Asia pacific journal of information systems

  • 제34권1호
  • /
  • Pages.49-90
  • /
  • 2024
  • /
  • 2288-5404(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-6818(eISSN)
한국경영정보학회 (The Korea Society of Management Information Systems)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Leveraging and Fostering Diversity in the IS Discipline: Intradisciplinary Knowledge Building via the IT View-IS Phenomenon (VP) Matrix

  • 투고 : 2023.04.14
  • 심사 : 2023.09.26
  • 발행 : 2024.03.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Intradisciplinary research refers to research that integrates ideas often associated with different research domains in a discipline. Such cross-fertilization leverages abundant diversity present in the IS discipline to tackle increasingly complex IS problems and grand challenges. Despite its importance and recent attention, a concerted, sustained effort toward intradisciplinary research is lagging. A fundamental issue we see is a lack of an elaborate IS research map that effectively shows similarities and differences among research domains and demonstrates types of ideas that may travel and integrate into different domains. We thus aim to propose an elaborate IS research map and compile research elements that can be tried and combined across research domains. To do so, we utilize two IS classics (i.e., IT views and IS phenomena), identify their complementarity, and interweave the two disparate ways of portraying the IS research field. The resultant view-phenomenon (VP) matrix specifies research domains based on two consistent, comprehensive criteria and helps researchers discern similarities and differences among research domains more effectively. The VP matrix also sheds light on a variety of research elements that can flow across research domains. The VP matrix along with the research elements together facilitate intradisciplinary efforts and, more broadly, help the IS discipline to prosper. The VP matrix is particularly helpful for doctoral students and young scholars.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Adomavicius, G., Bockstedt, J., and Gupta, A. (2012). Modeling supply-side dynamics of IT components, products, and infrastructure: An empirical analysis using vector autoregression. Information Systems Research, 23(2), 397-417. https://doi.org/10.2307/23274430
  2. Agarwal, R., and Dhar, V. (2014). Big data, data science, and analytics: The opportunity and challenge for IS research. Information Systems Research, 25(3), 443-448. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2014.0546
  3. Agerfalk, P. J. (2013). Embracing diversity through mixed methods research. European Journal of Information Systems, 22, 251-256. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2013.6
  4. Akhlaghpour, S., Wu, J., Lapointe, L., and Pinsonneault, A. (2013). The ongoing quest for the IT artifact: Looking back moving forward. Journal of Information Technology, 28(2), 150-166. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2013.10
  5. Alter, S. (2002). Sidestepping the IT artifact, scrapping the IS silo, and laying claim to "systems in organizations". Communication of AIS, 12, 494-526. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.01230
  6. Anton, E., Oesterreich T., and Teuteberg, F. (2022). The property of being causal - The conduct of qualitative comparative analysis in information systems research. Information and Management, 59(3), 103619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2022.103619
  7. Aral, S. and Weill, P. (2007). IT assets organizational capabilities and firm performance: How resource allocations and organizational differences explain performance variation. Organization Science, 18(5), 763-780. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0306
  8. Avgerou, C. (2019). Contextual explanation: Alternative approaches and persistent challenges. MIS Quarterly, 43(3), 977-1006. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2019/13990
  9. Avital, M., Mathiassen, L., and Schultze, U. (2017). Alternative genres in information systems research. European Journal of Information. Systems, 26(3), 240-247. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41303-017-0051-4
  10. Ayanso, A., Lertwachara, K., and Vachon, F. (2007). Diversity or identity crisis? An examination of leading IS journals. Communications of the AIS, 20(42). https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.02042
  11. Ayyagari, R., Grover, V., and Purvis, R. (2011). Technostress: Technological antecedents and implications. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 831-858. https://doi.org/10.2307/41409963
  12. Banker, R. D., and Kauffman, R. K. (2004). The evolution of research in information systems: A fiftieth-year survey of the literature in management science. Management Science, 50(3), 281-298. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1040.0206
  13. Baskerville, R. L., Myers, M. D., and Yoo, Y. (2020). Digital first: The ontological reversal and new challenges for information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 44(2), 509-523. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2020/14418
  14. Benbasat, I., and Weber, R. (1996). Research commentary: Rethinking "diversity" in information systems research. Information Systems Research, 7(4), 389-399. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.7.4.389
  15. Benbasat, I., and Zmud, R. W. (1999). Empirical research in information systems: The practice of relevance. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 3-16. https://doi.org/10.2307/249403
  16. Benbasat, I., and Zmud, R. (2003). The identity crisis within the IS discipline: Defining and communicating the discipline's core properties. MIS Quarterly, 27(2), 183-194. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036527
  17. Benbasat, I., and Zmud, R. (2006). Further Reflections on The Identity Crisis Information Systems: The State of The Field. Wiley.
