Reviving the IT in the IS

European Journal of Information Systems (2012) 21, 587–591. doi:10.1057/ejis.2012.46 As we approach our 22nd volume, the European Journal of Information Systems is a mature and successful scholarly outlet. The identity crises have waned. The scholarly readers seem to be comfortable with the idea of information systems (IS) as an academic discipline. Indeed, we are accustomed to the notion that a distinctive European viewpoint on IS is valuable. For the IS field of study, the European viewpoint is regarded by many to entail a dominance of qualitative or interpretive research methodology. This dominance is frequently contrasted with a North American viewpoint that is regarded by many as dominated by quantitative or positivist research methodology. There is plenty of evidence for this contrast (e.g., most recently Córdoba et al, 2012). In my opinion, the North American penchant is consistent with a culture that has traditionally exalted and deeply institutionalized the value of science. I am less convinced that the above European viewpoint is consistent with the underlying culture. Which culture? In a region where many ‘foreign’ cultures coexist in great proximity, one might expect to find a journal that reflects a veritable pastiche of research approaches. There should not be a dominant approach y not even a qualitative one. Such repression of dominance is not so much the acceptance of diversity as it is the passionate pursuit of it. As a consequence, my role as EJIS EIC included expanding the editorial board to include more associate editors with more diverse orientations precisely to enfranchise beleaguered European researchers who were outside of the qualitative research domains dominant in EJIS at the time. (With compliments to our present EJIS EIC, the new strategy aiming at expanding EJIS research genres strikes me as moving EJIS to an even more perfect European perspective). With regard to the topics under examination by IS researchers, the European perspective may be converging with others. EJIS articles have examined what such a European perspective might entail, for example, noting that ‘European IS draws more on social theories than elsewhere’ (Galliers & Whitley, 2007, p. 20). Still, sociology should not dominate a journal with a European perspective. A European perspective ought to result in a hearty pastiche of theoretical anchors and topics. Until about 2000, North American researchers were mainly focused on user satisfaction, while European researchers were more interested in IS development. This divide appears to have converged on IS adoption, but via different routes. North American researchers first expanded to consider strategies for building IS as well as user satisfaction, while European researchers first expanded to consider sociology, investment, usefulness, knowledge management, and systemic thinking. Since about 2005, the divergence seems to conclude, and has since converged on adoption. (I am using MISQ as my ‘North American’ indicator because it is 86% from North American sources and EJIS as my ‘European’ indicator because it is 65% European or Australasian; for details on these trends, see Córdoba et al (2012)). Such a topical convergence is troubling for a European journal. There are many diverse aspects of IS available for researching. Adoption is certainly one, but only one. We have lately been so absorbed with defining the IS academic discipline, that we overlook a firm understanding of the IS as the European Journal of Information Systems (2012) 21, 587–591 & 2012 Operational Research Society Ltd. All rights reserved 0960-085X/12