate Drug Development? Evidence from a Large-scale Examination of Bio-pharma Firms. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1451-1482.

IS researchers do not use enough Star Trek references. Thankfully, is a Trekkie and convinced his co-authors to title their paper " He joins our conversation together with his co-author . Together, we talk about how collaborating on papers is easier across time zones, what makes a paper accessible to an audience, and whether or not formal theory benefits a paper or distracts from its contributions. 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.

How is a strategic AI orientation different from an IT orientation? and are on our show and talk about their paper “.” We learn about how their survey of CIOs and boards of directors, how IS scholars work together in the Hong Kong ecosystem, and we discuss ways in which paper projects can be managed. 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.

Host Casandra Grundstrom is joined by special guest Professor Virpi Kristiina Tuunainen. Virpi  is a professor of Information Systems Science at the Department of Information and Service Management and the Associate Dean of research and international cooperation of Aalto University School of Business. Her current research focuses on ICT enabled or enhanced services and digital innovation. Her work has appeared in journals, such as, MIS Quarterly, European Journal of Information Systems, Information Systems Journal, Journal of Management Information Systems, Information & Management and Scandinavion Journal of Information Systems. She's a past VP of Publications of the AIS, a past Chair of AIS SIG Services and she received the AIS Fellow award in 2016.In this special episode made in collaboration with the SCIS/IRIS 2021 conference hosted virtually by NTNU this year.  I will be talking with one of the keynote speakers (Virpi) about her presentation on ICT interruptions, how they impact collaborative knowledge work and how these interruptions are managed so that they don't necessarily hinder the collaboration. We also reflect on the traditions and importance of the SCIS/IRIS conference together. References:Conference: https://www.irisscis2021.com/  ThisISResearch: http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/when-the-machine-meets-the-expert-3-september-2021/ Keynote Speaker from HICSS: http://coleman.ucsd.edu/Goffman, E. 1956. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Edinburgh: the University of Edinburgh Press.  [Google Scholar] Goffman, E. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, New York: Anchor Books.  [Google Scholar]

We are joined by to talk about the paper “,” which he co-authored with Timo Sturm, Luisa Pumplun, Neda Mesbah, Felix Peters, Christoph Tauchert, Ning Nan, and Peter Buxmann. We learn about how the idea came about, what the role of simulations is in IS research, and how you can manage an ambitious paper project using Scrum principles. Sturm, T., Gerlach, J. P., Pumplun, L., Mesbah, N., Peters, F., Tauchert, C., Nan, N., & Buxmann, P. (2021). Coordinating Human and Machine Learning for Effective Organizational Learning. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1581-1602.

We talk with and about their paper “.” In our conversation, we touch upon doing ethnographies, establishing collaborations with industry firms, and how a paper changes through the review process. van den Broek, E., Sergeeva, A., & Huysman, M. (2021). When the Machine Meets the Expert: An Ethnography of Developing AI for Hiring. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1557-1580.

Host Casandra Grundstrom is joined by special guest Professor Jonny Holmström. Jonny is a professor of Information Systems at Umeå University, co-director, and co-founder of the Swedish Center for Digital Innovation (SCDI). He writes, consults, and speaks on topics such as digital innovation, digital transformation, and digital entrepreneurship. His work has appeared in journals such as Communications of the AIS, Design Issues, European Journal of Information Systems, Information and Organization, Information Systems Journal, Information Technology and People, Journal of the AIS, Journal of Information Technology, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, MIS Quarterly, Research Policy, and The Information Society. In this episode, we discuss the culture of IS, ranging from culture shocks in different IS environments, to publishing culture as evident in publishing practices, what we choose to study, and why we choose to study it. Ultimately reflecting on three pillars: research, teaching, and service.  Shoutout to these other great podcasts, check them out!This IS Research podcast with Jan Recker and Nick Berente10 Minutes IS paper podcast with Blair WangTalking about organizations podcastSIGPhil with Mijalche SantaEthnography Atelier with a network of organizers  (a great recent find!)References:Holmstrom, J. (2021). From AI to digital transformation: The AI readiness framework. Business Horizons. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2021.03.006Holmström, 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(1), 31. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.04831Lanamäki, A., Porra, J., & Hirschheim, R. (2017). A Call to Write the Nordic Information Systems Research Field History. Viewing the Scandinavian way through a career retrospectives lens. Scand. J. Inf. Syst., 29(1), 1.Lyytinen, K., Baskerville, R., Iivari, J., & Te'eni, D. (2007). Why the old world cannot publish? Overcoming challenges in publishing high-impact IS research. European Journal of Information Systems, 16(4), 317-326.Virtual Nordic ISS Seminar Consortium

