THE IDENTITY CRISIS WITHIN THE IS
DISCIPLINE: DEFINING AND COMMUNICATING
THE DISCIPLINE’S CORE PROPERTIES
Benbasat & Zmud
The information systems (IS) field was incepted in the 1970s. Since then, organizations that are
part of the field have strived to reach a common identity. 30 years later, Benbasat & Zmud
conclude that there is still not enough progress in doing so. In fact, recent events have led to
even more questioning as to whether a distinct IS field is necessary.
In the view of the authors, the IS field concerns the study of information technology as a
business solution and its immediate antecedents and consequences. Currently, however, the
authors see that much related to the field is underresearched, and much not related is
overresearched, and discuss why a core identity is important.
The Need for Establishing an Organizational Identity for IS
An organizational identity must satisfy three characteristics. First, it must have a central
character. Also, it must be distinct enough. Finally, it must be temporally continuous. I.e., in the
context of IS, it must have a central core, it must be distinct from its reference disciplines - such
as computer science, software engineering and organization studies - and there must be
continuous work effort (i.e., a cumulative tradition).
Benbasat & Zmud believe that the only way that the IS discipline can signal its boundaries is
through the work that is produced within the discipline.
The IS discipline is relatively new. Therefore, it is discussed that scholars working within the
discipline face a set of problems before a discipline can mature. The first one is classified as a
learning issue, and means that there are not enough methodologies and practices for a
discipline to be distinct enough. Since its initiation, much work has been done in this area. Still,
there is no ‘dominant design’ in terms of methodologies/practices. This leads inherently to the
second type of issues.
The second one can be classified as l egitimacy issues , and sub classified in c ognitive and
sociopolitical legitimacy. Such issues emerge when parts of the environment (in this case,
reference disciplines, or high-level business executives) do not recognize the discipline as being
distinct. Having cognitive legitimacy means that the discipline blends into the environment
easily; that it is taken for granted. Sociopolitical legitimacy means that a discipline is accepted
DISCIPLINE: DEFINING AND COMMUNICATING
THE DISCIPLINE’S CORE PROPERTIES
Benbasat & Zmud
The information systems (IS) field was incepted in the 1970s. Since then, organizations that are
part of the field have strived to reach a common identity. 30 years later, Benbasat & Zmud
conclude that there is still not enough progress in doing so. In fact, recent events have led to
even more questioning as to whether a distinct IS field is necessary.
In the view of the authors, the IS field concerns the study of information technology as a
business solution and its immediate antecedents and consequences. Currently, however, the
authors see that much related to the field is underresearched, and much not related is
overresearched, and discuss why a core identity is important.
The Need for Establishing an Organizational Identity for IS
An organizational identity must satisfy three characteristics. First, it must have a central
character. Also, it must be distinct enough. Finally, it must be temporally continuous. I.e., in the
context of IS, it must have a central core, it must be distinct from its reference disciplines - such
as computer science, software engineering and organization studies - and there must be
continuous work effort (i.e., a cumulative tradition).
Benbasat & Zmud believe that the only way that the IS discipline can signal its boundaries is
through the work that is produced within the discipline.
The IS discipline is relatively new. Therefore, it is discussed that scholars working within the
discipline face a set of problems before a discipline can mature. The first one is classified as a
learning issue, and means that there are not enough methodologies and practices for a
discipline to be distinct enough. Since its initiation, much work has been done in this area. Still,
there is no ‘dominant design’ in terms of methodologies/practices. This leads inherently to the
second type of issues.
The second one can be classified as l egitimacy issues , and sub classified in c ognitive and
sociopolitical legitimacy. Such issues emerge when parts of the environment (in this case,
reference disciplines, or high-level business executives) do not recognize the discipline as being
distinct. Having cognitive legitimacy means that the discipline blends into the environment
easily; that it is taken for granted. Sociopolitical legitimacy means that a discipline is accepted
