research paper about information systems

Information Systems Research

Relevant Theory and Informed Practice

• © 2004
• Bonnie Kaplan 0 ,
• Duane P. Truex 1 ,
• David Wastell 2 ,
• A. Trevor Wood-Harper 3 ,
• Janice I. DeGross 4

Yale University, USA

You can also search for this editor in PubMed   Google Scholar

Florida International University, USA Georgia State University, USA

University of Manchester, UK

University of Manchester, UK University of South Australia, Australia

University of Minnesota, USA

Part of the book series: IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology (IFIPAICT, volume 143)

122k Accesses

410 Citations

54 Altmetric

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this book

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Other ways to access

Licence this eBook for your library

Institutional subscriptions

About this book

Similar content being viewed by others.

Retrospect and prospect: information systems research in the last and next 25 years

Introduction

Introduction: Why Theory? (Mis)Understanding the Context and Rationale

• Enterprise Resource Planning
• development
• e-government
• information processing
• information system
• information technology
• linear optimization
• organization
• service-oriented computing

Table of contents (51 chapters)

Front matter, young turks, old guardsmen, and the conundrum of the broken mold: a progress report on twenty years of information systems research.

• Bonnie Kaplan, Duane P. Truex III, David Wastell, A. Trevor Wood-Harper

Doctor of Philosophy, Heal Thyself

• Allen S. Lee

Information Systems in Organizations and Society: Speculating on the Next 25 Years of Research

• Steve Sawyer, Kevin Crowston

Information Systems Research as Design: Identity, Process, and Narrative

• Richard J. Boland Jr., Kalle Lyytinen

Reflections on the IS Discipline

Information systems— a cyborg discipline.

• Magnus Ramage

Cores and Definitions: Building the Cognitive Legitimacy of the Information Systems Discipline Across the Atlantic

• Frantz Rowe, Duane P. Truex III, Lynette Kvasny

Truth, Journals, and Politics: The Case of the MIS Quarterly

• Lucas Introna, Louise Whittaker

Debatable Advice and Inconsistent Evidence: Methodology in Information Systems Research

• Matthew R. Jones

The Crisis of Relevance and the Relevance of Crisis: Renegotiating Critique in Information Systems Scholarship

• Teresa Marcon, Mike Chiasson, Abhijit Gopal

Whatever Happened to Information Systems Ethics?

• Frances Bell, Alison Adam

Supporting Engineering of Information Systems in Emergent Organizations

• Sandeep Purao, Duane P. Truex III

Critical Interpretive Studies

The choice of critical information systems research.

• Debra Howcroft, Eileen M. Trauth

The Research Approach and Methodology Used in an Interpretive Study of a Web Information System: Contextualizing Practice

• Anita Greenhill

Applying Habermas’ Validity Claims as a Standard for Critical Discourse Analysis

• Wendy Cukier, Robert Bauer, Catherine Middleton

Conducting Critical Research in Information Systems: Can Actor-Network Theory Help?

Conducting and evaluating critical interpretive research: examining criteria as a key component in building a research tradition.

• Marlei Pozzebon

Editors and Affiliations

Bonnie Kaplan

Florida International University, USA

Duane P. Truex

Georgia State University, USA

David Wastell, A. Trevor Wood-Harper

University of South Australia, Australia

A. Trevor Wood-Harper

Janice I. DeGross

Bibliographic Information

Book Title : Information Systems Research

Book Subtitle : Relevant Theory and Informed Practice

Editors : Bonnie Kaplan, Duane P. Truex, David Wastell, A. Trevor Wood-Harper, Janice I. DeGross

Series Title : IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/b115738

Publisher : Springer New York, NY

eBook Packages : Springer Book Archive

Copyright Information : IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2004

Hardcover ISBN : 978-1-4020-8094-4 Published: 30 June 2004

Softcover ISBN : 978-1-4419-5474-9 Published: 08 December 2010

eBook ISBN : 978-1-4020-8095-1 Published: 11 April 2006

Series ISSN : 1868-4238

Series E-ISSN : 1868-422X

Edition Number : 1

Number of Pages : XXIV, 744

Topics : Business Mathematics , Management of Computing and Information Systems , IT in Business , Business and Management, general , Management , Mechanical Engineering

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Viewpoint: Information systems research strategy

This article 1 , 2 has two aligned aims: (i) to espouse the value of a strategic research orientation for the Information Systems Discipline; and (ii) to facilitate such a strategic orientation by recognising the value of programmatic research and promoting the publication of such work. It commences from the viewpoint that Information Systems (IS) research benefits from being strategic at every level, from individual researcher, to research program, to research discipline and beyond. It particularly advocates for more coordinated programs of research emphasising real-world impact, while recognising that vibrant, individual-driven and small-team research within broad areas of promise, is expected to continue forming the core of the IS research ecosystem. Thus, the overarching aim is the amplification of strategic thinking in IS research – the further leveraging of an orientation natural to the JSIS community, with emphasis on research programs as a main strategic lever, and further considering how JSIS can be instrumental in this aim.

Introduction

This article is motivated by the viewpoint that Information Systems (IS) research (and all research) benefits from being strategic 3 at every level, from individual researcher, to research program, to research discipline and beyond. 4 I first argue the merits of a strategy orientation on the Information Systems discipline (the discipline level) and introduce “IS discipline (ISd) strategy” as a new theme of Strategic Information Systems (SIS) research. My focus is more specifically on ISd research strategy. An important mechanism of ISd research strategy is research programs (the program level). There are strong motivations for research to become more programmatic. Programmatic research (defined in Section ‘(E) ISd-Research Strategic Programs’) is necessarily strategic, entailing larger and longer-term investment and risk, and concomitantly, increased oversight and direction. For scope reasons, I do not focus on the potential value from individuals being strategic in their research activity (the individual level), an important topic warranting separate attention. It is hoped the discussion herein will engender a longer-term and more strategic view of IS research activity, perhaps promoting coalitions, engagement and impact.

The viewpoint proceeds as follows. I next present background to the challenges currently faced by disciplines and briefly explore their contemporary strategic context. I then introduce the notion of Information Systems discipline (ISd) research strategy, identifying five valuable levers or strategy mechanisms: A) strategy theory and its intersection with the nature of the discipline; B) strategic governance; C) strategic methods; D) strategic foci; and E) strategic programs. Having argued the value of adopting a strategy lens on ISd-research, in part four I consider possible paper submissions to JSIS and elsewhere that address any of the five ISd research strategy mechanisms, with an emphasis on strategic programs. The viewpoint concludes with discussion on contributions, limitations and future directions.

Like all disciplines, ISd faces many challenges. Changes in the Higher Education sector worldwide “ have meant a growth in the strength and number of forces acting on academic cultures ” ( Becher & Trowler, 2001, p. xiii ). In recent decades, the way in which knowledge is produced has been changing ( Gibbons et al., 1994 ) and these changes are impacting ISd. Gibbons et al. describe two modes of knowledge production: “ By contrast with traditional knowledge, which we will call Mode 1, generated within a disciplinary, primarily cognitive, context, Mode 2 knowledge is created in broader, transdisciplinary social and economic contexts .” (p.2) Manathunga and Brew (2012, p. 45) contrast Mode 1 as “ a situation where knowledge was principally defined within universities by academics within well-defined disciplinary domains ” with Mode 2 in which “ governments intervene in dictating research agendas through, for example, their funding and evaluation mechanisms requiring researchers to focus on short-term clearly defined project outcomes that have economic benefits ”, “ there is critical questioning by an informed public of the practical and ethical implications of particular discoveries and programmes ” [i] , and there are “ new triple helix linkages between universities, the state and industry ”.

In parts of the world, the shift towards Mode 2 knowledge production has been long-standing ( Trowler, 2012 ). Funding agencies such as governments are playing an important role in this shift, using drivers such as performance-based research funding systems (e.g. ERA in Australia and REF in the UK), funding models that encourage researchers to partner with industry and to achieve commercial outcomes (e.g., co-operative research centres and centres of excellence) and that emphasise research aimed at defined regional and national objectives ( Turpin & Garrett-Jones, 2000 ). While this shift has been less pronounced and less orchestrated in the U.S. and places where universities are comparatively more autonomous and less reliant on government funding ( Lepori et al., 2019 ), it is happening, and has the potential to mushroom as the world transitions to a new state post-COVID-19 5 .

The Information Systems discipline has from its inception needed to adapt rapidly to changing technologies and environments. Merali et al. (2012) consider that the discipline’s “ adaptive characteristics” and “the coexistence of stability (and relatively smooth evolution) at the meta-level with diversity and churn at lower levels suggest the kind of ambidexterity” that will allow “the co-existence of both ‘Mode 1’ research emphasising the creation of a rigorous body of knowledge and establishment of identity of the field and its researchers in academia, and ‘Mode 2’ research having a trans-disciplinary character, working across boundaries with heterogeneous stakeholders and real world problems” (p. 131).

Accelerating social and technological change ( Krishnan, 2009 ) and the de-professionalization of academia have also been impacting disciplines. De-professionalization is evidenced by the number of academics in non-tenured positions ( Mazurek, 2012 ) 6 ; by the “ the multiplicity of managerial responsibilities” being added to the workload of academics ( i.e. additional “ responsibility without power”) ( Demailly & de la Broise, 2009 ); and by “ requirements to meet externally imposed performance criteria” and “ demands to demonstrate the relevance of their work in relation to new institutional mission statements ” ( Beck & Young, 2005, p. 184 ). In 2016 with colleagues, I wrote ( Gable et al., 2016, p. 693 ), “ The challenge today is from de-professionalization, a challenge facing all academic disciplines to varying degrees. We sense a growing tension between the disciplines and institutions that seek increased allegiance from individuals in the face of increasingly demanding organizational KPIs and new directions. That strong institutional pull demands that disciplines better communicate their value proposition and reconsider opportunities for reinforcing and strengthening the values, beliefs, and codes that have underpinned IS research. This is a complex, recent, and potent development demanding further research scrutiny .” [ii]

Articles discussing the state of the Information Systems discipline are many and varied and opinions often conflict. One key debate has centered on what forms the core and scope of IS. This debate generated a series of eleven articles published in the Communications of the Association for Information Systems (CAIS) in 2003 (e.g. Alter, 2003 , Myers, 2003 ) and continues today (e.g. Petter et al., 2018 ). Another debate concerns the nature of the IS discipline; this debate is exemplified by the eight articles in CAIS in 2018 that debated whether information systems is a science (e.g. Dennis et al., 2018 , McBride, 2018 ). These are important debates, as the degree of convergence of a discipline can have political implications. “ Convergent communities are favourably placed to advance their collective interests since they know what their collective interests are, and enjoy a clear sense of unity in promoting them ” ( Becher 1989, p.160 ).

The IS discipline too is varied worldwide. From our 2006 multi-country case study of the state of the IS discipline in Pacific-Asia ( Gable, 2007 ) we observed many differences; for example, there were stark differences in levels of engagement with practice across countries surveyed. That study's theoretical framework ( Ridley, 2006 ) was partly guided by Whitley’s Theory of Scientific Change (1984a) . Scientific fields are seen as “ reputational systems of work organization and control ” ( Whitley, 1984b, p.776 ) and Whitley proposes that there is an inverse relationship between the impact of local contingencies and a discipline’s degree of professionalism and maturity. With reference to Taiwan and Singapore I wrote “ These two cases alone – where local contingencies have much influence on IS in universities, yet where IS in the universities is strong and of high status - suggest a need to revisit the theory, and cast doubt on the theoretical proposition that a mature discipline should be uniform internationally, and relatively uninfluenced by local contingencies ” ( Gable, 2007, p. 17 ).

Many disciplines have questioned whether they will continue existing, for example Sociology ( McLaughlin, 2005 ), Accounting ( Fogarty and Markarian, 2007 ), and Strategic Management ( Jarzabkowski and Whittington, 2008 ). Less apocalyptic prognosticators have over the years suggested various ways of responding and strengthening their discipline (e.g. Keith, 2000 , Kitchin and Sidaway, 2006 , Somero, 2000 , van Gigch, 1989 ). IS researchers have made several recommendations. Thatcher et al. (2018, p. 191) propose three: “ (1) adopt an entrepreneurial model of scholarship, (2) engage with practice, and (3) double down on the intertwining of the social context and IT” . Hirschheim and Klein (2012, p. 193) suggest there is a need for “ continuous effort to define and redefine IS to reflect the evolving boundaries of the field ”. Other prominent researchers have suggested there is value in re-examining current methods and understandings, for example Gregor (2018, p. 114) suggests “ there should be ongoing questioning of our epistemological foundations” . Nunamaker et al. (2017, p. 335) believe that how we conduct research can make a difference and that “ IS researchers can produce higher-impact contributions by developing long-term research programs around major real-world issues, as opposed to ad hoc projects addressing a small piece of a large problem ” [iii] . Perhaps the challenges disciplines have been facing will pale in comparison to new challenges that emerge post-COVID-19, or perhaps COVID-19 will in the main, exacerbate existing forces. 7

In summary, ISd is amidst major change due to accelerating social and technological change, de-professionalization, the inexorable shift towards Mode 2 knowledge production, and COVID-19. A variety of responses has been proposed, all of which imply value from a longer-term strategic orientation and closer proximity to practice.

Information Systems Discipline (ISd) Research Strategy

Through an archival analysis of 316 Journal of Strategic Information Systems (JSIS) research papers, from the journal’s inception through to the end 2009 ( Gable, 2010 ), I discerned a high-level three category classification of Strategic IS (SIS) research: (i) IS for strategic decision making, (ii) Strategic use of IS, and (iii) Strategies for IS issues. As implied in the preceding section, disciplines are facing challenges and discipline-level strategizing is warranted. Herein I propose a fourth category of SIS research; namely, (iv) IS Discipline Strategy. Fig. 1 depicts the relationship between these four nodes or research themes and SIS (wherein SIS is represented as one of several top-level domains of IS research). It is notable that the primary referent or focal phenomenon in (i) and (ii) is the “information system”. In (iii), the primary referent is “IS management” or the “IS function” (whether a formal or informal function; whether central or diffuse). With the addition of (iv) the fourth theme of SIS, I introduce a further primary referent, this time the “IS discipline” (ISd). Of course ISd, like other entities, may also benefit from IS for strategic decision making, strategic use of IS (e.g. the Association for Information Systems (AIS) web presence) and strategies for IS issues (e.g. information management of the AIS eLibrary), thus research in the original three categories may have direct or analogous relevance for ISd as well.

A Strategic Information Systems (SIS) Research Taxonomy (adapted from Gable, 2010 ).

While proactive IS discipline strategizing [iv] may initially seem insular or self-serving and perhaps counter to the general conception of academe as open, collegial and cooperative, I nonetheless believe that many disciplines as traditionally constituted are under some threat and there is value in being proactive rather than passive in responding. All disciplines will benefit from pertinent reflection and positioning (many envisaged findings regarding ISd would have direct, parallel relevance and value in other disciplines).

It is important to note that representing ISd Strategy in Fig. 1 as a fourth theme exaggerates its pertinence in SIS research. This amplification of prominence serves the purposes of this article, the main of which is to promote attention to strategy in IS research. Many alternative classifications of SIS research are possible, and while the suggested four categories of SIS research are not entirely mutually exclusive, nor strictly at the same level of abstraction, they are useful (perhaps a taxonomy rather than a classification).

With reference to Fig. 1 , it is useful to attempt a single overarching research question that captures much of the research represented by each node of such a hierarchy; questions at higher levels being inherently broad, becoming more specific at lower levels (each node can be expanded into a set of underpinning sub-nodes and research questions; such a detailed research agenda was outside scope). The question being asked at the new fourth SIS node is “What is the ISd Vision and how should ISd strategize?” (Recognising that the vision today will likely be much different from 10 or even five years ago). Referring back to the original three categories (themes in Fig. 1 ) identified in ( Gable, 2010 ), in retrospect I suggest the following questions: (i) IS for Strategic Decision Making – How can IS support strategic decision making? (ii) Strategic Use of IS - How can IS be used strategically? (iii) Strategies for IS Issues - What strategies support the IS management/function? (While it is difficult to divine a sufficiently broad yet adequately focused question at the highest SIS node, I suggest “How can IS be strategic? (where IS = Information Systems, IS function, IS discipline).

While much of the discussion herein has relevance to ISd broadly, the focus of this article is on ISd-Research strategy, which is differentiated in Fig. 2 as a sub-theme of ISd strategy (other possible sub-themes might be, for example, Teaching & Learning and Professional Service – in Australia many universities evaluate academic performance in these three areas). Following I argue the relevance of five mechanisms of ISd-Research Strategy: (A) ISd-Research Strategy Theory, (B) ISd-Research Strategic Governance, (C) ISd-Research Strategic Methods, (D) ISd-Research Strategic Foci, and (E) ISd-Research Strategic Programs. The dictionary definition of mechanism serves our purposes here; “ An Instrument or process, physical or mental, by which something is done or comes into being ” ( The Free Dictionary by Farlex ). A definition more specific to this article might be “a means of being strategic”. Thus, ISd research is strategically facilitated through these mechanisms. The five mechanisms in Fig. 2 can usefully be considered as pertaining to ISd-Research Strategy practices: (A) how we define ourselves (as a discipline), (B) how we govern (as a discipline), (C) what we do (as a discipline), (D) how we do it (as a discipline), and (E) how we organise (as a discipline). I next discuss each of these five mechanisms (A) through (E) in turn, thereby also further explicating Fig. 2 .

Information Systems Discipline (ISd) Research Strategy: a Research Taxonomy.

(A) ISd-Research Strategy Theory

There is merit in exploring relevant research strategy theory for ISd. The IS discipline can influence perceptions, conceptions and directions of IS research through theorising IS research strategy. While parallels may exist between disciplines and other entities that have been the focus of past strategy research (e.g., commercial enterprises), disciplines, and ISd more specifically, have distinctions of strategic consequence. There is thus value in critically revisiting extant strategy theory with a view to its relevance in this context. 8

In a seminal work on strategy, Mintzberg (1987) presented and discussed several interrelated definitions of strategy: a plan (a consciously intended course of action), a pattern (consistency in behaviour, whether or not intended), a position (locating the organization in the environment), and a perspective (individuals linked by common thinking and behaviour). Mintzberg particularly emphasised the significance of collective perception and action in any strategy, stating “ strategy is not just a notion of how to deal with an enemy or a set of competitors or a market … It also draws us into some of the most fundamental issues about organizations as instruments for collective perception and action ”. Thus, the process of ISd-research strategizing offers value irrespective of the outputs.

The literature on strategy as practice might also aid our understanding. Peppard et al. (2014, p.1) suggest “ In addressing strategy as practice, the focus of research is on strategy praxis, strategy practitioners and strategy practices […] – the work, workers and tools of strategy in other words .” Strategy as practice takes the view that “ we must focus on the actual practices that constitute strategy and strategizing while at the same time reflecting on our own positions, perspectives and practices as researchers ” ( Golsorkhi et al., 2010, p. 2 ). How does the discipline strategize both consciously and unconsciously (e.g. by our patterns of behaviour)? In essence, the five mechanisms of ISd-Research strategy in Fig. 2 represent research practices of the ISd.

The strategy as action approach has been discussed in relation to research on information systems strategy (e.g. Whittington, 2014 ) but has yet to be applied to ISd-research strategy. A novel paper that broaches ISd-research strategy theory is by Merali et al. (2012) which conceptualises the IS research domain as a complex adaptive system. The authors suggest that the field of IS research is relatively diversified and dynamic, with new topics rapidly emerging, thus the landscape of IS research is constantly changing with scholars frequently shifting attention to investigate new IS and IS phenomena. They ultimately argue that the IS domain has sufficient adaptive capacity to evolve in the emerging competitive landscape, responding to the turbulence, uncertainty and dynamism of IS research (a complex adaptive system).

Banville and Landry (1989) had an alternative view of IS research. They characterised MIS [v] as a fragmented adhocracy (which suggested a lack of strategic direction). A few years later, Hirschheim and Klein lamented “ That our current status remains a ‘fragmented adhocracy’ suggests the field may indeed be in crisis or headed for a crisis ” stating that the disconnects within the IS research community arise “ from the lack of communication among the numerous research sub-communities ” (p.254). Hirscheim and Klein recommended addressing the communication deficit through the development of a body of knowledge in information systems. Taylor et al. (2010) were more optimistic: they believed they demonstrated that “ over the 20-year period from 1986 to 2005, the discipline has shifted from fragmented adhocracy to a polycentric state, which is particularly appropriate to an applied discipline such as IS that must address the dual demands of focus and diversity in a rapidly changing technological context ” (p. 647). These dual demands have also been recognised by other IS scholars. For example, Tarafdar and Davison (2018, p. 543) envision IS as “ a flexibly stable discipline that has both (1) a consolidated deep structure (through the Single and Home Disciplinary contributions); and (2) a periphery of flux (through the Cross Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary contributions )”.

