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, https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2022.0494.

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, http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/whats-been-done-whats-been-found-and-what-it-means-19-april-2023/.

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. https://ishistory.aisnet.org/.

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 Jan vom Brocke, Shaila Miranda, and Jason Thatcher. 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.

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 Carolina Salge. 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 http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

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

As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

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

As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

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

As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

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

As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

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

As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

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

As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

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

As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

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

As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

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

As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

Behavioral research is alive and well ... online

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

Jason would like to thank all his students, colleagues, and collaborators for teaching him the lessons shared and for collaborating with him on the papers discussed in this podcast.  

References

Pienta, D., Vishwamitra, N., Somanchi, S., Berente, N., & Thatcher, J. B. (2024). Do Crowds Validate False Data? Systematic Distortion and Affective Polarization. MIS Quarterly, forthcoming.

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.

Mettler, T., & Sunyaev, A. (2023). Are We on the Right Track? An Update to Lyytinen et al.'s Commentary on Why the Old World Cannot Publish. European Journal of Information Systems, 32(2), 263-276.

Thatcher, J. B., Wright, R. T., Sun, H., Zagenczyk, T. J., & Klein, R. (2018). Mindfulness in Information Technology Use: Definitions, Distinctions, and a New Measure. MIS Quarterly, 42(3), 831-847.

Carter, M., Petter, S., Grover, V., & Thatcher, J. B. (2020). Information Technology Identity: A Key Determinant of IT Feature and Exploratory Usage. MIS Quarterly, 44(3), 983-1021.

Polites, G. L., Roberts, N., & Thatcher, J. B. (2012). Conceptualizing Models using Multidimensional Constructs: a Review and Guidelines for their Use. European Journal of Information Systems, 21(1), 22-48.

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.

Roth, P. L., Bobko, P., Guohou, S., Roth, R. W., Ferrise, E., & Thatcher, J. B. (2023). Doxing, Political Affiliation, and Type of Information: Effects on Suspicion, Perceived Similarity, and Hiring-Related Judgments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 109(5), 730-754.

Subbaraman, N. (2024). Flood of Fake Science Forces Multiple Journal Closures. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/science/academic-studies-research-paper-mills-journals-publishing-f5a3d4bc. 

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

As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

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

As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

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

As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/. 

Many people do service to their community but usually one thing at a time. Today we speak with someone who is not only president of our global association and co-chair of our main conference at the same time but also the editor-in-chief of one of our top journals, Information Systems Research.  Suprateek Sarker clearly cannot say no – he even agreed to talk with us on the podcast. We discuss the expanding scope of scholarship that he wants to see published in Information Systems Research, the different roles that editors must play, how the Association for Information Systems made our field truly global, and what wonderful things we can expect from ICIS2023 in Hyderabad, India.

 As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

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

As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

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

As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

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

As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

We continue our series of episodes in which we talk about several of the most important journals in our field. Today, we speak with Dorothy Leidner, editor-in-chief of the Journal of the Association for Information Systems. We talk about several innovations the journal has implemented and the range of genres that are welcome. We also talk about what makes truly great papers different and what distinguishes a literature review from a theoretical paper.

As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

We are starting a new series of episodes in which we talk about several of the most important journals in our field. We kick things off with Andrew Burton-Jones, the editor-in-chief of the MIS Quarterly. We talk about the history and the role of the journal in our field, what initiatives are underway to move the field forward, and of course what matters when you are trying to publish in this journal.

As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

The Association for Information Systems' College of Senior Scholars decided to expand their list of designated "premier journals" in our field from 8 to 11. What does this mean? How are these decisions being made? Who makes these decisions? We explore these questions with our good old friend Cathy Urquhart who has been a member of the task force that championed this decision. With her, we discuss politics in the information systems community, the governance of our community, and the question of how our journals and conferences could or should operate.

As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

Shaila Miranda 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. 

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

As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

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

As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

Teaching is done for many of us, we've had main our conference, our papers and revisions are submitted. What's left to do? Rewind, reflect, and celebrate the great work accomplished this year. And given that n = 2 equals a tradition, we dish out awards this year just like last year. This time, we celebrate the year's most trailblazing theories, the most innovative methods, the most timely case studies, and the best design research artifacts. Tune in and listen, make sure to read the great exemplar works, and follow us also in 2023 when we return.

As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

Researchers do not care about philosophy because it adds no value to their experiment. They just go out into the world and do their work. So say some if not many scientists, but Amir Haj-Bolouri disagrees. With him we discuss whether some questions of philosophy such as ontology and epistemology even matter to information systems research, which topics and questions lend themselves to philosophical reasoning, and whether we can disassociate philosophical ideas from the people that proposed them.

As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

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 Sunil Mithas, Ling Xue, Nina Huang, and Andrew Burton-Jones 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 http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

Can we theorize with the best scholars sociology has to offer? Perhaps we are not quite as bad with jargon monoxide as they are. We do pay more attention to technology than they do. On the other hand, our chase of new technology and our publish or perish paradigm are stopping us from even trying to do the big, timeless stuff. So if you are interested in our lengthy rant about jargon, social theory, institutions, sociomateriality and publishing, tune in and enjoy.

As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

Nick is annoyed with accepting cookies on websites and wonders if the transactional "notice and choice" approach really does anything to benefit the world. So what's the alternative? We asked the expert Kirsten Martin to join our podcast again and chat with us about this.  We ask whether there really is a "privacy paradox", how fields such as information systems, engineering, law, and ethics and others approach this topic, and whether we are paternalistic elitists or not. Then Kirsten unplugs Nick's Wi-Fi so he quits interrupting her…

As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

Did you know you have to search engine-optimize your papers? Makes sense now that you know it, doesn't it. We wish we would have known years ago. We sift through some of the most recent papers on how to write good papers and contrast them with our own experiences. Turns out we all wish we could change the title of our papers in hindsight.

