The Missing MIS Textbook

To Journal of IT Education

Explain why the field is missing a textbook.

What is the basis of a textbook. Find research on this

1) Intro – Textbooks are supposed to communicate a discipline’s subject matter and core
concepts, axioms or practical applications. MIS textbooks do not perform any of
these functions.
2) Evidence from other disciplines’ textbook research.
3) Research method: Content analysis of MIS textbooks to identify core concepts.
Compare these core concepts with classic MIS articles and show that concepts from
classic MIS articles do not match identified core concepts from textbooks
4) Show how MIS textbooks have changed from the 1970’s (perhaps another article)

Textbooks are produced in the aftermath of a scientific revolution (p. 144). They are the
bases for a new tradition of normal science.

Show that MIS authors admit there is a problem with theory in MIS, so if there is no
theory, how can there be textbooks? Body of knowledge thesis (BOK) as propose is
really an effort to develop the basis for a textbook. Study the items in the body of
knowledge – any theories in there?

List all the subject matters that IS authors suggest – show confusion
List subject matter proposed by industry
Show that current textbook do not reflect what is in subject matter
Or that the textbooks follow classic textbooks that were written in the 1980s – this is like
a biology textbook not discussing newer biological concepts of molecular biology, or a
physics textbook just including Newtonian physics and not discussing Einstein’s theories.

Traditional Classics
1. Ackoff, 1967.
2. Alter, 1980.
3. Anthony, 1965.
4. Benbasat and Dexter, 1979.
5. Benbasat and Schroeder, 1978.
6. Churchman, 1968.
7. Churchman, 1971.
8. Churchman and Schainblatt, 1965.
9. Dearden, 1972.
10. Dickson, Senn, and Chervany, 1977
11. Davis, G.B., 1974.
12. Gorry and Scott Morton, 1971.
13. Keen and Scott Morton, 1978
14. Kriebel, 1972.
15. Lucas, 1975.
16. Mason, 1969.
17. Mason and Mitroff, 1973.
18. Zmud, 1978.
19. Zmud, 1979.

New Classics
1. Churchman, 1971.
2. DeSanctis and Gallupe, 1987.
3. Ives, Olson, and Baroudi, 1983.
4. Ives and Olson, 1984.
5. Nunnally, 1967, 1978.
6. Porter, 1980.
7. Sprague and Carlson, 1982.
8. Thompson, 1967.
9. DeLone and McLean (1992)

The textbook is a collection of accepted theories and facts, things that are taken for
granted in the field, that no longer cause controversy. (Kuhn, p. 20) left to writers of
textbooks, so that the creative scientist can begin his research where it leaves off.

Highly Cited in addition to the classics (excluding references from other fields)
McFarlan 1984
Etc

Mingers, J. and F. Stowell (eds.) (1997) Information Systems: An Emerging

Discipline?, London: McGraw-Hill.

Checkland, P. and S. Holwell (1998) Information, Systems and Information

Systems: Making Sense of the Field. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Dickson, G. (1968) "Management Information-Decision Systems," Business

Horizons (11) 6, pp. 17-26.

Dickson, G. W. (1981) “Management Information Systems: Evolution and

Status,” in M. C. Yovits (Ed.) Advances in Computers, New York: Academic
Press, pp. 1-37.

Galliers, R. D. (2003) "Change as Crisis or Growth? Toward a Trans-Disciplinary

View of Information Systems as a Field of Study: A Response to Benbasat and
Zmud's Call for Returning to the IT Artifact," Journal of the AIS (4) 6, pp. 337-
351.
Gray, P. (2003) "Introduction to the Debate on the Core of the Information
Systems Field," Communications of the AIS (12) 42.

Hirschheim, R. A. and H. K. Klein (2003) "Crisis in the IS Field? A Critical Reflection

on the State of the Discipline," Journal of the AIS (4) 5, pp. 237-293.
Karahanna, E., G. B. Davis, T. Mukhopadhyay, B. O'Keefe et al. (2002) “Information
Systems's Voyage to Self-Discovery: Is the First Stage the Development of a
Theory?” International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), Barcelona,
Spain, 2002.

Kennevan, W. J. (1970) "MIS Universe," Journal of Data Management (8) 9, pp. 62-64.

Khazanchi, D. and B. E. Munkvold (2000) "Is Information Systems a Science? An

Inquiry into the Nature of the Information Systems Discipline," The Database for
Advances in Information Systems (31) 3.

Stern, H. (1970) "Management Information System - What It Is and Why,"

Management Science (17) 2, pp. 119-123.

Kling, R. and W. Scacchi (1982) “The Web of Computing: Computer

Organizations as Social Organization,” in Advances in Computers, New York,
NY: Academic Press, pp. 21.

Let Us Not Throw Out The Baby With The Bath

Water: Information, Systems, And Technology
All Matter In The Core Is Course

CAIS Debate
Dufner, D. (2004) "The IS Core-I: Economic and Systems Engineering
Approaches to IS Identity," Journal of the AIS (12).

Power, D. J. (2003) "The IS Core-Ii: The Maturing IS Discipline: Institutionalizing

Our Domain of Inquiry," Journal of the AIS (12).