What other theory might be relevant to ISd research strategy? In light of the Hirschheim and Klein (2003) call for the development of a body of knowledge in information systems, an example might be analogizing “research knowledge assets” with knowledge assets broadly, and drawing on knowledge management theory. James (2005) usefully bridges knowledge management and strategic management in ways that lend readily to the notion of research knowledge assets. He found that “ existing knowledge assets form the basis of strategies” (p.165). Theories and strategies from other analogous spheres could be adapted and applied to IS research practice. An example might be analogizing research practices with consulting practices and borrowing from Maister (1993) to develop what I call a Research Practices Lifecycle View, which I elaborate further in later discussion on “ISd-Research Strategic Programs”.

(B) ISd-Research Strategic Governance

For our purposes, strategic governance mechanisms are simply defined as mechanisms of alignment of research practice with ISd-Research Strategy . The IS discipline has ability to influence research strategy through introducing and adjusting various governance levers [vi] . High-level examples in Fig. 2 include the Association for Information Systems ( https://aisnet.org ), doctoral consortia, and conferences. The AIS is a primary ISd-Research Strategic Governance Mechanism for many. Reverse-engineering the AIS website would yield, for example, the AIS Faculty Directory (valuable in expanding and tracking membership), the eLibrary (establishing what is in, and what is not), AISWorld Listserv (communicating core ideas), Awards & Recognitions (signalling what is valued), AIS journal viewpoints and review/fit policy e.g. JAIS/CAIS, and so on [vii] . At a more local level, using Australia as an example (being Australian, I use several Australian examples), strategic governance mechanisms include: the AAIS (the Australasian regional branch of the AIS), Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS), Australian Council of Professors and Heads of Information Systems (ACPHIS), IS Heads of Discipline listserve (ISHoDs) and various initiatives of AAIS and ACPHIS. Example initiatives of AAIS and ACPHIS include their lobbying for IS representation on Australian Research Council (ARC) panels, their Journal and Conference rankings [viii] and awards (e.g. ACPHIS Best Australian IS PhD Medal), and representation in the Australian Computer Society, etc.

“Research on strategy broadly suggests that professional organizations use signalling mechanisms such as awards to direct attention to high-level priorities” ( Ghobadi & Robey, 2017, p. 360 ). Best publication awards signal the core values and priorities of the field. 9 The characteristics of papers/theses that receive awards form patterns that influence what is researched and how [ix] . For example, Ghobadi and Robey found that “ most of the award winning IS articles rate high on theory building” and suggested that this is to position IS as a “ distinct discipline” rather than one that mostly borrows theory . The discipline needs to be aware of the patterns of research that awards are solidifying and take note of evolving trends that may necessitate the development of newer more advantageous patterns [x] . Strategic action in this regard is important “ to support the continuous development of the field ” ( Ghobadi and Robey, 2017 ).

As a further example, my co-authors and I ( Gable et al., 2016 ) explored the strategic importance of doctoral consortia as an ISd-Research strategic governance mechanism. We differentiated four levels of consortia: (i) International (ICIS), (ii) Regional (e.g. PACIS), (iii) National (e.g. ACIS) and (iv) Local (e.g. the School of Information Systems Doctoral Consortium at Queensland University of Technology) and considered their relative roles and influence. We argue that “ Consortia are strategic: a centrally important mechanism for sustainment, rejuvenation and defence of the discipline” (p. 691) . Closing the article, we further wrote “ we return to the advent of the 1st ICIS Doctoral Consortium in 1980, seen against a background at that time of questioning the status of Information Systems as a legitimate academic discipline. In some sense, the adversary then was other disciplines, and their perceived higher standards of professionalism. Today there is a different adversary, and again we see the Consortium as a possible vehicle of discipline reinforcement.”

Thus, the strategic influence of existing and potential governance mechanisms is readily apparent. That said, more transformational governance is possible ( Rosemann, 2017 ).

(C) ISd-Research Strategic Methods

The IS discipline has the ability to influence the kinds of questions being asked and research being pursued through the development, promotion and endorsement of contemporary research methods. Grover and Lyytinen (2015) argue the need to “ critically examine and debate the negative impacts of the field's dominant epistemic scripts and relax them by permitting IS scholarship that more fluidly accommodates alternative forms of knowledge production .” Given the IS research phenomenon of interest (the nexus of people and technology) and our proximity to rapidly changing technology, and the dynamism and generativity of these developments, we need as a discipline to explore new and improved ways of researching ( Rai, 2018 ). Moreover, though the outputs and outcomes of strategic methods may offer potential for research broadly, they offer particular advantage to the IS discipline. This is one of several places in the viewpoint where I advocate that ISd “practice what it preaches” by deploying within ISd, research methods developed by ISd, 10 the implicit question being “What new research methods does ISd require in order to remain relevant?” Put differently, the question might be, “What new research methods would be to the advantage of ISd research?”

As an example Galliers (2011, p. 300) suggests that, what previously might have been considered opposing research traditions, “ might unite to provide a more holistic, and ultimately more edifying, research agenda: one that is inclusive of various research approaches, and thereby better able to provide fresh, and more plausible insights into the complex phenomena we study ”. Tarafdar and Davison (2018) warn of the risk of asking narrow research questions in an attempt to reduce their complexity. They observe a “ lack of multiple IS subdisciplines in a single paper [suggesting] that IS phenomena are perhaps not being investigated in their full richness and complexity, reinforcing the concern about narrowly conceptualized research questions” (p.539). More nuanced, creative and relevant questions may demand new methods.

IS is particularly well placed to progress new and strategic research methods by leveraging what we already know, have and do [xi] . I first argue there is merit in exploring the potential from employing various IS representation techniques in the redescription (or reverse engineering) of existing research methods (e.g. Zhang and Gable, 2017 , Leist and Rosemann, 2011 ). In addition to facilitating improved understanding and combining of well-trod methods, such “redescribing the old” is expected to better-inform design of new research methods, particularly those needed by IS given the dynamism of our focal research phenomena. I further subscribe to the views of March and Smith, 1995 , Venable and Baskerville, 2012 who advocate the merits of a design science research (DSR) approach to the design of new research methods: research methods here conceived as designed artifacts, and DSR originating out of IS. Thus, we see that IS is both well placed to contribute to the design of improved and new research methods and to benefit as a discipline from the adoption of such improved and new methods. 11

ISd has not been idle with innovating new methods, in example the extensive methodological thought around Design Science Research (e.g. Vaishnavi et al., 2019 ). As further example, with net-nography (an online research method originating from ethnography employed to study social interaction in digital communication), we observe a phenomenon through the very technologies that we study (thanks to a panellist here). Grover et al. (2020) discuss the dramatic shift occurring to big data research (stating 16% of papers in top IS outlets employed this approach in 2018). They offer several conjectures that suggest possible unanticipated consequences of these approaches: the implication being these approaches have not been researched adequately. Thus, while I do not advocate epistemological anarchy ( Treiblmaier et al., 2018 ), I believe much more is possible. Furthermore, the focus of the information systems discipline on new phenomena, in combination with our position straddling the sciences of the real and artificial, arguably places us in a position of strategic advantage with regard to epistemology. Put simply, if we investigate new phenomena first, then we are well placed for providing leadership in how to investigate it.

(D) ISd-Research Strategic Foci

I here suggest that an important mechanism of ISd-Research Strategy is “ISd-Research Strategic Foci”, the overarching question being “What new research foci are strategic for ISd?” The IS discipline has ability to influence the direction of research in IS through identifying, recognising and promoting promising research foci.

It is apparent that the notions of ISd-Research Strategy and ISd-Research Strategic Foci imply centrally coordinated strategizing and decision-making. While this does occur, I think increasingly (e.g. by AIS in relation to the international discipline; by ACPHIS in relation to the Australian IS discipline; by universities, faculties and schools in relation to the local IS presence), it is acknowledged that historically, developments have been more distributed and organic. Thanks to a panellist who suggested “ The history of the discipline suggests that the strategic foci (at a disciplinary level) are plastic, emergent, and to a considerable extent, responsive to changes in technology and its role and uses. Studies examining the “core of the discipline” have frequently been bottom up” and have identified changes over time. Arguably, this has affected the ability of IS researchers at various levels to articulate the strategic foci of their work and how it aligns with broader institutional or national research strategy .” Such developments have been driven by individual preferences, capabilities, efforts and circumstances, and only indirectly shaped by various governance mechanisms (e.g. doctoral consortia and conference panels, editor and reviewer feedback and other institutional and discipline-cultural influences).

Though the shift to performance-based funding systems which emphasise impact and economic benefits is anticipated to amplify efforts to centrally coordinate research activity (e.g. in Programs – to be discussed), individual-driven and small-team research within broad areas of promise is expected to continue forming the core of the research ecosystem. Such broad areas of promise, or foci, may evolve organically, inductively, from the bottom-up. Blue-sky research is acknowledged to form “ a vital part of scientific discovery ” ( Linden, 2008, p. 10 ). Alternatively, such foci might be promoted top-down, by the AIS or other authorities (international, regional or local) - promoted, but not coordinated. Many recognise that such highly distributed inductively selected research activity is foundational to science. Wu et al. (2019) analysed 65 million papers, patents and software products, spanning 1954–2014, concluding that smaller teams have tended to disrupt science and technology with new ideas and opportunities, ultimately concluding, “ both small and large teams are essential to a flourishing ecology of science and technology ”.

While, I believe that in IS individual-driven and small-team research in IS has predominated and should continue to be strongly encouraged and supported, I later argue that to achieve a flourishing ecology, we also need to promote larger, more programmatic research initiatives [xii, xiii] . I recognise that a dichotomy of small and large initiatives is coarse and accept there is value in considering more of a continuum. As suggested by one senior scholar, “ sometimes people proactively/serendipitously reach out, pool resources if working on the same topic and cumulatively build the research projects. This can be an organic and agile way of doing things rather than the traditional funding way. A combination of programmatic and individual if you will – perhaps a ‘third’ way that could capture the best of both worlds? ”

A journal too can be strategic (in fact all are at some level) and a vehicle for promoting strategic foci, and JSIS is a prime example. In the first issue of JSIS Bob Galliers reported “ In business schools around the world it is often the case that IT, IT strategy and information management are considered at best as optional topics unworthy of being included in the core programme” and “ discussion of information and IT issues is not integrated into other business topics ” ( Galliers, 1991, p. 3 ). Galliers' championing of JSIS in the late 1980s was a strategic move to address this concern and to claim related research for the IS discipline, by promoting an outlet with this focus.

In closing this section, I argue there is value in promoting strategic research foci [xiv] , as distinct from strategic research programs (to be discussed). I believe there is merit in promoting, for example, Digital Innovation as a research focus of individual researchers and small teams (important research questions demanding attention being a key motivation for a focus), while possibly in parallel orchestrating larger more programmatic oversight (e.g. a Digital Innovation research program). Further, not all research foci lend themselves to a programmatic approach or warrant the size of a program.

(E) ISd-Research Strategic Programs

I suggest that an important mechanism of ISd-Research Strategy is strategic ISd Research Programs, or “ISd-Research Strategic Programs”, the overarching question being “What research programs are strategic for ISd?” [xv, xvi] . As mentioned above, differentiating strategic programs from strategic foci highlights the possibly more proactive role of the AIS or other coalitions within the IS discipline in strategically coordinating targeted research. For my purposes herein, research programs are simply “organisations for conducting programmatic research.” I intentionally define programs broadly and loosely to encompass both less, and more formal organisations or orchestrations of research.

The notion of programmatic research is not well established. In Communication, Benoit and Holbert (2008, p. 615) suggest programmatic research “ systematically investigates an aspect of communication with a series of related studies conducted across contexts or with multiple methods .” In Education, Berninger (2009, p. 69) suggests “ Programmatic research is designed to answer questions systematically, with the results of one study informing the research questions and design of the next study in a line of research that seeks comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon .” In Management Information Systems, Martin (1995, p. 28) defines programmatic research as “ a structured plan for conducting studies systematically across the entire span of a chosen field of enquiry .” While all of these definitions overlap and complement, none explicitly addresses the extension of research strategy through to implementation in practice, with feedback, a notion we endorse and depict in Fig. 3 .

Relevance Realisation Lifecycle Model [adapted from Moeini et al, 2019 ].

For the purposes of this paper I define programmatic research as the systematic and holistic investigation of strategically significant phenomenon through multiple coordinated and interrelated projects by a team of researchers, with the joint aims of knowledge contribution and positive impact on the world. An assumption is that programmatic research is in accord with strategy; there can never be reason to initiate research on the scale of a program that is not in accord with strategy. And though a basic-research program is conceivable, herein there is the assumed joint intention of positive impact as well as knowledge contribution. The program itself may extend to impact and outcomes or it may be extensible to impact, and what is meant by holistic must be locally defined. 12

Programmatic research demands closer interaction and cooperation amongst the program members. They rely more closely on each other’s ideas and outputs, the related ownership of which is more complex and nuanced. A program’s scale facilitates specialisation of function, which introduces complexity around the allocation of roles and rewards. The relative longevity of programs suggests the possible need to conceive of intermediate outputs and outcomes of value to the program, where the value to individuals isn’t clear and needs to be managed or orchestrated. Terms often used to differentiate programs (from projects) are larger, longer, more complex, less well defined, with more stakeholders, evolutionary, holding a systems view, exhibiting a plurality of goals, and being more strategic. More specific to research, other terms include multidisciplinary, trans -disciplinary, lifecycle-wide, and multi-paradigmatic (of course these terms do not pertain strictly to either projects or programs).

The Project Management Institute (2008, p. 9) defines a program as “ a group of related projects managed in a coordinated way to obtain benefits and control not available from managing them individually. Programs may include elements of related work outside the scope of the discrete projects in the program. A project may or may not be part of a program but a program will always have projects. ” Thus, there may be outputs/outcomes that pertain to the program but not directly to any of its component projects. This has profound implications for the planning, identification and recognition of value that derives from the research program. Clarke and Davison (2020) argue that what they call “multi-perspective research”, while feasible within individual research projects, may be more readily achieved through research programmes.

A conceptual framework I've found valuable for interrelating and accommodating diversity in programmatic research is what I refer to as a “research practices lifecycle view”. I analogize research practices with consulting practices and borrow from Maister (1993) who differentiates three types of consulting practices: the “big brains” practice which employs considerable raw brain power to solve frontier (unique, bleeding edge, new) problems; the “grey hair” practice which has prior experience of similar situations; and procedural practices which use developed procedures and systems to handle specific problems efficiently. Choo (1995) describes these as background knowledge framework, practical know-how and rule-based procedures. I loosely refer to analogous research practices as Expertise, Experience and Efficiency respectively, and suggest that these are not discrete, but rather positions on a continuum; and that practices tend to start from strong emphasis on Expertise (e.g. novel, basic research), and with the passage of time and through experience gained, move along the continuum towards Efficiency (e.g. incremental replication studies) and relatively more applied research. In a large research group, or through collaboration, such practices can co-exist and complement, with more basic research findings generating more applied, possibly practice-based testing and extension studies (perhaps extending to commercialisation). Each practice area benefits from quite different capabilities and team member motivations, thus accommodating diversity. The Research Practices Lifecycle View framework further demonstrates the value to be gained from a broader and longer-term view of research; it represents a higher level of abstraction in research design/strategy, that spans and interrelates multiple, otherwise disjoint zero-base initiatives.

Ultimately, I chose to amplify the value of programs as distinct strategic mechanisms. Such mechanisms may be higher-order and formal, for example, the AIS Bright ICT Initiative ( Lee, 2015 , Lee et al., 2018 , Lee et al., 2020 ); a key project of this initiative aimed to develop the framework for “ a new and safer Internet platform ” ( Lee, 2015, p. iii ). Programs can vary in size, scope and formality, from substantial and long-lived programs such as AVATAR (Automated Virtual Agent for Truth Assessments in Real-Time), an almost 20 year partnership of eight universities led by the University of Arizona in conjunction with more than ten Government departments ( Nunamaker et al., 2017 ), to more local research concentrations (e.g. the continuing trend in Australia towards concentrating people and resources locally – e.g. within a “Centre” – in areas of perceived strength, promise and advantage 13 ). Though I imply herein that such programs are at this stage often more implicit than explicit (and vary internationally in terms of their prevalence), it is felt that all such forms can be usefully considered under the umbrella of research programs [xvii] .

ISd-Research Strategy Publications

This viewpoint set out with two main aims: (i) to argue the importance of a strategic research orientation for the Information Systems Discipline (discipline level); and (ii) to facilitate such a strategic orientation by trumpeting the value of related research and promoting its publication. Having in Section ‘Information Systems Discipline (ISd) Research Strategy’ above addressed (i), in this section I further address (ii) aiming to partially clear-the-way 14 for manuscript submissions to JSIS and elsewhere, in attention to any node of the ISd-Research Strategy branch in Fig. 2 , but with particular emphasis on research programs (program level).

Thus, a key aim of this viewpoint is to facilitate manuscript submissions that align with any of the five mechanisms in Fig. 2 ; namely, ISd-Research Strategy … (A) theory, (B) governance, (C) methods, (D) foci, and (E) programs. Papers on (A) theory and (B) governance, though important, are anticipated to be rare, with papers on (C) strategic methods again anticipated to be occasional only. Papers arguing for a new strategic research focus (D) would entail a general call for the IS discipline to pursue research in relation to some new or emerging phenomenon of perceived consequence. The expectations of such papers and the standards for acceptance will be demanding. Such papers will tend to encompass a comprehensive review of the pertinent literature (akin to a review or curation), but rather than emphasising theory development, will include greater detail on the research agenda into the future; they should amplify discussion of potential impact and how the focus is strategic for IS [xviii] (in many ways this current paper is such an article, without the rigorous attention to the literature). Thus far in this section, having very briefly accounted for (A) through (D) of Fig. 2 , I now turn my more detailed attention to (E) Programs.

Papers arguing for a new strategic program would detail either a proposed or an in-progress program of research, evidencing to the extent possible the value of and potential from a programmatic approach. There would be strong emphasis on potential future research, as well as on how the proposed future research is strategic for the IS discipline. Note that articles explicating research Programs, much like foci articles, will often (not always) build on an established track record of work across and beyond the discipline, and perhaps parallel or subsume a curation (e.g. https://misq.org/research-curations/ ) or major structured literature review (e.g. see Rivard 2014 ), while bringing a more strategic lens to the analysis and interpretation, and having greater emphasis on strategic prescription. It is useful to differentiate explicitly the design of these larger programmatic initiatives as “research strategy” as compared to “research design” at a more individual project level. Employing this language, I consider the Tarafdar et al. (2018) suggestion for more longitudinal studies [xix] , to be a research strategy, more at the collective program level.

I am not so naïve as to assume I can here offer comprehensive guidance on what to attend to in the design and reporting of research programs [xx] . Rather I constrain my focus to engendering and promulgating the relevance of such research (here I largely equate relevance with impact which I more specifically define in the next section – ( Davison and Bjørn-Andersen, 2019 ) refer to 'societal impact'), for which purpose I draw on Moeini et al. (2019) . Their work suggests several valuable mechanisms of programmatic research including: (i) the value from adopting a multilevel view in research design (I herein usefully employ this view by differentiating between the individual/project level, the program level, and the discipline level), and (ii) the value of a longer, multi-phase view of research design from knowledge-potential-generation through to realised-impact (a more programmatic view). Though their focus is constrained to relevance, which is not the sole intent of programmatic research, the relevance intent demands a consequential and valuable longer-term, more strategic and holistic view [xxi, xxii] .