  18. Bera, P., Burton-Jones, A., and Wand, Y. (2011). Guidelines for designing visual ontologies to support knowledge identification. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 883-908. https://doi.org/10.2307/41409965
  19. Berente, N., Seidel, S., and Safadi, H. (2018). Data-driven computationally-intensive theory development. Information Systems Research, 30(1), 50-64. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2018.0774
  20. Bharadwaj, A., Sambamurthy, V., and Zmud, R. (1999). IT capabilities: Theoretical perspectives and empirical operationalization. In International Conference on Information Systems.
  21. Boland, R. J. (1985). Phenomenology: A preferred approach to research on information systems. In E. Mumford (Ed.), Research Methods in Information Systems. North-Holland Publishing Co.
  22. Bryant, A. (2008). The future of information systems-thinking informatically. European Journal of Information Systems, 17(6), 695-698. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2008.52
  23. Burgess, T. F., Grimshaw, P., and Shaw, N. E. (2017). Research commentary-Diversity of the information systems research field: A journal governance perspective. Information Systems Research, 28(1), 5-21. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2016.0657
  24. Burton-Jones, A., and Gallivan, M. J. (2007). Toward a deeper understanding of system usage in organizations: A multilevel perspective. MIS Quarterly, 31(4), 657-679.
  25. Burton-Jones, A., Gray, P., and Majchrzak, A. (2023). Editor's Comments: Producing significant research. MIS Quarterly, 47(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2022/16711
  26. Burton-Jones, A., McLean, E. R., and Monod, E. (2015). Theoretical perspectives in IS research: From variance and process to conceptual latitude and conceptual fit. European Journal of Information Systems, 24(6), 664-679. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2014.31 
  27. Cavusoglu, H., Phan, T. Q., Cavusoglu, H., and Airoldi, E. M. (2016). Assessing the impact of granular privacy controls on content sharing and disclosure on Facebook. Information Systems Research, 27(4), 848-879. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2016.0672
  28. Chatterjee, D., Pacini, C., and Sambamurthy, V. (2002). The shareholder-wealth and trading-volume effects of information-technology infrastructure investments. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(2), 7-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2002.11045723
  29. Chong, A., Blut, M., and Zheng, S. (2022). Factors influencing the acceptance of healthcare information technologies: A meta-analysis. Information and Management, 59(3), 103604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2022.103604
  30. Clarke, R., and Davison, R. M. (2020). Research perspectives: Through whose eyes? The critical concept of researcher perspective. Journal of the AIS, 21(2), 483-501.
  31. Davison, R., Powell, P., and Trauth, E. (2012). ISJ inaugural editorial. Information Systems Journal, 22(4), 257-260. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2012.00417.x
  32. Dosi, G., Nelson, R, and Winter, S. (2001). The Nature and Dynamics of Organizational Capabilities. Oxford.
  33. Drobnis, A. (2013). Digital societies and social technologies summer institute helps to bridge common interests among different research communities. Retrieved from https://www.cccblog.org/2013/09/27/digital-societies-and-social-technologies-summer-institute-helps-to-bridge-common-i nterests-among-different-research-communities/
  34. Fiske, S. and Taylor, S. (1991). Conditions of schema use. In Social Cognition (pp. 142-179).
  35. Gefen, D., Benbasat, I., and Pavlou P. A. (2008). A research agenda for trust in online environments. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(4), 275-286. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240411
  36. Goes, P. (2013a). Editor's Comments. MIS Quarterly, 37(1), iii-vii.
  37. Goes, P. (2013b). Editor's comments: Commonalities across IS silos and intradisciplinary information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), iii-vii.
