Insights from recent episode analysis
Audience Interest
Podcast Focus
Publishing Consistency
Platform Reach
Insights are generated by CastFox AI using publicly available data, episode content, and proprietary models.
Est. Listeners
Based on iTunes & Spotify (publisher stats).
- Per-Episode Audience
Est. listeners per new episode within ~30 days
10,001 - 25,000 - Monthly Reach
Unique listeners across all episodes (30 days)
25,001 - 75,000 - Active Followers
Loyal subscribers who consistently listen
15,001 - 40,000
Market Insights
Platform Distribution
Reach across major podcast platforms, updated hourly
Total Followers
—
Total Plays
—
Total Reviews
—
* Data sourced directly from platform APIs and aggregated hourly across all major podcast directories.
On the show
Recent episodes
Glaser, Strauss, Charmaz, Nelson, Claude.ai? When digital nomads use generative AI to build grounded theories for the Journal of Information Technology
Apr 28, 2026
Unknown duration
In three years, we won't be revising our papers anymore
Apr 17, 2026
Unknown duration
Who wants to be a this IS research expert? Jan's turn
Apr 1, 2026
Unknown duration
Who wants to be a this IS research expert?
Mar 18, 2026
Unknown duration
Do you prefer a prestigious or a rigorous journal?
Mar 3, 2026
Unknown duration
Social Links & Contact
Official channels & resources
Official Website
Login
RSS Feed
Login
| Date | Episode | Description | Length | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4/28/26 |  Glaser, Strauss, Charmaz, Nelson, Claude.ai? When digital nomads use generative AI to build grounded theories for the Journal of Information Technology | We have Daniel Schlagwein on the show, who is what Germans call a "Tausendsassa:" He is both a practitioner and researcher of digital nomadism, the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Information Technology, and president of the AIS special interest group on Grounded Theory Methodology. We touch upon all three of these aspects, but at the core we want to know from Daniel whether generative AI tools are automating grounded theory and thereby eliminate what used to be at the heart of a humanistic and constructionist approach to doing research – or are they merely leveling the playing field for qualitative field researchers by giving them computational support matching those tools that quantitative researchers have had for a long time. Daniel argues that it depends on the specific flavor of the grounded theory method you are using to determine whether and how you can leverage generative AI for such research. References Wang, B., Schlagwein, D., Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., & Cahalane, M. C. (2025). 'Emancipation' in Digital Nomadism vs in the Nation‑State: A Comparative Analysis of Idealtypes. Journal of Business Ethics, 198(1), 35–68. Hoffman, P. (1998). The Man Who Loved Only Numbers. Hyperion Books. Garland, A. (1996). The Beach. Viking. Jiwasiddi, A., Schlagwein, D., Cahalane, M. C., Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., Leong, C., & Ractham, P. (2024). Digital Nomadism as a New Part of the Visitor Economy: The Case of the 'Digital Nomad Capital' Chiang Mai, Thailand. Information Systems Journal, 34(5), 1493–1535. Fromm, E. (1941). Escape from Freedom. Farrar & Rinehart. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine Publishing Company. Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory. Sociology Press. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (2nd ed.). Sage. Charmaz, K. C. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis (2nd ed.). Sage. Nelson, L. K. (2020). Computational Grounded Theory: A Methodological Framework. Sociological Methods & Research, 49(1), 3–42. Gopal, R., Li, J., Riemer, K., Sarker, S., Singh, P. V., Susarla, A., Bichler, M., & Thatcher, J. B. (2025). Inventing with Machines: Generative AI and the Evolving Landscape of IS Research. Information Systems Research, 36(4), 1949–1967. Zhou, Y., Yuan, Y., Huang, K., & Hu, X. (2024). Can ChatGPT Perform a Grounded Theory Approach to Do Risk Analysis? An Empirical Study. Journal of Management Information Systems, 41(4), 982–1015. Yue, Y., Liu, D., Lv, Y., Hao, J., & Cui, P. (2025). A Practical Guide and Assessment on Using ChatGPT to Conduct Grounded Theory: Tutorial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 27, e70122. Wiesche, M., Jurisch, M., Yetton, P., & Krcmar, H. (2019). Grounded Theory Methodology in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly, 41(3), 685–701. Sarker, S., Xiao, X., Beaulieu, T., & Lee, A. S. (2018). Learning from First-Generation Qualitative Approaches in the IS Discipline: An Evolutionary View and Some Implications for Authors and Evaluators (PART 1/2). Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 19(8), 752–774. AIS Special Interest Group on Grounded Theory Methodology (SIG GTM): https://aisnet.org/members/member_engagement/groups.aspx?code=SIGGTM. Recker, J., Zeiss, R., & Mueller, M. (2024). iRepair or I Repair? A Dialectical Process Analysis of Control Enactment on the iPhone Repair Aftermarket. MIS Quarterly, 48(1), 321–346. | — | ||||||
| 4/17/26 | In three years, we won't be revising our papers anymore | Jan is annoyed because he needs to revise his papers and respond to his reviewers. Why can't ChatGPT or Claude do this for him? Why aren't we doing this already? So we start to wonder: what will happen to paper writing, reviews, and revisions as we enter an age where science practice is imbued with AI? How important are framing, literature engagement, and prose when AI use will homogenize communication? How important are method skills when analytics can be automated? What skills should emerging researchers focus on to maintain or create a competitive edge? And will publishing move towards slimmer papers with only problematization, research design, and findings, or will we look for alternative markets to express our ideas and findings? Tune in to find out. References Acquired (2025). Google Part III: The AI Company. Episode 1, Oct 6, 2025, https://www.acquired.fm/episodes/google-the-ai-company. Ahart, J. (2026). AI can 'same-ify' human expression — can some brains resist its pull? Nature (11 March 2026), https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-00781-9. Habermas, J. (1984). Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Heinemann. Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1986). Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design. Ablex Publication Corporation. Heidegger, M. (1975). Being and Time. HarperOne. Churchman, C. W. (1972). The Design of Inquiring Systems: Basic Concepts of Systems and Organization. Basic Books. Kellogg, K. C., Valentine, M. A., & Christin, A. (2020). Algorithms at Work: The New Contested Terrain of Control. Academy of Management Annals, 14(1), 366–410. Roberson, Q. (2026). Artificial Intelligence and Responsible Research at AMJ. Academy of Management Journal, 69(2), 207–211. | — | ||||||
| 4/1/26 | Who wants to be a this IS research expert? Jan's turn | Does Jan really know what he is talking about? Like we did with Nick last time, we play another round of trivia questions about information systems research – but now Nick is the host and Jan is the player. How well does he know the field? Tune in to find out. And like last time, you can play our game for yourself. The questions are posted below. Play the game for yourself: Round 1 Question: MIS Quarterly is physically headquartered and historically associated with which American university? A. MIT B. Georgia State University C. Indiana University D. University of Minnesota Round 2 Question: In 2003, which scholar wrote the highly influential MISQ Issues & Opinions paper entitled "The Identity Crisis within the Is Discipline: Defining and Communicating the Discipline's Core Properties"? A. Wanda Orlikowski B. Izak Benbasat C. Varun Grover D. Ben Shneiderman Round 3 Question: Wanda Orlikowski, a frequent contributor to both MIS Quarterly and Information Systems Research, is famous for a 1992 Organization Science paper that introduced which theory to the IS field? A. Structuration Theory B. Actor-network Theory C. Transaction Cost Theory D. Punctuated Equilibrium Theory Round 4 Question: Enid Mumford is most closely associated with which IS development practice? A. Requirements engineering B. Rapid application development C. Object orientationD. User participation Round 5 Question: In which years were the first issues of MISQ and ISR published? A. 1977 and 1980 B. 1980 and 1990 C. 1980 and 1985 D. 1977 and 1990 Round 6 Question: Markus (1983), in one of the most famous IS papers ever written, used a case study to argue that "resistance" to a new system is caused by: A. Lack of technology fit B. Change fatigue C. Power imbalances D. User cognition Round 7 Question: In his work on system failure, Lyytinen argued that the traditional "technical" view of systems development was too narrow. He instead developed a framework of IS failure focusing on which of the following? A. Expectation Failure B. Socio-technical Failure C. Temporal Failure D. Representation Failure Round 8 Question: Which of these concepts associated with the work of Mark Keil is frequently cited as a common dysfunction in system development and implementation projects? A. Resistance B. Escalation of commitment C. Power dynamics D. Inadequate documentation Round 9 Question: The classic paper by Grover, Jeong, Kettinger, and Teng (1995) regarding business process reengineering success was published in which journal, known for its strong ties to economic IS research? A. Journal of Management Information Systems B. Information Systems Research C. Information & Management D. Management Science Round 10 Question: Which 2004 MISQ paper by Hevner, March, Park and Ram introduced the "Design Science" paradigm in IS research, providing a set of seven guidelines for the craft? A. "Information Systems Strategy" B. "The IT Artifact" C. "Design Science in Information Systems Research" D. "Rigorous Research in the Digital Age" Round 11 Question: Willcocks and Lacity are world-renowned scholars who have published a massive body of "classic" works across JIT and MISQ regarding what specific organizational phenomenon? A. Strategic value of IT B. Outsourcing C. Post adoption system use D. Participatory methods for IS development Round 12 Question: In 1991, Banker and Kemerer published a highly influential paper in Information Systems Research regarding Economies of scale in software development. What was their primary tool for measuring software size and complexity? A. Lines of Code B. Function Points C. Entropy D. Cyclometric Complexity | — | ||||||
| 3/18/26 | Who wants to be a this IS research expert? | Does Nick really know what he is talking about? Time to find out. We play a trivia quiz with fifteen questions about information systems research. Nick has an audience joker, a telephone joker, and a 50:50 joker -and he needs all of them to make it through the levels. How well do you know the field? Tune in to find out, or play our game for yourself. The questions are posted below. Play the game for yourself: Round 1 Question: Which three journals were added when the AIS Senior Scholars expanded the old Basket of Eight into the 11-journal premier list in 2023? A. DSS, I&M, and I&O B. DSS, ISJ, and JSIS C. CAIS, I&M, and IT&P D. DSS, JIT, and I&O Round 2 Question: In Fred Davis's 1989 TAM paper, which two beliefs are the famous core constructs? A. Trust and enjoyment B. Performance expectancy and effort expectancy C. Perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use D. Social influence and facilitating conditions Round 3 Question: Which paper introduced UTAUT? A. Venkatesh & Davis, 2000, Management Science B. Davis, 1989, MIS Quarterly C. Venkatesh et al., 2003, MIS Quarterly D. Venkatesh, Thong, & Xu, 2012, MIS Quarterly Round 4 Question: The original DeLone and McLean paper, "Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable," appeared in which year? A. 1988 B. 1990 C. 1992 D. 2003 Round 5 Question: Which paper is generally credited with introducing Action Design Research (ADR) into the IS mainstream? A. Hevner et al. (2004), MISQ B. Sein et al. (2011), MISQ C. Gregor & Hevner (2013), MISQ D. Peffers et al. (2007), JMIS Round 6 Question: Which paper is the 2017 MISQ piece on platform ecosystems with the subtitle-like claim "How Developers Invert the Firm"? A. Parker, Van Alstyne, & Jiang B. Constantinides, Henfridsson, & Parker C. Eisenmann, Parker, & Van Alstyne D. Ghazawneh & Henfridsson Round 7 Question: Which paper is the most impactful technostress article in Information Systems research? A. Tarafdar et al. (2007), JMIS, The impact of technostress on role stress and productivity B. Ragu-Nathan et al. (2008), ISR, The consequences of technostress for end users in organizations C. Tarafdar et al. (2010), JMIS, Impact of technostress on end-user satisfaction and performance D. Tarafdar, Pullins, & Ragu-Nathan (2015), ISJ, Technostress: negative effect on performance and possible mitigations Round 8 Question: As of March 2026, which of the following papers has the highest Google Scholar citation count? A. Venkatesh et al. (2003) UTAUT B. Yoo, Henfridsson, & Lyytinen (2010) The New Organizing Logic C. Hevner et al. (2004) Design Science in Information Systems Research D. Davenport (1993) Process innovation: reengineering work through information technology Round 9 Question: In digital-platform research, the phrase "boundary resources model" is most closely associated with which paper? A. Ghazawneh & Henfridsson (2013), ISJ B. Constantinides, Henfridsson, & Parker (2018), ISR C. Parker, Van Alstyne, & Jiang (2017), MISQ D. Yoo, Henfridsson, & Lyytinen (2010), ISR Round 10 Question: In IS economics / IT business value research, which paper is the classic article on information worker productivity? A. Brynjolfsson & Hitt, 1996, MISQ B. Aral, Brynjolfsson, & Van Alstyne, 2012, ISR C. Aral & Weill, 2007, Org. Science D. Brynjolfsson, Rock, & Syverson, 2017, NBER Level 11 Question: In Feldman and Pentland's routines work, which pairing is correct? A. Ostensive = abstract pattern or idea of the routine; Performative = specific enactments by specific people at specific times and places B. Ostensive = formal SOP; Performative = deviations from the SOP C. Ostensive = managerial intention; Performative = worker resistance D. Ostensive = organizational memory; Performative = organizational forgetting Level 12 Question: Which statement best captures Paul Leonardi's (2013) position on sociomateriality? A. Materiality and human interpretation are always inseparable, so affordances and constraints cannot be analytically distinguished from materiality. B. Materiality exists independently of people, but affordances and constraints do not; they arise in relation to human goals. C. Sociomateriality should only be grounded in agential realism, not critical realism. D. The social and the material are separable in theory, but not in empirical research. Level 13 Question: The 2010 ISR research commentary "Digital Infrastructures: The Missing IS Research Agenda" is associated with which set of authors? A. Yoo, Henfridsson, and Lyytinen B. Tilson, Lyytinen, and Sørensen C. Hanseth, Monteiro, and Hatling D. Eaton, Elaluf-Calderwood, Sorensen, and Yoo. Level 14 Question: Which paper examined whether participation in the gig economy is associated with entrepreneurial activity, and who are its authors? A. Burtch, Carnahan, and Greenwood (2018), Management Science B. Greenwood, Agarwal, Agarwal, and Gopal (2019), Organization ScienceC. Burtch, Ghose, and Wattal (2013), Information Systems Research D. Greenwood and Wattal (2017), MIS Quarterly Level 15 Question: In Kellogg, Valentine, and Christin's "Algorithms at Work: The New Contested Terrain of Control" framework, which set correctly names the six mechanisms of algorithmic control? A. Restricting, recommending, recording, rating, replacing, rewarding B. Ranking, routing, recording, rewarding, reviewing, removing C. Restricting, routing, reviewing, ranking, replacing, rewarding D. Recommending, recording, rating, regulating, replacing, remunerating | — | ||||||
| 3/3/26 | Do you prefer a prestigious or a rigorous journal? | Journals play an important role for academics. They disseminate new knowledge and separate good from bad research. They also signal competencies, reputation, and standing. Publishing in certain journals often means your work is more rigorous. It may also mean your work is more visible and gets cited more often. Plus, having your work appear in certain journals can be an important prerequisite for career advancement and it can literally affect your salary. Yet of course, these different functions can be evaluated in different ways. Not all journals score equally high or low on all these different aspects. Determining which journal is "good" or "top" becomes a complicated multidimensional riddle. We decided to ask Jason Thatcher. He is one of the most prolific authors of journal papers our field has ever seen and he has served as reviewer or editors on most if not all of them. We try to develop a simple 2x2 decision tool that helps authors identify journals that are both rigorous and prestigious, that are good for the research we do and good for our careers as well. References AIS College of Senior Scholars. (2023). Senior Scholars' List of Premier Journals. Association for Information Systems, https://aisnet.org/page/SeniorScholarListofPremierJournals. Lowry, P. B., Moody, G. D., Gaskin, J., Galletta, D. F., Humpherys, S. L., Barlow, J. B., & Wilson, D. W. (2014). Evaluating Journal Quality and the Association for Information Systems Senior Scholars' Journal Basket Via Bibliometric Measures: Do Expert Journal Assessments Add Value? MIS Quarterly, 37(4), 993–1012. Dennis, A. R., Valacich, J. S., Fuller, M. A., & Schneider, C. (2006). Research Standards for Promotion and Tenure in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(1), 1–12. Abbasi, A., Parsons, J., Pant, G., Liu Sheng, O. R., & Sarker, S. (2024). Pathways for Design Research on Artificial Intelligence. Information Systems Research, 35(2), 441–459. Rai, A. (2017). Editor's Comments: Seeing the Forest for the Trees. MIS Quarterly, 41(4), iii–vii. Recker, J. (2020). Reflections of a Retiring Editor-in-Chief. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 46(32), 751–761. Agarwal, R., & Lucas Jr., H. C. (2005). The Information Systems Identity Crisis: Focusing on High-Visibility and High-Impact Research. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 381–398. Applegate, L., & King, J. L. (1999). Rigor and Relevance: Careers on the Line. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 17–18. Rai, A. (2017). Editor's Comments: Avoiding Type III Errors: Formulating IS Research Problems that Matter. MIS Quarterly, 41(2), iii–vii. | — | ||||||
| 2/18/26 | If you're not using ChatGPT to cheat in research, you're not going with the times | Let's say we are unethical people, trying to get ahead in academia and gain accolades for the sake of promotion and income and so forth. In an age where artificial intelligence and LLMs are entering the academic enterprise, has "cheating" changed? Are there new ways of fabricating, fudging, cooking, trimming, and lying about your data, your insights, and your writing? Do we cheat the way we've always cheated, just more effectively and efficiently? Or do we not actually cheat but merely change the rules and norms of scholarship? Tune in and find out. References Noblit, G. W., & Hare, R. D. (1988). Meta-Ethnography: Synthesising Qualitative Studies. Sage. Locke, K. D., & Golden-Biddle, K. (1997). Constructing Opportunities for Contribution: Structuring Intertextual Coherence and "Problematizing" in Organizational Studies. Academy of Management Journal, 40(5), 1023–1062. Recker, J. (2026). The Only Constant is Change: CAIS and the Ever-Evolving World of IS Research and Practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 57(79), 1537-1546. Shu, L. L., Mazar, N., Gino, F., Ariely, D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2012). RETRACTED: Signing at the Beginning Makes Ethics Salient and Decreases Dishonest Self-Reports in Comparison to Signing at the End. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(38), 15197–15200. Wikipedia. (2025). Ulrich Lichtenthaler. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulrich_Lichtenthaler. Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing After the Results are Known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3), 196–217. Andrade, C. (2021). HARKing, Cherry-Picking, P-Hacking, Fishing Expeditions, and Data Dredging and Mining as Questionable Research Practices. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 82(1), 20f13804. Matthews, R. A. J. (2026). The ASA p-Value Statement 10 Years on: An Event of Statistical Significance? Significance, 23(2), 4–5. von Briel, F., Davidsson, P., & Recker, J. (2026). Why and How Societal Crises Give Rise to Extreme Growth Outliers: A Theory of External Enablement. Academy of Management Review, https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2023.0072. Brodeur, A., Carrell, S., Figlio, D., & Lusher, L. (2023). Unpacking P-hacking and Publication Bias. American Economic Review, 113(11), 2974–3002. Dubner, S. J. (2026). If You're Not Cheating, You're Not Trying. Freakonomics Radio, Episode 662, https://freakonomics.com/podcast/if-youre-not-cheating-youre-not-trying/. | — | ||||||
| 2/4/26 | The definitive guide to ranking IS journals | In 2026, everything is different. AI is scaling both research and publishing productivity. Impact factors no longer matter. Big name journal publishers launch offspring journals with little credentials other than the brand. How should we make sense of all this to figure out which journals are really important to our field? It is time for a new, rigorous ranking of IS journals. Problem is, we cannot really agree on our ranks and our reasons. You need to help us: give us your top ten ranking of IS journals with your reasoning. Together, we can find out what is best for our field going forward. References Seidel, S., Berente, N., Guo, H., Oh, W. (2026): Ethics, Regulation, and Policy: The Challenge to Institutions in the Digital Age. MIS Quarterly Special Issue, https://misq.umn.edu/pages/call_for_papers_ethics_and_regulations. Saunders, C., Brown, S. A., Bygstad, B., Dennis, A. R., Ferran, C., Galletta, D. F., Liang, T.-P., Lowry, P. B., Recker, J., & Sarker, S. (2017). Goals, Values, and Expectations of the AIS Family of Journals. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 18(9), 633–647. Riemer, K., Peter, S., Schwabe, G., Chatterjee, S., Adam, M., & Davison, R. M. (2026). Generative AI is Neither Just Another IT Artifact Nor a Colleague: Methodological Guidance for IS Scholarship. Information Systems Journal, 36(2), https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.70027. Rai, A. (2016). Editor's Comments: The MIS Quarterly Trifecta: Impact, Range, Speed. MIS Quarterly, 40(1), iii–x. Berente, N., Seidel, S., & Safadi, H. (2019). Data-Driven Computationally-Intensive Theory Development. Information Systems Research, 30(1), 50–64. Recker, J. (2026). The Only Constant is Change: CAIS and the Ever-Evolving World of IS Research and Practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 57, forthcoming. Watson, H. J. (2009). Tutorial: Business Intelligence - Past, Present, and Future. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 25(39), 487–510. Loeser, F., Recker, J., vom Brocke, J., Molla, A., & Zarnekow, R. (2017). How IT Executives Create Organizational Benefits by Translating Environmental Strategies into Green IS Initiatives. Information Systems Journal, 27(4), 503–553. Chau, M., Saunders, C., Chin, W., Recker, J., & Schwarz, A. (2025). 2025 Senior Scholars Journal Review Quality Survey. Association for Information Systems, https://aisnet.org/page/2025SeniorScholarSurvey. | — | ||||||
| 12/17/25 | Nick and Jan reporting live from the International Conference on Information Systems | As usual in the final episode of the year, we hand out three awards for what we think are some of the finest pieces of information systems scholarship produced this year. Except that this time, we are live at the International Conference on Information Systems in Nashville, Tennessee, in a room packed with our listeners. While this means the quality of the audio of our recording is not so great, the quality of the papers we honor this year is. And with a room full of laughter celebrating great information systems scholarship, we end the year on a high note. Congratulations to Stefan, Christoph, and Jan for winning the Trailblazing Research Award, John and Prasanna for winning the Elegant Scholarship Award, and Yanzhen, Huaxia and Andrew for winning the Innovative Method Award 2025. References Lowry, M. R. L., Vance, A., & Vance, M. D. (2025). Inexpert Supervision: Field Evidence on Boards' Oversight of Cybersecurity. Management Science, https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.04147. Porra, J., Hirschheim, R., Land, F., & Lyytinen, K. (2025). Seventy Years of Information Systems Development Methodologies from Early Business Computing to the Agile Era: A Two-part History. Part 1: From Pre to Early ISD Methodology Era: The Emergence of ISD Methodologies and Their Golden Era (1880–1980). Journal of Information Technology, 40(4), 441-469. Porra, J., Hirschheim, R., Land, F., & Lyytinen, K. (2025). Seventy Years of Information Systems Development Methodologies from Early Business Computing to the Agile Era: A Two-part History. Part 2: Later ISD to Early Post ISD Methodology Era: Adapting to Accelerated Context Expansion (1980–today). Journal of Information Technology, 40(4), 470-498. Abbasi, A., Somanchi, S., & Kelley, K. (2025). The Critical Challenge of using Large-scale Digital Experiment Platforms for Scientific Discovery. MIS Quarterly, 49(1), 1-28. Storey, V. C., Baskerville, R. L., & Kaul, M. (2025). Reliability in Design Science Research. Information Systems Journal, 35(3), 984-1014. Larsen, K. R., Lukyanenko, R., Mueller, R. M., Storey, V. C., Parsons, J., VanderMeer, D. E., & Hovorka, D. S. (2025). Validity in Design Science. MIS Quarterly, 49(4), 1267-1294. Vance, A., Eargle, D., Kirwan, C. B., Anderson, B. B., & Jenkins, J. L. (2025). The Fog of Warnings: How Non-Security-Related Notifications Diminish the Efficacy of Security Warnings. MIS Quarterly, 49(4), 1357–1384. Baiyere, A., Bauer, J. M., Constantiou, I., & Hardt, D. (2025). Fake News and True News Assessment: The Persuasive Effect of Discursive Evidence in Judging Veracity. MIS Quarterly, 49(3), 823-860. Seidel, S., Frick, C. J., & vom Brocke, J. (2025). Regulating Emerging Technologies: Prospective Sensemaking through Abstraction and Elaboration. MIS Quarterly, 49(1), 179-204. Burton-Jones, A., Boh, W., Oborn, E., & Padmanabhan, B. (2021). Advancing Research Transparency at MIS Quarterly: A Pluralistic Approach. MIS Quarterly, 45(2), iii-xviii. Horton, J. J., & Tambe, P. (2025). The Death of a Technical Skill. Information Systems Research, 36(3), 1799-1820. Chen, Y., Rui, H., & Whinston, A. B. (2025). Conversation Analytics: Can Machines Read Between the Lines in Real-Time Strategic Conversations? Information Systems Research, 36(1), 440-455. Grisold, T., Berente, N., & Seidel, S. (2025). Guardrails for Human-AI Ecologies: A Design Theory for Managing Norm-Based Coordination. MIS Quarterly, 49(4), 1239-1266. Clark, A. (2015). Surfing Uncertainty: Prediction, Action, and the Embodied Mind. Oxford University Press. Recker, J. (2021). Scientific Research in Information Systems: A Beginner's Guide (2nd ed.). Springer. Hirschheim, R., & Klein, H. K. (2012). A Glorious and Not-So-Short History of the Information Systems Field. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 13(4), 188-235. | — | ||||||
| 12/3/25 | Doing research on prime ministers | It only took us five years but we finally got Stefan Seidel on the podcast. We have been talking about him and his scholarship for a while. Today we finally get to ask him about his recent technology regulation paper, his view on grounded theorizing in information systems, his forthcoming special issue on Ethics, Regulation, and Policy that will start processing submissions in late 2026--and his bet with Nick Berente about who wins the race to 8000 citations. Episode reading list Seidel, S., Frick, C. J., & vom Brocke, J. (2025). Regulating Emerging Technologies: Prospective Sensemaking through Abstraction and Elaboration. MIS Quarterly, 49(1), 179-204. Recker, J., Zeiss, R., & Mueller, M. (2024). iRepair or I Repair? A Dialectical Process Analysis of Control Enactment on the iPhone Repair Aftermarket. MIS Quarterly, 48(1), 321-346. Seidel, S., & Urquhart, C. (2013). On Emergence and Forcing in Information Systems Grounded Theory Studies: The Case of Strauss and Corbin. Journal of Information Technology, 28(3), 237-260. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (2nd ed.). Sage. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine Publishing Company. Seidel, S., Berente, N., Guo, H., Oh, W. (2026): Ethics, Regulation, and Policy: The Challenge to Institutions in the Digital Age. MIS Quarterly Special Issue, https://misq.umn.edu/pages/call_for_papers_ethics_and_regulations. Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15-31. Berente, N., Gu, B., Recker, J., & Santhanam, R. (2021). Managing Artificial Intelligence. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1433-1450. Butler, T., Gozman, D., & Lyytinen, K. (2023). The Regulation of and Through Information Technology: Towards a Conceptual Ontology for IS Research. Journal of Information Technology, 38(2), 86-107 Gümüsay, A. A., & Reinecke, J. (2024). Imagining Desirable Futures: A Call for Prospective Theorizing with Speculative Rigour. Organization Theory, 5(1), https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877241235939. Grisold, T., Berente, N., & Seidel, S. (2025). Guardrails for Human-AI Ecologies: A Design Theory for Managing Norm-Based Coordination. MIS Quarterly, 49(4), 1239-1266. Seidel, S., Recker, J., & vom Brocke, J. (2013). Sensemaking and Sustainable Practicing: Functional Affordances of Information Systems in Green Transformations. MIS Quarterly, 37(4), 1275-1299. | — | ||||||
| 11/19/25 | Managing academics is like herding cats | Some academics go into the office every day; some are rarely ever seen on campus. Is one way better than the other? Who better to ask than the brilliant Ella Hafermalz who spent her career on the topic of remote work and its implications for belonging, community, collaboration, and performance. She points out that academia has always been a distributed and flexible profession. Researchers need flexibility and freedom to figure out their own best way of solving problems and doing their work, some of which may mean sitting at a desk, but maybe also involve lab or field work. On the other hand, pure freedom for individual academics makes a university nothing more than a collection of hired guns without a true community. How do we find the best balance and what is a good balance to begin with? Episode reading list Chang, S. (2025): China's unemployed young adults who are pretending to have jobs. BBC News, 11 August 2025, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdd3ep76g3go. Hafermalz, E., & Riemer, K. (2021). Productive and Connected While Working from Home: What Client-facing Remote Workers can Learn from Telenurses about 'Belonging Through Technology'. European Journal of Information Systems, 30(1), 89-99. Huysman, M. (2025). Studying AI in the Wild: Reflections from the AI@Work Research Group. Journal of Management Studies, https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.70021. The Professor and the Madman. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5932728/. Hafermalz, E. (2021). Out of the Panopticon and into Exile: Visibility and Control in Distributed New Culture Organizations. Organization Studies, 42(5), 697–717. Rovelli, C. (2022). Helgoland: The Strange and Beautiful Story of Quantum Physics. Penguin Books. Carroll, S. (2019). Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of Spacetime. Dutton. Sting, F. J., Tarakci, M., & Recker, J. (2024). Performance Implications of Digital Disruption in Strategic Competition. MIS Quarterly, 48(3), 1263-1278. Archive.org: Philosophy 185 Heidegger: Lectures from the course Philosophy 185 Heidegger by Hubert Dreyfus. https://fourble.co.uk/podcast/philosophy185heidegger. Baudrillard, J. (1981). Simulacra and Simulation. University of Michigan Press. Retkowsky, J., Hafermalz, E., & Huysman, M. (2024). Managing a ChatGPT-empowered Workforce: Understanding its Affordances and Side Effects. Business Horizons, 67(5), 511-523. Haubrich, G. F., Soekijad, M., & Hafermalz, E. (2025). 'What's Up with Work?'Bringing Screens into a Theory of Hybrid Working Situations. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.5465/AMPROC.2025.10670abstract. Tekeste, M. (2025). Under Pressure: Becoming the Good Enough Academic. Organization, https://doi.org/10.1177/13505084251383285. LinkedIn Community: The Digital Visibility Group: https://www.linkedin.com/groups/13346086/. | — | ||||||
Want analysis for the episodes below?Free for Pro Submit a request, we'll have your selected episodes analyzed within an hour. Free, at no cost to you, for Pro users. | |||||||||
| 11/5/25 | When you watch Tik Tok, your maturity in the academic enterprise is zero | A key problem in empirically oriented research, especially inductive and abductive work, is figuring out which theoretical lens or scaffold to apply to uncover novel insights. In other words, which theory should you use? We discuss a few heuristics scholars can draw on to reach a higher level of scholarly maturity, namely disposition, empirical salience, outcome definition, skepticism, and reflexivity. Episode reading list Recker, J. (2021). Scientific Research in Information Systems: A Beginner's Guide (2nd ed.). Springer. Quine, W. V. O. (1961). Two Dogmas of Empiricism. In W. V. O. Quine (Ed.), From a Logical Point of View (pp. 20-46). Cambridge University Press. Duhem, P. (1998). Physical Theory and Experiment. In M. Curd & J. A. Cover (Eds.), Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues (pp. 257-279). Norton. Popper, K. R. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Basic Books. Glikson, E., & Woolley, A. W. (2020). Human Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Review of Empirical Research. Academy of Management Annals, 14(2), 627-660. Recker, J., Zeiss, R., & Mueller, M. (2024). iRepair or I Repair? A Dialectical Process Analysis of Control Enactment on the iPhone Repair Aftermarket. MIS Quarterly, 48(1), 321-346. Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change. Harvard Business School Press. Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing After the Results are Known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3), 196-217. Lindberg, A., Berente, N., Howison, J., & Lyytinen, K. (2024). Discursive Modulation in Open Source Software: How Communities Shape Novelty and Complexity. MIS Quarterly, 48(4), 1395-1422. Lindberg, A., Berente, N., Gaskin, J., & Lyytinen, K. (2016). Coordinating Interdependencies in Online Communities: A Study of an Open Source Software Project. Information Systems Research, 27(4), 751-772. Chandar, B. (2025): AI and Labor Markets: What We Know and Don't Know. https://digitaleconomy.stanford.edu/news/ai-and-labor-markets-what-we-know-and-dont-know/. | — | ||||||
| 10/21/25 | Data is the fuel that sets innovation on fire | Most think that algorithms are the modern root cause of innovations. But Marta Stelmaszak says not only are organizations today powered by data, they innovate through data. With several other colleagues, Marta is bringing data studies back to the forefront of information systems research. She produces workshops, a forthcoming book, and an online bibliography with seminal readings. We talk to Marta about the relationship between data and meaning, representation versus innovation, and whether we all soon live in a hyperreality created through synthetic data that lost all connection to the real-world. Episode reading list Alaimo, C., & Kallinikos, J. (2022). Organizations Decentered: Data Objects, Technology and Knowledge. Organization Science, 33(1), 19-37. Aaltonen, A., Stelmaszak, M., & Xu, D. The Data Studies Bibliography. https://www.datastudiesbibliography.org/. Chen, H., Chiang, R., & Storey, V. C. (2012). Business Intelligence and Analytics: From Big Data to Big Impacts. MIS Quarterly, 36(4), 1165-1188. Wand, Y., & Wang, R. Y. (1996). Anchoring Data Quality Dimensions in Ontological Foundations. Communications of the ACM, 39(11), 86-95. Xu, D., Stelmaszak, M., & Aaltonen, A. (2025). What is Changing the Game in Data Research? Insights from the "Innovating in Data-based Reality" Professional Development Workshop. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 56(8), 194-208. Kent, W. (1978). Data and Reality. North-Holland. Hirschheim, R., Klein, H. K., & Lyytinen, K. (1995). Information Systems Development and Data Modeling: Conceptual and Philosophical Foundations. Cambridge University Press. Goodhue, D. L., Wybo, M. D., & Kirsch, L. J. (1992). The Impact of Data Integration on the Costs and Benefits of Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 16(3), 239-311. Aaltonen, A., & Stelmaszak, M. (2024). Data Innovation Lens: A New Way to Approach Data Design as Value Creation. SSRN, https://ssrn.com/abstract=4574855. Recker, J., Indulska, M., Green, P., Burton-Jones, A., & Weber, R. (2019). Information Systems as Representations: A Review of the Theory and Evidence. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 20(6), 735-786. Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. MIT Press. Baudrillard, J. (1981). Simulacra and Simulation. University of Michigan Press. Harari, Y. N. (2024). Nexus: A Brief History of Information Networks from the Stone Age to AI. Random House. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations. Basil Blackwell. Stelmaszak, M., Wagner, E., & DuPont, N. N. (2024). Recognition in Personal Data: Data Warping, Recognition Concessions, and Social Justice. MIS Quarterly, 48(4), 1611-1636. Aaltonen, A., Stelmaszak, M., & Lyytinen, K. (Eds.). (2026). Research Handbook on Digital Data: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Edward Elgar Publishing. | — | ||||||
| 10/7/25 | If you're writing a paper about AI you are not allowed to talk about AI | When we discuss artificial intelligence, what metaphors do we use to illustrate what we mean? Is artificial intelligence some sort of robot—like Ultron—or is it an organism—like a beehive? What happens to our expectations, our thinking, and our conclusions when we change these metaphors, say, from an entitative metaphor (say, an agent) to a relational metaphor (say, belonging to our work network)? We discuss these points with Angelos Kostis and Paavo Ritala who wrote a very interesting paper on how management scholars think about artificial intelligence. Episode reading list Ramaul, L., Ritala, P., Kostis, A., & Aaltonen, P. (2025). Rethinking How We Theorize AI in Organization and Management: A Problematizing Review of Rationality and Anthropomorphism. Journal of Management Studies, https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.13246. Berente, N., Gu, B., Recker, J., & Santhanam, R. (2021). Managing Artificial Intelligence. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1433-1450. Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2020). The Problematizing Review: A Counterpoint to Elsbach and Van Knippenberg's Argument for Integrative Reviews. Journal of Management Studies, 57(6), 1290-1304. Berente, N. (2020). Agile Development as the Root Metaphor for Strategy in Digital Innovation. In S. Nambisan, K. Lyytinen, & Y. Yoo (Eds.), Handbook of Digital Innovation (pp. 83-96). Edward Elgar. Pepper, S. C. (1942). World Hypotheses: A Study in Evidence. University of California Press. Brynjolfsson, E., Li, D., & Raymond, L. R. (2025). Generative AI at Work. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 140(2), 889-942. Russell, S. J., & Norvig, P. (2010). Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall. Jarrahi, M. H., & Ritala, P. (2025). Rethinking AI Agents: A Principal-Agent Perspective. California Management Review Insights, https://cmr.berkeley.edu/2025/07/rethinking-ai-agents-a-principal-agent-perspective/. Boxenbaum, E., & Pedersen, J. S. (2009). Scandinavian Institutionalism – a Case of Institutional Work. In T. B. Lawrence, R. Suddaby, & B. Leca (Eds.), Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations (pp. 178-204). Cambridge University Press. Iivari, J., & Lyytinen, K. (1998). Research on Information Systems Development in Scandinavia-Unity in Plurality. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 10(1), 135-186. Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2024). The Art of Phenomena Construction: A Framework for Coming Up with Research Phenomena beyond 'the Usual Suspects'. Journal of Management Studies, 61(5), 1737-1765. Brunsson, N. (2003). The Organization of Hypocrisy: Talk, Decisions, and Actions in Organizations. Copenhagen Business School Press. Floyd, C., Mehl, W.-M., Reisin, F.-M., Schmidt, G., & Wolf, G. (1989). Out of Scandinavia: Alternative Approaches to Software Design and System Development. Human-Computer Interaction, 4(4), 253-350. Grisold, T., Berente, N., & Seidel, S. (2025). Guardrails for Human-AI Ecologies: A Design Theory for Managing Norm-Based Coordination. MIS Quarterly, 49, https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2025/18058. Forster, E. M. (1909). The Machine Stops. The Oxford and Cambridge Review, November 1909, https://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/~koehl/Teaching/ECS188/PDF_files/Machine_stops.pdf. | — | ||||||
| 9/23/25 | Nick's rules for a good PhD education | We are together in South Bend and teach a class to PhD students in the Mendoza College of Business at the University of Notre Dame. Our joint teaching experience makes us wonder: What should all doctoral students learn or what should we all teach the next generation of IS students? We come up with Nick's rules for a good PhD education: First, understand what knowledge and inferences are. Second, learn different methods and then deep dive into a primary method. Third, pick a domain and learn its foundations and history. Fourth, develop a mindset of mastery to become the world's expert on your topic. And finally, develop and hone your writing skills. Episode reading list Bacon, F. (1620/2019). Novum Organum. Anodos. Hume, D. (1748/1998). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. In J. Perry & M. E. Bratman (Eds.), Introduction to Philosophy: Classical and Contemporary Readings (3rd ed., pp. 190-220). Oxford University Press. Popper, K. R. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Basic Books. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4th ed.). Sage Publications. Berente, N., Ivanov, D., & Vandenbosch, B. (2007). Process Compliance and Enterprise Systems Implementation. In: Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Waikoloa, Hawaii, pp. 222-231. Castelo, N., Bos, M. W., & Lehmann, D. R. (2019). Task-Dependent Algorithmic Aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 56(5), 809-825. Recker, J. (2021). Scientific Research in Information Systems: A Beginner's Guide (2nd ed.). Springer. Mackie, J. L. (1965). Causes and Conditions. American Philosophical Quarterly, 2(4), 245-264. Gable, G. G. (1994). Integrating Case Study and Survey Research Methods: An Example in Information Systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 3(2), 112-126. Chalmers, A. F. (2013). What Is This Thing Called Science? (4th ed.). Hackett. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2001). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference (2nd ed.). Houghton Mifflin. Taylor, F. W. (1911). The Principles of Scientific Management. Harper and Bros. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. John Wiley & Sons. Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Harvard University Press. | — | ||||||
| 9/9/25 | Should all qualitative researchers use LLMs? | One of the big topics at the AOM 2025 conference this summer was the use of large language models in the research process, especially in qualitative studies. We expand this discussion by asking: can qualitative research be automated—or augmented? Yes and no. Some of the advantages LLMs bring to the table are hard to ignore. LLMs can act as critical reviewers, as a consistency checker, as a provider of alternative perspectives on unstructured data, or to break path dependencies in the process of data analysis. They can also help find interesting outcomes that qualitative insights could explain. At the same time, the use of LLMs comes with thorny pitfalls. We know they are unreliable and hallucinate. And the output they create is… average at best. So if you use LLMs, make sure you are not using it for automation—do not lose touch with your craft or your data. Whatever tool you use, make sure you remain a virtuous scholar. Episode reading list Noblit, G. W., & Hare, R. D. (1988). Meta-Ethnography: Synthesising Qualitative Studies. Sage. Recker, J. (2021). Improving the State-Tracking Ability of Corona Dashboards. European Journal of Information Systems, 30(5), 476-495. Rynes, S., & Gephart Jr., R. P. (2004). Qualitative Research and the "Academy of Management Journal". Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 454-462. Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation Of Cultures. Basic Books. Boland, R. J. (2001). The Tyranny of Space in Organizational Analysis. Information and Organization, 11(1), 3-23. Weber, R. (2004). Editor's Comments: The Rhetoric of Positivism Versus Interpretivism: A Personal View. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), iii-xii. Lehmann, J., Hukal, P., Recker, J., & Tumbas, S. (2025). Layering the Architecture of Digital Product Innovations: Firmware and Adapter Layers. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 26, https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00956. Lindberg, A., Berente, N., Howison, J., & Lyytinen, K. (2024). Discursive Modulation in Open Source Software: How Communities Shape Novelty and Complexity. MIS Quarterly, 48(4), 1395-1422. Ragin, C. C. (1987). The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. University of California Press. Goodhue, D. L., Lewis, W., & Thompson, R. L. (2012). Comparing PLS to Regression and LISREL: A Response to Marcoulides, Chin, and Saunders. MIS Quarterly, 36(3), 703-716. Goodhue, D. L., Lewis, W., & Thompson, R. L. (2007). Statistical Power in Analyzing Interaction Effects: Questioning the Advantage of PLS With Product Indicators. Information Systems Research, 18(2), 211-227. | — | ||||||
| 8/26/25 | Cognitive conflict, courage, humility, and respect: Ingredients for a productive academic discourse | A new season of podcast episodes is starting and what better place to kick it off as the world's largest business and management conference. We are recording this episode at AOM 2025 in beautiful Copenhagen, made possible through a generous invite from Attila Marton from CBS who organized a recording studio for us. Being here amid symposia, professional development workshops, panels, and paper presentations makes us wonder: what does it take to produce great, stimulating, and productive academic discourse? Does it depend on the people that get invited to speak, is it about their ideas, or what else? We sit down with our friend Philip Hukal with whom we share some stories from the events we've attended at AOM and we distil a few rules that characterize good intellectual debate: let there be cognitive conflict about the merit of ideas, be bold enough to propose new ideas, show humility for the craft and work of others, and be respectful to your colleagues. Episode reading list Kulkarni, M., Mantere, S., Vaara, E., van den Broek, E., Pachidi, S., Glaser, V. L., Gehman, J., Petriglieri, G., Lindebaum, D., Cameron, L. D., Rahman, H. A., Islam, G., & Greenwood, M. (2024). The Future of Research in an Artificial Intelligence-Driven World. Journal of Management Inquiry, 33(3), 207-229. Brynjolfsson, E., Collis, A., Diewert, W. E., Eggers, F., & Fox, K. J. (2025). GDP-B: Accounting for the Value of New and Free Goods. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, https://doi.org/10.1257/mac.20210319. Stelmaszak, M., Wagner, E., & DuPont, N. N. (2024). Recognition in Personal Data: Data Warping, Recognition Concessions, and Social Justice. MIS Quarterly, 48(4), 1611-1636. Habermas, J. (1984). Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Heinemann. Lehmann, J., Hukal, P., Recker, J., & Tumbas, S. (2025). Layering the Architecture of Digital Product Innovations: Firmware and Adapter Layers. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 26, https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00956. | — | ||||||
| 7/8/25 | Elitism, conflicts of interest, and collusion in the information systems field? | Is there collusion in our field? Do we have elites running wild, making sure that their work gets published whilst the rest of us struggles to find room to publish our own work? And are we handling conflicts of interest that may exist between authors and the editors who are charged with making decisions about their work? These are serious questions. They target the core of our field, they have the potential to undermine – or bolster – the legitimacy of all our scholarship, and they pose serious material consequences for all scholars, their careers and ultimately their lives. We came across a new paper that reports an analysis of the potential conflict of interest issues in academic publishing, and we use this paper to reflect on our experiences as both authors and editors. We try to draw a few conclusions and recommendations about how we can raise awareness and build institutional trust to minimize if not avoid any questionable or outright unethical practices in publishing. Episode reading list Association for Information Systems. AIS Podcast Library, https://aisnet.org/page/aispodcast. Mindel, V., & Ciriello, R. (2025). Safeguarding Academic Legitimacy: Editorial Conflicts of Interest as a Principal-Agent Problem in Elite Business Journals. SSRN, https://ssrn.com/abstract=5315585. Recker, J., Rosemann, M., Green, P., & Indulska, M. (2011). Do Ontological Deficiencies in Modeling Grammars Matter? MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 57-79. Lee, J., & Berente, N. (2012). Digital Innovation and the Division of Innovative Labor: Digital Controls in the Automotive Industry. Organization Science, 23(5), 1428-1447. Kane, G. C., Young, A., Majchrzak, A., & Ransbotham, S. (2021). Avoiding an Oppressive Future of Machine Learning: A Design Theory for Emancipatory Assistants. MIS Quarterly, 45(1), 371-396. Grisold, T., Berente, N., & Seidel, S. (2025). Guardrails for Human-AI Ecologies: A Design Theory for Managing Norm-Based Coordination. MIS Quarterly, https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2025/18058. Boh, W., Melville, N. P., Baptista, J., Chasin, F., Horita, F., Ixmeier, A., Johnson, S. L., Ketter, W., Kranz, J., Miranda, S. M., Nan, N., Pentland, B. T., Recker, J., Sadeghi, S., Sarker, S., Sarker, S., Sutanto, J., Wang, P., & Wilopo, W. (2025). Digital Resilience for the Climate Crisis: Theoretical Perspectives and Ideas for Future Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly, forthcoming. Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew Effect in Science. Science, 159(3810), 56-63. Tiwana, A., & Safadi, H. (2025). Silence Inside Systems: Roots and Generativity Consequences. Information Systems Research, https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2022.0586. Li, J., Li, M., Wang, X., & Thatcher, J. B. (2021). Strategic Directions for AI: The Role of CIOs and Boards of Directors. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1603-1643. Pienta, D., Vishwamitra, N., Somanchi, S., Berente, N., & Thatcher, J. B. (2025). Do Crowds Validate False Data? Systematic Distortion and Affective Polarization. MIS Quarterly, 49(1), 347-366. | — | ||||||
| 6/24/25 | The great debate | Which research methods are better, quantitative or qualitative? What is more important, getting a richer picture of what goes on in organizations, or seeking generalizable insights about causality? This debate has raged at the very least since Glaser and Strauss popularized the grounded theory method in the mid twentieth century. In 2025, we want to put this debate to rest. We asked one of the best econometric scholars we know (Brad Greenwood) and one of the best qualitative scholars we know (Youngjin Yoo) to fight this debate on air and come up with their very own end-of-all arguments. The result? It may surprise you: We all ought to get mad. Episode reading list Chang, H. (2008). Inventing Temperature: Measurement and Scientific Progress. Oxford University Press. Burtch, G., Carnahan, S., & Greenwood, B. N. (2018). Can You Gig It? An Empirical Examination of the Gig Economy and Entrepreneurial Activity. Management Science, 64(12), 5497-5520. Greenwood, B. N., Kobayashi, B. H., & Starr, E. P. (2025). Can You Keep a Secret? Banning Noncompetes Does Not Increase Trade Secret Litigation. SSRN, https://ssrn.com/abstract=4771171. Kraemer, K. L., Dickhoven, S., Tierney, S. F., & King, J. L. (1987). Datawars: The Politics of Modeling in Federal Policymaking. Columbia University Press. Roth, J., Sant'Anna, P. H. C., Bilinski, A., & Poe, J. (2023). What's Trending in Difference-in-Differences? A Synthesis of the Recent Econometrics Literature. Journal of Econometrics, 235(2), 2218-2244. Matherly, T., & Greenwood, B. N. (2024). No News is Bad News: The Internet, Corruption, and the Decline of the Fourth Estate. MIS Quarterly, 48(2), 699-714. Levitt, S. D., & Dubner, S. J. (2005). Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything. William Morrow. Greenwood, B. N., & Wattal, S. (2017). Show Me the Way to Go Home: An Empirical Investigation of Ride-Sharing and Alcohol Related Motor Vehicle Fatalities. MIS Quarterly, 41(1), 163-187. King, A. A. (2025). Does Corporate Social Responsibility Increase Access to Finance? A Commentary on Cheng, Ioannou, and Serafeim (2014). Strategic Management Journal, forthcoming. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4647425. Seidel, S., Frick, C. J., & vom Brocke, J. (2025). Regulating Emerging Technologies: Prospective Sensemaking through Abstraction and Elaboration. MIS Quarterly, 49(1), 179-204. Pentland, B. T. (1999). Building Process Theory with Narrative: From Description to Explanation. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 711-725. Lee, J., & Berente, N. (2013). The Era of Incremental Change in the Technology Innovation Life Cycle: An Analysis of the Automotive Emission Control Industry. Research Policy, 42(8), 1469-1481. Anderson, P., & Tushman, M. L. (1998). Technological Discontinuities and Dominant Designs: A Cyclical Model of Technological Change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(4), 604-633. Brynjolfsson, E., & Hitt, L. M. (1996). Paradox Lost? Firm-Level Evidence on the Returns to Information Systems Spending. Management Science, 42(4), 541-558. Noe, R. (2025). Moral Incoherence During Category Emergence: The Contentious Case of Connected Toys. Harvard Business School Working Paper, 24-071, https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=65988. | — | ||||||
| 6/10/25 | Ask us anything - Part Two | We continue with our special "Ask us anything" episode to celebrate the centenary of the This IS Research podcast. This time, we handle questions such as "do we have to worry about ontology?" - No; "should we engage in community building?" Yes; and "what have you learned from the podcast?" A whole lot - and we hope you have learned a thing or two along the way as well. Episode reading list Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363. James, W. (1907). Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking. Hackett Publishing. Gal, U., Berente, N., & Chasin, F. (2022). Technology Lifecycles and Digital Innovation: Patterns of Discourse Across Levels of Abstraction: A Study of Wikipedia Articles. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 23(5), 1102-1149. Faik, I., Barrett, M., & Oborn, E. (2020). How Information Technology Matters in Societal Change: An Affordance-Based Institutional Perspective. MIS Quarterly, 44(3), 1359-1390. Leonardi, P. M. (2010). Digital Materiality? How Artifacts Without Matter, Matter. First Monday, 15(6), https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v15i6.3036. Goebeler, L., Hukal, P., & Xiao, X. (2024). Four Roles of Physicality in Digital Innovation: A Theoretical Review. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 33(4), 101862. Faulkner, P., & Runde, J. (2019). Theorizing the Digital Object. MIS Quarterly, 43(4), 1279-1302. Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., . . . Wright, R. T. (2023). "So what if ChatGPT wrote it?" Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Opportunities, Challenges and Implications of Generative Conversational AI for Research, Practice and Policy. International Journal of Information Management, 71, 102642. | — | ||||||
| 5/27/25 | Ask us anything – Part one | We have an anniversary to celebrate: one hundred episodes of the This IS Research podcast. We mark the occasion by answering questions we received from our audience: Which bear is the best, who likes a hug more... and what advice would we give about starting as an assistant professor, pivoting your research, and what books to read. All this and much more in part one of our "ask us anything" episode. Episode reading list Fort, T. (2003). The Book of Eels. HarperCollins. Nazar, S. (1999). A Beautiful Mind. Simon & Schuster. Frankl, V. E. (1946). Man's Search for Meaning. Beacon Press. Ashby, W. R. (1956). An Introduction to Cybernetics. Chapman & Hall. Card, O. S. (1985). Ender's Game. Tor Books. Beer, S. (1974). Designing Freedom. CBC Learning Systems. Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative Behavior: a Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization. Macmillan. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human Problem Solving. Prentice-Hall. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. John Wiley & Sons. Urquhart, C., Berente, N., Recker, J. (2021). Naughty Grounded Theory. This IS Research podcast episode, 22 December 2021. Zwass, V., Berente, N., Recker, J. (2023). Never create a journal unless it is JMIS. This IS Research podcast episode, 31 May 2023. Berente, N., Recker, J. (2022). Why we love what we do. This IS Research podcast episode, 18 May 2022. | — | ||||||
| 5/13/25 | Are digital technologies helping to green our planet? | In 2010, the Association for Information Systems formed a special interest group (SIGGreen) to nurture an international community of academics that study the role of digital technologies in fostering environmentally, economically and socially sustainable development. Fifteen years later, we sit down with Jacqueline Corbett, the current SIGGreen president, to reflect on the progress we have made. What do we know about how digital technologies help greening our planet? What efforts in empirical, theoretical, and design work is still needed? Is our role to understand the role of digital technologies or do we need to push and enact change ourselves? We conclude that environmental questions and problems are now firmly on the radar screen of our discipline but more work needs to be done for information systems academics to transform the way we think about and use digital technologies. Episode reading list Corbett, J., & Mellouli, S. (2017). Winning the SDG Battle in Cities: How an Integrated Information Ecosystem can Contribute to the Achievement of the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. Information Systems Journal, 27(4), 427-461. Seidel, S., Recker, J., & vom Brocke, J. (2013). Sensemaking and Sustainable Practicing: Functional Affordances of Information Systems in Green Transformations. MIS Quarterly, 37(4), 1275-1299. Hasan, H., Ghose, A., & Spedding, T. (2009). Editorial for the Special Issue on IT and Climate Change. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 16(2), 19-21. Watson, R. T., Corbett, J., Boudreau, M.-C., & Webster, J. (2011). An Information Strategy for Environmental Sustainability. Communications of the ACM, 55(7), 28-30. Jenkin, T. A., Webster, J., & McShane, L. (2011). An Agenda for 'Green' Information Technology and Systems Research. Information and Organization, 21(1), 17-40. Watson, R. T., Boudreau, M.-C., & Chen, A. J. (2010). Information Systems and Environmentally Sustainable Development: Energy Informatics and New Directions for the IS Community. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 23-38. Elliot, S. (2011). Transdisciplinary Perspectives on Environmental Sustainability: A Resource Base and Framework for IT-Enabled Business Transformation. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 197-236. Kahlen, M., Ketter, W., & van Dalen, J. (2018). Electric Vehicle Virtual Power Plant Dilemma: Grid Balancing Versus Customer Mobility. Production and Operations Management, 27(11), 2054-2070. Gholami, R., Watson, R. T., Hasan, H., Molla, A., & Bjørn-Andersen, N. (2016). Information Systems Solutions for Environmental Sustainability: How Can We Do More? Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 17(8), 521-536. Corbett, J., & El Idrissi, S. C. (2022). Persuasion, Information Technology, and the Environmental Citizen: An Empirical Study of the Persuasion Effectiveness of City Applications. Government Information Quarterly, 39(4), 101757. Degirmenci, K., & Recker, J. (2023). Breaking Bad Habits: A Field Experiment About How Routinized Work Practices Can Be Made More Eco-efficient Through IS for Sensemaking. Information & Management, 60(4), 103778. Zeiss, R., Ixmeier, A., Recker, J., & Kranz, J. (2021). Mobilising Information Systems Scholarship For a Circular Economy: Review, Synthesis, and Directions For Future Research. Information Systems Journal, 31(1), 148-183. Haudenosaunee Confederacy. (2025). Values. https://www.haudenosauneeconfederacy.com/values/. The Stakeholder Alignment Collaborative. (2025). The Consortia Century: Aligning for Impact. Oxford University Press. Hovorka, D. and Corbett, J. (2012) IS Sustainability Research: A trans-disciplinary framework for a 'grand challenge". 33rd International Conference on Information Systems, Orlando, Florida. Hovorka, D. S., & Peter, S. (2021). Speculatively Engaging Future(s): Four Theses. MIS Quarterly, 45(1), 461-466. Gümüsay, A. A., & Reinecke, J. (2024). Imagining Desirable Futures: A Call for Prospective Theorizing with Speculative Rigour. Organization Theory, 5(1), https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877241235939. Kotlarsky, J., Oshri, I., & Sekulic, N. (2023). Digital Sustainability in Information Systems Research: Conceptual Foundations and Future Directions. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 24(4), 936-952. Gray, P., Lyytinen, K., Saunders, C., Willcocks, L. P., Watson, R. T., & Zwass, V. (2006). How Shall We Manage Our Journals in the Future? A Discussion of Richard T. Watson's Proposals at ICIS 2004. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 18(14), 2-41. Saldanha, T. J. V., Mithas, S., Khuntia, J., Whitaker, J., & Melville, N. P. (2022). How Green Information Technology Standards and Strategies Influence Performance: Role of Environment, Cost, and Dual Focus. MIS Quarterly, 46(4), 2367-2386. Leidner, D. E., Sutanto, J., & Goutas, L. (2022). Multifarious Roles and Conflicts on an Inter-Organizational Green IS. MIS Quarterly, 46(1), 591-608. Wunderlich, P., Veit, D. J., & Sarker, S. (2019). Adoption of Sustainable Technologies: A Mixed-Methods Study of German Households. MIS Quarterly, 43(2), 673-691. Melville, N. P. (2010). Information Systems Innovation for Environmental Sustainability. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 1-21. Edwards, P. N. (2013). A Vast Machine. MIT Press. Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. W. (1972). The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome's Project on the Predicament of Mankind. Universe Books. Over the Hedge. (2006). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over_the_Hedge. McPhearson, T., Raymond, C. M., Gulsrud, N., Albert, C., Coles, N., Fagerholm, N., Nagatsu, M., Olafsson, A. S., Niko, S., & Vierikko, K. (2021). Radical Changes are Needed for Transformations to a Good Anthropocene. npj Urban Sustainability, 1(5), https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-021-00017-x. | — | ||||||
| 4/29/25 | How to be an editor 101, or: how to get away with bad paper decisions | Jason Thatcher is back on the show and he is bringing decades of experiences as a journal editor. So we decided we play a game of round robin where each of us is giving rules of what to do (or not to do) as an editor. How long can we sit on papers before we make decisions? On what basis should we offer revise and resubmit decisions? When is it okay to desk reject a paper? How many reviews are enough? So if you want to learn more about the different editorial superhuman powers and supervillain powers – this is your episode. Episode reading list Recker, J. (2020). Reflections of a Retiring Editor-in-Chief. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 46(32), 751-761. Berente, N., Gu, B., Recker, J., & Santhanam, R. (2021). Managing Artificial Intelligence. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1433-1450. Li, J., Li, M., Wang, X., & Thatcher, J. B. (2021). Strategic Directions for AI: The Role of CIOs and Boards of Directors. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1603-1643. Grisold, T., Berente, N., & Seidel, S. (2025). Guardrails for Human-AI Ecologies: A Design Theory for Managing Norm-Based Coordination. MIS Quarterly, 45, forthcoming. Davis, J. L. (2020). How Artifacts Afford: The Power and Politics of Everyday Things. MIT Press. Majchrzak, A., & Malhotra, A. (2019). Unleashing the Crowd: Collaborative Solutions to Wicked Business and Societal Problems. Springer. Gaskin, J., