this IS research

Episod

• What is the difference between advisors and mentors? 23.06.2026 56min

  We have TC Eley IV on the show, a freshly minted assistant professor that just completed his PhD program. He is starting a new mentorship program for the AOM CTO Division, which marks a great opportunity to talk about supervision, advice, and mentoring in the IS field. Should mentors be collaborators on papers? Can you trust all advice you have been given? When does mentoring go bad? How do you pick a mentor or an advisor to begin with? Tune in to find out. And if our podcast triggered your interest to become a mentor for the AoM CTO Career Mentoring Program, send an e-mail to teley@villanova.edu with the subject "Interested in being a mentor for the AoM Career Mentoring Program." References Berente, N., & Yoo, Y. (2012). Institutional Contradictions and Loose Coupling: Postimplementation of NASA's Enterprise Information System. Information Systems Research, 23(2), 376–396. Glanze, E., Recker, J., & Bockelmann, T. (2026). Digital Sustainability with Physical Constraints: Insights from Twin Transformations in the German Manufacturing Industry. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, forthcoming. Lehmann, J., Recker, J., Yoo, Y., & Rosenkranz, C. (2022). Designing Digital Market Offerings: How Digital Ventures Navigate the Tension Between Generative Digital Technology and the Existing Environment. MIS Quarterly, 46(3), 1453–1482. Recker, J. (2021). Scientific Research in Information Systems: A Beginner's Guide (2nd ed.). Springer. Berente, N., Hansen, S., Pike, J. C., & Bateman, P. J. (2011). Arguing the Value of Virtual Worlds: Patterns of Discursive Sensemaking of an Innovative Technology. MIS Quarterly, 35(3), 685–709. AIS Doctoral Student College: https://communities.aisnet.org/doctoralstudentcollege/home. Lee, J., & Berente, N. (2012). Digital Innovation and the Division of Innovative Labor: Digital Controls in the Automotive Industry. Organization Science, 23(5), 1428–1447. Schecter, A., Pilny, A., Leung, A., Poole, M. S., & Contractor, N. (2018). Step by step: Capturing the Dynamics of Work Team Process Through Relational Event Sequences. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(9), 1163–1181. Lehmann, J., Berends, H., Berente, N., & Tumbas, S. (2026). Architectural Learning in the Professional 3D Printing Ecosystem: Proxies and the Complementarity Space. Organization Science, 37(1), 157–185. Lehmann, J., Hukal, P., Recker, J., & Tumbas, S. (2025). Layering the Architecture of Digital Product Innovations: Firmware and Adapter Layers. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 26(6), 1630–1650. AIS Senior Scholar Mentoring Program: https://archives.aisconferences.org/icis2022/mentoring-program/index.html. AIS Women's Network College: https://www.aiswn.org/. Canadian Chapter of the Association for Information Systems Mentorship Program: https://communities.aisnet.org/canada-thrive/mentor. AIS SIG DITE Early Career Mentorship Program: https://communities.aisnet.org/sigdite/early-career-mentorship-program.
• How to pick the perfect conference location 09.06.2026 47min

  The Academy of Management has just moved the next AOM conferences outside of the United States. The Association for Information Systems has been rotating the International Conference for Information Systems between three different regions for many years. Picking conference locations seems to be hard, and pretty political—or not? What are the criteria by which academic conferences are selected and what are those by which they should be selected? We discuss a few different ways how conferences and academic programs could be organized. References Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2024). The Art of Phenomena Construction: A Framework for Coming Up with Research Phenomena beyond 'the Usual Suspects'. Journal of Management Studies, 61(5), 1737–1765. Stapleton, A. (2024). How Many People Have PhDs? Number of People With Doctoral Degree. Academia Insider, https://academiainsider.com/how-many-people-have-phds/. Lyytinen, K., Baskerville, R., Iivari, J., & Te'Eni, D. (2007). Why the Old World Cannot Publish? Overcoming Challenges in Publishing High-Impact IS Research. European Journal of Information Systems, 16(4), 317–326. Mettler, T., & Sunyaev, A. (2023). Are We on the Right Track? An Update to Lyytinen et al.'s Commentary on Why the Old World Cannot Publish. European Journal of Information Systems, 32(2), 263–276. Voronov, M. (2026). When a Flagship Conference Stops Caring: The Case of the AOM Annual Meeting. Journal of Management Inquiry, https://doi.org/10.1177/10564926261432898.
• The AI Slop Tsunami 26.05.2026 49min

  Do you think AI will have an impact on science? You are wrong. It will not–it already does. The annual International Conference on Information Systems received over 1,000 more paper submissions this year. Our main journals report a 20%, 40%, or even 100% increase in submission numbers. This could be great if these papers were good, if we simply saw more and better research being produced. Problem is: We don't. What we see is an AI slop tsunami of less readable papers, hastily produced, with marginal insights if any. How should we handle this situation? We discuss a few possible levers on the supply and demand side of research that we as a field could implement. References Gartenberg, C., Hasan, S., Murray, A., & Pierce, L. (2026). More Versus Better: Artificial Intelligence, Incentives, and the Emerging Crisis in Peer Review. Organization Science, 37(3), https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2026.ed.v37.n3. Ho, S. Y., Recker, J., Tan, C.-W., Vance, A., & Zhang, H. (2023). MISQ Special Issue on Registered Reports. MIS Quarterly, https://misq.umn.edu/call_for_papers/registered-reports. Liang, W., Zhang, Y., Cao, H., Wang, B., Ding, D. Y., Yang, X., Vodrahalli, K., He, S., Smith, D. S., Yin, Y., McFarland, D. A., & Zou, J. (2024). Can Large Language Models Provide Useful Feedback on Research Papers? A Large-Scale Empirical Analysis. NEJM AI, 1(8). https://doi.org/10.1056/AIoa240019 Saunders, C. (2005). Editor's Comments: Looking for Diamond Cutters. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), iii–viii. Tyner, A. H., Abatayo, A. L., Daley, M., . . . Errington, T. M. (2026). Investigating the Replicability of the Social and Behavioural Sciences. Nature, 652(8108), 143–150. Dennis, A. R., Valacich, J. S., Fuller, M. A., & Schneider, C. (2006). Research Standards for Promotion and Tenure in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(1), 1–12.
• Why you should put pictures of your reviewers next to your computer when you're writing 12.05.2026 49min