  38. Golden-Biddle, K. (2020). Discovery as an abductive mechanism for reorienting habits within organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 63(6), 1951-1975. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.1411
  39. Goldkuhl, G. (2012). Pragmatism vs interpretivism in qualitative information systems research. European Journal of Information Systems, 21, 135- 146. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.54
  40. Goldkuhl, G. (2013). From ensemble view to ensemble artefact-An inquiry on conceptualisations of the IT artefact. Systems Signs Actions, 7(1), 49-72.
  41. Gregor, S. (2006). The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 611-642. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148742
  42. Grover, V., Carter, M., and Jiang, D. (2019). Trends in the conduct of information systems research. Journal of Information Technology, 34(2), 160-177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268396219834122
  43. Grover, V., Lindberg, A., Benbasat, I., and Lyytinen, K. (2020). The perils and promises of big data research in information systems. Journal of the AIS, 21(2), 268-291. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00601
  44. Grover, V., and Lyytinen, K. (2015). New state of play in information systems research: The push to the edges. MIS Quarterly, 39(2), 271-296. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2015/39.2.01
  45. Guler, I., Guillen, M. F., and Macpherson, J.M., (2002). Global competition, institutions, and the diffusion of organizational practices: The international spread of ISO 9000 quality certificates. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 207-232. https://doi.org/10.2307/3094804
  46. Gupta, A. (2017). Editorial thoughts: What and how ISR publishes. Information Systems Research, 28(1), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2017.0691
  47. Gupta, A. (2018). Editorial: Traits of successful research contributions for publication in ISR: Some thoughts for authors and reviewers. Information Systems Research, 29(4), 779-786. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2018.0825
  48. Hauser, F., Hautz, J., Hutter, K., and Fuller, J. (2017). Firestorms: Modeling conflict diffusion and management strategies in online communities. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 26(4), 285-321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2017.01.002
  49. Hassan, N., Lowry, P., and Mathiassen, (2021). Useful products in information systems theorizing: A discursive formation perspective. Journal of the AIS, 23(2), 418-446. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00730
  50. Hevner, A., March, S., Park, J., and Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75-105.
  51. Hoehle, H., and Venkatesh, V. (2015). Mobile application usability: Conceptualization and instrument development. MIS Quarterly, 39(2), 435-472. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2015/39.2.08
  52. Ives, B., Hamilton. S., and Davis, G. (1980). A framework for research in computer-based management information systems. Management Science, 26(9), 91-934. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.26.9.910
  53. Jasperson, J., Carte, T., Saunders, C., Butler, B., Cross, H., and Zheng, W. (2002). Review: Power and information technology research: A metatriangulation review. MIS Quarterly, 26(4), 397-459. https://doi.org/10.2307/4132315
  54. Jeong, H., Suh, J., Park, J., and Jung, H. (2022). Digital government application: A case study of the Korean civil documents using blockchain-based resource management model. Asia Pacific Journal of Information Systems, 32(4), 830-856. https://doi.org/10.14329/apjis.2022.32.4.830
  55. Khan, Z. and Jarvenpaa, S. (2010). Exploring temporal coordination of events with Facebook com. Journal of Information Technology, 25(2), 137-151. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2010.8
  56. Kietzmann, J. (2008). Interactive innovation of technology for mobile work. European Journal of Information Systems, 17(3), 305-320. https://doi. org/10.1057/ejis.2008.18
  57. Kim, E., Kim, M., and Kyung, Y. (2022). A case study of digital transformation: Focusing on the financial sector in South Korea and overseas. Asia Pacific Journal of Information Systems, 32(3), 537-563.
