Abstract. The present essay discusses the ontology, epistemology, methodology and ethics of design science. It suggests that Information Systems as a design science should be based on a sound ontology, including an ontology of IT artifacts. In the case of epistemology, the essay emphasizes the irreducibility of the prescriptive knowledge of IT artifacts to theoretical descriptive knowledge. It also expresses a need for constructive research methods, which allow disciplined, rigorous and transparent building of IT artifacts as outcomes of design science research. The relationship between action research and design science research is also briefly discussed. In the case of ethics, the essay points out that Information Systems as design science cannot be valuefree.

Abstract not found

informs doi 10.1287/isre.1080.0175

Many scientific fields share common interests for research and education. Yet, very often, these fields do not communicate to each other and are unaware of the work in other fields. Understanding the commonalities and differences among related fields can broaden our understanding of the interested phenomena from various perspectives, better utilize resources, enhance collaboration, and eventually move the related fields forward together. In this article, we present a conceptual framework, namely the Information-Model or I-model, to describe various aspects of information related fields. We consider this a timely effort in light of the evolutions of several information related fields and a set of questions related to the identities of these fields. It is especially timely in defining the newly formed Information Field from a community of twenty some information schools. We posit that the information related fields are built on a number of other fields but with their own unique foci and concerns. That is, core components from other fundamental fields interact and integrate with each other to form dynamic and interesting information related fields that all have to do with information, technology, people, and organization/society. The conceptual framework can have a number of uses. Besides providing a unified view of these related fields, it can be used to examine old case studies, recent research projects, educational programs and curricula concerns, as well as to illustrate the commonalities and differences with the information related fields.

Abstract. Software Engineering (SE) is a field without too much historic background. The youth of the SE discipline is resulted in an immaturity of this research field and SE research still lacks suitable scientific precision. Moreover, in SE research there are several objects of study with different nature each of them and, for this reason, different research and validation methods are needed. In view of this situation, we discuss the nature of the SE, trying to identify different kinds of research problems this discipline deals with. As hypothesis, and according to the nature of the research problem to be broached, we propose a classification of the research problems of the SE discipline in: those with a Scientific nature and those with an Engineering nature. We try to justify this hypothesis on the basis of the paradigms and the research process which is in general used for the resolution of these kinds of problems. 1

ICT artefacts can confer benefits but also harm. Should ICT professionals be ethically neutral in regard to the design, development and installation of such artefacts? Given this premise what ethical leadership can be reasonably expected from an ICT Professional Body? This paper addresses this question with reference to a sample of ICT Professional Bodies. Specifically, what is the nature and extent of ethical leadership that is provided? The paper concludes, that with a few notable exceptions, ICT Professional Bodies do not currently exercise strong ethical leadership.

* The authors have contributed equally to the paper Manuscript under review-- please do not distribute without author’s permission 1 Understanding Boundary-Spanning in Knowledge Work:

Visit our Home Page on www.wiley.com All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise, except under the terms of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 or under the terms of a licence issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency Ltd, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 4LP, UK, without the permission in writing of the Publisher. Requests to the Publisher should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley &

A critical component that has been missing from the e-governance literature in general is theorising about the design of the information system itself. Since information systems used by governments “encapsulate the structures, routines, norms, and values implicit in the rich contexts within which they are embedded, ” [1] they must been seen as a development project shaped by social (key stakeholders, conflicts, power moves, symbolic acts, etc.) and technological factors (existing technology infrastructures, technical know-how, skills). The development trajectory of such a project is not pre-determined but contingent upon broad social contexts. To highlight the dynamic relationship between the way in which information systems used by governments are designed, the manner in which they are institutionalised and the impact of these two processes on governance practices and structures, I present a theoretical framework that combines social shaping of technology theories (from science and technology studies) and institutional theory (from sociology) and social movement theory. Categories and Subject Descriptors H.4 Information Systems – types of systems, decision support J.1 Administrative data processing – government

As Information Systems (IS) research increasingly acknowledges the importance of non-positivist approaches, the case for a plurality of theories to guide qualitative studies has generally been quite well accepted on philosophical grounds. In this paper, we argue the need for a better leverage of theoretical pluralism in qualitative IS research. Specifically, we note that greater research insights may be obtained by considering the complementarity of various theoretical perspectives with respect to a specific IS phenomenon. Indeed, we suggest that when such complementary perspectives are purposefully employed in a portfolio of separate studies over time, they may collectively help to shed new light on complex IS phenomena. In this study, we use the research example of IS professionals’ identity and the ethnography method to demonstrate the complementarity of three theoretical perspectives: Symbolic Interactionism’s “micro analysis of social interactions”, Critical Social Theory’s emphasis on the “macro contextualisation of human action”, as well as Adaptive Structuration Theory’s “explicit focus on technology”. Individually, each perspective boasts a unique angle from which a certain complex IS phenomenon can be investigated; when purposefully employed in different studies over time, they may collectively and synergistically shed new light on the phenomenon in question. By highlighting the possible leverage of theoretical pluralism in such a complementary manner, this study may thus have valuable implications for qualitative IS research.