IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v122y2020i3d10.1007_s11192-019-03331-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What does MIS survey research reveal about diversity and representativeness in the MIS field? A content analysis approach

Author

Listed:
  • Erastus Karanja

    (North Carolina Central University)

  • Aditya Sharma

    (North Carolina Central University)

  • Ibrahim Salama

    (North Carolina Central University)

Abstract

Diversity and representativeness are two enriching components of an academic field and for quite some time, Management Information Systems (MIS) researchers have been advocating for more studies on them. The objective of this study is to investigate the extent to which survey-based research articles reflect diversity in MIS research and to evaluate representativeness in journals in the MIS field. Diversity is a multifaceted concept that can be delineated along several constructs such as diversity in research approach, diversity in theories, and diversity in research methods. Survey research is the dominant research method in the MIS field accounting for 32–41% of published empirical research studies. In this study, diversity is conceptualized and explored through six factors that are easily identifiable in a survey-based research article namely the unit of analysis, research topics, type of respondents, number of authors, number of schools of authors, and number of country of authors. The study makes use of a set of 1466 survey-based research articles published over 21 years in 15 mainstream MIS journals in Europe and the USA to study diversity and representativeness using Tsallis entropy and Chi-Square statistics. The results present an overview of the state of the MIS survey-based research in Europe and the USA while also revealing that MIS researchers are predominantly gathering survey data from business executives at the firm and individual units of analysis in both regions. Overall, we find dominant categories (top 2) emerge for each factor as they relate to diversity both in Europe and the USA with three factors having the same dominant categories indicating that diversity continues to elude the MIS research field. The results have implications for both research and practice in the MIS field.