  We devote enormous time and effort to developing a research idea, crafting a research design, executing a study, and then writing and polishing a paper – only to then find out that the reviewers do not find our contribution interesting enough to publish the paper. Years of work—wasted. There must be a better way. Thankfully, Murat Tarakci has an idea - flipping the script: deal with demand uncertainty first and with empirical uncertainty second. But before you do that you still need to ask one key question: Is this project worthy of me? Tune in to find out. References Pienta, D., Vishwamitra, N., Somanchi, S., Berente, N., & Thatcher, J. B. (2025). Do Crowds Validate False Data? Systematic Distortion and Affective Polarization. MIS Quarterly, 49(1), 347–366. Fewer, T. J., & Tarakci, M. (2025). CEO Political Partisanship and Corporate Misconduct. Academy of Management Journal, 68(2), 357–379. Sting, F. J., Tarakci, M., & Recker, J. (2024). Performance Implications of Digital Disruption in Strategic Competition. MIS Quarterly, 48(3), 1263–1278. Christensen, C. M. (1997). The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Harvard Business Review Press. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development. Harvard University Press. Utterback, J. (1994). Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation: How Companies Can Seize Opportunities in the Face of Technological Change. Harvard Business Review Press. Christensen, C. M., McDonald, R., Altman, E. J., & Palmer, J. E. (2018). Disruptive Innovation: An Intellectual History and Directions for Future Research. Journal of Management Studies, 55(7), 1043–1078. Tyner, A. H., Abatayo, A. L., Daley, M., Field, S., Fox, N., Haber, N. A.,. . . Errington, T. M. (2026). Investigating the Replicability of the Social and Behavioural Sciences. Nature, 652(8108), 143–150.
• Glaser, Strauss, Charmaz, Nelson, Claude.ai? When digital nomads use generative AI to build grounded theories for the Journal of Information Technology 28.04.2026 53min

  We have Daniel Schlagwein on the show, who is what Germans call a "Tausendsassa:" He is both a practitioner and researcher of digital nomadism, the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Information Technology, and president of the AIS special interest group on Grounded Theory Methodology. We touch upon all three of these aspects, but at the core we want to know from Daniel whether generative AI tools are automating grounded theory and thereby eliminate what used to be at the heart of a humanistic and constructionist approach to doing research – or are they merely leveling the playing field for qualitative field researchers by giving them computational support matching those tools that quantitative researchers have had for a long time. Daniel argues that it depends on the specific flavor of the grounded theory method you are using to determine whether and how you can leverage generative AI for such research. References Wang, B., Schlagwein, D., Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., & Cahalane, M. C. (2025). 'Emancipation' in Digital Nomadism vs in the Nation‑State: A Comparative Analysis of Idealtypes. Journal of Business Ethics, 198(1), 35–68. Hoffman, P. (1998). The Man Who Loved Only Numbers. Hyperion Books. Garland, A. (1996). The Beach. Viking. Jiwasiddi, A., Schlagwein, D., Cahalane, M. C., Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., Leong, C., & Ractham, P. (2024). Digital Nomadism as a New Part of the Visitor Economy: The Case of the 'Digital Nomad Capital' Chiang Mai, Thailand. Information Systems Journal, 34(5), 1493–1535. Fromm, E. (1941). Escape from Freedom. Farrar & Rinehart. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine Publishing Company. Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory. Sociology Press. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (2nd ed.). Sage. Charmaz, K. C. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis (2nd ed.). Sage. Nelson, L. K. (2020). Computational Grounded Theory: A Methodological Framework. Sociological Methods & Research, 49(1), 3–42. Gopal, R., Li, J., Riemer, K., Sarker, S., Singh, P. V., Susarla, A., Bichler, M., & Thatcher, J. B. (2025). Inventing with Machines: Generative AI and the Evolving Landscape of IS Research. Information Systems Research, 36(4), 1949–1967. Zhou, Y., Yuan, Y., Huang, K., & Hu, X. (2024). Can ChatGPT Perform a Grounded Theory Approach to Do Risk Analysis? An Empirical Study. Journal of Management Information Systems, 41(4), 982–1015. Yue, Y., Liu, D., Lv, Y., Hao, J., & Cui, P. (2025). A Practical Guide and Assessment on Using ChatGPT to Conduct Grounded Theory: Tutorial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 27, e70122. Wiesche, M., Jurisch, M., Yetton, P., & Krcmar, H. (2019). Grounded Theory Methodology in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly, 41(3), 685–701. Sarker, S., Xiao, X., Beaulieu, T., & Lee, A. S. (2018). Learning from First-Generation Qualitative Approaches in the IS Discipline: An Evolutionary View and Some Implications for Authors and Evaluators (PART 1/2). Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 19(8), 752–774. AIS Special Interest Group on Grounded Theory Methodology (SIG GTM): https://aisnet.org/members/member_engagement/groups.aspx?code=SIGGTM. Recker, J., Zeiss, R., & Mueller, M. (2024). iRepair or I Repair? A Dialectical Process Analysis of Control Enactment on the iPhone Repair Aftermarket. MIS Quarterly, 48(1), 321–346.
• In three years, we won't be revising our papers anymore 17.04.2026 46min

  Jan is annoyed because he needs to revise his papers and respond to his reviewers. Why can't ChatGPT or Claude do this for him? Why aren't we doing this already? So we start to wonder: what will happen to paper writing, reviews, and revisions as we enter an age where science practice is imbued with AI? How important are framing, literature engagement, and prose when AI use will homogenize communication? How important are method skills when analytics can be automated? What skills should emerging researchers focus on to maintain or create a competitive edge? And will publishing move towards slimmer papers with only problematization, research design, and findings, or will we look for alternative markets to express our ideas and findings? Tune in to find out. References Acquired (2025). Google Part III: The AI Company. Episode 1, Oct 6, 2025, https://www.acquired.fm/episodes/google-the-ai-company. Ahart, J. (2026). AI can 'same-ify' human expression — can some brains resist its pull? Nature (11 March 2026), https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-00781-9. Habermas, J. (1984). Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Heinemann. Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1986). Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design. Ablex Publication Corporation. Heidegger, M. (1975). Being and Time. HarperOne. Churchman, C. W. (1972). The Design of Inquiring Systems: Basic Concepts of Systems and Organization. Basic Books. Kellogg, K. C., Valentine, M. A., & Christin, A. (2020). Algorithms at Work: The New Contested Terrain of Control. Academy of Management Annals, 14(1), 366–410. Roberson, Q. (2026). Artificial Intelligence and Responsible Research at AMJ. Academy of Management Journal, 69(2), 207–211.
• Who wants to be a this IS research expert? Jan's turn 01.04.2026 33min

