IS RESEARCH RELEVANCE REVISITED: SUBTLE ACCOMPLISHMENT, UNFULFILLED PROMISE, OR SERIAL HYPOCRISY?
Paper nih 2002.
Saja gedik nak baca pasal orang debate2 pasal IS research.
Sah2 la org CS sni tak paham IS research tuh menda.
Paper nih conclude pendapat orang2 yang paham. Professor ada, practitioner pun adass...
Apa yang aku dapat pasal paper ni adalah :
- Young researcher cam aku fokus je la ngan research sendiri. X yah nak masuk isu IS research ni relevant ke tak.
- IS research banyak terlibat ngan social science punya menda. Nih aku suka, sbb aku mmg teringin nak jump soc science. Cuma yang payahnya, camna aku nak dapat scholar ke sana. haha. Sok aku amik CS tapi IS. Soft part of CS namanya.
- IS mmg origin dari CS yeah! Cuma, orang2 CS invent menda2 baru, namun IS is more attache dengan IT and Organization. Bnyk stadi on impact gitu. So more theori la sebnaqnya.
- IS ni orang CS nampak cam takde menda. Tapi dia cover on Upper level. Argument yang paling aku suka, kalau nak wat perabot cthnya, mmg la kiteorang tak wat perabot, tapi kami mencari raw material yang baik, yang sesuai, dan yang lebih baik, untuk hasilkan perabot. Memangla end consumer tk pakai raw material..tapi raw material tuh penting! Paham kannnnn! Gitula IS, mana datang nya korangnye end product klau takde teori.....haha..dan mana nak datangnya menda2 kesimpulan tentang sesuatu klau takde orang IS yang rajin cam kami ni untuk memerhati. Mana nak datangnya ethical issue klau korang2 ni asek Invent macam2 menda (teknologi la kononnya). Pastu bila banyak sangat teknologi, banyak a social isu la, etic isu la, privacy la. Pastu korang stress.......Tuh la sapa suh invent menda tak pikir pasal human impacttt..aperaaaaaaa..
- Journal IS yang paling gglamor MIS Quaterly, ngan Information System Research.
Pastu menda ni aku paste je la eh...byk dah baca balik2 memang menda nih ja..
oops lagik satu seblom aku paste, adalah lebih baik klau research aku ni, ada teori dan ada practical use, ni utk mudahkan aku grad laaaa.....bagi clear ya, CLEAR.
From the view of the practitioner, I see the following expectations for good academic
research:
• Relevance. Webster defines relevance as “important to the matter at hand”.
Therefore, if the intended audience is the practitioner, then, by definition, the material
needs to be important to what’s on their mind, not what the academic wants to
research.
• Rigor. I read several articles debating relevance versus rigor in preparation for
joining this panel. Quite frankly, I do not believe it is an either/or proposition. The
practitioner expects both relevance and rigor no differently than a business executive
expects both an insightful strategy along with executable tactics. There is, however, a
diminishing point of rigor return. The Chairman of my former company once reflected
that our engineering mentality “Would rather be precisely wrong than approximately
right.” Far too often, the search for rigor excellence by academics causes a detailed
analysis of unmeaningful data. I believe they should back off the sanctity of rigor and
accept the notion of getting things approximately right.
• Responsiveness. Publishing cycles measured in months or years rather than weeks
may be okay for more traditional fields such as mathematics. However, use of such
cycles will guarantee that most any applied IS research will be relevant yesterday,
not today. In my opinion, there no longer is a valid excuse for such lengthy publishing
cycles. In our field, electronic publication has become the norm. We no longer have
to wait for long printing and book distribution cycles. The other excuse that sufficient
time must be given for thorough critique is valid only to a point. I have been asked to
critique papers for publication. I suppose out of courtesy to the reviewers, we are
given months to look over 20 or 30 pages of manuscript. A solid few hours is all that
is really necessary. Cycle review times should be significantly compressed in order to
publish applied IS research in time for maximum use.
• Readability. Readability is a pet peeve, although I will be the first to admit calling the
kettle black. I find academic papers very hard to read for at least 2 reasons. First is
the use of fancy words, creating a false air of intelligence. I think such papers mask
the reality, which is a lack of substance. Perhaps paper length should be limited by
syllable count rather than word count! Secondly, academics seem to have to cite all
their research before drawing their own conclusions. That’s okay, but up to a point. I
reviewed a paper the other day that must have had 90% of it paraphrasing other
people’s work, and the remaining 10% attempting (and failing) to come up with
something new. There’s got to be a better way to attribute the thinking of others while
presenting original thought.
