REMINDER: Journal of Strategic Information Systems Special Issue

 

Information Systems Strategy as Practice: Micro Strategy and Strategizing for IS

 

The “rigor versus relevance” debate and the practical relevance of much contemporary research are recurring themes not just in the information systems discipline (Straub and Ang, 2011; Klein and Rowe, 2008; Roseman andVessey, 2008) but also in the wider field of management (c.f. Nicolai and Seidl, 2010; Moisander and Stenfors, 2009; Mohrman et al., 2001; Shrivastava, 1987). In the IS discipline in particular, this has led to some scholars questioning the practical value of much of the published research (cf. Desouza, 2006; Keen, 1991; Senn 1998; Benbasat and Zmud, 1999; Lyytinen, 1999). A central premise of the arguments presented by these protagonists is that much research draws on methods that are inappropriate to the applied nature of the discipline. The foundation of this argument reflects the social sciences ‘practice turn’ that sees all knowledge as existing within the fields of practice (Schatzki et al., 2001). In philosophy, the turn to pragmatism similarly values knowledge through practitioners’ eyes and places thepractitioner at the centre of theory development (Putnam, 1995; Rorty, 1998). This movement toward practical relevance prefers concrete micro actions rather than an abstract or macro analysis. People and knowledge that makes a difference in practice are central to research endeavors.

In line with these arguments, the strategic management discipline has seen the emergence of a body of research that focuses on strategizing or the ‘doing of strategy’ (Jarzabkowski and Spee, 2009; Jarzabkowski et al., 2007; Johnson et al., 2003, 2007; Whittington, 1996). Often referred to as the "Strategy as Practice" school, it emphasises the actual day-to-day activities, contexts, processes and content that relate to strategic outcomes. This momentum towards a more micro perspective is in response to growing frustrations with the contemporary strategy literature of its relevance to practitioners. Part of the problem is that there has been a dominant macro focus in strategic management research that is remote from practice, particularly the normative models resulting from it. Research in the Strategy as Practice genre emphasizes how people engage in the 'real work' of developing a strategy and strategizing. In addressing strategy as practice, the focus of research is on strategy praxis, strategy practitioners and strategy practices, i.e. the work, workers and tools of strategy (Jarzabkowski et al., 2007; Whittington, 2002).

Drawing on this Strategy as Practice perspective, this Special Issue seeks to explore information systems strategy and strategizing from apractice perspective. Reflecting the arguments for research relevance, thiscall echoes Lee’s (2010) recent comment that “the starting point of IS research need not be the existing theory (primarily epistêmê) located in the IS discipline’s own (or any other) research literature; rather, the starting point could be the technê and phronêsis of IS professionals, managers, executives, and consultants (‘natives’) themselves...” (p. 346).

Submitted manuscripts may report on research that explores the patterns of how people interact and are involved in strategic activity related to IS (and possibly alignment or co-evolution with business strategies). Additionally, they may elicit and present the detailed processes and practices that constitute the day-to-day activities in developing an IS strategy and IS strategizing in practice. While theoretical contributions are welcome (cf. Zundel and Kokkalis, 2010), the focus of empirical data collection will normally be on the people engaged in the real work of IS strategizing (cf. Levina and Vaast 2006 for strategic IS sourcing). Crucially, any reported research will examine IS strategy not as something a firm has but something its people do. A variety of research methods are also encouraged, including action research and design science, where the objective is to contribute to the knowing how, practical knowledge, and knowhow of IS strategy.

References

·       Benbasat I. and Zmud R.W. (1999) “Empirical research in information systems: the practice of relevance,” MIS Quarterly (23:1), pp. 3-16.

·       Desouza, K.C., El Sawy, O.A., Galliers, R.D., Loebbecke, C., and Watson, R.T. (2006) “Beyond rigor and relevance towards responsibility and reverberation: information systems research that really matters,” Communications of AIS (17), pp 2-26.

·       Hirschheim, R.A. (1992) “Information systems epistemology: an historical perspective.” In Information Systems Research: Issues, Methods and Practical Guidelines (Galliers R.D., Ed), pp. 28-60, Blackwell, Oxford.

·       Jarzabkowski, P and Spee, A.P. (2009) “Strategy-as-practice: a review and future direction for the field,” International Journal of Management Reviews, (11:1), pp. 69-95.

·       Jarzabkowski, P. “Strategy as practice: Recursiveness,adaptation, and practices-in-use,” Organization Studies (25:4), May 2004, pp 529-560.

·       Keen P (1991) “Keynote address: relevance and rigor ininformation systems research.” In Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions (Nissen H.E., Klein H.K. and Hirschheim R., Eds), pp. 27-49, Elsevier Publishers, Amsterdam.

·       King, J.L. and Applegate, L.M. (1997) “Crisis in the case study crisis: marginal diminishing returns to scale in the quantitative-qualitative research debate,” In Information Systems and Qualitative Research (Lee A., Liebenau J. and DeGross J., Eds), pp. 28-30, Chapman and Hall Publishing, London.

·       Klein, H. and Rowe, F. (2008) “Marshaling the professional experience of doctoral students: a contribution to the practical relevance debate,” MIS Quarterly (32:4), pp. 675-686.

·       Lee, A.S. (2010) “Retrospective and prospects: information systems research in the last and next 25 years,” Journal of Information Technology, (25), pp. 336-348.

·       Levina, N., and Vaast, E. (2008) "Innovating or doing as told? Status differences and overlapping boundaries in offshore collaboration," MIS Quarterly (32:2), pp 307-332.

·       Lyytinen K (1999) "Empirical research in information systems: on the relevance of practice in thinking of IS research," MIS Quarterly (23:1), pp. 25-28.

·       Nicolai, A. and Seidl, D. (2010) “That's relevant! Different forms of practical relevance in management science,” Organization Studies, (31:9/10), pp. 1257-1285.

·       Mohrman, S.A., Gibson, C.B. and Mohrman, A.M. (2001) “Doing research that is useful to practice: a model and empirical exploration,” Academy of Management Journal, (44:2), pp. 357-375.

·       Moisander, J. and Stenfors, S. (2009) “Exploring the edges of theory-practice gap: epistemic cultures in strategy-tool development and use,” Organization, (16:2), pp. 227-247.

·       Putnam, H. (1995) Pragmatism: An Open Question, Blackwell, Oxford, UK Cambridge, Mass., USA, pp. xii, 106.

·       Rorty, R. (1998) Truth and Progress, Cambridge University Press, New York.

·       Roseman, M. and Vessey, I. (2008) “Towards improving the relevance of information systems research to practice: the role of applicability checks,” MIS Quarterly (32:1), pp. 1-22.

·       Schatzki, T.R., Knorr-Cetina, K., and Savigny, E.v. (2001) The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory, Routledge, London.

·       Senn J (1998) “The challenge of relating IS research to practice,” Information Resources Management Journal, (11:1), pp. 23-28.

·       Shrivastava, P. (1987) “Rigor and practical usefulness of relevance in strategic management,” Strategic Management Journal (8:1), pp. 77-92.

·       Straub, D., and Ang, S. “Editors's Comments,” MIS Quarterly (35:1) 2011, pp III-XI.

·       Jarzabkowski, P., Balogun, J. and Seidl, D. (2007) “Strategizing: the challenges of a practice perspective,” Human Relations, Vol. 60, No 1, pp. 5-27.

·       Johnson, G., Langley, A., Melin, L. and Whittington, R. (2007) Strategy as Practice: Research Directions and Resources, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

·       Johnson, G., Melin, L. and Whittington, R. (2003) “Micro strategy and strategizing: towards an activity-based view”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 3-22.

·       Whittington, R. (2006) “Competing the practice turn in strategy research”, Organization Studies, Vol. 27, No. 5, pp. 613-634.

·       Whittington, R. (2002) “Practice perspectives on strategy: unifying and developing a field”, Best Paper Proceedings, Academy of Management, Denver.

·       Whittington, R. (1996) “Strategy as practice”, Long Range Planning, (29:5), pp. 731-735.

·       Zundel, M. and Kokkalis, P. (2010) “Theorizing as engaged practice,” Organization Studies, (31:9/10), pp. 1209-1227.

Important Dates
Submission deadline: June 25, 2012 (definite)
First reviews back: August 20, 2012 (indicative)
Second revisions due by: October 15, 2012 (indicative)
Final acceptance: January 16, 2013 (indicative)
Publication date: March 2013 (targeted)

Editors
Professor Bob Galliers, Bentley University USA: rgalliers@bentley.edu
Professor Joe Peppard, Cranfield School of Management United Kingdom: j.peppard@cranfield.ac.uk
Dr Alan Thorogood, Australian School of Business University of New South Wales Australia: alant@unsw.edu.au