A Relevance-Centric Approach to Programmatic Research

Fig. 3 depicts the four phases of research relevance realisation differentiated by Moeini et al. (2019) (Potential > Perceived > Used > Realised). Key variations herein to that work are (i) the alternative conception of their four “dimensions” of relevance potential as “stages” of relevance-potential generation, 15 and (ii) the combining of those stages with their phases of relevance realisation in a process view including feedback loops. I believe this lifecycle view represents a more readily actionable and systematic approach to designing relevance into a larger, more strategic research program. Moreover, though the stages of relevance-Potential generation in Fig. 3 (the left-hand side) tend to be associated with research, and the latter three phases of relevance realisation (the right-hand side … Perceived, Used, Realised) tend to be associated with practice, the stages and phases can be tightly intertwined. For example, in action research or action design science research, or through other larger, longer-term more programmatic research that extends to the later phases of relevance realisation, there can be useful iteration back to earlier phases, thus the feedback loops.

My use of the term “impact” throughout this viewpoint has a different connotation from many. I am not referring to impact-factors and citations, but rather I am concerned with influence on practice and policy (societal value). However, unlike many definitions of “impact on practice and policy”, I am not solely focused on the impact of research outside of academia, as some impact frameworks are (e.g. https://re.ukri.org/research/ref-impact/ ); I also value research that impacts the practice of research. I note that the Strategic Methods node C in Fig. 2 is all about research that impacts research practice.

To more clearly position and bound their study, Moeini et al. (2019) (i) differentiate their focus on “potential practical relevance” from other conceptions of relevance, (ii) differentiate dimensions of relevance, (iii) differentiate stakeholders of relevance, and (iv) differentiate levels of analysis of relevance. These distinctions all have value in clarifying discussion on research relevance, each addressing a different question - What type (phase) of relevance realisation? Which dimension (or stage)? For whom (what goal)? And, at what level (e.g. individual project, Program, research area)? I now turn briefly to (iv) differentiating the levels of analysis of relevance.

As stated at the outset, it is my view there is value in a strategic orientation on research at every level, from individual to program to discipline and beyond. Such a multilevel view of research also recognises that the value from research can be at different levels: individual project, program, domain/field (research area); or emergent. As Moeini et al. indicate, “ while each individual article does not necessarily need to have a high potential for practical relevance … a research area needs to provide a degree of potential practical relevance”. 16 The value of some research may be more local e.g. relevant to the program but not to practice broadly. If such an intermediate output is intended, then perhaps there is a greater need to explicitly position the pertinent sub-study within the larger program. To the extent that individuals have some sense of how their individual projects are part of a larger, multilevel undertaking, they will be better placed to understand and explain the merits of their work to peers, research groups, examiners, reviewers, editors, funding bodies and so on. I believe this multilevel view of research strategy worthy of further attention.

In summary, in this section I advocate for more relevant IS research; an underutilized strategic option. I strongly endorse focusing a relevance-lens on programmatic research, my discussion further amplifying the value of the Moeini et al. (2019) phases of relevance-realisation. I believe such a lens, and approach ( Fig. 3 ) is valuable in the design and reporting of research programs. I encourage researchers to consider this view in crafting future-oriented research programs strategic for the Information Systems Discipline.

Rigour in programmatic research strategy

In the preceding section, I suggested the beginnings of a relevance-centric approach to programmatic research strategy and reporting, my aim being to partially clear-the-way for larger, more relevant, impactful and strategic research and publications. I am not alone in calling for such work. Yet the elephant-in-the-room whenever such calls are made is the unbending expectation of rigour ( i.e. the appropriate and adequate application of methods).

With regards rigour, I differentiate three possible units of analysis: the project, the program (design and execution), and reporting on the program (description and evaluation). My emphasis in this section is on rigour of reporting. I earlier differentiated projects and programs, suggesting that research project design/execution rigour has received much valuable attention, and that further such attention can be strategic for the discipline (and thus would align with node C in Fig. 2 ). In the preceding section I cautiously offered sample guidance on a relevance-centric approach to research program design (or strategy), acknowledging that research programs are large, complex and highly varied.

The question thus becomes how does one rigorously report on, or describe, and perhaps evaluate, a research program? [xxiii] Pawson (2013) recommends that such description and evaluation should be motivated by rigorous attention to the existing knowledge base and possibly by the development of a conceptual framework or platform. This part of a proposed program report, would parallel in many ways a review article, some such articles going further than others, to advocate for a research agenda. 17 To the extent that such a research agenda is new, such a review article comes very close to a research foci article, as described earlier (mechanism D in Fig. 2 ); such a research foci article promoting widespread, organic, individual projects that attend to argued areas of research need and value that are strategic for the discipline. A paper reporting on a program however, must go further, to address the coalition of resources and stakeholders, the range of constituent projects and their logic (the program “meta-logic”), and the strategic value and importance of the coalition for all stakeholders (the coalition, the discipline, the world). Moreover, while individual projects should, to the extent possible in their design and reporting, attend to outcomes, the opportunity to elaborate such potential is greater and thus essential with research program reports.

Given that Research Programs tend to be large, complex and unique, any guidance here on their description, can be high-level and exemplary only. It is possible that a design science research approach may be appropriate (e.g. treating the Program as a designed artefact), or Action Design Research or Action Research 18 (e.g. evaluating Program implementation with theoretical implications). Perhaps appropriate too are evaluation research approaches, which are varied and employed widely in the evaluation of both practice- and research-based programs. While the term “Evaluation Research” implies ex post evaluation, which is perhaps characteristic of much if not most such work, anticipation of such evaluation can usefully inform ex ante program strategy and description.

In closing this section, I acknowledge merit in documenting programs at various stages, with some provisos. While I appreciate the value of documenting each stage of a program of research (proposed, in-progress, and completed) including its planning, implementation and operation, and with attention being given to predicted, intermediate or final outputs and outcomes, I anticipate that being compelling in such writing will be easier where a program has at least commenced and there is some empirical evidence of its progress. Where the program is planned, but yet to commence, its publication might be considered a form of research-in-progress. Where the program is in progress or completed, some form of program evaluation may be appropriate.

This viewpoint argues the merit of focusing a strategy lens on the Information Systems Discipline. I introduced IS Discipline (ISd) strategy as a new theme of Strategic IS (SIS) research, subsequently focusing more specifically on ISd research strategy. I have advocated the value of a strategic orientation at every level, from individual, to Program, to Discipline and beyond. Research programs in particular, can be a valuable mechanism of research strategy. Though I acknowledge variation across regions and countries (and no doubt within countries), there are strong motivations for research to become more programmatic. Programmatic research is necessarily strategic, entailing larger and longer-term investment and risk, and concomitantly, increased oversight and direction.

Careful consideration was given to the fit of this Viewpoint with JSIS. Details of that thinking are included as Appendix A (I encourage all authors of submissions to JSIS to undergo similar reflection). Ultimately though, all rationales are peripheral to the central aim of the article, which is the amplification of strategic thinking in IS research – the further leveraging of an orientation natural to the JSIS community, with emphasis on research programs as a main strategic lever, and further considering how JSIS can be instrumental in this aim.

This article is a response to the ongoing call for increased attention to relevance and impact in research (e.g., Rai, 2017a , Tarafdar et al., 2018 ). Moeini et al. (2019, p. 210) include a table of suggested “ opportunities for improving potential practical relevance” , with recommendations for authors, reviewers and journals. Table 1 lists the six recommendations that apply to journals [xxiv] . The promotion herein of research pertaining to any of the mechanisms of ISd-Research Strategy in Fig. 2 , and of programmatic research broadly, addresses much in Table 1 , perhaps with some emphasis on opportunities (1)–(4) in that table. One Senior Editor of JSIS has been explicitly advocating for (5), more linked publications. More engagement on social media (6) has admittedly only just appeared on our radar. I am with this viewpoint attuning JSIS editors, reviewers and Board members to all of these priorities.

Suggestions to Journals for Improving Potential Relevance (based on Moeini et al., 2019, p. 210 ) [xxvi, xxvii] .

In some sense this viewpoint is also a response to the Tarafdar and Davison (2018, p. 537) call for increased intra- and inter-disciplinary research in IS and to the Galliers (2003) call for trans-disciplinary/inter-disciplinary research. 19 Tarafdar and Davison suggest, amongst other things, that IS journal editors “ consider editorial policies such as sections especially devoted to the interdisciplinary contributions .” That recommendation overlaps several of the six suggestions in Table 1 [xxv] .

Tarafdar et al. (2018) , rather than focusing on kinds of research or publications, refer to kinds of researchers required to achieve impact and engagement. Specifically, they argue the need for “public intellectuals” in the Information Systems Discipline. They identify three challenges to the production of impactful research: (i) researchers don’t know how to do such work, (ii) journals lack strategies for disseminating such work, and (iii) academic leaders lack strategies and processes to encourage such work. I hope Section ‘ISd-Research Strategy Publications’ above offers some guidance on how to amplify relevance and impact in research. As regards the Tarafdar et al. (2018) second challenge, a key aim herein has been to influence traditional outlets to be more receptive to such work by both attuning them to the need and value, and exploring (if not explicating outright) criteria for the evaluation of such work. Gill and Bhattacherjee (2009) suggest journals might introduce portfolio targets. JSIS, like other journals, is keen to promote more impactful research broadly; I invite both research that is “designed for impact”, and research that while not designed for impact from the outset, offers compelling interpretation pointing to potential future impactful outputs and outcomes. I hope too that this article engenders more programmatic research as described herein, a response to the Tarafdar et al. (2018) third challenge.

I believe the article offers ideas for several potential readers. For discipline leaders, those who are integrally involved in the oversight and nurturing of the IS discipline, there is little new here; perhaps the discussion suggests a framework around which current thinking might coalesce. For research quality gate-keepers – editors, reviewers, examiners – there is a strong plea to accommodate work pertaining to any of the five mechanisms of Fig. 2 , again with particular emphasis on strategic research programs. At the same time, I am acutely aware, and have been reminded by more than one of the senior scholars, that this plea is not new, and that the obstacles are several and complex (see endnotes).

For program leaders and aspirants to research program-leadership, the article raises many more issues than it solves. That said, it offers some argument for the creation of new, and sustenance of existing research programs, and I hope points the way to important thinking needed to promote improved programmatic research. For many Deans and Heads of School, and for research administrators in universities and governments whose policies strongly influence the course and focus of research, the call herein for more impactful research and the endorsement of research programs as a vehicle, will I expect be welcome.

For individual junior researchers, I apologize for only peripheral consideration of implications. Let it suffice here to suggest that individuals should carefully consider their personal and their projects' fit within the landscape of foci and consider their possible role(s) in programs. It is never too soon to be thinking strategically about who you seek to be: what you aspire to as a researcher. This should be a question asked of every commencing PhD student. Such a strategic orientation on career is all the more important in these uncertain times. For individual seasoned researchers the single message is, consider how in the current and projected climate you align with the other levels. Of course, many seasoned researchers do these things naturally.

Limitations

The emphasis throughout the discussion herein has been on research strategy, without explicitly extending this discussion to teaching and learning strategy. One might question whether it is possible to separate ISd Research Strategy from other discipline strategy, as they are to some degree intertwined. While inattention herein to those linkages may be considered a limitation, I believe ISd research strategy is sufficiently conceptually distinct to warrant separate consideration. “ Academic legitimacy comes with the salience of the subjects studied, the strength of the results obtained, and the plasticity of the field in responding to new challenges” ( King and Lyytinen, 2006 ). That being said, much of what is discussed here has broad relevance to the full discipline. There is merit in future work extending the discourse herein and shining a light on IS teaching and learning, viewing them through a discipline strategy lens [xxviii, xxix, xxx] .

A limitation of the Relevance Realisation Lifecycle view ( Fig. 3 ) is its inattention to what should be the focus across the lifecycle. Yes, relevance, but what more specifically? Rai (2019) argues that the focus across the phases should be problem formulation (which leads to the research question), thereby increasing chances of successfully addressing the dual objectives of scholarly and broa1er impact; and avoiding type III errors (addressing problems that don't matter) ( Rai, 2017a ). He goes further ( Rai, 2017b ) to suggest ways of abstracting the immediate problem to an archetypal problem (so the immediate problem is not over-problematized) and illuminating the distinctive characteristics of the immediate problem to challenge the archetypal problem (so the archetypal problem is not under-problematized). This guidance complements well the ideas of Fig. 3 . In an 'engaged scholarship' approach, engagement with practice is through the processes of problem formulation (which leads to the research question), theory development, research design, and solution assessment. One can argue that by engaging with practice in each of these phases (and doing other things to avoid Type III errors), the dual objectives of scholarly impact and broader impact are more likely to be realized.

I must accept the article is somewhat discipline-centric, with inadequate consideration of the university perspective, universities being the main vehicle of IS discipline research. Academics are members of both a discipline and a university. 20 Disciplines establish and enforce standards of research quality and research value, and universities encourage and facilitate research that meets those standards and delivers value. Historically, the main value sought has been contribution to knowledge. A key gauge of a university researcher's worth is their aggregate contributions to knowledge that meet the discipline standards. A key gauge of a university's research worth is the aggregate of its researchers' contributions to knowledge. Disciplinary involvement promotes training and growth in research standards and methods of their achievement, as well as breadth and depth in the discipline knowledge domain (involvement in the discipline has many other benefits, such as networking with other researchers). Regardless of individual university reward systems, stature within the discipline is perhaps the academic's main credential for advancement. There is however a “new normal”. Universities and disciplines have worked in tandem for over a century and their alignment needs attention.

This article makes no claim to inventorying the extensive, excellent disciplinary strategic advice to date from within the IS discipline. Fig. 2 offers the beginnings of a framework for usefully interrelating that work. Comprehensive inventorying, and interrelating that knowledge base within a coherent framework, is useful further research. The Strategic Methods node would undoubtedly benefit from a comprehensive revisiting of the IS literature (and beyond) to inventory and harmonize to the extent possible, extant methodological thought.

Though this article does not probe the merits and costs of research program involvement for individuals (a theme in the suggested follow-on work), implicit in the arguments is a strong belief in the efficiency and effectiveness of programmatic research; I think the potential for “a larger pie” is there. What isn't obvious is “how that pie gets shared”, which opens up much complexity. I think a general limitation of this article is that it generates expectations of answers while ultimately, in the main, only raising questions. Contrary, I think, to the view of one senior scholar, the article ends up being more descriptive than prescriptive. Lastly, I acknowledge I should have paid greater heed to the Hirschheim (2008) guidelines for the critical reviewing of conceptual papers, but practical realities intervened.

Future directions

The aims of this viewpoint are to espouse the merits of focusing a strategy lens on ISd-research, to facilitate related research and to call for future research in this direction. I believe a multilevel view of research strategy has the potential to be highly revealing, and is worthy of close future research attention. Reflecting back on the mechanistic view in Fig. 2 , I lament how the figure is inexplicit regarding the levels of research implied throughout the article. The discipline-level is clear as a sub-theme (ISd-Research strategy). Programs are explicitly accounted for as a mechanism (ISd-Research programs). Individuals however are only indirectly represented through projects or foci (ISd-Research Foci), and there is no explicit indication of multi-/inter-/trans-disciplinarity beyond disciplines. Shifting to a more multilevel view, I arrived at Table 2 , which cross-references levels of research with the five strategy mechanisms from Fig. 2 .

A Research Level and Strategy Mechanism Cross-Reference.

(a) I here adopt the British spelling where I refer more specifically to programmes as a 'level' as opposed to a mechanism, these being somewhat conflated prior.

It became clear that one can usefully consider the five mechanisms at each level, from: (i) individual, to (ii) programme, to (iii) discipline, iv) to x-disciplinary research (multi-/trans-/inter-disiciplinarity); perhaps worthwhile extending further to a higher 5th level – the ecology or society of research (e.g. Kuhn, 2012 ). I note also that programs are both a mechanism and a level (where levels are in essence groupings of people as in multilevel analysis – e.g. see ( Zhang and Gable, 2017 ).

I introduce Table 2 as an afterthought and suggest much interesting and valuable research could be pursued in attention to each of its cells. Such work, in the first instance, might entail inventorying pertinent thought to date. Such effort would likely be multidisciplinary, drawing from many disciplines. Rather than elaborating the individual cells of Table 2 and its full potential for encouraging further research and interrelating extant research, I make several selective observations. First, I note that extant methodological guidance pertains primarily to the individual project level. There is particular need for methods guidance at the program level; I recognise that multi-method and mixed-method guidance has some pertinence here, but much more is required.

Second, while I suggest the nexus of the individual level and governance pertains to “how individual research is governed”, I am of the view that individual research is largely self-governed. That said, both “how individuals govern their research” and “how their research is governed” are of interest to research organisers (e.g. program leaders/administrators). As mentioned, this article gives short shrift to the individual level, as it does to projects as a mechanism. While this scoping decision has to some extent been because, that level has to date received greater attention (e.g. in terms of methods guidance and our understanding of research projects), Table 2 reveals much need and further potential for attention to the individual level (e.g. How do researchers self-govern their research strategy?).

Beyond Table 2 , other areas of valuable further research are suggested herein. As a methodology for the design and execution of both research projects and programmatic research, there is value in employing the Relevance Realisation Lifecycle Model in Fig. 3 , while reflecting on and reporting on its merits (perhaps making a methodological contribution – mechanism C in Fig. 2 ).

As suggested earlier, with the swing to Mode 2 knowledge and growing emphasis on impact and engagement, discipline-university alignment requires attention. To the extent that discipline measures of stature and value are misaligned with university research goals and reward systems, academics and administrators experience conflict and productivity is compromised (some would argue university reward systems haven't evolved in lock-step with university and society aspirations for impact, thereby further exacerbating alignment). Disciplines and ISd have lagged in establishing measures of quality and value that promote impact. Thus, there is merit in assessing this alignment. Attention to this problem has been a major aim herein. More focused attention to ISd – University alignment is warranted, as are measures of rigour that encourage impact.

Further stretching the conception of “research as practice” there may be merit in analogizing other business concepts from industry (e.g. Business Models ( Fielt, 2014 )) to disciplines and research programs. I am herein talking about value and stakeholders. If programmatic research is to be strategic, it must consider the competition and its consumers and investors. Perhaps analogous with the notion of business model is 'research strategy model' (another example of reverse-cross-fertilization). Big data/data analytics is undoubtedly disrupting traditional (explicit and implicit) research strategy models. Some would argue that much of the contemporary data-driven research is too myopic and piecemeal, suggesting value from a more programmatic view; a new research strategy model.

It was argued earlier that discipline – university alignment is in need of attention. A premise of this argument is that disciplines continue to have value. There will be those who advocate that academics sole-allegiance should be to the university; a view I believe to be short-sighted and narrow. Discipline research standards are not static; rather they are constantly evolving, with new methods needed given new research phenomenon and technologies, a key role of the disciplines being to facilitate (and subsequently enforce) the evolution of new standards in lock step with the changing context, foci and priorities. Thus, any assumption that standards are established and the disciplines have served their role is misplaced.

Consistent with the above, a senior scholar espoused the value of engaged scholarship as argued in Rai (2017a) , but qualified that view commenting, “ I would state the tension a bit differently – at least in US institutions, particularly business schools. As an applied discipline, there is a challenge to create interventions for practice, but these necessarily inhibit us from meeting the institutional demands ( e.g. , tenure requirements). The middle ground of “engaged scholarship” which involves problemitization of our research helps in this regard, but the tension remains. Juxtaposition this with the demands from federal funding agencies that create layers of investment demands on the individual to tackle broad societal, interdisciplinary problems with cross-disciplinary teams. On top of this, our journals are increasingly sensitive to enforcing some kind of disciplinary boundary (i.e., is this IS research?).”

In summary, the main contributions of this viewpoint are twofold. First, the viewpoint argues the need for the IS discipline to think strategically in order to amplify value and contribution, and to thrive. Second, this viewpoint aims to smooth-the-way for manuscript submissions to JSIS and elsewhere, in attention to any of the nodes of the IS Discipline Research Strategy branch in Fig. 2 . It is hoped that discussion herein will engender a longer-term and more strategic view of IS research activity, perhaps promoting coalitions, engagement and impact.

Disciplines, and in some sense the sector, are under threat. Though the threats are several and some nuanced, the aftermath of COVID-19 will be a quite different world; as of this writing it has been reported that rationalisation of the university sector in Australia due to constrained finances and new delivery models following from COVID-19, will entail the loss of 21,000 academic positions. It is time to revisit strategy at all levels.