Hershey, G. L. (2003) "A Different Focus and Content for the Core Information
Systems Course for Business School Majors," Journal of the AIS (12).

Carvalho, J. Á. (2000) “Information System? Which One Do You Mean?,” in E. D.

Falkenberg, K. Lyytinen, and A. A. Verrijn-Stuart (Eds.) Information Systems
Concepts: An Integrated Discipline Emerging (Proceedings of the Isco 4
Conference, Leiden, Holanda, 20 - 22 September 1999), Boston: Kluwer
Academic Publishers, pp. 259-280.

Iivari, J. (2003) "The IS Core – VII: Towards Information Systems as a Science of

Meta-Artifacts," Journal of the AIS (12).
Myers, M. D. (2003) "The IS Core – VIII: Defining the Core Properties of the IS
Disciplines: Not Yet, Not Now," Journal of the AIS (12).

El Sawy, O. (2003) "The IS Core IX: The 3 Faces of IS Identity: Connection,

Immersion, and Fusion," Journal of the AIS (12).
Holland, C. P. (2003) "The IS Core - X: Information Systems Research and
Practice: IT Artifact or a Multidisciplinary Subject?," Journal of the AIS (12).

Alter, S. (2003) "The IS Core – XI: Sorting Out the Issues About the Core, Scope,
and Identity of the IS Field," Journal of the AIS (12).

Westland, J. C. (2004) "The IS Core XII: Authority, Dogma, and Positive Science
in Information Systems Research," Journal of the AIS (13).

Bacon, C. J. and B. Fitzgerald (2001) "A systemic framework for the field of
information systems," Data Base (32) 2, pp. 46-63.

Table of Meanings/Definitions of Information Systems

Introduction
One of the signs of a discipline’s progress is its ability to describe the foundation
for its practice to its members in its textbooks. The subject matter of the discipline is
described by scholars in textbooks which as Kuhn notes “expound the body of accepted
theory, illustrate many or all of its successful applications” {Kuhn, 1970 #3400, p. 10}.
Textbooks also play a crucial communicational role for disciplines by describing to other
disciplines and stakeholders its body of knowledge. The goal of this research is to
empirically show that the field of information systems (IS) is lacking a textbook that
fulfills these two functions and that the IS field needs to reexamine its educational and
communicational tools. One result of the IS field not clearly communicating its body of
knowledge to stakeholders is the omission of references to IS and IT from the curricular
guidelines of the 2002 draft of the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of
Business (AACSB) accreditation standards. The revised accreditation standards require
colleges of business to clearly define their learning goals, critical skills, and knowledge
taught [AACSB, 2004]. Part of the reason why references to IS and IT were left out from
the curricular guidelines was because the field was unable to clearly define and
communicate its own learning goals, critical skills, and knowledge within its existing
textbooks [Ives et al., 2002].

Textbooks and the Subject Matter of a Discipline

Throughout the history of any discipline, the primary function of communicating
the discipline’s body of knowledge is performed by its textbooks. These classic texts
clearly define the subject matter being studied and the core concepts. For example, in its
early textbooks, biology as a discipline is clearly defined as the study of life {Cuvier,
1800-1805 #2282}{Burdach, 1838 #3433}. During its early development, economics as
a discipline was defined as the study of value and wealth, of human needs and wants and
how they can be satisfied {Steuart, 1767 #2376}{Smith, 1776 #2372}. Even a vastly
diverse discipline like physics has its subject matter, albeit in various forms, but they all
refer to the same kind of objects. For example, during its early development, physics is
described as the study of forces in and rules of nature {Newton, 1687 #3430}. As it
progressed, it became the study of different forms of energy and the physical changes
which they produce {Planck, 1925 #3431}, and the study of matter and energy {Einstein,
1938 #3432}. All of these different objects of study constitute the discipline of physics.
The natural sciences are not the only disciplines that expound their principles in
their classic textbooks. The earliest textbooks in the social sciences included textbooks
on psychology {James, 1890 #3409}, sociology {Durkheim, 1895 #3446} and political
science {Locke, 1773 #3447}. As the disciplines evolved, these classic texts are refined
and consolidated into standard college textbooks such as Gray’s Anatomy {, 1989
#3434}, or introductory textbooks such as Hilgard’s Introduction to Psychology
{Hilgard, 1953 #3458}{Atkinson, 1999 #3457}, Campbell’s Biology {Campbell, 1990
#3437}, Samuelson’s Economics {Samuelson, 1976 #3435} and Koontz’s Management
{Koontz, 1980 #3436}. Each of these introductory textbooks distinguishes the discipline
and communicates to other disciplines their area of expertise.
In the discipline of psychology, the most