  Does Jan really know what he is talking about? Like we did with Nick last time, we play another round of trivia questions about information systems research – but now Nick is the host and Jan is the player. How well does he know the field? Tune in to find out. And like last time, you can play our game for yourself. The questions are posted below. Play the game for yourself: Round 1 Question: MIS Quarterly is physically headquartered and historically associated with which American university? A. MIT B. Georgia State University C. Indiana University D. University of Minnesota Round 2 Question: In 2003, which scholar wrote the highly influential MISQ Issues & Opinions paper entitled "The Identity Crisis within the Is Discipline: Defining and Communicating the Discipline's Core Properties"? A. Wanda Orlikowski B. Izak Benbasat C. Varun Grover D. Ben Shneiderman Round 3 Question: Wanda Orlikowski, a frequent contributor to both MIS Quarterly and Information Systems Research, is famous for a 1992 Organization Science paper that introduced which theory to the IS field? A. Structuration Theory B. Actor-network Theory C. Transaction Cost Theory D. Punctuated Equilibrium Theory Round 4 Question: Enid Mumford is most closely associated with which IS development practice? A. Requirements engineering B. Rapid application development C. Object orientationD. User participation Round 5 Question: In which years were the first issues of MISQ and ISR published? A. 1977 and 1980 B. 1980 and 1990 C. 1980 and 1985 D. 1977 and 1990 Round 6 Question: Markus (1983), in one of the most famous IS papers ever written, used a case study to argue that "resistance" to a new system is caused by: A. Lack of technology fit B. Change fatigue C. Power imbalances D. User cognition Round 7 Question: In his work on system failure, Lyytinen argued that the traditional "technical" view of systems development was too narrow. He instead developed a framework of IS failure focusing on which of the following? A. Expectation Failure B. Socio-technical Failure C. Temporal Failure D. Representation Failure Round 8 Question: Which of these concepts associated with the work of Mark Keil is frequently cited as a common dysfunction in system development and implementation projects? A. Resistance B. Escalation of commitment C. Power dynamics D. Inadequate documentation Round 9 Question: The classic paper by Grover, Jeong, Kettinger, and Teng (1995) regarding business process reengineering success was published in which journal, known for its strong ties to economic IS research? A. Journal of Management Information Systems B. Information Systems Research C. Information & Management D. Management Science Round 10 Question: Which 2004 MISQ paper by Hevner, March, Park and Ram introduced the "Design Science" paradigm in IS research, providing a set of seven guidelines for the craft? A. "Information Systems Strategy" B. "The IT Artifact" C. "Design Science in Information Systems Research" D. "Rigorous Research in the Digital Age" Round 11 Question: Willcocks and Lacity are world-renowned scholars who have published a massive body of "classic" works across JIT and MISQ regarding what specific organizational phenomenon? A. Strategic value of IT B. Outsourcing C. Post adoption system use D. Participatory methods for IS development Round 12 Question: In 1991, Banker and Kemerer published a highly influential paper in Information Systems Research regarding Economies of scale in software development. What was their primary tool for measuring software size and complexity? A. Lines of Code B. Function Points C. Entropy D. Cyclometric Complexity
• Who wants to be a this IS research expert? 18.03.2026 41min

  Does Nick really know what he is talking about? Time to find out. We play a trivia quiz with fifteen questions about information systems research. Nick has an audience joker, a telephone joker, and a 50:50 joker -and he needs all of them to make it through the levels. How well do you know the field? Tune in to find out, or play our game for yourself. The questions are posted below. Play the game for yourself: Round 1 Question: Which three journals were added when the AIS Senior Scholars expanded the old Basket of Eight into the 11-journal premier list in 2023? A. DSS, I&M, and I&O B. DSS, ISJ, and JSIS C. CAIS, I&M, and IT&P D. DSS, JIT, and I&O Round 2 Question: In Fred Davis's 1989 TAM paper, which two beliefs are the famous core constructs? A. Trust and enjoyment B. Performance expectancy and effort expectancy C. Perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use D. Social influence and facilitating conditions Round 3 Question: Which paper introduced UTAUT? A. Venkatesh & Davis, 2000, Management Science B. Davis, 1989, MIS Quarterly C. Venkatesh et al., 2003, MIS Quarterly D. Venkatesh, Thong, & Xu, 2012, MIS Quarterly Round 4 Question: The original DeLone and McLean paper, "Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable," appeared in which year? A. 1988 B. 1990 C. 1992 D. 2003 Round 5 Question: Which paper is generally credited with introducing Action Design Research (ADR) into the IS mainstream? A. Hevner et al. (2004), MISQ B. Sein et al. (2011), MISQ C. Gregor & Hevner (2013), MISQ D. Peffers et al. (2007), JMIS Round 6 Question: Which paper is the 2017 MISQ piece on platform ecosystems with the subtitle-like claim "How Developers Invert the Firm"? A. Parker, Van Alstyne, & Jiang B. Constantinides, Henfridsson, & Parker C. Eisenmann, Parker, & Van Alstyne D. Ghazawneh & Henfridsson Round 7 Question: Which paper is the most impactful technostress article in Information Systems research? A. Tarafdar et al. (2007), JMIS, The impact of technostress on role stress and productivity B. Ragu-Nathan et al. (2008), ISR, The consequences of technostress for end users in organizations C. Tarafdar et al. (2010), JMIS, Impact of technostress on end-user satisfaction and performance D. Tarafdar, Pullins, & Ragu-Nathan (2015), ISJ, Technostress: negative effect on performance and possible mitigations Round 8 Question: As of March 2026, which of the following papers has the highest Google Scholar citation count? A. Venkatesh et al. (2003) UTAUT B. Yoo, Henfridsson, & Lyytinen (2010) The New Organizing Logic C. Hevner et al. (2004) Design Science in Information Systems Research D. Davenport (1993) Process innovation: reengineering work through information technology Round 9 Question: In digital-platform research, the phrase "boundary resources model" is most closely associated with which paper? A. Ghazawneh & Henfridsson (2013), ISJ B. Constantinides, Henfridsson, & Parker (2018), ISR C. Parker, Van Alstyne, & Jiang (2017), MISQ D. Yoo, Henfridsson, & Lyytinen (2010), ISR Round 10 Question: In IS economics / IT business value research, which paper is the classic article on information worker productivity? A. Brynjolfsson & Hitt, 1996, MISQ B. Aral, Brynjolfsson, & Van Alstyne, 2012, ISR C. Aral & Weill, 2007, Org. Science D. Brynjolfsson, Rock, & Syverson, 2017, NBER Level 11 Question: In Feldman and Pentland's routines work, which pairing is correct? A. Ostensive = abstract pattern or idea of the routine; Performative = specific enactments by specific people at specific times and places B. Ostensive = formal SOP; Performative = deviations from the SOP C. Ostensive = managerial intention; Performative = worker resistance D. Ostensive = organizational memory; Performative = organizational forgetting Level 12 Question: Which statement best captures Paul Leonardi's (2013) position on sociomateriality? A. Materiality and human interpretation are always inseparable, so affordances and constraints cannot be analytically distinguished from materiality. B. Materiality exists independently of people, but affordances and constraints do not; they arise in relation to human goals. C. Sociomateriality should only be grounded in agential realism, not critical realism. D. The social and the material are separable in theory, but not in empirical research. Level 13 Question: The 2010 ISR research commentary "Digital Infrastructures: The Missing IS Research Agenda" is associated with which set of authors? A. Yoo, Henfridsson, and Lyytinen B. Tilson, Lyytinen, and Sørensen C. Hanseth, Monteiro, and Hatling D. Eaton, Elaluf-Calderwood, Sorensen, and Yoo. Level 14 Question: Which paper examined whether participation in the gig economy is associated with entrepreneurial activity, and who are its authors? A. Burtch, Carnahan, and Greenwood (2018), Management Science B. Greenwood, Agarwal, Agarwal, and Gopal (2019), Organization ScienceC. Burtch, Ghose, and Wattal (2013), Information Systems Research D. Greenwood and Wattal (2017), MIS Quarterly Level 15 Question: In Kellogg, Valentine, and Christin's "Algorithms at Work: The New Contested Terrain of Control" framework, which set correctly names the six mechanisms of algorithmic control? A. Restricting, recommending, recording, rating, replacing, rewarding B. Ranking, routing, recording, rewarding, reviewing, removing C. Restricting, routing, reviewing, ranking, replacing, rewarding D. Recommending, recording, rating, regulating, replacing, remunerating
• Do you prefer a prestigious or a rigorous journal? 03.03.2026 45min

