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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.408

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.006
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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