Digital technologies are omnipresent in business and our society at large. We have become highly dependent on them and the end of the digital developments is not yet in sight. Consequently, it makes sense that academics study the possible application, implementation, and integration of the digital innovations becoming available as well as in their uptake and effects. But does research focus on what practice needs?

The business discipline that traditionally conducts such research is Information Systems (IS), a discipline which addresses how IT or digital artefacts are conceived, constructed, implemented, adopted, and used. IS research also focuses on the effects, often demonstrating how digital artefacts not only impact, but are also impacted by the social contexts in which they are embedded. Consequently, IS research typically stresses that the technical and social factors in digital transformation deserve comparative salience in terms of their relationships with outcomes. Important pointers, yet not always easy to put to practice.

In view of the relevance, pervasiveness and speed of digital developments, it is unsurprising that digitalization studies are also increasingly popping up in adjoining business disciplines. To find out how these studies in adjoining business disciplines complement IS research and identify opportunities and barriers for cross-fertilization, we are conducting a review of digitalization studies in top-tier journals in Strategy, Entrepreneurship, and Marketing. While still busy with the analysis, here are a few impressions based on our first observations of such growing lines of research we would like to share.

First, as academics we teach our students to take a two-sided view. However, the majority of the papers we hitherto came across in these disciplines only explicates, explores, hypothesizes, or tests the benefits of a certain technology for some business context. We often miss a keen interest in, let alone a conscious detecting and weighing of pros and cons; of both positive and negative possible effects.

Second, the shared presumption underlying many studies seems to be an unquestioned increasing digital technology use by organizations. The sheer possibilities and implications of selective or even non-use remain unmentioned and, therefore, unanalysed. This is reflected in the current policy discussions on generative artificial intelligence (GAI), where wise or responsible use is being advocated by organizations such as, for example, our university: “Users are personally responsible for using AI tools consciously, critically, and responsibly”. However, as long as the wider and longer-term implications are unclear, how can employees decide what ‘responsible’ use entails. It follows that only ‘good intentions’ during GAI use do not suffice and thus highly restrictive and non-use may actually be called for, which may be an unpopular stance to take.

Instead, the dominant feeling seems to be that further digital transformation is unavoidable because others will jump on the train anyways. Sounds convincing, but isn’t it a phallacy of logic? As kids, we were invariably scorned when using the excuse that ‘other kids had also been doing it’: “You will not jump in a dirty ditch, simply because everyone else is doing so”.  It is this feeling that is coming over me in the face of peer pressure to turn over responsibilities to opaque and shifting algorithms and my data to platform owners over whose (combined) use thereof we have no control?

Raising the uneasy question how we can remain accountable for our actions. Part of the answer seems to be that research into impacts is indeed crucial and that we need to welcome the increase in digitalisation studies in business disciplines that are complementary. However, this assumes that such research will have an open eye for not only the pros, but also the cons of a technological application and for comparing the intended as well as unintended consequences of use and non-use for the stakeholders involved. We believe that such research may better inform practitioners, supporting them in making responsible digital technology investment decisions. 

Author: Marjolein van Offenbeek - m.a.g.van.offenbeek@rug.nl

in collaboration with: Albert Boonstra and Vincent Kremer

Reference:

Benbasat, I., & Zmud, R. W. (2003). The identity crisis within the IS discipline: Defining and communicating the discipline's core properties. MIS quarterly, 183-194.

Sarker, S., Chatterjee, S., Xiao, X., & Elbanna, A. (2019). The sociotechnical axis of cohesion for the IS discipline: Its historical legacy and its continued relevance. MIS quarterly, 43(3), 695-720.

Beath, C., Berente, N., Gallivan, M. J., & Lyytinen, K. (2013). Expanding the frontiers of information systems research: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 14(4), i–xvi.

Davison, R.M., Karanasios, S., Chatterjee, S.(2024). Fit, scope and the shifting baseline: Is your submission likely to be desk rejected? Information Systems Journal, first published: 19 May 2024.https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12538.

https://www.rug.nl/about-ug/organization/quality-assurance/education/artificial-intelligence-ai/, see Basic rule 5.