  Journals play an important role for academics. They disseminate new knowledge and separate good from bad research. They also signal competencies, reputation, and standing. Publishing in certain journals often means your work is more rigorous. It may also mean your work is more visible and gets cited more often. Plus, having your work appear in certain journals can be an important prerequisite for career advancement and it can literally affect your salary. Yet of course, these different functions can be evaluated in different ways. Not all journals score equally high or low on all these different aspects. Determining which journal is "good" or "top" becomes a complicated multidimensional riddle. We decided to ask Jason Thatcher. He is one of the most prolific authors of journal papers our field has ever seen and he has served as reviewer or editors on most if not all of them. We try to develop a simple 2x2 decision tool that helps authors identify journals that are both rigorous and prestigious, that are good for the research we do and good for our careers as well. References AIS College of Senior Scholars. (2023). Senior Scholars' List of Premier Journals. Association for Information Systems, https://aisnet.org/page/SeniorScholarListofPremierJournals. Lowry, P. B., Moody, G. D., Gaskin, J., Galletta, D. F., Humpherys, S. L., Barlow, J. B., & Wilson, D. W. (2014). Evaluating Journal Quality and the Association for Information Systems Senior Scholars' Journal Basket Via Bibliometric Measures: Do Expert Journal Assessments Add Value? MIS Quarterly, 37(4), 993–1012. Dennis, A. R., Valacich, J. S., Fuller, M. A., & Schneider, C. (2006). Research Standards for Promotion and Tenure in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(1), 1–12. Abbasi, A., Parsons, J., Pant, G., Liu Sheng, O. R., & Sarker, S. (2024). Pathways for Design Research on Artificial Intelligence. Information Systems Research, 35(2), 441–459. Rai, A. (2017). Editor's Comments: Seeing the Forest for the Trees. MIS Quarterly, 41(4), iii–vii. Recker, J. (2020). Reflections of a Retiring Editor-in-Chief. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 46(32), 751–761. Agarwal, R., & Lucas Jr., H. C. (2005). The Information Systems Identity Crisis: Focusing on High-Visibility and High-Impact Research. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 381–398. Applegate, L., & King, J. L. (1999). Rigor and Relevance: Careers on the Line. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 17–18. Rai, A. (2017). Editor's Comments: Avoiding Type III Errors: Formulating IS Research Problems that Matter. MIS Quarterly, 41(2), iii–vii.
• If you're not using ChatGPT to cheat in research, you're not going with the times 18.02.2026 46min

  Let's say we are unethical people, trying to get ahead in academia and gain accolades for the sake of promotion and income and so forth. In an age where artificial intelligence and LLMs are entering the academic enterprise, has "cheating" changed? Are there new ways of fabricating, fudging, cooking, trimming, and lying about your data, your insights, and your writing? Do we cheat the way we've always cheated, just more effectively and efficiently? Or do we not actually cheat but merely change the rules and norms of scholarship? Tune in and find out. References Noblit, G. W., & Hare, R. D. (1988). Meta-Ethnography: Synthesising Qualitative Studies. Sage. Locke, K. D., & Golden-Biddle, K. (1997). Constructing Opportunities for Contribution: Structuring Intertextual Coherence and "Problematizing" in Organizational Studies. Academy of Management Journal, 40(5), 1023–1062. Recker, J. (2026). The Only Constant is Change: CAIS and the Ever-Evolving World of IS Research and Practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 57(79), 1537-1546. Shu, L. L., Mazar, N., Gino, F., Ariely, D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2012). RETRACTED: Signing at the Beginning Makes Ethics Salient and Decreases Dishonest Self-Reports in Comparison to Signing at the End. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(38), 15197–15200. Wikipedia. (2025). Ulrich Lichtenthaler. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulrich_Lichtenthaler. Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing After the Results are Known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3), 196–217. Andrade, C. (2021). HARKing, Cherry-Picking, P-Hacking, Fishing Expeditions, and Data Dredging and Mining as Questionable Research Practices. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 82(1), 20f13804. Matthews, R. A. J. (2026). The ASA p-Value Statement 10 Years on: An Event of Statistical Significance? Significance, 23(2), 4–5. von Briel, F., Davidsson, P., & Recker, J. (2026). Why and How Societal Crises Give Rise to Extreme Growth Outliers: A Theory of External Enablement. Academy of Management Review, https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2023.0072. Brodeur, A., Carrell, S., Figlio, D., & Lusher, L. (2023). Unpacking P-hacking and Publication Bias. American Economic Review, 113(11), 2974–3002. Dubner, S. J. (2026). If You're Not Cheating, You're Not Trying. Freakonomics Radio, Episode 662, https://freakonomics.com/podcast/if-youre-not-cheating-youre-not-trying/.
• The definitive guide to ranking IS journals 04.02.2026 44min