Saja gedik nak baca pasal orang debate2 pasal IS research.
Sah2 la org CS sni tak paham IS research tuh menda.
Paper nih conclude pendapat orang2 yang paham. Professor ada, practitioner pun adass...
Apa yang aku dapat pasal paper ni adalah :
- Young researcher cam aku fokus je la ngan research sendiri. X yah nak masuk isu IS research ni relevant ke tak.
- IS research banyak terlibat ngan social science punya menda. Nih aku suka, sbb aku mmg teringin nak jump soc science. Cuma yang payahnya, camna aku nak dapat scholar ke sana. haha. Sok aku amik CS tapi IS. Soft part of CS namanya.
- IS mmg origin dari CS yeah! Cuma, orang2 CS invent menda2 baru, namun IS is more attache dengan IT and Organization. Bnyk stadi on impact gitu. So more theori la sebnaqnya.
- IS ni orang CS nampak cam takde menda. Tapi dia cover on Upper level. Argument yang paling aku suka, kalau nak wat perabot cthnya, mmg la kiteorang tak wat perabot, tapi kami mencari raw material yang baik, yang sesuai, dan yang lebih baik, untuk hasilkan perabot. Memangla end consumer tk pakai raw material..tapi raw material tuh penting! Paham kannnnn! Gitula IS, mana datang nya korangnye end product klau takde teori.....haha..dan mana nak datangnya menda2 kesimpulan tentang sesuatu klau takde orang IS yang rajin cam kami ni untuk memerhati. Mana nak datangnya ethical issue klau korang2 ni asek Invent macam2 menda (teknologi la kononnya). Pastu bila banyak sangat teknologi, banyak a social isu la, etic isu la, privacy la. Pastu korang stress.......Tuh la sapa suh invent menda tak pikir pasal human impacttt..aperaaaaaaa..
- Journal IS yang paling gglamor MIS Quaterly, ngan Information System Research.
Pastu menda ni aku paste je la eh...byk dah baca balik2 memang menda nih ja..
oops lagik satu seblom aku paste, adalah lebih baik klau research aku ni, ada teori dan ada practical use, ni utk mudahkan aku grad laaaa.....bagi clear ya, CLEAR.
From the view of the practitioner, I see the following expectations for good academic
research:
• Relevance. Webster defines relevance as “important to the matter at hand”.
Therefore, if the intended audience is the practitioner, then, by definition, the material
needs to be important to what’s on their mind, not what the academic wants to
research.
• Rigor. I read several articles debating relevance versus rigor in preparation for
joining this panel. Quite frankly, I do not believe it is an either/or proposition. The
practitioner expects both relevance and rigor no differently than a business executive
expects both an insightful strategy along with executable tactics. There is, however, a
diminishing point of rigor return. The Chairman of my former company once reflected
that our engineering mentality “Would rather be precisely wrong than approximately
right.” Far too often, the search for rigor excellence by academics causes a detailed
analysis of unmeaningful data. I believe they should back off the sanctity of rigor and
accept the notion of getting things approximately right.
• Responsiveness. Publishing cycles measured in months or years rather than weeks
may be okay for more traditional fields such as mathematics. However, use of such
cycles will guarantee that most any applied IS research will be relevant yesterday,
not today. In my opinion, there no longer is a valid excuse for such lengthy publishing
cycles. In our field, electronic publication has become the norm. We no longer have
to wait for long printing and book distribution cycles. The other excuse that sufficient
time must be given for thorough critique is valid only to a point. I have been asked to
critique papers for publication. I suppose out of courtesy to the reviewers, we are
given months to look over 20 or 30 pages of manuscript. A solid few hours is all that
is really necessary. Cycle review times should be significantly compressed in order to
publish applied IS research in time for maximum use.
• Readability. Readability is a pet peeve, although I will be the first to admit calling the
kettle black. I find academic papers very hard to read for at least 2 reasons. First is
the use of fancy words, creating a false air of intelligence. I think such papers mask
the reality, which is a lack of substance. Perhaps paper length should be limited by
syllable count rather than word count! Secondly, academics seem to have to cite all
their research before drawing their own conclusions. That’s okay, but up to a point. I
reviewed a paper the other day that must have had 90% of it paraphrasing other
people’s work, and the remaining 10% attempting (and failing) to come up with
something new. There’s got to be a better way to attribute the thinking of others while
presenting original thought.
posted by aszifa_aris at 10:54 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home