  58. Kim, G., and Kim, H. (2022). How organizations legitimize AI led organizational change? Asia Pacific Journal of Information Systems, 32(3), 461-476. https://doi.org/10.14329/apjis.2022.32.3.461
  59. Kim, I., and Miranda, S. (2018). 20 years old but still a teenager? A review of organizing vision theory and suggested directions. In Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Japan.
  60. Klein, H. K., and Myers M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 67-93. https://doi.org/10.2307/249410
  61. Krasnova, H., Spiekermann, S., Koroleva, K., and Hildebrand, T. (2010). Online social networks: Why we disclose. Journal of Information Technology, 25(2), 109-125. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2010.6
  62. Land, F. (2010). The use of history in IS research: an opportunity missed? Journal of Information. Technology, 25(4), 385-394. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2010.22
  63. Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24, 691-710. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.2553248
  64. Langley, A., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H., and Van De Ven, A. H. (2013). Process studies of change in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.4001
  65. Mohajeri, K., Mesgari, M., and Lee, A. S. (2020). When statistical significance is not enough: investigating relevance, practical significance, and statistical significance. MIS Quarterly, 44(2), 525-559. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2020/13932
  66. Niederman, F., and March, S. T. (2019). Broadening the conceptualization of theory in the information systems discipline: A meta-theory approach. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 50(2), 18-44. https://doi.org/10.1145/3330472.3330476
  67. Lee, A. S., and Baskerville, R. (2003). Generalizing generalizability in information systems research. Information Systems Research, 14(3), 221-243. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.14.3.221.16560 
  68. Lee, K., Lee, B,, and Oh, W. (2015). Thumbs up sales up? The contingent effect of Facebook likes on sales performance in social commerce. Journal of Management Information Systems, 32(4), 109-143. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2015.1138372
  69. Lee, H., Kang, J., and Park, S. (2022). Applications of the text mining approach to online financial information. Asia Pacific Journal of Information Systems, 32(4), 770-802. https://doi.org/10.14329/apjis.2022.32.4.770
  70. Li, W., Chen, H., and Nunamaker Jr, J. F. (2016). Identifying and profiling key sellers in cyber carding community: AZSecure text mining system. Journal of Management Information Systems, 33(4), 1059-1086. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2016.1267528
  71. Liu, Y., Li, H., Goncalves, J., Kostakos, V., and Xiao, B. (2016). Fragmentation or cohesion? Visualizing the process and consequences of information system diversity, 1993-2012, European Journal of Information Systems, 25, 509-533. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2016.5
  72. Lindberg, A. (2020). Developing theory through integrating human and machine pattern recognition. Journal of the AIS, 21(1), 90-116. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00593
  73. Lucas, H., Swanson, E., and Zmud, R. (2007). Implementation, innovation, and related themes over the years in information systems research. Journal of the AIS, 8(4), 206-210. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00127
  74. Markus, M., and Robey, D. (1988). Information technology and organizational change: Causal structure in theory and research. Management Science, 34(5), 583-598. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.34.5.583
  75. Markus, M., and Rowe, F. (2018). Is IT changing the world? conceptions of causality for information systems theorizing. MIS Quarterly, 42(4), 1255-1280.
  76. Matook, S. and Brown, S. (2017). Characteristics of IT artifacts: A systems thinking-based framework for delineating and theorizing IT artifacts. Information Systems Journal, 27(3), 309-346. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12108
  77. Mingers, J. (2001). Combining IS research methods: Towards a pluralist methodology. Information Systems Research, 12(3), 240-259. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.12.3.240.9709
  78. Miranda, S., Kim, I., and Summers, J. (2015). Jamming with social media: How cognitive structuring of organizing vision facets affects it innovation diffusion. MIS Quarterly, 39(3), 591-614. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2015/39.3.04
  79. Muller, S. D., Mathiassen, L., and Saunders, C. (2020). Pluralist theory building: A methodology for generalizing from data to theory. Journal of the AIS, 21(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00591
  80. Myers, M. D. (1999). Investigating information systems with ethnographic research. Communications of the AIS, 2(23), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.00223
  81. Nevo, S., Nevo, D., and Ein-Dor, P., (2009). Thirty years of IS research: Core artifacts and academic identity. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 25(1), 221-242. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.02524
  82. Nguyen, Q. N., Sidorova, A., and Torres, R. (2022). Artificial intelligence in business: A literature review and research agenda. Communications of the AIS, 50, 175-207. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.05007
  83. Orlikowski, W., and Baroudi, J. (1991). Studying information technology in organizations: Research approaches and assumptions. Information Systems Research, 2(1), 1-28.