  In 2026, everything is different. AI is scaling both research and publishing productivity. Impact factors no longer matter. Big name journal publishers launch offspring journals with little credentials other than the brand. How should we make sense of all this to figure out which journals are really important to our field? It is time for a new, rigorous ranking of IS journals. Problem is, we cannot really agree on our ranks and our reasons. You need to help us: give us your top ten ranking of IS journals with your reasoning. Together, we can find out what is best for our field going forward. References Seidel, S., Berente, N., Guo, H., Oh, W. (2026): Ethics, Regulation, and Policy: The Challenge to Institutions in the Digital Age. MIS Quarterly Special Issue, https://misq.umn.edu/pages/call_for_papers_ethics_and_regulations. Saunders, C., Brown, S. A., Bygstad, B., Dennis, A. R., Ferran, C., Galletta, D. F., Liang, T.-P., Lowry, P. B., Recker, J., & Sarker, S. (2017). Goals, Values, and Expectations of the AIS Family of Journals. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 18(9), 633–647. Riemer, K., Peter, S., Schwabe, G., Chatterjee, S., Adam, M., & Davison, R. M. (2026). Generative AI is Neither Just Another IT Artifact Nor a Colleague: Methodological Guidance for IS Scholarship. Information Systems Journal, 36(2), https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.70027. Rai, A. (2016). Editor's Comments: The MIS Quarterly Trifecta: Impact, Range, Speed. MIS Quarterly, 40(1), iii–x. Berente, N., Seidel, S., & Safadi, H. (2019). Data-Driven Computationally-Intensive Theory Development. Information Systems Research, 30(1), 50–64. Recker, J. (2026). The Only Constant is Change: CAIS and the Ever-Evolving World of IS Research and Practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 57, forthcoming. Watson, H. J. (2009). Tutorial: Business Intelligence - Past, Present, and Future. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 25(39), 487–510. Loeser, F., Recker, J., vom Brocke, J., Molla, A., & Zarnekow, R. (2017). How IT Executives Create Organizational Benefits by Translating Environmental Strategies into Green IS Initiatives. Information Systems Journal, 27(4), 503–553. Chau, M., Saunders, C., Chin, W., Recker, J., & Schwarz, A. (2025). 2025 Senior Scholars Journal Review Quality Survey. Association for Information Systems, https://aisnet.org/page/2025SeniorScholarSurvey.
• Nick and Jan reporting live from the International Conference on Information Systems 17.12.2025 54min

  As usual in the final episode of the year, we hand out three awards for what we think are some of the finest pieces of information systems scholarship produced this year. Except that this time, we are live at the International Conference on Information Systems in Nashville, Tennessee, in a room packed with our listeners. While this means the quality of the audio of our recording is not so great, the quality of the papers we honor this year is. And with a room full of laughter celebrating great information systems scholarship, we end the year on a high note. Congratulations to Stefan, Christoph, and Jan for winning the Trailblazing Research Award, John and Prasanna for winning the Elegant Scholarship Award, and Yanzhen, Huaxia and Andrew for winning the Innovative Method Award 2025. References Lowry, M. R. L., Vance, A., & Vance, M. D. (2025). Inexpert Supervision: Field Evidence on Boards' Oversight of Cybersecurity. Management Science, https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.04147. Porra, J., Hirschheim, R., Land, F., & Lyytinen, K. (2025). Seventy Years of Information Systems Development Methodologies from Early Business Computing to the Agile Era: A Two-part History. Part 1: From Pre to Early ISD Methodology Era: The Emergence of ISD Methodologies and Their Golden Era (1880–1980). Journal of Information Technology, 40(4), 441-469. Porra, J., Hirschheim, R., Land, F., & Lyytinen, K. (2025). Seventy Years of Information Systems Development Methodologies from Early Business Computing to the Agile Era: A Two-part History. Part 2: Later ISD to Early Post ISD Methodology Era: Adapting to Accelerated Context Expansion (1980–today). Journal of Information Technology, 40(4), 470-498. Abbasi, A., Somanchi, S., & Kelley, K. (2025). The Critical Challenge of using Large-scale Digital Experiment Platforms for Scientific Discovery. MIS Quarterly, 49(1), 1-28. Storey, V. C., Baskerville, R. L., & Kaul, M. (2025). Reliability in Design Science Research. Information Systems Journal, 35(3), 984-1014. Larsen, K. R., Lukyanenko, R., Mueller, R. M., Storey, V. C., Parsons, J., VanderMeer, D. E., & Hovorka, D. S. (2025). Validity in Design Science. MIS Quarterly, 49(4), 1267-1294. Vance, A., Eargle, D., Kirwan, C. B., Anderson, B. B., & Jenkins, J. L. (2025). The Fog of Warnings: How Non-Security-Related Notifications Diminish the Efficacy of Security Warnings. MIS Quarterly, 49(4), 1357–1384. Baiyere, A., Bauer, J. M., Constantiou, I., & Hardt, D. (2025). Fake News and True News Assessment: The Persuasive Effect of Discursive Evidence in Judging Veracity. MIS Quarterly, 49(3), 823-860. Seidel, S., Frick, C. J., & vom Brocke, J. (2025). Regulating Emerging Technologies: Prospective Sensemaking through Abstraction and Elaboration. MIS Quarterly, 49(1), 179-204. Burton-Jones, A., Boh, W., Oborn, E., & Padmanabhan, B. (2021). Advancing Research Transparency at MIS Quarterly: A Pluralistic Approach. MIS Quarterly, 45(2), iii-xviii. Horton, J. J., & Tambe, P. (2025). The Death of a Technical Skill. Information Systems Research, 36(3), 1799-1820. Chen, Y., Rui, H., & Whinston, A. B. (2025). Conversation Analytics: Can Machines Read Between the Lines in Real-Time Strategic Conversations? Information Systems Research, 36(1), 440-455. Grisold, T., Berente, N., & Seidel, S. (2025). Guardrails for Human-AI Ecologies: A Design Theory for Managing Norm-Based Coordination. MIS Quarterly, 49(4), 1239-1266. Clark, A. (2015). Surfing Uncertainty: Prediction, Action, and the Embodied Mind. Oxford University Press. Recker, J. (2021). Scientific Research in Information Systems: A Beginner's Guide (2nd ed.). Springer. Hirschheim, R., & Klein, H. K. (2012). A Glorious and Not-So-Short History of the Information Systems Field. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 13(4), 188-235.
• Doing research on prime ministers 03.12.2025 54min