As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

It's late at night. Only because Jan has been asked to talk about something he knows very little about so we asked someone at the other side of the planet for help – the wonderful Shirley Gregor. With her on the show, it is finally time to talk about design science, clichés and stereotypes. We wonder whether more people write about doing design science than actually do design science, how scholarly design research has to be, and why Izak Benbasat might be the most successful design scientist of all time.

As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

Journals are really all about their editors. So when journals are bad, it really means editors were bad. But what do we mean by that and what should editors do instead? Of course, as usual we have our own views. So tune in and listen as we share our stories of "the worst things an editor can do."

As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

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

As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

This IS research is back for its fourth season. We start off by discussing the journal space for information systems researchers. What are our top journals, what are differences between them and how should authors decide where to submit their work? Tune in to find out.

As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

Andrew van de Ven passed away but there are other scholars out there that push the idea of engaged scholarship further. One of these is Michael Rosemann from Australia. He joins us to share his thoughts about whether papers or researchers should be relevant, why impact can be an intrinsic motivation, and why our research artifacts should not only be valid and reliable but also beautiful.

As usual, the references to all readings we mention are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

We venture into unknown territories. We team up with our friends Alex and Philipp from the German podcast "Desk Reject: der PhD Cast", which comes out of the Vienna University of Economics and Business and is run by PhD students Sophie Quach, Dieter Gutschi, Philipp Benedikt Becker, and Alexander Staub. If you understand German – or aspire to learn it – you should follow their podcast. Together, we discuss what makes a great or a good PhD student, whether PhD students need to create a researcher identity for themselves, and how academics can deal with envy.

As usual, the references to all readings we mention are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

June is here and a new paper is out that argues that empirical patterns are publishable in our top journals. Really? Really. In this episode, Jan plays the interviewer and Nick is the interviewee in what is essentially a Q&A session about computationally intensive theory construction, which Nick argues will be a key part of the future of information systems research.

As usual, the references to all readings we mention are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

Our audiences may be full of jerks and we may fail all the time – but we still love being academics. Why is that? We feel it is time to talk about some of the good things we associate with this role in our society and why being an academic and spending your life in this profession might just be a truly wonderful thing after all.

As usual, the references to all readings we mention are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

Sometimes, we simply fail. Our hypotheses may not be supported. Our ability to access data might evaporate. We may fail to convince a review panel. We may not get that grant or that job position that we were after. How do we deal with such failure when it is so regular and eminent in our work? We are trying to figure that out and also try to find some words of wisdom to pass onto others. Thankfully, we have Lauri Wessel on the show to help us out. Together, we conclude that resilience is key but different people have different ways to build resilience.

As usual, the references to all readings we mention are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

Surprise! Youngjin Yoo is back on the show, our first repeat guest. But only because we continue our recent philosophy of making impromptu changes to our planned recordings. This time we end up talking about presenting research and handling questions from the audience. Jan suggests some jerkiness can be a good thing while Nick things we should all play nice.  And Youngjin? He suggests both is fine.

As usual, the references to all readings we mention are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

Jan is in Sweden and the audio quality is not great. Meanwhile, Nick is busy and he needs a dose of project management expertise. We discuss how we manage our time and our projects and how we engage in collaborations. After Recker's rules for humble-bragging failed to get much traction, we now give you the Berente rules for starting collaborations.

As usual, the references to all readings we mention are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

We wanted to talk about something else. But regardless, what matters is that we ended up here: what is positivism and interpretivism – and does that distinction even matter anymore to information systems research in the age of digital traces and computationally-intensive methods? And so this is how you end up with a debate about philosophy without any preparation whatsoever.

As usual, the references to all the articles we mention are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

Scholars read books. But to be able to read books, someone has to write them. And who does that anymore? We asked Jan Mendling, an information systems and computer science researcher who wrote several successful books, to tell us about the role of books, the value of books, the publishing of books – and how we can get more people like him to become involved in business-oriented information systems research.

As usual, the references to all the articles we mention are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

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

As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

This IS research is back for a new season and Jan and Nick are eager to run their mouth again. This time, they chat about how we as a community measure and communicate research outcomes and success. Have we created a culture where we pursue click-bait research to improve our standing on some self-created ranking lists that count our productivity but not our scholarly contributions? Also, Jan admits that he has learned something from Nick – for the first time.

As usual, the references to all the articles we mention are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

It is award season and it is time to celebrate the highlights of 2021. We decided to hand out two awards, the Trailblazing Research Award, and the Innovative Research Approach Award, to recognize brilliant work done by our colleagues in 2021. Find out who got nominated and who won the awards in this final episode of this podcast before we take a small break. Happy new year everybody!

In this episode, the intro and outro music were produced by Doctor Decade. As usual, the references to all the articles we mention are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

Jan and Nick are both fan boys of grounded theory so it is about time we talk to someone who knows more about it than we do. Thankfully, Cathy Urquhart agreed to join us. With her we talk about the procedures and outcomes of grounded theorizing, what sort of contributions we can build through this approach and whether IS scholars should build grand or substantive theories. But because Cathy has been around the block a long time, we also talk about our own community institutions and whether they need a reform. In short, we are being naughty.

As usual, the readings we refer to are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

We talk about the dominant research method in information systems, survey research. Can you believe that still one in five papers in our main journals are based on surveys? We think survey research is past its prime – or is it? We discuss what is so good and what is so difficult about it. We try to find a future in which survey is one key part of our method portfolio and how it can continue to stand as a cornerstone of our IS knowledge tradition.

As usual, the readings we refer to are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.