MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989471299 · doi:10.1145/1278253.1278258

The tyranny of methodologies in information systems research <sup>1</sup>

2007· article· en· W1989471299 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM SIGMIS Database the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInformation Systems Theories and Implementation
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsField (mathematics)Perspective (graphical)Management scienceContext (archaeology)PhenomenonComputer scienceEngineering ethicsQuality (philosophy)Data scienceSociologyEpistemologyEngineeringMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A preoccupation with research methodologies is negatively affecting the quality of information systems (IS) research. Current IS research seems more concerned with "how" the research is conducted rather than "what" research is conducted and "why". This "tyranny of methodologies in IS research" is having a number of effects on IS research including influencing the problems that are chosen for study, affecting the papers that are selected for publication, and generally influencing the direction of the entire field. This paper explores this phenomenon. The paper describes the context and outlines the dimensions of the problem. It compares the "methodologies problem" in the IS field with the use of methodologies in other management disciplines. Finally, it proposes a number of approaches to help the IS discipline take a more balanced perspective in terms of the research methodologies it use.

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)0.062
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.938
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0620.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.019
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.339 · 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