The Perils and Promises of Big Data Research in Information Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the proliferation of “big data” and powerful analytical techniques, information systems (IS) researchers are increasingly engaged in what we label as big data research (BDR)—research based on large digital trace datasets and computationally intensive methods. The number of such research papers has been growing rapidly in the top IS journals during the last decade, with roughly 16% of papers in 2018 employing this approach. In this editorial, we propose five conjectures that articulate the potential consequences of increasing BDR prevalence for the IS field’s research goals and outputs. We discuss ways in which IS researchers may be able to better leverage big data and new analysis techniques to conduct more impactful research. Our intent with these conjectures and analyses is to stimulate debate in the IS community. Indeed, we need a productive discussion about how emerging new research methods, digital trace data, and the development of indigenous theory relate to and can support one another.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.090 | 0.183 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.038 | 0.052 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.036 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".