  It only took us five years but we finally got Stefan Seidel on the podcast. We have been talking about him and his scholarship for a while. Today we finally get to ask him about his recent technology regulation paper, his view on grounded theorizing in information systems, his forthcoming special issue on Ethics, Regulation, and Policy that will start processing submissions in late 2026--and his bet with Nick Berente about who wins the race to 8000 citations. Episode reading list Seidel, S., Frick, C. J., & vom Brocke, J. (2025). Regulating Emerging Technologies: Prospective Sensemaking through Abstraction and Elaboration. MIS Quarterly, 49(1), 179-204. Recker, J., Zeiss, R., & Mueller, M. (2024). iRepair or I Repair? A Dialectical Process Analysis of Control Enactment on the iPhone Repair Aftermarket. MIS Quarterly, 48(1), 321-346. Seidel, S., & Urquhart, C. (2013). On Emergence and Forcing in Information Systems Grounded Theory Studies: The Case of Strauss and Corbin. Journal of Information Technology, 28(3), 237-260. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (2nd ed.). Sage. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine Publishing Company. Seidel, S., Berente, N., Guo, H., Oh, W. (2026): Ethics, Regulation, and Policy: The Challenge to Institutions in the Digital Age. MIS Quarterly Special Issue, https://misq.umn.edu/pages/call_for_papers_ethics_and_regulations. Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15-31. Berente, N., Gu, B., Recker, J., & Santhanam, R. (2021). Managing Artificial Intelligence. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1433-1450. Butler, T., Gozman, D., & Lyytinen, K. (2023). The Regulation of and Through Information Technology: Towards a Conceptual Ontology for IS Research. Journal of Information Technology, 38(2), 86-107 Gümüsay, A. A., & Reinecke, J. (2024). Imagining Desirable Futures: A Call for Prospective Theorizing with Speculative Rigour. Organization Theory, 5(1), https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877241235939. Grisold, T., Berente, N., & Seidel, S. (2025). Guardrails for Human-AI Ecologies: A Design Theory for Managing Norm-Based Coordination. MIS Quarterly, 49(4), 1239-1266. Seidel, S., Recker, J., & vom Brocke, J. (2013). Sensemaking and Sustainable Practicing: Functional Affordances of Information Systems in Green Transformations. MIS Quarterly, 37(4), 1275-1299.
• Managing academics is like herding cats 19.11.2025 50min

  Some academics go into the office every day; some are rarely ever seen on campus. Is one way better than the other? Who better to ask than the brilliant Ella Hafermalz who spent her career on the topic of remote work and its implications for belonging, community, collaboration, and performance. She points out that academia has always been a distributed and flexible profession. Researchers need flexibility and freedom to figure out their own best way of solving problems and doing their work, some of which may mean sitting at a desk, but maybe also involve lab or field work. On the other hand, pure freedom for individual academics makes a university nothing more than a collection of hired guns without a true community. How do we find the best balance and what is a good balance to begin with? Episode reading list Chang, S. (2025): China's unemployed young adults who are pretending to have jobs. BBC News, 11 August 2025, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdd3ep76g3go. Hafermalz, E., & Riemer, K. (2021). Productive and Connected While Working from Home: What Client-facing Remote Workers can Learn from Telenurses about 'Belonging Through Technology'. European Journal of Information Systems, 30(1), 89-99. Huysman, M. (2025). Studying AI in the Wild: Reflections from the AI@Work Research Group. Journal of Management Studies, https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.70021. The Professor and the Madman. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5932728/. Hafermalz, E. (2021). Out of the Panopticon and into Exile: Visibility and Control in Distributed New Culture Organizations. Organization Studies, 42(5), 697–717. Rovelli, C. (2022). Helgoland: The Strange and Beautiful Story of Quantum Physics. Penguin Books. Carroll, S. (2019). Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of Spacetime. Dutton. Sting, F. J., Tarakci, M., & Recker, J. (2024). Performance Implications of Digital Disruption in Strategic Competition. MIS Quarterly, 48(3), 1263-1278. Archive.org: Philosophy 185 Heidegger: Lectures from the course Philosophy 185 Heidegger by Hubert Dreyfus. https://fourble.co.uk/podcast/philosophy185heidegger. Baudrillard, J. (1981). Simulacra and Simulation. University of Michigan Press. Retkowsky, J., Hafermalz, E., & Huysman, M. (2024). Managing a ChatGPT-empowered Workforce: Understanding its Affordances and Side Effects. Business Horizons, 67(5), 511-523. Haubrich, G. F., Soekijad, M., & Hafermalz, E. (2025). 'What's Up with Work?'Bringing Screens into a Theory of Hybrid Working Situations. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.5465/AMPROC.2025.10670abstract. Tekeste, M. (2025). Under Pressure: Becoming the Good Enough Academic. Organization, https://doi.org/10.1177/13505084251383285. LinkedIn Community: The Digital Visibility Group: https://www.linkedin.com/groups/13346086/.
• When you watch Tik Tok, your maturity in the academic enterprise is zero 05.11.2025 37min

  A key problem in empirically oriented research, especially inductive and abductive work, is figuring out which theoretical lens or scaffold to apply to uncover novel insights. In other words, which theory should you use? We discuss a few heuristics scholars can draw on to reach a higher level of scholarly maturity, namely disposition, empirical salience, outcome definition, skepticism, and reflexivity. Episode reading list Recker, J. (2021). Scientific Research in Information Systems: A Beginner's Guide (2nd ed.). Springer. Quine, W. V. O. (1961). Two Dogmas of Empiricism. In W. V. O. Quine (Ed.), From a Logical Point of View (pp. 20-46). Cambridge University Press. Duhem, P. (1998). Physical Theory and Experiment. In M. Curd & J. A. Cover (Eds.), Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues (pp. 257-279). Norton. Popper, K. R. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Basic Books. Glikson, E., & Woolley, A. W. (2020). Human Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Review of Empirical Research. Academy of Management Annals, 14(2), 627-660. Recker, J., Zeiss, R., & Mueller, M. (2024). iRepair or I Repair? A Dialectical Process Analysis of Control Enactment on the iPhone Repair Aftermarket. MIS Quarterly, 48(1), 321-346. Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change. Harvard Business School Press. Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing After the Results are Known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3), 196-217. Lindberg, A., Berente, N., Howison, J., & Lyytinen, K. (2024). Discursive Modulation in Open Source Software: How Communities Shape Novelty and Complexity. MIS Quarterly, 48(4), 1395-1422. Lindberg, A., Berente, N., Gaskin, J., & Lyytinen, K. (2016). Coordinating Interdependencies in Online Communities: A Study of an Open Source Software Project. Information Systems Research, 27(4), 751-772. Chandar, B. (2025): AI and Labor Markets: What We Know and Don't Know. https://digitaleconomy.stanford.edu/news/ai-and-labor-markets-what-we-know-and-dont-know/.
• Data is the fuel that sets innovation on fire 21.10.2025 43min

