Research Commentary: Desperately Seeking the "IT" in IT Research - A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact

By Wanda J. Orlikowski, Suzanne Iacono. Information systems research, 2001

3,213 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Management Information Systems, Political Science and International Relations, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/93dbcdc45336f4d26575e8273b3d70f7a1a260b2

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Management Information Systems

1. Steven L. Alter
2. Kalle J. Lyytinen
3. Paul M. Leonardi
4. Rajiv Kohli
5. V. Venkatesh
6. Youngjin Yoo
7. Suprateek Sarker
8. Shirley Gregor

In Political Science and International Relations

1. V. Venkatesh
2. Geoff Walsham
3. Jonathan Donner
4. Steven L. Alter
5. Youngjin Yoo
6. James Y. L. Thong
7. Andrew Burton-Jones
8. Ola Henfridsson

In Sociology and Political Science

1. V. Venkatesh
2. Steven L. Alter
3. James Y. L. Thong
4. Yogesh Kumar Dwivedi
5. Izak Benbasat
6. Shirley Gregor
7. Paul M. Leonardi
8. Ola Henfridsson

Citations in the corpus

• Where To Go From Here? Thoughts on Future Directions for Research on Individual-Level Technology Adoption with a Focus on Decision Making (2006, background): “…and, while there has been a call for richer theorizing (e.g., Venkatesh et al., 2003; Jasperson, Carter, & Zmud, 2005) by giving deeper consideration to various aspects of the technology and the context (Orlikowski & Iacono, 2001), little research has actually done so at the individual level.”
• Technostress: negative effect on performance and possible mitigations (2015, background): “‘Context’ refers to specifics of a given situation in which IS are developed or used (Orlikowski & Iacono, 2001).”
• Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems (2020, methodology): “Social Informatics has been successful in providing socio-technical analyses of deployed technologies (Johnson, 2000; Kling et al., 1998; Kling and Star, 1998; Orlikowsi and Iacono, 2001; Sawyer and Rosenbaum, 2000).”
• Putting the ‘theory’ back into grounded theory: guidelines for grounded theory studies in information systems (2009, background): “For example, Orlikowski & Iacono (2001) pointed out the lack of presence of the IT artefact in theorizing in the information systems discipline.”
• Eight key issues for the decision support systems discipline (2008, background): “How close should the research constructs that we use be to an IT-based system? Orlikowski and Iacono [68] argued that theorizing about IT artifacts should be at the core of IS research projects.”
• The Next Generation of Research on IS Use: A Theoretical Framework of Delegation to and from Agentic IS Artifacts (2021, background): “This is particularly relevant to human agents and agentic IS artifacts as they rarely function in isolation and often coordinate with and rely upon on other human agents and IS artifacts (i.e., the "ensemble" view Orlikowski and Iacono 2001).”
• Guest editorial: qualitative studies in information systems: a critical review and some guiding principles (2013, methodology): “The IS community needs to be conscious of the situations where IT is the omitted variable (Orlikowski and Iacono 2001).”
• Digital innovation: A review and synthesis (2019, background): “Moreover, the technical artifact has been called the “ core subject matter ” of IS research (Orlikowski & Iacono, 2001).”