Textbooks in the IS Subject Matter

One of the earliest references to IS was made by Leavitt and Whisler {, 1958
#2947} when they defined a new kind of “intellectual technology” as “information
technology”, and described how this new technology was going to cause major
sociological, political, and cultural changes to management and organizations. This new
concern about the impact of information technology, a technology differentiated from
“machine technology” of the industrial revolution, later gave birth to the new field of IS.
However, since that inception, IS has struggled in defining its subject matter. Dickson {,
1981 #2403} when assessing the evolution and status of “MIS thought” and the “MIS
concept” lists several possible definitions including (1) IS as an activity or a process, “all
informational and decision-making activity associated with operating an organization” (p.
4), (2) IS as a method, “an organized method of providing past, present, and projection
information relating to internal operations and external intelligence. It supports the
planning, control, and operational functions of an organization by furnishing uniform
information in the proper time-frame to assist the decision-making process {Kennevan,
1970 #2910, p. 21}, and (3) IS as a product, as “an integrated, man/machine system for
providing information to support decision-making functions in an organization. The
system utilizes computer hardware and software, manual procedures, management and
decision models, and a data base {Davis, 1974 #3392, p. 5}. Other definitions follow a
similar direction by either defining IS as a product or a process. For example, Stern
defines MIS as a product by stating that it is “an automated system which presents to the
manager information, both internal and external to the business that aids him in making a
specific set of routine business decisions” {Stern, 1970 #3155, p. B-123}, whereas
Checkland and Holwell says that IS is a process by defining IS as “the orderly provision
of data and information within an organization using IT” {, 1998 #2273, p. 39}.
More recently, Lee {, 1999 #2423} in reexamining IS research emphasizes that
MIS should be seen as more than just information technology, a product, but is (1) an
instantiation of information technology, (2) is both an information system and its
organizational context, (3) an intellectual technology, and (4) involves the activities of a
profession or corporate context. Markus {, 1999 #2433} also tried to expand the reach of
the IS field by noting that because of the rapidly changing technology and business
environment, IS as defined within the organizational decision-making context can no
longer be supported, and that IS must define itself beyond the borders of the organization
and consider other customers besides its internal users. Equally important, within this
rapidly changing environment, is the need to combine the idea of IS as both product and
process by combining the goals of effective decision-making with the goal of designing
an effective IT infrastructure.
Various frameworks were developed to combine the product, the process and the
business environment, which resulted in defining the subject matter of IS in different
ways. For example, Mason and Mitroff {, 1973 #2984}characterize the subject matter of
IS to be the psychological type (of the user), class of problems to be solved,
organizational context, method of evidence generation and guarantor of evidence, and
mode of presentation of the output. Ives et al. {, 1980 #2877} define the IS subject
matter as five environments (external, organization, user, IS development and IS
operations), three processes (user, IS development and IS operations), and a product, an
information subsystem. Lyytinen {, 1987 #2428} divides the field into nine components:
the information system itself, IS operations environment, IS development environment,
user environment, organizational environment, external environment, use process,
development process, and operations process. Swanson and Ramiller {, 1993 #3168}
used submissions to IS journals to describe the subject matter of IS in terms of the broad
areas of computer-supported cooperative work, information and interface, decision
support and knowledge-based systems, systems projects, evaluation and control, users,
economics and strategy, impact, and IS research. Keen {, 1987 #3448} categorized the
subject matter of IS in terms of the problem areas experienced by each historical period.
For example, in the early 1970s the focus of IS was on “managing systems development,
design methodologies, economics and computers.” In the mid 1970s the focus changed to
“decision support, managing organizational change, and implementation.” In the early
1980s the focus was on “productivity tools, data base management, personal computing,
organizational impacts of technology, and office technology.” And in the mid 1980s, it
changed to “telecommunications, competitive implications of information technology,
expert systems, impact of IT on the nature of work (pg.1).” The next section will
compare the subject matter proposed by all these authors of IS with early and current
textbooks that purport to introduce IS to business school students.

IS Body of Knowledge
Hirschheim and Klein {, 2003 #2857} proposed that the best way to address both
the external and internal crises facing the IS field is by improving the communication
within the field and outside the field using a “living core body of knowledge.” Following
the spirit of this proposal, Table 1 displays a list of objects of study or subject matter
proposed by IS authors and the chapters in current MIS textbooks that discuss or address
that body of knowledge.

Body of Knowledge IS Author and Description Textbook Chapter

Reference
User psychological Mason & Mitroff Jungian Typology
type/decision Maker
attributes Chervany, Dickson
& Kozar
Mock
Problem/task type Mason & Mitroff
Decision structure Gorry & Scott
Morton
General Mason & Mitroff
Organizational Chervany, Dickson
Context/Decision & Kozar
Environment/ Lucas
Management/User Mock
Environment Gorry & Scott
Morton
Ives et al.
External Mock
Organizational
Context
Internal Mock
Organizational
Context
Development Ives et al.
Environment
Method of evidence Mason & Mitroff
generation/models
Presentation Mason & Mitroff
mode/IS Chervany, Dickson
Characteristics & Kozar
Information Mock
structure
System Use Lucas
Organization Lucas
Performance Mock
Situational factors Lucas
IS Department Lucas
policies and
attitudes
User Environment Lucas
User Ives et al.
attitudes/perceptions
User
analysis/actions
Personal factors

Table 1: IS Field's Body of Knowledge and Textbooks