Acknowledgements

The shape of ideas presented herein has been much improved through the editorial panel review process, with key new ideas introduced. Many thanks to Bob Galliers, Suzanne Rivard, Monideepa Tarafdar and Mary Tate. The literature review and clarity of the paper owes much to the assistance and input of my senior research assistant Karen Stark. I must acknowledge the significant influence on my thinking from breakfast conversations with Alison Gable. The development of ideas proposed has been much facilitated from involvement in the Australian Research Council Discovery grant DP150101022 “Towards Engineering Behavioural Research Design Systems” core team members of which include Arun Rai, Wasana Bandara, Meng Zhang and Mary Tate. Further, I am much appreciative of additional incisive feedback from senior scholars who read the paper subsequent to editorial panel acceptance, which I believe promoted important balance in several areas (though not all will agree I have achieved this).

1 This Viewpoint was invited by Bob Galliers 18 December 2015.

2 In addition to central editorial panel review, the paper was further read by several generous, senior scholars (I use the term descriptively here, though most were Senior Scholars https://aisnet.org/general/custom.asp?page=SeniorScholars ), whose additional feedback was often challenging. Their anonymous contributions are acknowledged in several places, and quotations included, mainly in endnotes (referenced using roman numerals within square brackets). I further observe that many of these comments pertain to known limitations of the paper and complexities with implementing its explicit or implicit recommendations, thereby reflecting a form of rebuttal.

3 By strategic I mean pertaining to, marked by, or important to a long-term strategy. By long-term I suggest 5+ years. I acknowledge both, that short-term and opportunistic initiatives may align with strategy, and where they do not, they may or may not be prudent given strategy.

4 … to transdisciplinary, or inter-disciplinary, or what ( Galliers, 2003 ) refers to as Fields of Study, recognising that disciplines themselves can be more or less transdisciplinary; more or less inclusive and pluralistic.

5 This article was commenced 2015 and largely completed pre-COVID-19. References to COVID-19 are last minute and few, the potential implications of COVID-19 nonetheless believed to amplify many ideas herein.

6 In addition Crimmins (2017) reports that " Bryson identified that approximately 50% of teaching is undertaken by casual academics in the UK, France, Germany and Japan ( Bryson, 2013 ), and in the US casual appointments constitute 70% of faculty teaching positions ( Kezar and Maxey, 2015 ) ".

7 The antithesis of this large viewpoint article is the incisive ( Watson et al., 2020 ) guest editorial in MISQ Executive “Practice-oriented Research Contributions in the COVID-19 Forged New Normal” which in three pages offers four trends greatly accelerated by COVID-19, a list of priority areas for CIOs, and suggestions to scholars on research questions needing rigorous attention.

8 Here we have an instance of what I might refer to as reverse-cross-fertilization, where theory for practice that originated from academe, is being mirrored back onto research practice. There are several other instances of such reverse-cross-fertilization herein.

9 For example, rigor values (what standards of rigor are valued). With regards foci priorities, thesis and conference paper awards will be more current than journal paper awards; journal articles taking longer to see publication.

10 This is not new; much valuable methodological guidance has been targeted at IS researchers (e.g., Weber, 2003 , Weber, 2012 ; Lee, 1989 ). Thus, I advocate more of the same, as well as inventorying and interrelating such effort.

11 It is acknowledged that IS has a chequered track-record adopting good methodological advice. Here again, ISd-Research Governance must play a role in advocating and maximizing access to new methods on offer.

12 Again I mention the value of balance in the IS research ecosystem; small and large initiatives; bottom-up and top-down; basic and applied. While there is clear emphasis herein on applied research, at the discipline level this should not be at the sake of basic research. To quote George Porter, “To feed applied science by starving basic science is like economizing on the foundations of a building so that it may be built higher. It is only a matter of time before the whole edifice crumbles” ( Porter, 1986, p. 16 ).

13 Two local examples of substantive research programs at my home insititution are YAWL www.yawlfoundation.org and the Centre for Future Enterprise https://www.qut.edu.au/research/centre-for-future-enterprise . YAWL (Yet Another Workflow Language) is an established research program that combines technology innovation (e.g., business process modelling language) and managerial application (e.g., knowledge of service and business process design in organizations). YAWL has produced a large body of knowledge through impactful collaboration with industry over the past two decades. YAWL has evolved bottom-up, organically. The CFE is a commencing research program, initially centrally funded by QUT commencing in early 2020. The CFE program seeks to develop knowledge that can address critical challenges facing organizations in the new digital age.

14 I say 'partially clear-the-way' as I anticipate continuing complexity in both the crafting of such papers, and with their equitable evaluation.

15 Moeini et al. (2019) go further to identify factors of relevance-potential generation associated with each of the four stages: 17 factors in total. I encourage readers to further explore the Moeini et al. (2019) 17 factors and consider their value in both near-term research design, and longer-term career and research program strategy.

16 Though I advocate a strategic orientation in research at all levels, from individual to program to discipline, our dual emphasis herein has been primarily on discipline and programs; I've given little attention to the need for individuals to be strategic in their research careers, an important topic for further discussion. Let it suffice here to suggest that individuals should carefully consider their personal, and their projects' fit within the landscape of foci and consider their possible role(s) in programs.

17 E.g. Vial’s (2019) article “Understanding digital transformation: a review and research agenda” ultimately advocates for two main streams of research into the future: (i) How dynamic capabilities contribute to digital transformation, and (ii) The strategic relevance of ethics in digital transformation.

18 Some reference is made to Action Research 'Programs' in Avison et al (2018) .

19 In fact this Viewpoint is consistent with the very first JSIS editorial ( Galliers, 1991:3 ) in which Galliers states " Recognising both the strategic importance and potential of information, [JSIS] will present papers from both the academic and business worlds which will draw attention to these key issues, and provide practical lessons in dealing with them from both state-of-the-art research and current experience. "

20 Our focus herein is on those universities having a substantive research mission. We recognize universities are not homogenous and that there are other tertiary education and private sector and semi-public institutions of relevance. In addition, universities in the U.S. and elsewhere are more autonomous than in Australia and the UK, an important consideration for the generalizability of results.

Appendix A. Article fit with JSIS

As with all submissions, careful consideration was given to the fit of this Viewpoint with JSIS. In this regard, it is useful to consider both JSIS policy on Viewpoint articles and current JSIS Scope and Aims. JSIS policy is that “All Viewpoint articles are by invitation only. Viewpoints may or may not involve empirical evidence and are often provocative or introduce an interesting new line of enquiry. Regardless, Viewpoint articles must be well-referenced and rigorous in their logic and arguments, and are subject to careful review, over multiple rounds by an appointed panel, including at least one member of the editorial team ” (JSIS Policy).

The current abridged Aims & Scope (A&S) state that JSIS “ focuses on the strategic management, business and organizational issues associated with the introduction and utilization of information systems, and considers these issues in a global context. The emphasis is on the incorporation of IT into organizations' strategic thinking, strategy alignment, organizational arrangements and management of change issues. The journal publishes research from around the world […] A transdisciplinary, critical approach/perspective is welcome .”

As stated, viewpoints “ are often provocative or introduce an interesting new line of enquiry ”. Thus the role of review with viewpoints is less to achieve unanimous agreement with the view expressed, and more to assess whether the viewpoint is provocative or interesting and “ well-referenced and rigorous in their logic and arguments ”. Second, though not specifically or solely about “ the introduction and utilisation of information systems ”, conceiving the IS discipline (ISd) as an organisational entity warranting a strategy orientation does open discussion on the strategic value of IS for ISd (with several examples alluded to). Third, this article represents IS research methods as strategic mechanisms of ISd-Research Strategy. The author subscribes to the view that methods are valued design science research artifacts and that ISd should “practice what it preaches” by deploying its own contemporary methods in the conduct of more impactful research. Fig. 3 process view of the stages and phases of research relevance realization depicts and advocates for the integration of research and practice. In this view, research methods pertain to the earlier stages of an IT value production continuum, informing later information systems.

Ultimately though, all of these arguments on fit of the article with JSIS, are peripheral to the central aim of the article, which is the amplification of strategic thinking in IS research – the further leveraging of an orientation natural to the JSIS community, with emphasis on research programs as a main strategic lever, and further considering how JSIS can be instrumental in this aim.

While the Aims & Scope of JSIS are periodically reviewed, given their centrality to the journal identity there is healthy resistance to change without strong rationale ( Gable, 2020 ). Based on arguments espoused herein, it is believed there is good fit of the article with JSIS; it is not believed the addition of ISd-Research Strategy as a fourth theme of SIS demands a change to the Aims & Scope. That said, early in my tenure as the new Editor-in-Chief of JSIS I initiated discussion on the continuing suitability of the existing Aims & Scope; that discussion is continuing.

