Philosophical foundations for informing the future(S) through IS research
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Information systems (IS) scholars have suggested IS researchers have a responsibility to consider how information and communication technologies could, in the future, influence sociotechnical practices and outcomes. However, research focused specifically on “the future” has yet to gain a strong foothold within the scholarly IS field. In this essay, we suggest a philosophical foundation and epistemological basis for futures-oriented research to advance such scholarship in the IS field. We first highlight epistemic assumptions about futures-oriented research drawn from the discourse of futures studies. We then draw on Feenberg’s philosophy of “potentiality and actuality” of technology as a foundation to consider how knowledge generated through IS research about the sociotechnical past and present might inform futures-oriented inquiry. We illustrate these arguments with examples from the emerging arena of “big data” research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it