  84. Orlikowski, W., and Iacono, C. (2001). Research commentary: Desperately seeking the "IT" in IT research-A call to theorizing the IT artifact. Information Systems Research, 12(2), 121-134. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.12.2.121.9700
  85. Oxford University (2023). Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed.). Clarendon Press.
  86. Park, Y., and Mithas S. (2020). Organized complexity of digital business strategy: A configurational perspective. MIS Quarterly, 44(1), 85-127. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2020/14477
  87. Parker, C., Burgess, S., and Al-Qirim, N. (2015). A review of studies on information systems and SMEs in high ranked IS journals (2000-2014). Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 19. https://doi.org/0.3127/ajis.v19i0.1219
  88. Pentland, B. (1999). Building process theory with narrative: From description to explanation. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 711-724. https://doi.org/10.2307/259350
  89. Radoll, P., and Campbell, J. (2015). Editorial for the indigenous use of information and communication technologies section. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 19. https://doi.org/10.3127/ajis.v19i0.1283
  90. Rai, A. (2018). Editor's Comments: Beyond outdated labels: The blending of IS research traditions. MIS Quarterly, 42(1), iii-vi.
  91. Rivard, S. (2014). Editor's Comments: The ions of theory construction. MIS Quarterly, 38(2), iii-xiii.
  92. Roberts, N., Galluch, P. S., Dinger, M., and Grover, V. (2012). Absorptive capacity and information systems research: Review, synthesis, and directions for future research. MIS Quarterly, 36(2), 25-648.
  93. Robey, D. (1996). Research commentary: diversity in information systems research: Threat, promise, and responsibility. Information Systems Research, 7(4), 400-408. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.7.4.400
  94. Robey, D. (2003). Identity legitimacy and the dominant research paradigm: An alternative prescription for the IS discipline: A response to Benbasat and Zmud's call for returning to the IT artifact. Journal of AIS, 4(7), 352-359. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00042
  95. Rowe, F. (2012). Toward a richer diversity of genres in information systems research: New categorization and guidelines. European Journal of Information Systems, 21, 469-478. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2012.38
  96. Rowe, F. (2014). What literature review is not: diversity, boundaries and recommendations. European Journal of Information Systems, 23, 241-255. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2014.7
  97. Rowe, F. and Markus, M. (2018). Taking on sacred cows: openness, fair critique, and retaining value when revising classics. European Journal of Information Systems, 27(6), 623-628. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2018.1545883
  98. Ryu, C., Kim, Y. J., Chaudhury, A., and Rao, H. (2005). Knowledge acquisition via three learning processes in enterprise information portals: Learningby-investment learning-by-doing and learningfrom-others. MIS Quarterly, 29(2), 245-278. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148679
  99. Santhanam, R., and Hartono, E. (2003). Issues in linking information technology capability to firm performance. MIS Quarterly, 27(1), 125-153. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036521
  100. Saraf, N., Langdon, C., and Gosain, S. (2007). IS application capabilities and relational value in interfirm partnerships. Information Systems Research, 18(3), 320-339. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1070.0133
  101. Sarker, S., Xiao, X., and Beaulieu, T. (2013). Qualitative studies in information systems: A critical review and some guiding principles. MIS Quarterly, 37(4), iii-xviii.
  102. Shaw, D., and Edwards, J. S. (2005). Building user commitment to implementing a knowledge management strategy. Information and Management, 42(7), 997-988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2004.11.002
  103. Sidorova, A., Evangelopoulos, N., Valacich, J., and Ramakrishnan, T. (2008). Uncovering the intellectual core of the information systems discipline. MIS Quarterly, 32(3), 467-482.