Comments from senior scholars

• [i] A related senior scholar comment was “ This seems like an interpretation of Gibbons et al which I’d see as view of Mode 2 which is more rigid (e.g. government involvement) which may or may not be what Gibbons et al mean when they say Mode 2 .” I recognise not all Mode 2 research is dependent on government intervention. As suggested by another senior scholar, “ Individual academic researchers from different disciplines can come together to work on a project of mutual and interdisciplinary interest, irrespective of government pressure (or lack thereof)”
• [ii] An anonymous senior scholar contrarily wrote, “ the issue for US universities is ‘money’ – where does it come from given that students from overseas are drying up, funding from government is declining, and the competition from a myriad of sources for student dollars is increasing at a rapid rate. ” Yet, I don't see these views as divergent. Universities will seek to rationalise, through cost-cutting and further leveraging existing resources (mainly people), while also promoting new sources of revenue (e.g. collaborative research income).
• [iii] One senior scholar commented “ Possibly, but what is missing here is indeed the individual perspective. Why would individual researchers want to conform to such a process [long-term research programs]? How does it help their careers? Their cvs? I know that you don’t plan to deal with the individual perspective in this article, but individual authors/researchers will simply ignore any policies that they don’t like.”
• [iv] One senior scholar questioned whether a discipline can be an actor; can have agency. “ I would think of discipline almost like a religion. So let’s take Christianity as the “discipline”. Churches are certainly actors as are various church ministers/staff and individual church members (and for Catholics, the papacy). But does it make sense to talk of Christianity as an actor and strategize at the level of Christianity itself? Well, in fact, some might say “yes”. Christianity (or Judaism or Islam, whatever) needs a coherent identity guided by mission (similar to strategy, I suppose) to maintain its influence in the world, some would argue. So maybe one can see a religion, or a discipline, as an actual entity with an identity. My own analogy is making me think that perhaps I was wrong in my dismissal of the IS discipline as an actor. AIS is certainly an actor, as are senior scholars and EICs even the Editorial boards. These are representatives of the discipline in the same way that the papal institution, for example, is a representation of Catholicism (it is not actually the embodiment of it because the faith preceded the institution much like IS research preceded AIS and the journals etc.). So yes for me the question really gets to – is the discipline (or a religion) an actor that needs a strategy/mission or is the discipline some nebulous concept used to describe various individuals and organizations that are connected by a shared identity/mission.”
• [v] While I agree with the senior scholar who observed “MIS and IS research are not necessarily the same thing […] IS research in 2020 and IS research in 1989 are not the same thing ”, I am not here attempting to theoretically define IS research, but rather simply highlighting the value from such efforts.
• [vi] One senior scholar commented, “ Here again you have the ‘Mintzberg’ issue whether ISd research strategy is planned or emerging – I think very much the latter. I also do not see how the field of IS could be ‘governed by any type of governor’. It is clearly liberalistic, but of course there are (and I very much think there should be) influences from funding agencies.”
• [vii] One senior scholar wrote, “ Is this a reverse engineering of a strategy, or a simple summary of activities and outcomes hoping to find a pattern leading to an (implicit) strategy?”
• [viii] Vidgen et al. (2019) discuss the importance of journal ranking lists saying, “Journal lists are a yet stronger and more potent form of strategic signalling in research. Organizations, such as the Financial Times, signal which journals matter, for example, through the FT50, and business schools in turn enrol these lists in order to communicate [research] values and priorities to their academic staff .“
• [ix] A senior scholar wrote, “ Sounds more like an inductive strategy development, ie authors can still pick their directions and an entity selects best examples to communicate what is desired .”
• [x] One senior scholar wrote, “ If we thought our research mattered, ICIS would be the premier outlet. If we do find anything of relevance, our journals take years to publish it and practice has moved on.”
• [xi] A senior scholar wrote, “ Is this sufficient? Do these methods help us to develop artefacts in the speed needed? To deal with new scales of empirical evidence? To understand the co-existence of theory and data-inferred insights?”
• [xii] To which one senior scholar commented, “ I can accept the legitimacy of this argument, but … most IS researchers don’t particularly care whether the ecology is flourishing or not.”
• [xiii] A senior scholar wrote, “ Isn’t this exactly where strategy is needed? A discipline has the strategic option to collectively focus on grand challenges (eg, medicine) or value a more democratic, bottom-up growth of the research portfolio. Not making a clear statement of which of these options is valued is probably a sign of a lack of strategy, and maybe a sign of where ISd is in terms of its stategizing, or lack of?”
• [xiv] A senior scholar asked “ Who would decide what these should be?” As mentioned earlier, these directions are often shaped by a range of governance mechanisms and gatekeepers at various levels (e.g. Editors, reviewers, examiners, grant proposal panel members …). They are sometimes more overtly advocated (e.g. this article being a case in point). In the main, historically, they have emerged bottom-up (see 2 nd footnote prior).
• [xv] Another senior scholar commented “ The section […] advocates for research programs (which I agree with), but leaves open the question of where these programs should come from? They could be advocated through funding centers, professional associations (like AIS), institutional structures (like research centers in the US) or just through individual agency. While the paper indicates that all programs are good…. there are tradeoffs that can make certain sources of these programs as counterproductive. There has to be a blending of societal importance, resources, value systems and incentive systems for research programs to work .”
• [xvi] A further senior scholar commented, “A top down approach to drive research strategy in a discipline, whilst a noble pursuit perhaps, I think it is a bit of an 'oxymoron'. Ultimately research is driven by problems in a changing world and any research program not plugged properly in the world is doomed i.e. a bottom up view is a key to success (how to reconcile with the nobleness of a top down view- frankly, I am not sure, but I think this is a challenge for research administrators who hold purses, and perhaps to chief editors, and research leaders at various levels..).”
• [xvii] A senior scholar commented, “ I wonder how difficult it would be to set up such programmes? Who would initiate them? Who would give them ‘credibility’? How would we ‘enforce’ compliance?”
• [xviii] A senior scholar commented “ I was SE for […] and I found it difficult to get reviewers to review such papers. They didn’t follow the ‘traditional’ template and hence there was difficulty in getting ‘serious’ reviews. I even wrote an article on how to undertake a critical review of such papers. But it is not an easy fix .”
• [xix] To which one senior scholar commented, “ I support this, but such studies take time and given tenure and promotion clocks, I find researchers don’t embark on such projects .”
• [xx] A senior scholar commented, “ I have tried to publish articles that might change the field. For example, we argued we should balance the attention given to explanatory science by some attention to intervention science so we go beyond theories based on associations found in data to field tests of a theory’s efficacy. This and other challenges to the status quo failed. Though, when I present these views the response is positive. People know we have a problem but there is no external force compelling change.”
• [xxi] One senior scholar commented, “ I personally find it unethical, if research is not driven by some type of relationship to ‘contribution of ‘societal value’. This is something we have forgotten and neglected in our frantic race for publishing more and getting a higher h-index … Without contribution to attainment of societal values, the ISd field does not have any meaning, and should be eradicated .”
• [xxii] One senior scholar wrote, “ Quite simply, an applied field that does not produce applicable knowledge in a timely manner is failing society .”
• [xxiii] One senior scholar commented, “ I think ‘rigor’ is problematic because of the way the field views ‘rigor’ […] I firmly believe this is the root of most of the problem. Rigor is too narrowly conceived.”
• [xxiv] A senior scholar – “ Most people will agree with Table 1 , but few will do anything to make it happen.”
• [xxv] A senior scholar commented, “ I like the “opening up” of JSIS to introspective work that advances the discipline. Proposal of new research programs has traditionally been handled organically (i.e., borrowed theory like TRA creates TAM which then creates a platform for incremental research) or initiated through special issues that are usually aligned with emergent phenomena. So, in advocating papers that develop new foci and research programs, it is important to provide some idea of scope. For instance, is a call for papers on a new phenomenon (e.g. domestic robots) the type of papers that JSIS would like to attract? Is a research program at the level of design science vs. behavior science vs. economics (which could fundamentally change the nature of the discipline itself) or should it be more narrowly scoped? ”
• [xxvi] One senior scholar commented, “ I am a bit concerned by the aggressive push toward practice as described in Table 1, if it comes at the cost of theory. In fact, theory bashing has now become fashionable in our field, with many articles (e.g., Dennis, Hirschheim, special issue in JIT) arguing against theory. This has emboldened big data research that take data sets and applies sophisticated analytics to predict very tactical corporate questions (since the data is low level digital trace data). These papers often don’t even make the pretence of theorizing…and usually address questions that companies (with their data and analytical resources) can do better. I think this is dangerous for our field – we need to improve our theorizing and engage with practice – but not abdicate theory altogether ”.
• [xxvii] One senior scholar commented, “ I shifted my approach towards tackling problems that mattered for CIOs or society with the goal of producing applicable knowledge. This view is somewhat echoed in Table 1, except I think many articles should be about implications for practitioners rather than a perfunctory afterthought section at the end of the paper. Creating applicable knowledge should dominate the research question, design, and findings. Maybe we could add a paragraph on implications for theory.”
• [xxviii] One senior scholar wrote “ I am on board with what is suggested but also mindful that our relevance is linked to our enrolments and our linkages with the broader institutional environment to ensure our enrolments. I think the simple equation is ‘No enrolments, no research’, so it might be worth mentioning that somewhere in the article ... [with reference to Figure 1] I think one area that AIS should link to are accreditation agencies (AACSB, Seoul Accord etc.) to ensure that our research continues to get reflected in what is taught … AIS should also have linkages with various bodies such as SFIA that develop ‘bodies of knowledge’ that include IS-related content.”
• [xxix] They went on to comment “While there can be no disagreement with this claim, I think a broader source of legitimacy for disciplines is the number of students enrolled in the discipline.
• Strategically, as a discipline, we also need to pay attention to how we can ensure a continuing increase in enrolments in our discipline … We have seen often enough in business schools that when enrolments in IS drop, hiring of junior faculty drops. When faced with such an existential crisis, it is difficult to see how we can expect commitment to programmatic research … The reality is that over 90% of revenue for business schools comes from teaching. Undergraduate teaching in a majority of business schools contributes a bulk of this revenue. With the continuing casualisation of teaching, esp undergraduate teaching, it is easy to see how the discipline could go into a downward spiral.
• [xxx] And … “I think that there are a couple of strategic linkages with our institutional environment that we need to work on as a discipline. One is with accreditation bodies (esp AACSB, EQUIS and AMBA) to ensure that the coverage of IS/digital issues continues to increase in what is expected by these bodies of business school graduates ... The other linkage is with bodies such as the Seoul Accord and SFIA to ensure that we continue to have a say in how the IS curriculum evolves to reflect our research programmes … Perhaps, this is something the AIS should aim for, if it is not already doing so.
• Alter S. The IS core-xi: Sorting out the issues about the core, scope, and identity of the IS field. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2003; 12 Article 41. [ Google Scholar ]
• Avison D.E., Davison R.M., Malaurent J. Information systems action research: debunking myths and overcoming barriers. Inf. Manage. 2018; 55 (2):177–187. [ Google Scholar ]
• Banville C., Landry M. Can the field of MIS be disciplined? Commun. ACM. 1989; 32 (1):48–60. [ Google Scholar ]
• Becher T. Open University Press; Milton Keynes, England: 1989. Academic Tribes and Territories. [ Google Scholar ]
• Becher T., Trowler P.R. second ed. Open University Press; Philadelphia, PA: 2001. Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Culture of Disciplines. [ Google Scholar ]
• Beck J., Young M.F. The assault on the professions and the restructuring of academic and professional identities: A Bernsteinian analysis. Br. J. Sociol. Educ. 2005; 26 (2):183–197. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bryson C. Supporting sessional teaching staff in the UK – To what extent is there real progress? J. Univ. Teach. Learn. Pract. 2013; 10 (3):1–17. http://ro.uow.edu.au/julp/vol10/iss3/2 [ Google Scholar ]
• Benoit W.L., Holbert R.L. Empirical intersections in communication research: Replication, multiple quantitative methods, and bridging the quantitative–qualitative divide. J. Commun. 2008; 58 (4):615–628. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00404.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berninger V.W. Highlights of programmatic, interdisciplinary research on writing. Learn. Disabilit. Res. Pract. 2009; 24 (2):69–80. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Choo C.W. Information Today Inc; Medford, NJ: 1995. Information Management for the Intelligent Organization. [ Google Scholar ]
• Clarke R., Davison R.M. Research perspectives: Through whose eyes? The critical concept of researcher perspective. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2020; 21 (2) doi: 10.17705/1jais.00609. Article 1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Crimmins G. Feedback from the coal-face: how the lived experience of women casual academics can inform human resources and academic development policy and practice. Int. J. Acad. Dev. 2017; 22 (1):7–18. doi: 10.1080/1360144X.2016.1261353. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davison R.M., Bjørn-Andersen N. Do we care about the societal impact of our research? The tyranny of the H-index and new value-oriented research directions. Inf. Syst. J. 2019; 29 (5):989–993. [ Google Scholar ]
• Demailly L., de la Broise P. Vol. 4. Socio-logos. Revue de l'association française de sociologie; 2009. (The Implications of Deprofessionalisation. Case Studies and Possible Avenues for Future Research). [ Google Scholar ]
• Dennis A.R., Valacich J.S., Brown S.A. A comment on “is information systems a science?” Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2018; 43 Article 14. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fielt E. Conceptualising business models: Definitions, frameworks and classifications. J. Bus. Models. 2014; 1 (1):85–105. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fogarty T.J., Markarian G. An empirical assessment of the rise and fall of accounting as an academic discipline. Issues Acc. Educ. 2007; 22 (2):137–161. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gable, G.G., 2020. Editorial: The Past and Future of the Journal of Strategic Information Systems: A conversation with Bob Galliers. J. Strat. Inf. Syst.
• Gable G.G. Strategic information systems research: an archival analysis. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2010; 19 (1):3–16. doi: 10.1016/j.jsis.2010.02.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gable G.G. The information systems academic discipline in Pacific Asia: A contextual analysis. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2007; 21 :1–22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gable G., Smyth R., Gable A.S. The role of the doctoral consortium: an information systems signature pedagogy? Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2016; 38 :678–711. (Article 33) [ Google Scholar ]
• Galliers R.D. Introducing the journal of strategic information systems—the new approach to information systems management. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 1991; 1 (1):3. [ Google Scholar ]
• Galliers R.D. 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. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2003; 4 (1) Article 13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Galliers R.D. In celebration of diversity in information systems research. J. Inf. Technol. 2011; 26 (4):299–301. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ghobadi S., Robey D. Strategic signalling and awards: Investigation into the first decade of AIS best publications awards. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2017; 26 (4):360–384. doi: 10.1016/j.jsis.2017.06.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gibbons M., Limoges C., Nowotny H., Schwartzman S., Scott P., Trow M. Sage; London: 1994. The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gill G., Bhattacherjee A. Whom are we informing? Issues and recommendations for MIS research from an informing sciences perspective. MIS Quart. 2009; 33 (2):217–235. [ Google Scholar ]
• Golsorkhi D., Rouleau L., Seidl D., Vaara E. Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as Practice. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, UK: 2010. Introduction: What is strategy as practice; pp. 1–20. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gregor S. The philosopher's corner: The value of Feyerabend's anarchic thinking for information systems research. Data Base Adv. Inf. Syst. 2018; 49 (3):114–120. doi: 10.1145/3242734.3242742. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grover V., Lindberg A., Benbasat I., Lyytinen K. The perils and promises of big data research in information systems. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2020; 21 (2) Article 9. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grover V., Lyytinen K. New state of play in information systems research: The push to the edges. MIS Quart. 2015; 39 (2):271–296. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hirschheim R. Some guidelines for the critical reviewing of conceptual papers. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2008; 9 (8) Article 21. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hirschheim R., Klein H.K. A glorious and not-so-short history of the information systems field. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2012; 13 (4):188–235. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hirschheim R., Klein H.K. Crisis in the IS field? A critical reflection on the state of the discipline. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2003; 4 (10):237–293. [ Google Scholar ]
• James, P., 2005. Knowledge asset management: The strategic management and knowledge management nexus. (DBA thesis). Southern Cross University, Lismore, NSW.
• Jarzabkowski P., Whittington R. Directions for a troubled discipline: Strategy research, teaching, and practice—introduction to the dialog. J. Manage. Inquiry. 2008; 17 (4):266–268. [ Google Scholar ]
• Keith B. Taking stock of the discipline: Some reflections on the state of American sociology. Am. Sociol. 2000; 31 (1):5–14. doi: 10.1007/s12108-000-1001-4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kezar, A., Maxey, D., 2015. Adapting by design: Creating faculty roles and defining faculty work to ensure an intentional future for colleges and universities. Retrieved from http://www.uscrossier.org/pullias/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/DELPHI-PROJECT_ADAPTING-BY-DESIGN.pdf .
• King J.L., Lyytinen K.J. The market of ideas as the center of the is field. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2006; 17 (1) Article 38. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kitchin R., Sidaway J.D. Geography's strategies. Prof. Geogr. 2006; 58 (4):485–491. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9272.2006.00584.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Krishnan A. National Centre for Research Methods Working Paper Series; 2009. What are academic disciplines?: Some observations on the disciplinarity vs. Interdisciplinarity debate. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuhn T.S. University of Chicago Press; 2012. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee A.S. A scientific methodology for MIS case studies. MIS Quart. 1989; 13 :33–50. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee J.K. Research framework for AIS grand vision of the Bright ICT Initiative. MIS Quart. 2015; 39 (2):iii–xii. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee J.K., Cho D., Lim G.G. Design and validation of the Bright internet. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2018; 19 (2) Article 3. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee J.K., Chang Y., Kwon H.Y., Kim B. Reconciliation of privacy with preventive cybersecurity: The Bright internet approach. Inf. Syst. Front. 2020; 22 (1):45–57. [ Google Scholar ]
• Leist S., Rosemann M. Proceedings of the 22nd Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS) 2011-Identifying the Information Systems Discipline. 2011. Research process management; pp. 1–11. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lepori B., Geuna A., Mira A. Scientific output scales with resources. A comparison of US and European universities. PLoS One. 2019; 14 (10) [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Linden B. Basic blue skies research in the UK: Are we losing out? J. Biomed. Discov. Collab. 2008; 3 (1):3. doi: 10.1186/1747-5333-3-3. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maister D. Free Press; New York: 1993. Managing the Professional Service Firm. [ Google Scholar ]
• Manathunga C., Brew A. Beyond tribes and territories: New metaphors for new times. In: Trowler P., Saunders M., Bamber V., editors. Tribes and Territories in the 21st Century: Rethinking the Significance of Disciplines in Higher Education. Routledge; London: 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• March S.T., Smith G.F. Design and natural science research on information technology. Decis. Support Syst. 1995; 15 (4):251–266. [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin M.P. Human factors in management information systems: A taxonomy. In: Carey J.M., editor. Human Factors in Information Systems: Emerging Theoretical Bases. Ablex Publishing; Norwood, NJ: 1995. pp. 27–42. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mazurek R.A. Academic labor is a class issue: Professional organizations confront the exploitation of contingent faculty. J. Workplace Rights. 2012; 16 (3–4):353–366. [ Google Scholar ]
• McBride N. Is information systems a science? Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2018; 43 Article 9. [ Google Scholar ]
• McLaughlin N. Canada's impossible science: Historical and institutional origins of the coming crisis in Anglo-Canadian sociology. Can. J. Sociol./Cahiers canadiens de sociologie. 2005; 30 (1):1–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• Merali Y., Papadopoulos T., Nadkarni T. Information systems strategy: Past, present, future? J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2012; 21 (2):125–153. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mintzberg H. The strategy concept i: Five Ps for strategy. California Manage. Rev. 1987; 30 (1):11–24. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moeini M., Rahrovani Y., Chan Y.E. A review of the practical relevance of IS strategy scholarly research. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2019; 28 (2):196–217. [ Google Scholar ]
• Myers M.D. The IS core-viii: Defining the core properties of the IS disciplines: Not yet, not now. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2003; 12 Article 38. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nunamaker J.F., Twyman N.W., Giboney J.S., Briggs R.O. Creating high-value real-world impact through systematic programs of research. MIS Quart. 2017; 41 (2):335–351. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pawson R. Sage; 2013. The Science of Evaluation: A Realist Manifesto. [ Google Scholar ]
• Peppard J., Galliers R.D., Thorogood A. Information systems strategy as practice. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2014; 23 (1):1–10. [ Google Scholar ]
• Petter S., Carter M., Randolph A., Lee A. Desperately seeking the information in information systems research. ACM SIGMIS Database: DATABASE Adv. Inf. Syst. 2018; 49 (3):10–18. [ Google Scholar ]
• Porter G. Lest the edifice of science crumble. New Sci. 1986; 111 (1524):16. [ Google Scholar ]
• Project Management Institute . fourth ed. Project Management Institute; Newtown Square, Pennsylvania: 2008. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide) [ Google Scholar ]
• Rai A. Editor's comments: Avoiding type III errors: formulating IS research problems that matter. MIS Quart. 2017; 41 (2):iii–vii. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rai A. Editor's comments: seeing the forest for the trees. MIS Quart. 2017; 41 (4):iii–vii. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rai A. Editor's Comments: Beyond outdated labels: The blending of IS research traditions. MIS Quart. 2018; 42 (1):iii–vi. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rai A. Editor's Comments: engaged scholarship: research with practice for impact. MIS Quart. 2019; 43 (2):iii-viii. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ridley G. Characterising information systems in Australia: A theoretical framework. Austr. J. Inf. Syst. 2006; 14 (1):141–162. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rivard S. Editor's comments: The ions of theory construction. MIS Quart. 2014; 38 (2):iii–xiv. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosemann M. Governance in practice: Transformational governance. Govern. Direct. 2017; 69 (7):399–401. [ Google Scholar ]
• Somero G.N. Unity in diversity: a perspective on the methods, contributions, and future of comparative physiology. Annu. Rev. Physiol. 2000; 62 (1):927–937. doi: 10.1146/annurev.physiol.62.1.927. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tarafdar M., Davison R.M. Research in information systems: Intra-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary approaches. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2018; 19 (6):523–551. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tarafdar M., Desouza K., Barrett M., Agarwal R., Watson R., Krishnan R. Presented at the International Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco, CA. 2018. Panel discussion: Seeking public intellectuals in the information systems discipline: Towards an impact and engagement agenda. [ Google Scholar ]
• Taylor H., Dillon S., Van Wingen M. Focus and diversity in information systems research: Meeting the dual demands of a healthy applied discipline. MIS Quart. 2010; 34 (4):647–667. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thatcher J., Pu W., Pienta D. Information systems is a (social) science. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2018; 43 (1):189–196. [ Google Scholar ]
• The Free Dictionary by Farlex, n.d. Mechanism. Retrieved March 11, 2020 from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/mechanism .
• Treiblmaier H., Burton-Jones A., Gregor S., Hirschheim R., Myers M., Stafford T. Presented at the 39th International Conference on Information Systems 2018, San Francisco, CA United States. 2018. Panel: Against method and anything goes? A critical discussion based on the strange ideas from Paul Feyerabend on whether Epistemological Anarchy Can Benefit IS Research. [ Google Scholar ]
• Trowler P. Disciplines and interdisciplinarity: Conceptual groundwork. In: Trowler P., Saunders M., Bamber V., editors. Tribes and Territories in the 21st Century: Rethinking the Significance of Disciplines in Higher Education. Routledge; London: 2012. pp. 5–29. [ Google Scholar ]
• Turpin T., Garrett-Jones S. Mapping the new cultures and organization of research in Australia. In: Weingart P., Stehr N., editors. Practising Interdisciplinarity. University of Toronto Press; Toronto: 2000. pp. 79–109. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vaishnavi, V., Kuechler, W., Petter, S. (Eds.), 2019. Design Science Research in Information Systems (last updated June 30, 2019). Retrieved June 10, 2020 from http://www.desrist.org/design-research-in-information-systems/ .
• van Gigch J.P. The potential demise of OR/MS: Consequences of neglecting epistemology. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1989; 42 (3):268–278. [ Google Scholar ]
• Venable J., Baskerville R. Paper presented at 11th European Conference on Research Methods (ECRM) University of Bolton; Bolton, UK: 2012. Eating our own cooking: toward a design science of research methods. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vermeulen F. On rigor and relevance: Fostering dialectic progress in management research. Acad. Manag. J. 2005; 48 (6):978–982. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vial G. Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2019; 28 (2):118–144. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vidgen R., Mortenson M., Powell P. Invited viewpoint: how well does the Information Systems discipline fare in the Financial Times’ top 50 journal list? J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2019; 28 (4):101577. [ Google Scholar ]
• Watson R., Ives B., Piccoli G. Guest Editorial: Practice-oriented research contributions in the Covid-19 Forged New Normal. MIS Quart. Execut. 2020;(2):19. Article 2. [ Google Scholar ]
• Weber R. Editor's comments: the problem of the problem. MIS Quart. 2003; 27 (1):iii–ix. [ Google Scholar ]
• Weber R. Evaluating and developing theories in the information systems discipline. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2012; 13 (1) Article 2. [ Google Scholar ]
• Whitley R. Clarendon Press; Oxford, UK: 1984. The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences. [ Google Scholar ]
• Whitley R. The development of management studies as a fragmented adhocracy. Social Sci. Inf. 1984; 23 (4–5):775–818. [ Google Scholar ]
• Whittington R. Information systems strategy and strategy-as-practice: A joint agenda. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2014; 23 (1):87–91. doi: 10.1016/j.jsis.2014.01.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wu L., Wang D., Evans J.A. Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology. Nature. 2019; 566 (7744):378–382. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang M., Gable G.G. A systematic framework for multilevel theorizing in information systems research. Inf. Syst. Res. 2017; 28 (2):203–224. [ Google Scholar ]

Welcome to the MIT CISR website!

This site uses cookies. Review our Privacy Statement.

AI Is Everybody’s Business

This briefing presents three principles to guide business leaders when making AI investments: invest in practices that build capabilities required for AI, involve all your people in your AI journey, and focus on realizing value from your AI projects. The principles are supported by the MIT CISR data monetization research, and the briefing illustrates them using examples from the Australia Taxation Office and CarMax. The three principles apply to any kind of AI, defined as technology that performs human-like cognitive tasks; subsequent briefings will present management advice distinct to machine learning and generative tools, respectively.

Access More Research!

Any visitor to the website can read many MIT CISR Research Briefings in the webpage. But site users who have signed up on the site and are logged in can download all available briefings, plus get access to additional content. Even more content is available to members of MIT CISR member organizations .

Author Barb Wixom reads this research briefing as part of our audio edition of the series. Follow the series on SoundCloud.

DOWNLOAD THE TRANSCRIPT

Today, everybody across the organization is hungry to know more about AI. What is it good for? Should I trust it? Will it take my job? Business leaders are investing in massive training programs, partnering with promising vendors and consultants, and collaborating with peers to identify ways to benefit from AI and avoid the risk of AI missteps. They are trying to understand how to manage AI responsibly and at scale.

Our book Data Is Everybody’s Business: The Fundamentals of Data Monetization describes how organizations make money using their data.[foot]Barbara H. Wixom, Cynthia M. Beath, and Leslie Owens, Data Is Everybody's Business: The Fundamentals of Data Monetization , (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2023), https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262048217/data-is-everybodys-business/ .[/foot] We wrote the book to clarify what data monetization is (the conversion of data into financial returns) and how to do it (by using data to improve work, wrap products and experiences, and sell informational solutions). AI technology’s role in this is to help data monetization project teams use data in ways that humans cannot, usually because of big complexity or scope or required speed. In our data monetization research, we have regularly seen leaders use AI effectively to realize extraordinary business goals. In this briefing, we explain how such leaders achieve big AI wins and maximize financial returns.

Using AI in Data Monetization

AI refers to the ability of machines to perform human-like cognitive tasks.[foot]See Hind Benbya, Thomas H. Davenport, and Stella Pachidi, “Special Issue Editorial: Artificial Intelligence in Organizations: Current State and Future Opportunities , ” MIS Quarterly Executive 19, no. 4 (December 2020), https://aisel.aisnet.org/misqe/vol19/iss4/4 .[/foot] Since 2019, MIT CISR researchers have been studying deployed data monetization initiatives that rely on machine learning and predictive algorithms, commonly referred to as predictive AI.[foot]This research draws on a Q1 to Q2 2019 asynchronous discussion about AI-related challenges with fifty-three data executives from the MIT CISR Data Research Advisory Board; more than one hundred structured interviews with AI professionals regarding fifty-two AI projects from Q3 2019 to Q2 2020; and ten AI project narratives published by MIT CISR between 2020 and 2023.[/foot] Such initiatives use large data repositories to recognize patterns across time, draw inferences, and predict outcomes and future trends. For example, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) used machine learning, neural nets, and decision trees to understand citizen tax-filing behaviors and produce respectful nudges that helped citizens abide by Australia’s work-related expense policies. In 2018, the nudging resulted in AUD$113 million in changed claim amounts.[foot]I. A. Someh, B. H. Wixom, and R. W. Gregory, “The Australian Taxation Office: Creating Value with Advanced Analytics,” MIT CISR Working Paper No. 447, November 2020, https://cisr.mit.edu/publication/MIT_CISRwp447_ATOAdvancedAnalytics_SomehWixomGregory .[/foot]

In 2023, we began exploring data monetization initiatives that rely on generative AI.[foot]This research draws on two asynchronous generative AI discussions (Q3 2023, N=35; Q1 2024, N=34) regarding investments and capabilities and roles and skills, respectively, with data executives from the MIT CISR Data Research Advisory Board. It also draws on in-progress case studies with large organizations in the publishing, building materials, and equipment manufacturing industries.[/foot] This type of AI analyzes vast amounts of text or image data to discern patterns in them. Using these patterns, generative AI can create new text, software code, images, or videos, usually in response to user prompts. Organizations are now beginning to openly discuss data monetization initiative deployments that include generative AI technologies. For example, used vehicle retailer CarMax reported using OpenAI’s ChatGPT chatbot to help aggregate customer reviews and other car information from multiple data sets to create helpful, easy-to-read summaries about individual used cars for its online shoppers. At any point in time, CarMax has on average 50,000 cars on its website, so to produce such content without AI the company would require hundreds of content writers and years of time; using ChatGPT, the company’s content team can generate summaries in hours.[foot]Paula Rooney, “CarMax drives business value with GPT-3.5,” CIO , May 5, 2023, https://www.cio.com/article/475487/carmax-drives-business-value-with-gpt-3-5.html ; Hayete Gallot and Shamim Mohammad, “Taking the car-buying experience to the max with AI,” January 2, 2024, in Pivotal with Hayete Gallot, produced by Larj Media, podcast, MP3 audio, https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/taking-the-car-buying-experience-to-the-max-with-ai/id1667013760?i=1000640365455 .[/foot]

Big advancements in machine learning, generative tools, and other AI technologies inspire big investments when leaders believe the technologies can help satisfy pent-up demand for solutions that previously seemed out of reach. However, there is a lot to learn about novel technologies before we can properly manage them. In this year’s MIT CISR research, we are studying predictive and generative AI from several angles. This briefing is the first in a series; in future briefings we will present management advice specific to machine learning and generative tools. For now, we present three principles supported by our data monetization research to guide business leaders when making AI investments of any kind: invest in practices that build capabilities required for AI, involve all your people in your AI journey, and focus on realizing value from your AI projects.

Principle 1: Invest in Practices That Build Capabilities Required for AI

Succeeding with AI depends on having deep data science skills that help teams successfully build and validate effective models. In fact, organizations need deep data science skills even when the models they are using are embedded in tools and partner solutions, including to evaluate their risks; only then can their teams make informed decisions about how to incorporate AI effectively into work practices. We worry that some leaders view buying AI products from providers as an opportunity to use AI without deep data science skills; we do not advise this.

But deep data science skills are not enough. Leaders often hire new talent and offer AI literacy training without making adequate investments in building complementary skills that are just as important. Our research shows that an organization’s progress in AI is dependent on having not only an advanced data science capability, but on having equally advanced capabilities in data management, data platform, acceptable data use, and customer understanding.[foot]In the June 2022 MIT CISR research briefing, we described why and how organizations build the five advanced data monetization capabilities for AI. See B. H. Wixom, I. A. Someh, and C. M. Beath, “Building Advanced Data Monetization Capabilities for the AI-Powered Organization,” MIT CISR Research Briefing, Vol. XXII, No. 6, June 2022, https://cisr.mit.edu/publication/2022_0601_AdvancedAICapabilities_WixomSomehBeath .[/foot] Think about it. Without the ability to curate data (an advanced data management capability), teams cannot effectively incorporate a diverse set of features into their models. Without the ability to oversee the legality and ethics of partners’ data use (an advanced acceptable data use capability), teams cannot responsibly deploy AI solutions into production.