  Most think that algorithms are the modern root cause of innovations. But Marta Stelmaszak says not only are organizations today powered by data, they innovate through data. With several other colleagues, Marta is bringing data studies back to the forefront of information systems research. She produces workshops, a forthcoming book, and an online bibliography with seminal readings. We talk to Marta about the relationship between data and meaning, representation versus innovation, and whether we all soon live in a hyperreality created through synthetic data that lost all connection to the real-world. Episode reading list Alaimo, C., & Kallinikos, J. (2022). Organizations Decentered: Data Objects, Technology and Knowledge. Organization Science, 33(1), 19-37. Aaltonen, A., Stelmaszak, M., & Xu, D. The Data Studies Bibliography. https://www.datastudiesbibliography.org/. Chen, H., Chiang, R., & Storey, V. C. (2012). Business Intelligence and Analytics: From Big Data to Big Impacts. MIS Quarterly, 36(4), 1165-1188. Wand, Y., & Wang, R. Y. (1996). Anchoring Data Quality Dimensions in Ontological Foundations. Communications of the ACM, 39(11), 86-95. Xu, D., Stelmaszak, M., & Aaltonen, A. (2025). What is Changing the Game in Data Research? Insights from the "Innovating in Data-based Reality" Professional Development Workshop. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 56(8), 194-208. Kent, W. (1978). Data and Reality. North-Holland. Hirschheim, R., Klein, H. K., & Lyytinen, K. (1995). Information Systems Development and Data Modeling: Conceptual and Philosophical Foundations. Cambridge University Press. Goodhue, D. L., Wybo, M. D., & Kirsch, L. J. (1992). The Impact of Data Integration on the Costs and Benefits of Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 16(3), 239-311. Aaltonen, A., & Stelmaszak, M. (2024). Data Innovation Lens: A New Way to Approach Data Design as Value Creation. SSRN, https://ssrn.com/abstract=4574855. Recker, J., Indulska, M., Green, P., Burton-Jones, A., & Weber, R. (2019). Information Systems as Representations: A Review of the Theory and Evidence. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 20(6), 735-786. Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. MIT Press. Baudrillard, J. (1981). Simulacra and Simulation. University of Michigan Press. Harari, Y. N. (2024). Nexus: A Brief History of Information Networks from the Stone Age to AI. Random House. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations. Basil Blackwell. Stelmaszak, M., Wagner, E., & DuPont, N. N. (2024). Recognition in Personal Data: Data Warping, Recognition Concessions, and Social Justice. MIS Quarterly, 48(4), 1611-1636. Aaltonen, A., Stelmaszak, M., & Lyytinen, K. (Eds.). (2026). Research Handbook on Digital Data: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Edward Elgar Publishing.
• If you're writing a paper about AI you are not allowed to talk about AI 07.10.2025 53min

  When we discuss artificial intelligence, what metaphors do we use to illustrate what we mean? Is artificial intelligence some sort of robot—like Ultron—or is it an organism—like a beehive? What happens to our expectations, our thinking, and our conclusions when we change these metaphors, say, from an entitative metaphor (say, an agent) to a relational metaphor (say, belonging to our work network)? We discuss these points with Angelos Kostis and Paavo Ritala who wrote a very interesting paper on how management scholars think about artificial intelligence. Episode reading list Ramaul, L., Ritala, P., Kostis, A., & Aaltonen, P. (2025). Rethinking How We Theorize AI in Organization and Management: A Problematizing Review of Rationality and Anthropomorphism. Journal of Management Studies, https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.13246. Berente, N., Gu, B., Recker, J., & Santhanam, R. (2021). Managing Artificial Intelligence. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1433-1450. Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2020). The Problematizing Review: A Counterpoint to Elsbach and Van Knippenberg's Argument for Integrative Reviews. Journal of Management Studies, 57(6), 1290-1304. Berente, N. (2020). Agile Development as the Root Metaphor for Strategy in Digital Innovation. In S. Nambisan, K. Lyytinen, & Y. Yoo (Eds.), Handbook of Digital Innovation (pp. 83-96). Edward Elgar. Pepper, S. C. (1942). World Hypotheses: A Study in Evidence. University of California Press. Brynjolfsson, E., Li, D., & Raymond, L. R. (2025). Generative AI at Work. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 140(2), 889-942. Russell, S. J., & Norvig, P. (2010). Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall. Jarrahi, M. H., & Ritala, P. (2025). Rethinking AI Agents: A Principal-Agent Perspective. California Management Review Insights, https://cmr.berkeley.edu/2025/07/rethinking-ai-agents-a-principal-agent-perspective/. Boxenbaum, E., & Pedersen, J. S. (2009). Scandinavian Institutionalism – a Case of Institutional Work. In T. B. Lawrence, R. Suddaby, & B. Leca (Eds.), Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations (pp. 178-204). Cambridge University Press. Iivari, J., & Lyytinen, K. (1998). Research on Information Systems Development in Scandinavia-Unity in Plurality. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 10(1), 135-186. Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2024). The Art of Phenomena Construction: A Framework for Coming Up with Research Phenomena beyond 'the Usual Suspects'. Journal of Management Studies, 61(5), 1737-1765. Brunsson, N. (2003). The Organization of Hypocrisy: Talk, Decisions, and Actions in Organizations. Copenhagen Business School Press. Floyd, C., Mehl, W.-M., Reisin, F.-M., Schmidt, G., & Wolf, G. (1989). Out of Scandinavia: Alternative Approaches to Software Design and System Development. Human-Computer Interaction, 4(4), 253-350. Grisold, T., Berente, N., & Seidel, S. (2025). Guardrails for Human-AI Ecologies: A Design Theory for Managing Norm-Based Coordination. MIS Quarterly, 49, https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2025/18058. Forster, E. M. (1909). The Machine Stops. The Oxford and Cambridge Review, November 1909, https://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/~koehl/Teaching/ECS188/PDF_files/Machine_stops.pdf.
• Nick's rules for a good PhD education 23.09.2025 50min

