Review of IS Research Frameworks and Classification Systems

Advocates of a core of IS research have cautioned about a lack of legitimacy, specifically the “cognitive legitimacy” (Benbasat and Zmud, 2003), of the IS field and have even questioned the survival of the field (Agarwal and Lucas, 2005), raising questions as to what should constitute IS research – its boundaries, and the discipline’s core. Some authors maintain that IS researchers have avoided studying the core of the IS discipline, the IT artifact, and should focus their efforts in theorizing and studying the artifact as the phenomenon of interest in IS research (Orlikowski and Iacono, 2001; Benbasat and Zmud, 2003). However, other researchers reject the idea of an identity crisis in IS, noting that the field’s strength stems from its diversity of interests, and that researchers should study what is relevant and pertinent to IS practice (Lyytinen and King, 2004; Robey, 1996; DeSanctis, 2003). Thus, what constitutes IS research and what researchers should be studying is at the heart of the debate.