It’s no surprise that ATO’s AI journey evolved in conjunction with the organization’s Smarter Data Program, which ATO established to build world-class data analytics capabilities, and that CarMax emphasizes that its governance, talent, and other data investments have been core to its generative AI progress.

Capabilities come mainly from learning by doing, so they are shaped by new practices in the form of training programs, policies, processes, or tools. As organizations undertake more and more sophisticated practices, their capabilities get more robust. Do invest in AI training—but also invest in practices that will boost the organization’s ability to manage data (such as adopting a data cataloging tool), make data accessible cost effectively (such as adopting cloud policies), improve data governance (such as establishing an ethical oversight committee), and solidify your customer understanding (such as mapping customer journeys). In particular, adopt policies and processes that will improve your data governance, so that data is only used in AI initiatives in ways that are consonant with your organization's values and its regulatory environment.

Principle 2: Involve All Your People in Your AI Journey

Data monetization initiatives require a variety of stakeholders—people doing the work, developing products, and offering solutions—to inform project requirements and to ensure the adoption and confident use of new data tools and behaviors.[foot]Ida Someh, Barbara Wixom, Michael Davern, and Graeme Shanks, “Configuring Relationships between Analytics and Business Domain Groups for Knowledge Integration, ” Journal of the Association for Information Systems 24, no. 2 (2023): 592-618, https://cisr.mit.edu/publication/configuring-relationships-between-analytics-and-business-domain-groups-knowledge .[/foot] With AI, involving a variety of stakeholders in initiatives helps non-data scientists become knowledgeable about what AI can and cannot do, how long it takes to deliver certain kinds of functionality, and what AI solutions cost. This, in turn, helps organizations in building trustworthy models, an important AI capability we call AI explanation (AIX).[foot]Ida Someh, Barbara H. Wixom, Cynthia M. Beath, and Angela Zutavern, “Building an Artificial Intelligence Explanation Capability,” MIS Quarterly Executive 21, no. 2 (2022), https://cisr.mit.edu/publication/building-artificial-intelligence-explanation-capability .[/foot]

For example, at ATO, data scientists educated business colleagues on the mechanics and results of models they created. Business colleagues provided feedback on the logic used in the models and helped to fine-tune them, and this interaction helped everyone understand how the AI made decisions. The data scientists provided their model results to ATO auditors, who also served as a feedback loop to the data scientists for improving the model. The data scientists regularly reported on initiative progress to senior management, regulators, and other stakeholders, which ensured that the AI team was proactively creating positive benefits without neglecting negative external factors that might surface.

Given the consumerization of generative AI tools, we believe that pervasive worker involvement in ideating, building, refining, using, and testing AI models and tools will become even more crucial to deploying fruitful AI projects—and building trust that AI will do the right thing in the right way at the right time.

Principle 3: Focus on Realizing Value From Your AI Projects

AI is costly—just add up your organization’s expenses in tools, talent, and training. AI needs to pay off, yet some organizations become distracted with endless experimentation. Others get caught up in finding the sweet spot of the technology, ignoring the sweet spot of their business model. For example, it is easy to become enamored of using generative AI to improve worker productivity, rolling out tools for employees to write better emails and capture what happened in meetings. But unless those activities materially impact how your organization makes money, there likely are better ways to spend your time and money.

Leaders with data monetization experience will make sure their AI projects realize value in the form of increased revenues or reduced expenses by backing initiatives that are clearly aligned with real challenges and opportunities. That is step one. In our research, the leaders that realize value from their data monetization initiatives measure and track their outcomes, especially their financial outcomes, and they hold someone accountable for achieving the desired financial returns. At CarMax, a cross-functional team owned the mission to provide better website information for used car shoppers, a mission important to the company’s sales goals. Starting with sales goals in mind, the team experimented with and then chose a generative AI solution that would enhance the shopper experience and increase sales.

Figure 1: Three Principles for Getting Value from AI Investments

The three principles are based on the following concepts from MIT CISR data research: 1. Data liquidity: the ease of data asset recombination and reuse 2. Data democracy: an organization that empowers employees in the access and use of data 3. Data monetization: the generation of financial returns from data assets

Managing AI Using a Data Monetization Mindset

AI has and always will play a big role in data monetization. It’s not a matter of whether to incorporate AI, but a matter of how to best use it. To figure this out, quantify the outcomes of some of your organization’s recent AI projects. How much money has the organization realized from them? If the answer disappoints, then make sure the AI technology value proposition is a fit for your organization’s most important goals. Then assign accountability for ensuring that AI technology is applied in use cases that impact your income statements. If the AI technology is not a fit for your organization, then don’t be distracted by media reports of the AI du jour.

Understanding your AI technology investments can be hard if your organization is using AI tools that are bundled in software you purchase or are built for you by a consultant. To set yourself up for success, ask your partners to be transparent with you about the quality of data they used to train their AI models and the data practices they relied on. Do their answers persuade you that their tools are trustworthy? Is it obvious that your partner is using data compliantly and is safeguarding the model from producing bad or undesired outcomes? If so, make sure this good news is shared with the people in your organization and those your organization serves. If not, rethink whether to break with your partner and find another way to incorporate the AI technology into your organization, such as by hiring people to build it in-house.

To paraphrase our book’s conclusion: When people actively engage in data monetization initiatives using AI , they learn, and they help their organization learn. Their engagement creates momentum that initiates a virtuous cycle in which people’s engagement leads to better data and more bottom-line value, which in turn leads to new ideas and more engagement, which further improves data and delivers more value, and so on. Imagine this happening across your organization as all people everywhere make it their business to find ways to use AI to monetize data.

This is why AI, like data, is everybody’s business.

© 2024 MIT Center for Information Systems Research, Wixom and Beath. MIT CISR Research Briefings are published monthly to update the center’s member organizations on current research projects.

Related Publications

Talking Points

Ai, like data, is everybody's business.

Working Paper: Vignette

The australian taxation office: creating value with advanced analytics.

Research Briefing

Building advanced data monetization capabilities for the ai-powered organization.

Building AI Explanation Capability for the AI-Powered Organization

What is Data Monetization?

About the researchers.

Barbara H. Wixom, Principal Research Scientist, MIT Center for Information Systems Research (CISR)

Cynthia M. Beath, Professor Emerita, University of Texas and Academic Research Fellow, MIT CISR

Mit center for information systems research (cisr).

Founded in 1974 and grounded in MIT's tradition of combining academic knowledge and practical purpose, MIT CISR helps executives meet the challenge of leading increasingly digital and data-driven organizations. We work directly with digital leaders, executives, and boards to develop our insights. Our consortium forms a global community that comprises more than seventy-five organizations.

MIT CISR Associate Members

MIT CISR wishes to thank all of our associate members for their support and contributions.

MIT CISR's Mission Expand

MIT CISR helps executives meet the challenge of leading increasingly digital and data-driven organizations. We provide insights on how organizations effectively realize value from approaches such as digital business transformation, data monetization, business ecosystems, and the digital workplace. Founded in 1974 and grounded in MIT’s tradition of combining academic knowledge and practical purpose, we work directly with digital leaders, executives, and boards to develop our insights. Our consortium forms a global community that comprises more than seventy-five organizations.

Microsoft Research Blog

Microsoft at chi 2024: innovations in human-centered design.

Published May 15, 2024

Share this page

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on Reddit
• Subscribe to our RSS feed

The ways people engage with technology, through its design and functionality, determine its utility and acceptance in everyday use, setting the stage for widespread adoption. When computing tools and services respect the diversity of people’s experiences and abilities, technology is not only functional but also universally accessible. Human-computer interaction (HCI) plays a crucial role in this process, examining how technology integrates into our daily lives and exploring ways digital tools can be shaped to meet individual needs and enhance our interactions with the world.

The ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems is a premier forum that brings together researchers and experts in the field, and Microsoft is honored to support CHI 2024 as a returning sponsor. We’re pleased to announce that 33 papers by Microsoft researchers and their collaborators have been accepted this year, with four winning the Best Paper Award and seven receiving honorable mentions.

This research aims to redefine how people work, collaborate, and play using technology, with a focus on design innovation to create more personalized, engaging, and effective interactions. Several projects emphasize customizing the user experience to better meet individual needs, such as exploring the potential of large language models (LLMs) to help reduce procrastination. Others investigate ways to boost realism in virtual and mixed reality environments, using touch to create a more immersive experience. There are also studies that address the challenges of understanding how people interact with technology. These include applying psychology and cognitive science to examine the use of generative AI and social media, with the goal of using the insights to guide future research and design directions. This post highlights these projects.

Spotlight: AI-POWERED EXPERIENCE

Microsoft research copilot experience

Discover more about research at Microsoft through our AI-powered experience

Best Paper Award recipients

DynaVis: Dynamically Synthesized UI Widgets for Visualization Editing   Priyan Vaithilingam, Elena L. Glassman, Jeevana Priya Inala , Chenglong Wang   GUIs used for editing visualizations can overwhelm users or limit their interactions. To address this, the authors introduce DynaVis, which combines natural language interfaces with dynamically synthesized UI widgets, enabling people to initiate and refine edits using natural language.  

Generative Echo Chamber? Effects of LLM-Powered Search Systems on Diverse Information Seeking   Nikhil Sharma, Q. Vera Liao , Ziang Xiao   Conversational search systems powered by LLMs potentially improve on traditional search methods, yet their influence on increasing selective exposure and fostering echo chambers remains underexplored. This research suggests that LLM-driven conversational search may enhance biased information querying, particularly when the LLM’s outputs reinforce user views, emphasizing significant implications for the development and regulation of these technologies.  

Piet: Facilitating Color Authoring for Motion Graphics Video   Xinyu Shi, Yinghou Wang, Yun Wang , Jian Zhao   Motion graphic (MG) videos use animated visuals and color to effectively communicate complex ideas, yet existing color authoring tools are lacking. This work introduces Piet, a tool prototype that offers an interactive palette and support for quick theme changes and controlled focus, significantly streamlining the color design process.

The Metacognitive Demands and Opportunities of Generative AI   Lev Tankelevitch , Viktor Kewenig, Auste Simkute, Ava Elizabeth Scott, Advait Sarkar , Abigail Sellen , Sean Rintel   Generative AI systems offer unprecedented opportunities for transforming professional and personal work, yet they present challenges around prompting, evaluating and relying on outputs, and optimizing workflows. This paper shows that metacognition—the psychological ability to monitor and control one’s thoughts and behavior—offers a valuable lens through which to understand and design for these usability challenges.  

Honorable Mentions

B ig or Small, It’s All in Your Head: Visuo-Haptic Illusion of Size-Change Using Finger-Repositioning Myung Jin Kim, Eyal Ofek, Michel Pahud , Mike J. Sinclair, Andrea Bianchi   This research introduces a fixed-sized VR controller that uses finger repositioning to create a visuo-haptic illusion of dynamic size changes in handheld virtual objects, allowing users to perceive virtual objects as significantly smaller or larger than the actual device. 

LLMR: Real-time Prompting of Interactive Worlds Using Large Language Models   Fernanda De La Torre, Cathy Mengying Fang, Han Huang, Andrzej Banburski-Fahey, Judith Amores , Jaron Lanier   Large Language Model for Mixed Reality (LLMR) is a framework for the real-time creation and modification of interactive mixed reality experiences using LLMs. It uses novel strategies to tackle difficult cases where ideal training data is scarce or where the design goal requires the synthesis of internal dynamics, intuitive analysis, or advanced interactivity. 

Observer Effect in Social Media Use   Koustuv Saha, Pranshu Gupta, Gloria Mark, Emre Kiciman , Munmun De Choudhury   This work investigates the observer effect in behavioral assessments on social media use. The observer effect is a phenomenon in which individuals alter their behavior due to awareness of being monitored. Conducted over an average of 82 months (about 7 years) retrospectively and five months prospectively using Facebook data, the study found that deviations in expected behavior and language post-enrollment in the study reflected individual psychological traits. The authors recommend ways to mitigate the observer effect in these scenarios.

Reading Between the Lines: Modeling User Behavior and Costs in AI-Assisted Programming   Hussein Mozannar, Gagan Bansal , Adam Fourney , Eric Horvitz   By investigating how developers use GitHub Copilot, the authors created CUPS, a taxonomy of programmer activities during system interaction. This approach not only elucidates interaction patterns and inefficiencies but can also drive more effective metrics and UI design for code-recommendation systems with the goal of improving programmer productivity. 

SharedNeRF: Leveraging Photorealistic and View-dependent Rendering for Real-time and Remote Collaboration   Mose Sakashita, Bala Kumaravel, Nicolai Marquardt , Andrew D. Wilson   SharedNeRF, a system for synchronous remote collaboration, utilizes neural radiance field (NeRF) technology to provide photorealistic, viewpoint-specific renderings that are seamlessly integrated with point clouds to capture dynamic movements and changes in a shared space. A preliminary study demonstrated its effectiveness, as participants used this high-fidelity, multi-perspective visualization to successfully complete a flower arrangement task. 

Understanding the Role of Large Language Models in Personalizing and Scaffolding Strategies to Combat Academic Procrastination   Ananya Bhattacharjee, Yuchen Zeng, Sarah Yi Xu, Dana Kulzhabayeva, Minyi Ma, Rachel Kornfield, Syed Ishtiaque Ahmed, Alex Mariakakis, Mary P. Czerwinski , Anastasia Kuzminykh, Michael Liut, Joseph Jay Williams   In this study, the authors explore the potential of LLMs for customizing academic procrastination interventions, employing a technology probe to generate personalized advice. Their findings emphasize the need for LLMs to offer structured, deadline-oriented advice and adaptive questioning techniques, providing key design insights for LLM-based tools while highlighting cautions against their use for therapeutic guidance.

Where Are We So Far? Understanding Data Storytelling Tools from the Perspective of Human-AI Collaboration   Haotian Li, Yun Wang , Huamin Qu This paper evaluates data storytelling tools using a dual framework to analyze the stages of the storytelling workflow—analysis, planning, implementation, communication—and the roles of humans and AI in each stage, such as creators, assistants, optimizers, and reviewers. The study identifies common collaboration patterns in existing tools, summarizes lessons from these patterns, and highlights future research opportunities for human-AI collaboration in data storytelling.

Learn more about our work and contributions to CHI 2024, including our full list of publications , on our conference webpage .

Related publications

Dynavis: dynamically synthesized ui widgets for visualization editing, generative echo chamber effects of llm-powered search systems on diverse information seeking, understanding the role of large language models in personalizing and scaffolding strategies to combat academic procrastination, sharednerf: leveraging photorealistic and view-dependent rendering for real-time and remote collaboration, big or small, it’s all in your head: visuo-haptic illusion of size-change using finger-repositioning, llmr: real-time prompting of interactive worlds using large language models, reading between the lines: modeling user behavior and costs in ai-assisted programming, observer effect in social media use, where are we so far understanding data storytelling tools from the perspective of human-ai collaboration, the metacognitive demands and opportunities of generative ai, piet: facilitating color authoring for motion graphics video, continue reading.

Research Focus: Week of May 13, 2024

Research Focus: Week of April 15, 2024

Research Focus: Week of March 18, 2024

Advancing human-centered AI: Updates on responsible AI research

Research areas.

Related events

• Microsoft at CHI 2024

Related labs

• Microsoft Research Lab - Asia
• Microsoft Research Lab - Cambridge
• Microsoft Research Lab - Redmond
• Microsoft Research Lab – Montréal
• AI Frontiers
• Follow on Twitter
• Like on Facebook
• Follow on LinkedIn
• Subscribe on Youtube
• Follow on Instagram

Share this page:

Cultural Relativity and Acceptance of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Article sidebar.

Main Article Content

There is a debate about the ethical implications of using human embryos in stem cell research, which can be influenced by cultural, moral, and social values. This paper argues for an adaptable framework to accommodate diverse cultural and religious perspectives. By using an adaptive ethics model, research protections can reflect various populations and foster growth in stem cell research possibilities.

INTRODUCTION

Stem cell research combines biology, medicine, and technology, promising to alter health care and the understanding of human development. Yet, ethical contention exists because of individuals’ perceptions of using human embryos based on their various cultural, moral, and social values. While these disagreements concerning policy, use, and general acceptance have prompted the development of an international ethics policy, such a uniform approach can overlook the nuanced ethical landscapes between cultures. With diverse viewpoints in public health, a single global policy, especially one reflecting Western ethics or the ethics prevalent in high-income countries, is impractical. This paper argues for a culturally sensitive, adaptable framework for the use of embryonic stem cells. Stem cell policy should accommodate varying ethical viewpoints and promote an effective global dialogue. With an extension of an ethics model that can adapt to various cultures, we recommend localized guidelines that reflect the moral views of the people those guidelines serve.

Stem cells, characterized by their unique ability to differentiate into various cell types, enable the repair or replacement of damaged tissues. Two primary types of stem cells are somatic stem cells (adult stem cells) and embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells exist in developed tissues and maintain the body’s repair processes. [1] Embryonic stem cells (ESC) are remarkably pluripotent or versatile, making them valuable in research. [2] However, the use of ESCs has sparked ethics debates. Considering the potential of embryonic stem cells, research guidelines are essential. The International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) provides international stem cell research guidelines. They call for “public conversations touching on the scientific significance as well as the societal and ethical issues raised by ESC research.” [3] The ISSCR also publishes updates about culturing human embryos 14 days post fertilization, suggesting local policies and regulations should continue to evolve as ESC research develops. [4]  Like the ISSCR, which calls for local law and policy to adapt to developing stem cell research given cultural acceptance, this paper highlights the importance of local social factors such as religion and culture.

I.     Global Cultural Perspective of Embryonic Stem Cells

Views on ESCs vary throughout the world. Some countries readily embrace stem cell research and therapies, while others have stricter regulations due to ethical concerns surrounding embryonic stem cells and when an embryo becomes entitled to moral consideration. The philosophical issue of when the “someone” begins to be a human after fertilization, in the morally relevant sense, [5] impacts when an embryo becomes not just worthy of protection but morally entitled to it. The process of creating embryonic stem cell lines involves the destruction of the embryos for research. [6] Consequently, global engagement in ESC research depends on social-cultural acceptability.

a.     US and Rights-Based Cultures

In the United States, attitudes toward stem cell therapies are diverse. The ethics and social approaches, which value individualism, [7] trigger debates regarding the destruction of human embryos, creating a complex regulatory environment. For example, the 1996 Dickey-Wicker Amendment prohibited federal funding for the creation of embryos for research and the destruction of embryos for “more than allowed for research on fetuses in utero.” [8] Following suit, in 2001, the Bush Administration heavily restricted stem cell lines for research. However, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 was proposed to help develop ESC research but was ultimately vetoed. [9] Under the Obama administration, in 2009, an executive order lifted restrictions allowing for more development in this field. [10] The flux of research capacity and funding parallels the different cultural perceptions of human dignity of the embryo and how it is socially presented within the country’s research culture. [11]

b.     Ubuntu and Collective Cultures

African bioethics differs from Western individualism because of the different traditions and values. African traditions, as described by individuals from South Africa and supported by some studies in other African countries, including Ghana and Kenya, follow the African moral philosophies of Ubuntu or Botho and Ukama , which “advocates for a form of wholeness that comes through one’s relationship and connectedness with other people in the society,” [12] making autonomy a socially collective concept. In this context, for the community to act autonomously, individuals would come together to decide what is best for the collective. Thus, stem cell research would require examining the value of the research to society as a whole and the use of the embryos as a collective societal resource. If society views the source as part of the collective whole, and opposes using stem cells, compromising the cultural values to pursue research may cause social detachment and stunt research growth. [13] Based on local culture and moral philosophy, the permissibility of stem cell research depends on how embryo, stem cell, and cell line therapies relate to the community as a whole . Ubuntu is the expression of humanness, with the person’s identity drawn from the “’I am because we are’” value. [14] The decision in a collectivistic culture becomes one born of cultural context, and individual decisions give deference to others in the society.

