Moderating a discourse on the moderating effects in the study of top management support

European Journal of Information Systems (2011) 20, 691–692. doi:10.1057/ejis.2011.40; published online 27 September 2011 Contrarian research studies are those that challenge, contradict, refute, or debunk previous research findings or accepted theories. These sometimes seek to expose inconsistencies in assumptions and introduce innovative approaches. We started this Special Series with an aim of encouraging submissions that are ‘significant’ contrarian Information Systems (IS) studies, which contradict theories that are well-entrenched and founded on widely accepted original research studies. As far as we are aware this special series is the first of its kind in the IS field that explicitly welcomes contrarian studies, in order to generate a scholarly debate as the IS discipline faces key changes arising from its own intellectual positioning and evolution. Since our first contrarian studies editorial (Nandhakumar, 2010) several submissions have gone through the editorial review and full review process. In this editorial introduction we provide some reflections on the nature of the contrarian IS studies submissions and the editorial process leading to their publication. Interest in the call for papers was overwhelming and we received numerous submissions and inquiries for this special series. Most of the submissions were very much in the spirit of the contrarian series and fall in the following categories: (1) opinion pieces challenging dominant theories and models; (2) analytical papers challenging a well-established seminal piece; and (3) theoretical papers offering extensions or modifications to existing theories. The first category of papers attempted to refute well-established theories and models, such as the Technology Acceptance Model; or to challenge the key assumptions of a genre of research, such as dominant orthodoxies around the IS organization and long-held beliefs about the role and functioning of the CIO. While these submissions were based on strong intellectual motivations, their contrarian argumentation was not rigorously grounded in empirical or theoretical evidence. In other words, one of the key requirements for this special series has been that the contrarian studies must offer empirical or theoretical evidence and argumentation that is demonstrated to be at least as strong as any established research studies or findings being disputed. We also wanted challenges to be restricted to scholarly debate and not to engender personal conflict among the scholars in our profession. The second category of papers selected a classic seminal piece in the IS field and based on critical analysis of their results or methodological assumptions, delivered equally powerful evidence to the contrary. The academic review processes for these papers has been challenging as commitments from potential reviewers were inhibited by established political and intellectual positions with regard to dominant works. All the contrarian studies accepted for this series, including the article in this issue, belong to this category. European Journal of Information Systems (2011) 20, 691–692 & 2011 Operational Research Society Ltd. All rights reserved 0960-085X/11