  104. Srivardhana, T., and Pawlowski, S. D. (2007). ERP systems as an enabler of sustained business process innovation: A knowledge-based view. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 16(1), 51-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2007.01.003
  105. Stewart, A., Cotton, J., and Adya, M. (2017). Information systems: A house divided? Communications of the AIS, 41(24), 544-586. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.04124
  106. Swanson, E., and Ramiller, N. (1993). Information systems research thematics: Submissions to a new journal, 1987-1992. Information Systems Research, 4(4), 299-330. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.4.4.299
  107. Tarafdar, M., and Davison, R. (2018). Research in information systems: Intra-disciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches. Journal of AIS, 19(6), 523-551.
  108. Tarafdar, M., Shan, G., Thatcher, J., and Gupta, A. (2022). Intellectual diversity in IS research: Discipline-based conceptualization and an illustration from information systems research. Information Systems Research, 33(4), 1490-1510. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2022.1176
  109. Teubner, T., Adam, M., Camacho, S., and Hassanein, K. (2021). What you see is what you g(u)e(s)t: How profile photos and profile information drive providers' expectations of social reward in co-usage sharing. Information Systems Management, 39(1), 64-81. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2020.1871533
  110. Tiwana, A., and Kim, S. (2019). From bricks to an edifice: Cultivating strong inference in information systems research. Information Systems Research, 30(3), 1029-1036. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2019.0848
  111. Tufte, E. (2001). The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Graphics Press.
  112. Turel, O., and Qahri-Saremi, H. (2016). Problematic use of social networking sites: Antecedents and consequence from a dual-system theory perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 33(4), 1087-1116. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2016.1267529
  113. Venkatesh, V. (2011). Road to Success: A Guide for Doctoral Students and Junior Faculty Members in the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Dog Ear Publishing.
  114. Venkatesh, V., Brown, S., and Bala, H. (2013). Bridging the qualitative-quantitative divide: Guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 37(1), 21-54. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.1.02
  115. Vessey, I., Ramesh, V., and Glass, R. L. (2002). Research in information systems: An empirical study of diversity in the discipline and its journals. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(2), 129-174. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2002.11045721
  116. Watson, J., Lacey, D., Kerr, D., Salmon, P., and Goode, N. (2019). Understanding the effects of compromise and misuse of personal details on older people. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 23. https://doi.org/10.3127/ajis.v23i0.1721
  117. Whinston, A., and Geng, X. (2004). Operationalizing the essential role of the information technology artifact in information systems research: Gray area pitfalls and the importance of strategic ambiguity. MIS Quarterly, 28(2), 149-159. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148631
  118. Williams, W., Dwivedi, Y., Lal, B., and Schwarz, A. (2009). Contemporary trends and issues in IT adoption and diffusion research. Journal of Information Technology, 24, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2008.30
  119. Yoo, Y. (2013). The tables have turned: How can the information systems field contribute to technology and innovation management research? Journal of the AIS, 14, 227-236. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00334
  120. Yoo, Y. (2010). Computing in everyday life: A call for research on experiential computing. MIS Quarterly, 34(2), 213-231.
  121. Yoo, Y., Boland, J., Lyytinen, K., and Majchrzak, A. (2012). Organizing for innovation in the digitized world. Organization Science, 23(5), 1398-1408. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0771
  122. Zhang, J., Kim., and Koo, C. (2023a). How to measure the intention of watching offline eSports games: From the eSports fan-centric perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Information Systems, 33(1), 227-260. https://doi.org/10.14329/apjis.2022.33.1.227
  123. Zhang, Y., Bang, Y., and Kim, S. W. (2023b). E-market consumer responses to platform promotions: A case of Korean e-marketplace. Asia Pacific Journal of Information Systems, 33(1), 22-38.
  124. Zheng, Y., and Yu, A. (2016). Affordances of social media in collective action: The case of free lunch for children in China. Information Systems Journal, 26(3), 289-313. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12096