  We are together in South Bend and teach a class to PhD students in the Mendoza College of Business at the University of Notre Dame. Our joint teaching experience makes us wonder: What should all doctoral students learn or what should we all teach the next generation of IS students? We come up with Nick's rules for a good PhD education: First, understand what knowledge and inferences are. Second, learn different methods and then deep dive into a primary method. Third, pick a domain and learn its foundations and history. Fourth, develop a mindset of mastery to become the world's expert on your topic. And finally, develop and hone your writing skills. Episode reading list Bacon, F. (1620/2019). Novum Organum. Anodos. Hume, D. (1748/1998). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. In J. Perry & M. E. Bratman (Eds.), Introduction to Philosophy: Classical and Contemporary Readings (3rd ed., pp. 190-220). Oxford University Press. Popper, K. R. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Basic Books. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4th ed.). Sage Publications. Berente, N., Ivanov, D., & Vandenbosch, B. (2007). Process Compliance and Enterprise Systems Implementation. In: Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Waikoloa, Hawaii, pp. 222-231. Castelo, N., Bos, M. W., & Lehmann, D. R. (2019). Task-Dependent Algorithmic Aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 56(5), 809-825. Recker, J. (2021). Scientific Research in Information Systems: A Beginner's Guide (2nd ed.). Springer. Mackie, J. L. (1965). Causes and Conditions. American Philosophical Quarterly, 2(4), 245-264. Gable, G. G. (1994). Integrating Case Study and Survey Research Methods: An Example in Information Systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 3(2), 112-126. Chalmers, A. F. (2013). What Is This Thing Called Science? (4th ed.). Hackett. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2001). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference (2nd ed.). Houghton Mifflin. Taylor, F. W. (1911). The Principles of Scientific Management. Harper and Bros. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. John Wiley & Sons. Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Harvard University Press.
• Should all qualitative researchers use LLMs? 09.09.2025 52min

  One of the big topics at the AOM 2025 conference this summer was the use of large language models in the research process, especially in qualitative studies. We expand this discussion by asking: can qualitative research be automated—or augmented? Yes and no. Some of the advantages LLMs bring to the table are hard to ignore. LLMs can act as critical reviewers, as a consistency checker, as a provider of alternative perspectives on unstructured data, or to break path dependencies in the process of data analysis. They can also help find interesting outcomes that qualitative insights could explain. At the same time, the use of LLMs comes with thorny pitfalls. We know they are unreliable and hallucinate. And the output they create is… average at best. So if you use LLMs, make sure you are not using it for automation—do not lose touch with your craft or your data. Whatever tool you use, make sure you remain a virtuous scholar. Episode reading list Noblit, G. W., & Hare, R. D. (1988). Meta-Ethnography: Synthesising Qualitative Studies. Sage. Recker, J. (2021). Improving the State-Tracking Ability of Corona Dashboards. European Journal of Information Systems, 30(5), 476-495. Rynes, S., & Gephart Jr., R. P. (2004). Qualitative Research and the "Academy of Management Journal". Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 454-462. Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation Of Cultures. Basic Books. Boland, R. J. (2001). The Tyranny of Space in Organizational Analysis. Information and Organization, 11(1), 3-23. Weber, R. (2004). Editor's Comments: The Rhetoric of Positivism Versus Interpretivism: A Personal View. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), iii-xii. Lehmann, J., Hukal, P., Recker, J., & Tumbas, S. (2025). Layering the Architecture of Digital Product Innovations: Firmware and Adapter Layers. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 26, https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00956. Lindberg, A., Berente, N., Howison, J., & Lyytinen, K. (2024). Discursive Modulation in Open Source Software: How Communities Shape Novelty and Complexity. MIS Quarterly, 48(4), 1395-1422. Ragin, C. C. (1987). The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. University of California Press. Goodhue, D. L., Lewis, W., & Thompson, R. L. (2012). Comparing PLS to Regression and LISREL: A Response to Marcoulides, Chin, and Saunders. MIS Quarterly, 36(3), 703-716. Goodhue, D. L., Lewis, W., & Thompson, R. L. (2007). Statistical Power in Analyzing Interaction Effects: Questioning the Advantage of PLS With Product Indicators. Information Systems Research, 18(2), 211-227.
• Cognitive conflict, courage, humility, and respect: Ingredients for a productive academic discourse 26.08.2025 51min

  A new season of podcast episodes is starting and what better place to kick it off as the world's largest business and management conference. We are recording this episode at AOM 2025 in beautiful Copenhagen, made possible through a generous invite from Attila Marton from CBS who organized a recording studio for us. Being here amid symposia, professional development workshops, panels, and paper presentations makes us wonder: what does it take to produce great, stimulating, and productive academic discourse? Does it depend on the people that get invited to speak, is it about their ideas, or what else? We sit down with our friend Philip Hukal with whom we share some stories from the events we've attended at AOM and we distil a few rules that characterize good intellectual debate: let there be cognitive conflict about the merit of ideas, be bold enough to propose new ideas, show humility for the craft and work of others, and be respectful to your colleagues. Episode reading list Kulkarni, M., Mantere, S., Vaara, E., van den Broek, E., Pachidi, S., Glaser, V. L., Gehman, J., Petriglieri, G., Lindebaum, D., Cameron, L. D., Rahman, H. A., Islam, G., & Greenwood, M. (2024). The Future of Research in an Artificial Intelligence-Driven World. Journal of Management Inquiry, 33(3), 207-229. Brynjolfsson, E., Collis, A., Diewert, W. E., Eggers, F., & Fox, K. J. (2025). GDP-B: Accounting for the Value of New and Free Goods. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, https://doi.org/10.1257/mac.20210319. Stelmaszak, M., Wagner, E., & DuPont, N. N. (2024). Recognition in Personal Data: Data Warping, Recognition Concessions, and Social Justice. MIS Quarterly, 48(4), 1611-1636. Habermas, J. (1984). Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Heinemann. Lehmann, J., Hukal, P., Recker, J., & Tumbas, S. (2025). Layering the Architecture of Digital Product Innovations: Firmware and Adapter Layers. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 26, https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00956.