Consent differs in cultures where thought and moral philosophy are based on a collective paradigm. So, applying Western bioethical concepts is unrealistic. For one, Africa is a diverse continent with many countries with different belief systems, access to health care, and reliance on traditional or Western medicines. Where traditional medicine is the primary treatment, the “’restrictive focus on biomedically-related bioethics’” [is] problematic in African contexts because it neglects bioethical issues raised by traditional systems.” [15] No single approach applies in all areas or contexts. Rather than evaluating the permissibility of ESC research according to Western concepts such as the four principles approach, different ethics approaches should prevail.

Another consideration is the socio-economic standing of countries. In parts of South Africa, researchers have not focused heavily on contributing to the stem cell discourse, either because it is not considered health care or a health science priority or because resources are unavailable. [16] Each country’s priorities differ given different social, political, and economic factors. In South Africa, for instance, areas such as maternal mortality, non-communicable diseases, telemedicine, and the strength of health systems need improvement and require more focus. [17] Stem cell research could benefit the population, but it also could divert resources from basic medical care. Researchers in South Africa adhere to the National Health Act and Medicines Control Act in South Africa and international guidelines; however, the Act is not strictly enforced, and there is no clear legislation for research conduct or ethical guidelines. [18]

Some parts of Africa condemn stem cell research. For example, 98.2 percent of the Tunisian population is Muslim. [19] Tunisia does not permit stem cell research because of moral conflict with a Fatwa. Religion heavily saturates the regulation and direction of research. [20] Stem cell use became permissible for reproductive purposes only recently, with tight restrictions preventing cells from being used in any research other than procedures concerning ART/IVF.  Their use is conditioned on consent, and available only to married couples. [21] The community's receptiveness to stem cell research depends on including communitarian African ethics.

c.     Asia

Some Asian countries also have a collective model of ethics and decision making. [22] In China, the ethics model promotes a sincere respect for life or human dignity, [23] based on protective medicine. This model, influenced by Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), [24] recognizes Qi as the vital energy delivered via the meridians of the body; it connects illness to body systems, the body’s entire constitution, and the universe for a holistic bond of nature, health, and quality of life. [25] Following a protective ethics model, and traditional customs of wholeness, investment in stem cell research is heavily desired for its applications in regenerative therapies, disease modeling, and protective medicines. In a survey of medical students and healthcare practitioners, 30.8 percent considered stem cell research morally unacceptable while 63.5 percent accepted medical research using human embryonic stem cells. Of these individuals, 89.9 percent supported increased funding for stem cell research. [26] The scientific community might not reflect the overall population. From 1997 to 2019, China spent a total of $576 million (USD) on stem cell research at 8,050 stem cell programs, increased published presence from 0.6 percent to 14.01 percent of total global stem cell publications as of 2014, and made significant strides in cell-based therapies for various medical conditions. [27] However, while China has made substantial investments in stem cell research and achieved notable progress in clinical applications, concerns linger regarding ethical oversight and transparency. [28] For example, the China Biosecurity Law, promoted by the National Health Commission and China Hospital Association, attempted to mitigate risks by introducing an institutional review board (IRB) in the regulatory bodies. 5800 IRBs registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry since 2021. [29] However, issues still need to be addressed in implementing effective IRB review and approval procedures.

The substantial government funding and focus on scientific advancement have sometimes overshadowed considerations of regional cultures, ethnic minorities, and individual perspectives, particularly evident during the one-child policy era. As government policy adapts to promote public stability, such as the change from the one-child to the two-child policy, [30] research ethics should also adapt to ensure respect for the values of its represented peoples.

Japan is also relatively supportive of stem cell research and therapies. Japan has a more transparent regulatory framework, allowing for faster approval of regenerative medicine products, which has led to several advanced clinical trials and therapies. [31] South Korea is also actively engaged in stem cell research and has a history of breakthroughs in cloning and embryonic stem cells. [32] However, the field is controversial, and there are issues of scientific integrity. For example, the Korean FDA fast-tracked products for approval, [33] and in another instance, the oocyte source was unclear and possibly violated ethical standards. [34] Trust is important in research, as it builds collaborative foundations between colleagues, trial participant comfort, open-mindedness for complicated and sensitive discussions, and supports regulatory procedures for stakeholders. There is a need to respect the culture’s interest, engagement, and for research and clinical trials to be transparent and have ethical oversight to promote global research discourse and trust.

d.     Middle East

Countries in the Middle East have varying degrees of acceptance of or restrictions to policies related to using embryonic stem cells due to cultural and religious influences. Saudi Arabia has made significant contributions to stem cell research, and conducts research based on international guidelines for ethical conduct and under strict adherence to guidelines in accordance with Islamic principles. Specifically, the Saudi government and people require ESC research to adhere to Sharia law. In addition to umbilical and placental stem cells, [35] Saudi Arabia permits the use of embryonic stem cells as long as they come from miscarriages, therapeutic abortions permissible by Sharia law, or are left over from in vitro fertilization and donated to research. [36] Laws and ethical guidelines for stem cell research allow the development of research institutions such as the King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, which has a cord blood bank and a stem cell registry with nearly 10,000 donors. [37] Such volume and acceptance are due to the ethical ‘permissibility’ of the donor sources, which do not conflict with religious pillars. However, some researchers err on the side of caution, choosing not to use embryos or fetal tissue as they feel it is unethical to do so. [38]

Jordan has a positive research ethics culture. [39] However, there is a significant issue of lack of trust in researchers, with 45.23 percent (38.66 percent agreeing and 6.57 percent strongly agreeing) of Jordanians holding a low level of trust in researchers, compared to 81.34 percent of Jordanians agreeing that they feel safe to participate in a research trial. [40] Safety testifies to the feeling of confidence that adequate measures are in place to protect participants from harm, whereas trust in researchers could represent the confidence in researchers to act in the participants’ best interests, adhere to ethical guidelines, provide accurate information, and respect participants’ rights and dignity. One method to improve trust would be to address communication issues relevant to ESC. Legislation surrounding stem cell research has adopted specific language, especially concerning clarification “between ‘stem cells’ and ‘embryonic stem cells’” in translation. [41] Furthermore, legislation “mandates the creation of a national committee… laying out specific regulations for stem-cell banking in accordance with international standards.” [42] This broad regulation opens the door for future global engagement and maintains transparency. However, these regulations may also constrain the influence of research direction, pace, and accessibility of research outcomes.

e.     Europe

In the European Union (EU), ethics is also principle-based, but the principles of autonomy, dignity, integrity, and vulnerability are interconnected. [43] As such, the opportunity for cohesion and concessions between individuals’ thoughts and ideals allows for a more adaptable ethics model due to the flexible principles that relate to the human experience The EU has put forth a framework in its Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being allowing member states to take different approaches. Each European state applies these principles to its specific conventions, leading to or reflecting different acceptance levels of stem cell research. [44]

For example, in Germany, Lebenzusammenhang , or the coherence of life, references integrity in the unity of human culture. Namely, the personal sphere “should not be subject to external intervention.” [45]  Stem cell interventions could affect this concept of bodily completeness, leading to heavy restrictions. Under the Grundgesetz, human dignity and the right to life with physical integrity are paramount. [46] The Embryo Protection Act of 1991 made producing cell lines illegal. Cell lines can be imported if approved by the Central Ethics Commission for Stem Cell Research only if they were derived before May 2007. [47] Stem cell research respects the integrity of life for the embryo with heavy specifications and intense oversight. This is vastly different in Finland, where the regulatory bodies find research more permissible in IVF excess, but only up to 14 days after fertilization. [48] Spain’s approach differs still, with a comprehensive regulatory framework. [49] Thus, research regulation can be culture-specific due to variations in applied principles. Diverse cultures call for various approaches to ethical permissibility. [50] Only an adaptive-deliberative model can address the cultural constructions of self and achieve positive, culturally sensitive stem cell research practices. [51]

II.     Religious Perspectives on ESC

Embryonic stem cell sources are the main consideration within religious contexts. While individuals may not regard their own religious texts as authoritative or factual, religion can shape their foundations or perspectives.

The Qur'an states:

“And indeed We created man from a quintessence of clay. Then We placed within him a small quantity of nutfa (sperm to fertilize) in a safe place. Then We have fashioned the nutfa into an ‘alaqa (clinging clot or cell cluster), then We developed the ‘alaqa into mudgha (a lump of flesh), and We made mudgha into bones, and clothed the bones with flesh, then We brought it into being as a new creation. So Blessed is Allah, the Best of Creators.” [52]

Many scholars of Islam estimate the time of soul installment, marked by the angel breathing in the soul to bring the individual into creation, as 120 days from conception. [53] Personhood begins at this point, and the value of life would prohibit research or experimentation that could harm the individual. If the fetus is more than 120 days old, the time ensoulment is interpreted to occur according to Islamic law, abortion is no longer permissible. [54] There are a few opposing opinions about early embryos in Islamic traditions. According to some Islamic theologians, there is no ensoulment of the early embryo, which is the source of stem cells for ESC research. [55]

In Buddhism, the stance on stem cell research is not settled. The main tenets, the prohibition against harming or destroying others (ahimsa) and the pursuit of knowledge (prajña) and compassion (karuna), leave Buddhist scholars and communities divided. [56] Some scholars argue stem cell research is in accordance with the Buddhist tenet of seeking knowledge and ending human suffering. Others feel it violates the principle of not harming others. Finding the balance between these two points relies on the karmic burden of Buddhist morality. In trying to prevent ahimsa towards the embryo, Buddhist scholars suggest that to comply with Buddhist tenets, research cannot be done as the embryo has personhood at the moment of conception and would reincarnate immediately, harming the individual's ability to build their karmic burden. [57] On the other hand, the Bodhisattvas, those considered to be on the path to enlightenment or Nirvana, have given organs and flesh to others to help alleviate grieving and to benefit all. [58] Acceptance varies on applied beliefs and interpretations.

Catholicism does not support embryonic stem cell research, as it entails creation or destruction of human embryos. This destruction conflicts with the belief in the sanctity of life. For example, in the Old Testament, Genesis describes humanity as being created in God’s image and multiplying on the Earth, referencing the sacred rights to human conception and the purpose of development and life. In the Ten Commandments, the tenet that one should not kill has numerous interpretations where killing could mean murder or shedding of the sanctity of life, demonstrating the high value of human personhood. In other books, the theological conception of when life begins is interpreted as in utero, [59] highlighting the inviolability of life and its formation in vivo to make a religious point for accepting such research as relatively limited, if at all. [60] The Vatican has released ethical directives to help apply a theological basis to modern-day conflicts. The Magisterium of the Church states that “unless there is a moral certainty of not causing harm,” experimentation on fetuses, fertilized cells, stem cells, or embryos constitutes a crime. [61] Such procedures would not respect the human person who exists at these stages, according to Catholicism. Damages to the embryo are considered gravely immoral and illicit. [62] Although the Catholic Church officially opposes abortion, surveys demonstrate that many Catholic people hold pro-choice views, whether due to the context of conception, stage of pregnancy, threat to the mother’s life, or for other reasons, demonstrating that practicing members can also accept some but not all tenets. [63]

Some major Jewish denominations, such as the Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist movements, are open to supporting ESC use or research as long as it is for saving a life. [64] Within Judaism, the Talmud, or study, gives personhood to the child at birth and emphasizes that life does not begin at conception: [65]

“If she is found pregnant, until the fortieth day it is mere fluid,” [66]

Whereas most religions prioritize the status of human embryos, the Halakah (Jewish religious law) states that to save one life, most other religious laws can be ignored because it is in pursuit of preservation. [67] Stem cell research is accepted due to application of these religious laws.

We recognize that all religions contain subsets and sects. The variety of environmental and cultural differences within religious groups requires further analysis to respect the flexibility of religious thoughts and practices. We make no presumptions that all cultures require notions of autonomy or morality as under the common morality theory , which asserts a set of universal moral norms that all individuals share provides moral reasoning and guides ethical decisions. [68] We only wish to show that the interaction with morality varies between cultures and countries.

III.     A Flexible Ethical Approach

The plurality of different moral approaches described above demonstrates that there can be no universally acceptable uniform law for ESC on a global scale. Instead of developing one standard, flexible ethical applications must be continued. We recommend local guidelines that incorporate important cultural and ethical priorities.

While the Declaration of Helsinki is more relevant to people in clinical trials receiving ESC products, in keeping with the tradition of protections for research subjects, consent of the donor is an ethical requirement for ESC donation in many jurisdictions including the US, Canada, and Europe. [69] The Declaration of Helsinki provides a reference point for regulatory standards and could potentially be used as a universal baseline for obtaining consent prior to gamete or embryo donation.

For instance, in Columbia University’s egg donor program for stem cell research, donors followed standard screening protocols and “underwent counseling sessions that included information as to the purpose of oocyte donation for research, what the oocytes would be used for, the risks and benefits of donation, and process of oocyte stimulation” to ensure transparency for consent. [70] The program helped advance stem cell research and provided clear and safe research methods with paid participants. Though paid participation or covering costs of incidental expenses may not be socially acceptable in every culture or context, [71] and creating embryos for ESC research is illegal in many jurisdictions, Columbia’s program was effective because of the clear and honest communications with donors, IRBs, and related stakeholders.  This example demonstrates that cultural acceptance of scientific research and of the idea that an egg or embryo does not have personhood is likely behind societal acceptance of donating eggs for ESC research. As noted, many countries do not permit the creation of embryos for research.

Proper communication and education regarding the process and purpose of stem cell research may bolster comprehension and garner more acceptance. “Given the sensitive subject material, a complete consent process can support voluntary participation through trust, understanding, and ethical norms from the cultures and morals participants value. This can be hard for researchers entering countries of different socioeconomic stability, with different languages and different societal values. [72]

An adequate moral foundation in medical ethics is derived from the cultural and religious basis that informs knowledge and actions. [73] Understanding local cultural and religious values and their impact on research could help researchers develop humility and promote inclusion.

IV.     Concerns

Some may argue that if researchers all adhere to one ethics standard, protection will be satisfied across all borders, and the global public will trust researchers. However, defining what needs to be protected and how to define such research standards is very specific to the people to which standards are applied. We suggest that applying one uniform guide cannot accurately protect each individual because we all possess our own perceptions and interpretations of social values. [74] Therefore, the issue of not adjusting to the moral pluralism between peoples in applying one standard of ethics can be resolved by building out ethics models that can be adapted to different cultures and religions.

Other concerns include medical tourism, which may promote health inequities. [75] Some countries may develop and approve products derived from ESC research before others, compromising research ethics or drug approval processes. There are also concerns about the sale of unauthorized stem cell treatments, for example, those without FDA approval in the United States. Countries with robust research infrastructures may be tempted to attract medical tourists, and some customers will have false hopes based on aggressive publicity of unproven treatments. [76]

For example, in China, stem cell clinics can market to foreign clients who are not protected under the regulatory regimes. Companies employ a marketing strategy of “ethically friendly” therapies. Specifically, in the case of Beike, China’s leading stem cell tourism company and sprouting network, ethical oversight of administrators or health bureaus at one site has “the unintended consequence of shifting questionable activities to another node in Beike's diffuse network.” [77] In contrast, Jordan is aware of stem cell research’s potential abuse and its own status as a “health-care hub.” Jordan’s expanded regulations include preserving the interests of individuals in clinical trials and banning private companies from ESC research to preserve transparency and the integrity of research practices. [78]

The social priorities of the community are also a concern. The ISSCR explicitly states that guidelines “should be periodically revised to accommodate scientific advances, new challenges, and evolving social priorities.” [79] The adaptable ethics model extends this consideration further by addressing whether research is warranted given the varying degrees of socioeconomic conditions, political stability, and healthcare accessibilities and limitations. An ethical approach would require discussion about resource allocation and appropriate distribution of funds. [80]

While some religions emphasize the sanctity of life from conception, which may lead to public opposition to ESC research, others encourage ESC research due to its potential for healing and alleviating human pain. Many countries have special regulations that balance local views on embryonic personhood, the benefits of research as individual or societal goods, and the protection of human research subjects. To foster understanding and constructive dialogue, global policy frameworks should prioritize the protection of universal human rights, transparency, and informed consent. In addition to these foundational global policies, we recommend tailoring local guidelines to reflect the diverse cultural and religious perspectives of the populations they govern. Ethics models should be adapted to local populations to effectively establish research protections, growth, and possibilities of stem cell research.

For example, in countries with strong beliefs in the moral sanctity of embryos or heavy religious restrictions, an adaptive model can allow for discussion instead of immediate rejection. In countries with limited individual rights and voice in science policy, an adaptive model ensures cultural, moral, and religious views are taken into consideration, thereby building social inclusion. While this ethical consideration by the government may not give a complete voice to every individual, it will help balance policies and maintain the diverse perspectives of those it affects. Embracing an adaptive ethics model of ESC research promotes open-minded dialogue and respect for the importance of human belief and tradition. By actively engaging with cultural and religious values, researchers can better handle disagreements and promote ethical research practices that benefit each society.

This brief exploration of the religious and cultural differences that impact ESC research reveals the nuances of relative ethics and highlights a need for local policymakers to apply a more intense adaptive model.

[1] Poliwoda, S., Noor, N., Downs, E., Schaaf, A., Cantwell, A., Ganti, L., Kaye, A. D., Mosel, L. I., Carroll, C. B., Viswanath, O., & Urits, I. (2022). Stem cells: a comprehensive review of origins and emerging clinical roles in medical practice.  Orthopedic reviews ,  14 (3), 37498. https://doi.org/10.52965/001c.37498

[2] Poliwoda, S., Noor, N., Downs, E., Schaaf, A., Cantwell, A., Ganti, L., Kaye, A. D., Mosel, L. I., Carroll, C. B., Viswanath, O., & Urits, I. (2022). Stem cells: a comprehensive review of origins and emerging clinical roles in medical practice.  Orthopedic reviews ,  14 (3), 37498. https://doi.org/10.52965/001c.37498

[3] International Society for Stem Cell Research. (2023). Laboratory-based human embryonic stem cell research, embryo research, and related research activities . International Society for Stem Cell Research. https://www.isscr.org/guidelines/blog-post-title-one-ed2td-6fcdk ; Kimmelman, J., Hyun, I., Benvenisty, N.  et al.  Policy: Global standards for stem-cell research.  Nature   533 , 311–313 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/533311a

[4] International Society for Stem Cell Research. (2023). Laboratory-based human embryonic stem cell research, embryo research, and related research activities . International Society for Stem Cell Research. https://www.isscr.org/guidelines/blog-post-title-one-ed2td-6fcdk

[5] Concerning the moral philosophies of stem cell research, our paper does not posit a personal moral stance nor delve into the “when” of human life begins. To read further about the philosophical debate, consider the following sources:

Sandel M. J. (2004). Embryo ethics--the moral logic of stem-cell research.  The New England journal of medicine ,  351 (3), 207–209. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp048145 ; George, R. P., & Lee, P. (2020, September 26). Acorns and Embryos . The New Atlantis. https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/acorns-and-embryos ; Sagan, A., & Singer, P. (2007). The moral status of stem cells. Metaphilosophy , 38 (2/3), 264–284. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24439776 ; McHugh P. R. (2004). Zygote and "clonote"--the ethical use of embryonic stem cells.  The New England journal of medicine ,  351 (3), 209–211. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp048147 ; Kurjak, A., & Tripalo, A. (2004). The facts and doubts about beginning of the human life and personality.  Bosnian journal of basic medical sciences ,  4 (1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.17305/bjbms.2004.3453

[6] Vazin, T., & Freed, W. J. (2010). Human embryonic stem cells: derivation, culture, and differentiation: a review.  Restorative neurology and neuroscience ,  28 (4), 589–603. https://doi.org/10.3233/RNN-2010-0543

[7] Socially, at its core, the Western approach to ethics is widely principle-based, autonomy being one of the key factors to ensure a fundamental respect for persons within research. For information regarding autonomy in research, see: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, & National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1978). The Belmont Report. Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research.; For a more in-depth review of autonomy within the US, see: Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (1994). Principles of Biomedical Ethics . Oxford University Press.

[8] Sherley v. Sebelius , 644 F.3d 388 (D.C. Cir. 2011), citing 45 C.F.R. 46.204(b) and [42 U.S.C. § 289g(b)]. https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/6c690438a9b43dd685257a64004ebf99/$file/11-5241-1391178.pdf

[9] Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, H. R. 810, 109 th Cong. (2001). https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr810/text ; Bush, G. W. (2006, July 19). Message to the House of Representatives . National Archives and Records Administration. https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/07/20060719-5.html

[10] National Archives and Records Administration. (2009, March 9). Executive order 13505 -- removing barriers to responsible scientific research involving human stem cells . National Archives and Records Administration. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/removing-barriers-responsible-scientific-research-involving-human-stem-cells

[11] Hurlbut, W. B. (2006). Science, Religion, and the Politics of Stem Cells.  Social Research ,  73 (3), 819–834. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40971854

[12] Akpa-Inyang, Francis & Chima, Sylvester. (2021). South African traditional values and beliefs regarding informed consent and limitations of the principle of respect for autonomy in African communities: a cross-cultural qualitative study. BMC Medical Ethics . 22. 10.1186/s12910-021-00678-4.

[13] Source for further reading: Tangwa G. B. (2007). Moral status of embryonic stem cells: perspective of an African villager. Bioethics , 21(8), 449–457. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2007.00582.x , see also Mnisi, F. M. (2020). An African analysis based on ethics of Ubuntu - are human embryonic stem cell patents morally justifiable? African Insight , 49 (4).

[14] Jecker, N. S., & Atuire, C. (2021). Bioethics in Africa: A contextually enlightened analysis of three cases. Developing World Bioethics , 22 (2), 112–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12324

[15] Jecker, N. S., & Atuire, C. (2021). Bioethics in Africa: A contextually enlightened analysis of three cases. Developing World Bioethics, 22(2), 112–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12324

[16] Jackson, C.S., Pepper, M.S. Opportunities and barriers to establishing a cell therapy programme in South Africa.  Stem Cell Res Ther   4 , 54 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/scrt204 ; Pew Research Center. (2014, May 1). Public health a major priority in African nations . Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2014/05/01/public-health-a-major-priority-in-african-nations/

[17] Department of Health Republic of South Africa. (2021). Health Research Priorities (revised) for South Africa 2021-2024 . National Health Research Strategy. https://www.health.gov.za/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/National-Health-Research-Priorities-2021-2024.pdf

[18] Oosthuizen, H. (2013). Legal and Ethical Issues in Stem Cell Research in South Africa. In: Beran, R. (eds) Legal and Forensic Medicine. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32338-6_80 , see also: Gaobotse G (2018) Stem Cell Research in Africa: Legislation and Challenges. J Regen Med 7:1. doi: 10.4172/2325-9620.1000142

[19] United States Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. (1998). Tunisia: Information on the status of Christian conversions in Tunisia . UNHCR Web Archive. https://webarchive.archive.unhcr.org/20230522142618/https://www.refworld.org/docid/3df0be9a2.html

[20] Gaobotse, G. (2018) Stem Cell Research in Africa: Legislation and Challenges. J Regen Med 7:1. doi: 10.4172/2325-9620.1000142

[21] Kooli, C. Review of assisted reproduction techniques, laws, and regulations in Muslim countries.  Middle East Fertil Soc J   24 , 8 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43043-019-0011-0 ; Gaobotse, G. (2018) Stem Cell Research in Africa: Legislation and Challenges. J Regen Med 7:1. doi: 10.4172/2325-9620.1000142

[22] Pang M. C. (1999). Protective truthfulness: the Chinese way of safeguarding patients in informed treatment decisions. Journal of medical ethics , 25(3), 247–253. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.25.3.247

[23] Wang, L., Wang, F., & Zhang, W. (2021). Bioethics in China’s biosecurity law: Forms, effects, and unsettled issues. Journal of law and the biosciences , 8(1).  https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsab019 https://academic.oup.com/jlb/article/8/1/lsab019/6299199

[24] Wang, Y., Xue, Y., & Guo, H. D. (2022). Intervention effects of traditional Chinese medicine on stem cell therapy of myocardial infarction.  Frontiers in pharmacology ,  13 , 1013740. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2022.1013740

[25] Li, X.-T., & Zhao, J. (2012). Chapter 4: An Approach to the Nature of Qi in TCM- Qi and Bioenergy. In Recent Advances in Theories and Practice of Chinese Medicine (p. 79). InTech.

[26] Luo, D., Xu, Z., Wang, Z., & Ran, W. (2021). China's Stem Cell Research and Knowledge Levels of Medical Practitioners and Students.  Stem cells international ,  2021 , 6667743. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6667743

[27] Luo, D., Xu, Z., Wang, Z., & Ran, W. (2021). China's Stem Cell Research and Knowledge Levels of Medical Practitioners and Students.  Stem cells international ,  2021 , 6667743. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6667743

[28] Zhang, J. Y. (2017). Lost in translation? accountability and governance of Clinical Stem Cell Research in China. Regenerative Medicine , 12 (6), 647–656. https://doi.org/10.2217/rme-2017-0035

[29] Wang, L., Wang, F., & Zhang, W. (2021). Bioethics in China’s biosecurity law: Forms, effects, and unsettled issues. Journal of law and the biosciences , 8(1).  https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsab019 https://academic.oup.com/jlb/article/8/1/lsab019/6299199

[30] Chen, H., Wei, T., Wang, H.  et al.  Association of China’s two-child policy with changes in number of births and birth defects rate, 2008–2017.  BMC Public Health   22 , 434 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-12839-0

[31] Azuma, K. Regulatory Landscape of Regenerative Medicine in Japan.  Curr Stem Cell Rep   1 , 118–128 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40778-015-0012-6

[32] Harris, R. (2005, May 19). Researchers Report Advance in Stem Cell Production . NPR. https://www.npr.org/2005/05/19/4658967/researchers-report-advance-in-stem-cell-production

[33] Park, S. (2012). South Korea steps up stem-cell work.  Nature . https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2012.10565

[34] Resnik, D. B., Shamoo, A. E., & Krimsky, S. (2006). Fraudulent human embryonic stem cell research in South Korea: lessons learned.  Accountability in research ,  13 (1), 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989620600634193 .

[35] Alahmad, G., Aljohani, S., & Najjar, M. F. (2020). Ethical challenges regarding the use of stem cells: interviews with researchers from Saudi Arabia. BMC medical ethics, 21(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00482-6

[36] Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies.  https://www.aabb.org/regulatory-and-advocacy/regulatory-affairs/regulatory-for-cellular-therapies/international-competent-authorities/saudi-arabia

[37] Alahmad, G., Aljohani, S., & Najjar, M. F. (2020). Ethical challenges regarding the use of stem cells: Interviews with researchers from Saudi Arabia.  BMC medical ethics ,  21 (1), 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00482-6

[38] Alahmad, G., Aljohani, S., & Najjar, M. F. (2020). Ethical challenges regarding the use of stem cells: Interviews with researchers from Saudi Arabia. BMC medical ethics , 21(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00482-6

Culturally, autonomy practices follow a relational autonomy approach based on a paternalistic deontological health care model. The adherence to strict international research policies and religious pillars within the regulatory environment is a great foundation for research ethics. However, there is a need to develop locally targeted ethics approaches for research (as called for in Alahmad, G., Aljohani, S., & Najjar, M. F. (2020). Ethical challenges regarding the use of stem cells: interviews with researchers from Saudi Arabia. BMC medical ethics, 21(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00482-6), this decision-making approach may help advise a research decision model. For more on the clinical cultural autonomy approaches, see: Alabdullah, Y. Y., Alzaid, E., Alsaad, S., Alamri, T., Alolayan, S. W., Bah, S., & Aljoudi, A. S. (2022). Autonomy and paternalism in Shared decision‐making in a Saudi Arabian tertiary hospital: A cross‐sectional study. Developing World Bioethics , 23 (3), 260–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12355 ; Bukhari, A. A. (2017). Universal Principles of Bioethics and Patient Rights in Saudi Arabia (Doctoral dissertation, Duquesne University). https://dsc.duq.edu/etd/124; Ladha, S., Nakshawani, S. A., Alzaidy, A., & Tarab, B. (2023, October 26). Islam and Bioethics: What We All Need to Know . Columbia University School of Professional Studies. https://sps.columbia.edu/events/islam-and-bioethics-what-we-all-need-know

[39] Ababneh, M. A., Al-Azzam, S. I., Alzoubi, K., Rababa’h, A., & Al Demour, S. (2021). Understanding and attitudes of the Jordanian public about clinical research ethics.  Research Ethics ,  17 (2), 228-241.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016120966779

[40] Ababneh, M. A., Al-Azzam, S. I., Alzoubi, K., Rababa’h, A., & Al Demour, S. (2021). Understanding and attitudes of the Jordanian public about clinical research ethics.  Research Ethics ,  17 (2), 228-241.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016120966779

[41] Dajani, R. (2014). Jordan’s stem-cell law can guide the Middle East.  Nature  510, 189. https://doi.org/10.1038/510189a

[42] Dajani, R. (2014). Jordan’s stem-cell law can guide the Middle East.  Nature  510, 189. https://doi.org/10.1038/510189a

[43] The EU’s definition of autonomy relates to the capacity for creating ideas, moral insight, decisions, and actions without constraint, personal responsibility, and informed consent. However, the EU views autonomy as not completely able to protect individuals and depends on other principles, such as dignity, which “expresses the intrinsic worth and fundamental equality of all human beings.” Rendtorff, J.D., Kemp, P. (2019). Four Ethical Principles in European Bioethics and Biolaw: Autonomy, Dignity, Integrity and Vulnerability. In: Valdés, E., Lecaros, J. (eds) Biolaw and Policy in the Twenty-First Century. International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine, vol 78. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05903-3_3

[44] Council of Europe. Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (ETS No. 164) https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=treaty-detail&treatynum=164 (forbidding the creation of embryos for research purposes only, and suggests embryos in vitro have protections.); Also see Drabiak-Syed B. K. (2013). New President, New Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research Policy: Comparative International Perspectives and Embryonic Stem Cell Research Laws in France.  Biotechnology Law Report ,  32 (6), 349–356. https://doi.org/10.1089/blr.2013.9865

[45] Rendtorff, J.D., Kemp, P. (2019). Four Ethical Principles in European Bioethics and Biolaw: Autonomy, Dignity, Integrity and Vulnerability. In: Valdés, E., Lecaros, J. (eds) Biolaw and Policy in the Twenty-First Century. International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine, vol 78. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05903-3_3

[46] Tomuschat, C., Currie, D. P., Kommers, D. P., & Kerr, R. (Trans.). (1949, May 23). Basic law for the Federal Republic of Germany. https://www.btg-bestellservice.de/pdf/80201000.pdf

[47] Regulation of Stem Cell Research in Germany . Eurostemcell. (2017, April 26). https://www.eurostemcell.org/regulation-stem-cell-research-germany

[48] Regulation of Stem Cell Research in Finland . Eurostemcell. (2017, April 26). https://www.eurostemcell.org/regulation-stem-cell-research-finland

[49] Regulation of Stem Cell Research in Spain . Eurostemcell. (2017, April 26). https://www.eurostemcell.org/regulation-stem-cell-research-spain

[50] Some sources to consider regarding ethics models or regulatory oversights of other cultures not covered:

Kara MA. Applicability of the principle of respect for autonomy: the perspective of Turkey. J Med Ethics. 2007 Nov;33(11):627-30. doi: 10.1136/jme.2006.017400. PMID: 17971462; PMCID: PMC2598110.

Ugarte, O. N., & Acioly, M. A. (2014). The principle of autonomy in Brazil: one needs to discuss it ...  Revista do Colegio Brasileiro de Cirurgioes ,  41 (5), 374–377. https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-69912014005013

Bharadwaj, A., & Glasner, P. E. (2012). Local cells, global science: The rise of embryonic stem cell research in India . Routledge.

For further research on specific European countries regarding ethical and regulatory framework, we recommend this database: Regulation of Stem Cell Research in Europe . Eurostemcell. (2017, April 26). https://www.eurostemcell.org/regulation-stem-cell-research-europe   

[51] Klitzman, R. (2006). Complications of culture in obtaining informed consent. The American Journal of Bioethics, 6(1), 20–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265160500394671 see also: Ekmekci, P. E., & Arda, B. (2017). Interculturalism and Informed Consent: Respecting Cultural Differences without Breaching Human Rights.  Cultura (Iasi, Romania) ,  14 (2), 159–172.; For why trust is important in research, see also: Gray, B., Hilder, J., Macdonald, L., Tester, R., Dowell, A., & Stubbe, M. (2017). Are research ethics guidelines culturally competent?  Research Ethics ,  13 (1), 23-41.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016116650235

[52] The Qur'an  (M. Khattab, Trans.). (1965). Al-Mu’minun, 23: 12-14. https://quran.com/23

[53] Lenfest, Y. (2017, December 8). Islam and the beginning of human life . Bill of Health. https://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2017/12/08/islam-and-the-beginning-of-human-life/

[54] Aksoy, S. (2005). Making regulations and drawing up legislation in Islamic countries under conditions of uncertainty, with special reference to embryonic stem cell research. Journal of Medical Ethics , 31: 399-403.; see also: Mahmoud, Azza. "Islamic Bioethics: National Regulations and Guidelines of Human Stem Cell Research in the Muslim World." Master's thesis, Chapman University, 2022. https://doi.org/10.36837/ chapman.000386

[55] Rashid, R. (2022). When does Ensoulment occur in the Human Foetus. Journal of the British Islamic Medical Association , 12 (4). ISSN 2634 8071. https://www.jbima.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/2-Ethics-3_-Ensoulment_Rafaqat.pdf.

[56] Sivaraman, M. & Noor, S. (2017). Ethics of embryonic stem cell research according to Buddhist, Hindu, Catholic, and Islamic religions: perspective from Malaysia. Asian Biomedicine,8(1) 43-52.  https://doi.org/10.5372/1905-7415.0801.260

[57] Jafari, M., Elahi, F., Ozyurt, S. & Wrigley, T. (2007). 4. Religious Perspectives on Embryonic Stem Cell Research. In K. Monroe, R. Miller & J. Tobis (Ed.),  Fundamentals of the Stem Cell Debate: The Scientific, Religious, Ethical, and Political Issues  (pp. 79-94). Berkeley: University of California Press.  https://escholarship.org/content/qt9rj0k7s3/qt9rj0k7s3_noSplash_f9aca2e02c3777c7fb76ea768ba458f0.pdf https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520940994-005

[58] Lecso, P. A. (1991). The Bodhisattva Ideal and Organ Transplantation.  Journal of Religion and Health ,  30 (1), 35–41. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27510629 ; Bodhisattva, S. (n.d.). The Key of Becoming a Bodhisattva . A Guide to the Bodhisattva Way of Life. http://www.buddhism.org/Sutras/2/BodhisattvaWay.htm

[59] There is no explicit religious reference to when life begins or how to conduct research that interacts with the concept of life. However, these are relevant verses pertaining to how the fetus is viewed. (( King James Bible . (1999). Oxford University Press. (original work published 1769))

Jerimiah 1: 5 “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee…”

In prophet Jerimiah’s insight, God set him apart as a person known before childbirth, a theme carried within the Psalm of David.

Psalm 139: 13-14 “…Thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made…”

These verses demonstrate David’s respect for God as an entity that would know of all man’s thoughts and doings even before birth.

[60] It should be noted that abortion is not supported as well.

[61] The Vatican. (1987, February 22). Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation Replies to Certain Questions of the Day . Congregation For the Doctrine of the Faith. https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html

[62] The Vatican. (2000, August 25). Declaration On the Production and the Scientific and Therapeutic Use of Human Embryonic Stem Cells . Pontifical Academy for Life. https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pa_acdlife_doc_20000824_cellule-staminali_en.html ; Ohara, N. (2003). Ethical Consideration of Experimentation Using Living Human Embryos: The Catholic Church’s Position on Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research and Human Cloning. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology . Retrieved from https://article.imrpress.com/journal/CEOG/30/2-3/pii/2003018/77-81.pdf.

[63] Smith, G. A. (2022, May 23). Like Americans overall, Catholics vary in their abortion views, with regular mass attenders most opposed . Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/05/23/like-americans-overall-catholics-vary-in-their-abortion-views-with-regular-mass-attenders-most-opposed/

[64] Rosner, F., & Reichman, E. (2002). Embryonic stem cell research in Jewish law. Journal of halacha and contemporary society , (43), 49–68.; Jafari, M., Elahi, F., Ozyurt, S. & Wrigley, T. (2007). 4. Religious Perspectives on Embryonic Stem Cell Research. In K. Monroe, R. Miller & J. Tobis (Ed.),  Fundamentals of the Stem Cell Debate: The Scientific, Religious, Ethical, and Political Issues  (pp. 79-94). Berkeley: University of California Press.  https://escholarship.org/content/qt9rj0k7s3/qt9rj0k7s3_noSplash_f9aca2e02c3777c7fb76ea768ba458f0.pdf https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520940994-005

[65] Schenker J. G. (2008). The beginning of human life: status of embryo. Perspectives in Halakha (Jewish Religious Law).  Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics ,  25 (6), 271–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-008-9221-6

[66] Ruttenberg, D. (2020, May 5). The Torah of Abortion Justice (annotated source sheet) . Sefaria. https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/234926.7?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en

[67] Jafari, M., Elahi, F., Ozyurt, S. & Wrigley, T. (2007). 4. Religious Perspectives on Embryonic Stem Cell Research. In K. Monroe, R. Miller & J. Tobis (Ed.),  Fundamentals of the Stem Cell Debate: The Scientific, Religious, Ethical, and Political Issues  (pp. 79-94). Berkeley: University of California Press.  https://escholarship.org/content/qt9rj0k7s3/qt9rj0k7s3_noSplash_f9aca2e02c3777c7fb76ea768ba458f0.pdf https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520940994-005

[68] Gert, B. (2007). Common morality: Deciding what to do . Oxford Univ. Press.

[69] World Medical Association (2013). World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA , 310(20), 2191–2194. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281053 Declaration of Helsinki – WMA – The World Medical Association .; see also: National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979).  The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research . U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html

[70] Zakarin Safier, L., Gumer, A., Kline, M., Egli, D., & Sauer, M. V. (2018). Compensating human subjects providing oocytes for stem cell research: 9-year experience and outcomes.  Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics ,  35 (7), 1219–1225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-018-1171-z https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6063839/ see also: Riordan, N. H., & Paz Rodríguez, J. (2021). Addressing concerns regarding associated costs, transparency, and integrity of research in recent stem cell trial. Stem Cells Translational Medicine , 10 (12), 1715–1716. https://doi.org/10.1002/sctm.21-0234

[71] Klitzman, R., & Sauer, M. V. (2009). Payment of egg donors in stem cell research in the USA.  Reproductive biomedicine online ,  18 (5), 603–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1472-6483(10)60002-8

[72] Krosin, M. T., Klitzman, R., Levin, B., Cheng, J., & Ranney, M. L. (2006). Problems in comprehension of informed consent in rural and peri-urban Mali, West Africa.  Clinical trials (London, England) ,  3 (3), 306–313. https://doi.org/10.1191/1740774506cn150oa

[73] Veatch, Robert M.  Hippocratic, Religious, and Secular Medical Ethics: The Points of Conflict . Georgetown University Press, 2012.

[74] Msoroka, M. S., & Amundsen, D. (2018). One size fits not quite all: Universal research ethics with diversity.  Research Ethics ,  14 (3), 1-17.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016117739939

[75] Pirzada, N. (2022). The Expansion of Turkey’s Medical Tourism Industry.  Voices in Bioethics ,  8 . https://doi.org/10.52214/vib.v8i.9894

[76] Stem Cell Tourism: False Hope for Real Money . Harvard Stem Cell Institute (HSCI). (2023). https://hsci.harvard.edu/stem-cell-tourism , See also: Bissassar, M. (2017). Transnational Stem Cell Tourism: An ethical analysis.  Voices in Bioethics ,  3 . https://doi.org/10.7916/vib.v3i.6027

[77] Song, P. (2011) The proliferation of stem cell therapies in post-Mao China: problematizing ethical regulation,  New Genetics and Society , 30:2, 141-153, DOI:  10.1080/14636778.2011.574375

[78] Dajani, R. (2014). Jordan’s stem-cell law can guide the Middle East.  Nature  510, 189. https://doi.org/10.1038/510189a

[79] International Society for Stem Cell Research. (2024). Standards in stem cell research . International Society for Stem Cell Research. https://www.isscr.org/guidelines/5-standards-in-stem-cell-research

[80] Benjamin, R. (2013). People’s science bodies and rights on the Stem Cell Frontier . Stanford University Press.

Mifrah Hayath

SM Candidate Harvard Medical School, MS Biotechnology Johns Hopkins University

Olivia Bowers

MS Bioethics Columbia University (Disclosure: affiliated with Voices in Bioethics)

Article Details

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License .