MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969306629 · doi:10.1057/jit.2009.13

Positioning the Institutional Perspective in Information Systems Research

2009· article· en· W1969306629 on OpenAlexafffund
Muriel Mignerat, Suzanne Rivard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Information Technology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsHEC MontréalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaHEC MontréalRoyal Society
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Strategic information systemSoft systems methodologyInstitutional theoryInformation systemConceptual frameworkKnowledge managementManagement scienceManagement information systemsComputer scienceInformation technologySystems theorySociologyPolitical scienceEngineeringSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, a number of studies have adopted institutional theory as a perspective for examining Information Systems (IS)/Information Technology (IT)-related phenomena such as IT innovation, IS development and implementation, and IT adoption and use. The objective of this paper is to take stock of how institutional theory is being used in IS research. To this end, it first proposes a conceptual framework to encapsulate the main concepts of institutional theory. Second, it synthesizes the findings of 53 articles that adopted an institutional perspective to study IS/IT phenomena. Finally, it identifies conceptual and methodological issues that researchers need to address when adopting an institutional perspective.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.012
Science and technology studies0.0040.030
Scholarly communication0.0170.020
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations301
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Information TechnologySame topicInnovation and Knowledge ManagementFrench-language works237,207