As of 2015 the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT had awarded $548 million in grants to states to establish health information exchanges (HIE). I have no doubt hundreds of millions of dollars more have been invested in various ways since then. So, when faced with one of the most daunting healthcare data challenges of our time in the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, surely, we turned to the HIEs first. Right? Not so much, according to today's guest. Niam Yaraghi, assistant professor of Business Technology at Miami Herbert Business School at the University of Miami and a nonresident fellow at the Brookings Institution's Center for Technology Innovation, recently explored the use of HIEs in vaccination efforts across the country. He tells us that “While the U.S. employed every possible resource to develop the vaccines, we are neglecting to use the best available information technologies to efficiently distribute them”. In Yaraghi's recent article, co-authored with Brookings Institution colleague Peter Levin, they share that none of the state vaccination plans they reviewed made any mention of using HIEs to support the effort. Further, they found no correlation between a state's vaccination success and the existence of a robust HIE infrastructure in that state.   There are some efforts underway to change this, including ONC's $20 million investment to help increase data sharing between health information exchanges (HIEs) and immunization information systems. Still, the question remains: why aren't we using HIEs to their fullest potential to support the vaccine rollout? And why aren't we turning to the HIEs first whenever we need to move clinical data in general? On this episode, we explore those questions plus:   Five ways that health information exchange can help with vaccination efforts. How HIEs can change the conversation when it comes to revenue generation. The opportunity for HIEs to add value and transform data into information through analytics. How might HIEs play a role in reopening the economy? Will HIEs play a role in patient-mediated exchange? Why it's time for the industry to rethink its views on HIE and make them their first stop for interop. Plus, some novel API ideas for HIEs.   Niam Yaraghi Niam Yaraghi is an Assistant Professor of Business Technology at Miami Herbert Business School, and a non-resident Fellow in the Brookings Institution's Center for Technology Innovation. Niam's research is focused on the economics of health information technologies. In particular, Niam studies the business models and policy structures that incentivize interoperability and sharing of health information among patients, providers, payers and regulators. Niam's research has appeared in leading business journals including MIS Quarterly, Information Systems Research, and Production and Operations Management, as well as top-tier health policy and informatics journals including Journal of American Medical Informatics Association, and Milbank Quarterly. He regularly consults with various companies and platforms in the healthcare industry and is a sought-after expert and speaker on issues related to health information technology in media and at industry conferences. Niam has a B.Sc in Industrial Engineering from the Isfahan University of Technology in Iran, and a M.Sc from the Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden. He received his Ph.D. in Management Science & Systems from the State University of New York at Buffalo. Twitter: @niamyaraghi   HIE Links and Resources   The benefits of health information exchange platforms: Measuring the returns on a half a billion dollar investment Five ways that health information exchange can help with vaccination efforts Episode 140: Getting to Know eHealth Exchange – The Largest Health Information Network in the Country – Jay Nakashima Episode 129: What you need to Know About TEFCA Right Now w/ Mariann Yeager Episode 104: Why HIEs Will Lead the Way on Healthcare Quality Measurement w/ John D'Amore The Regional HIE Should be Your First Stop for Interop Plus 4 more #HCBiz Discussions with Niam Yaraghi   The #HCBiz Show! is produced by Glide Health IT, LLC in partnership with Netspective Media.

Host Casandra Grundstrom is joined by a special guest Eric Monteiro Professor at NTNU and Senior Editor of MISQ in this 2-part podcast episode. They discuss the past, present, and future of information systems as well as their thoughts on the boundaries of the discipline and what makes and shapes us. You will probably be interested in this podcast if you are an interdisciplinary academic, researcher, or expert part of or overlapping with the Information Systems discipline. Although this is the expected audience, listeners with varying degrees of experience will also be able to follow along and ‘digest' the more manageable pieces of an episode's focus. Welcome!References:1) Philosophy of Definitions from John Searle - https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/john-searle-s-philosophy-of-language-force-meaning-and-mind/2) Lee, A. (1999). Inaugural editor's comments. Mis Quarterly, v-xi.3) Hirschheim, R., & Klein, H. K. (2012). A glorious and not-so-short history of the information systems field. Journal of the association for information systems, 13(4), 5.

In the past, information systems (IS) captured and represented the lived (external) reality. Now, they are the lived reality. Baskerville R. L., Myers M. D., & Yoo Y. (2020), 'Digital First: The Ontological Reversal and New Challenges for Information Systems Research', MIS Quarterly, https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2020/14418

Information Technology (IT) is increasingly involved in societal change. Where does this happen, how does this happen, and what does this entail? Faik I., Barrett M., & Oborn E. (2020). ‘How Information Technology Matters in Societal Change: An Affordance-based Institutional Logics Perspective', MIS Quarterly, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 1359-1390, https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2020/14193 10 Minute I.S. Paper (TMISP) is the podcast where we cover Information Systems research papers, in brief. You can find out more about the podcast at www.tmisp.org and you can reach out to me, Blair Wang, at www.blair.wang Please note that TMISP is a personal project and not affiliated with any institution. – Music used in this podcast: ‘Inspired', ‘Deliberate Thought', and ‘Electrodoodle' by Kevin MacLeod. Link 1: https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/song/3918-inspired Link 2: https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/song/3635-deliberate-thought Link 3: https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/song/3707-electrodoodle License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ All TMISP podcasts are published under the Creative Commons Attribution No-Derivatives Australia (CC BY-ND 3.0 AU) license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/au/