Suggested Citation

  • Erastus Karanja & Aditya Sharma & Ibrahim Salama, 2020. "What does MIS survey research reveal about diversity and representativeness in the MIS field? A content analysis approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(3), pages 1583-1628, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:122:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-019-03331-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-019-03331-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-019-03331-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-019-03331-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Izak Benbasat & Ron Weber, 1996. "Research Commentary: Rethinking “Diversity” in Information Systems Research," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 7(4), pages 389-399, December.
    2. Daniel Robey, 1996. "Research Commentary: Diversity in Information Systems Research: Threat, Promise, and Responsibility," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 7(4), pages 400-408, December.
    3. Wanda J. Orlikowski & Jack J. Baroudi, 1991. "Studying Information Technology in Organizations: Research Approaches and Assumptions," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 1-28, March.
    4. Anne-Wil Harzing & Isabel Metz, 2013. "Practicing what We Preach," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 169-187, April.
    5. John Mingers, 2001. "Combining IS Research Methods: Towards a Pluralist Methodology," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 240-259, September.
    6. Francisco José Acedo & Carmen Barroso & Cristóbal Casanueva & José Luis Galán, 2006. "Co‐Authorship in Management and Organizational Studies: An Empirical and Network Analysis," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(5), pages 957-983, July.
    7. Steinmo, Marianne & Rasmussen, Einar, 2016. "How firms collaborate with public research organizations: The evolution of proximity dimensions in successful innovation projects," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 1250-1259.
    8. Haeussler, Carolin & Sauermann, Henry, 2013. "Credit where credit is due? The impact of project contributions and social factors on authorship and inventorship," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 688-703.
    9. Christopher Durney & Richard Donnelly, 2015. "Managing the Effects of Rapid Technological Change on Complex Information Technology Projects," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 6(4), pages 641-664, December.
    10. Christopher L. Shook & David J. Ketchen & Cynthia S. Cycyota & Dilene Crockett, 2003. "Data analytic trends and training in strategic management," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(12), pages 1231-1237, December.
    11. Rajiv D. Banker & Robert J. Kauffman, 2004. "50th Anniversary Article: The Evolution of Research on Information Systems: A Fiftieth-Year Survey of the Literature in Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(3), pages 281-298, March.
    12. Alberto Baccini & Lucio Barabesi, 2010. "Interlocking editorship. A network analysis of the links between economic journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(2), pages 365-389, February.
    13. Iman Tahamtan & Askar Safipour Afshar & Khadijeh Ahamdzadeh, 2016. "Factors affecting number of citations: a comprehensive review of the literature," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(3), pages 1195-1225, June.
    14. Monya Baker, 2016. "1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility," Nature, Nature, vol. 533(7604), pages 452-454, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Thomas F. Burgess & Paul Grimshaw & Nicky E. Shaw, 2017. "Research Commentary—Diversity of the Information Systems Research Field: A Journal Governance Perspective," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 5-21, March.
    2. John Mingers, 2001. "Combining IS Research Methods: Towards a Pluralist Methodology," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 240-259, September.
    3. Marie-José Avenier & Catherine Thomas, 2015. "Finding one's way around various methodological guidelines for doing rigorous case studies: A comparison of four epistemological frameworks [Se frayer un chemin parmi les différentes recommandation," Post-Print halshs-01491454, HAL.
    4. Nagy, A., 2009. "Adoption of interorganizational information systems : The adoption position model," Other publications TiSEM af471297-bf03-43bf-88c1-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    5. Garcia-Canal, Esteban & Rialp-Criado, Alex & Rialp-Criado, Josep, 2013. "Speed of ICT integration strategies in absorptions: Insights from a qualitative study," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 295-307.
    6. Monideepa Tarafdar & Guohou Shan & Jason Bennett Thatcher & Alok Gupta, 2022. "Intellectual Diversity in IS Research: Discipline-Based Conceptualization and an Illustration from Information Systems Research," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(4), pages 1490-1510, December.
    7. Karanja, Erastus & Zaveri, Jigish & Ahmed, Ashraf, 2013. "How do MIS researchers handle missing data in survey-based research: A content analysis approach," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 734-751.
    8. Goles, Tim & Hirschheim, Rudy, 2000. "The paradigm is dead, the paradigm is dead...long live the paradigm: the legacy of Burrell and Morgan," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 249-268, June.
    9. Mihail Cocosila & Alexander Serenko & Ofir Turel, 2011. "Exploring the management information systems discipline: a scientometric study of ICIS, PACIS and ASAC," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(1), pages 1-16, April.
    10. Avgerou, Chrisanthi, 2000. "Information systems: what sort of science is it?," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 28(5), pages 567-579, October.
    11. Dehdarirad, Tahereh & Nasini, Stefano, 2017. "Research impact in co-authorship networks: a two-mode analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 371-388.
    12. Lange, Carola, 2005. "Development and Status of the Information Systems / Wirtschaftsinformatik Discipline. An Interpretive Evaluation of Interviews with Renowned Researchers: Part II - Results Information Systems Discipli," ICB Research Reports 3, University Duisburg-Essen, Institute for Computer Science and Business Information Systems (ICB).
    13. S. M. Shamsul Alam & Mohammad Abdul Matin Chowdhury & Dzuljastri Bin Abdul Razak, 2021. "Research evolution in banking performance: a bibliometric analysis," Future Business Journal, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 1-19, December.
    14. Giulio Giacomo Cantone, 2024. "How to measure interdisciplinary research? A systemic design for the model of measurement," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(8), pages 4937-4982, August.
    15. Sylvain Bureau, 2006. "La professionnalisation des nouveaux métiers liés aux technologies de l'information et de la communication : un déterminant dans les processus d'organisation d'une fonction ? Le cas des technologies w," Post-Print hal-00137437, HAL.
    16. J Mingers, 2006. "A critique of statistical modelling in management science from a critical realist perspective: its role within multimethodology," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(2), pages 202-219, February.
    17. Giulio Cainelli & Mario A. Maggioni & T. Erika Uberti & Annunziata Felice, 2015. "The strength of strong ties: How co-authorship affect productivity of academic economists?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 673-699, January.
    18. Miralles, Francesc & Sieber, Sandra & Valor, Josep, 2005. "CIO herds and user gangs in the adoption of open source software," IESE Research Papers D/595, IESE Business School.
    19. Aakanksha Kataria & Satish Kumar & Nitesh Pandey, 2021. "Twenty‐five years of Gender, Work and Organization: A bibliometric analysis," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(1), pages 85-118, January.
    20. Shuo Xu & Mengjia An & Xin An, 2021. "Do scientific publications by editorial board members have shorter publication delays and then higher influence?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(8), pages 6697-6713, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:122:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-019-03331-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.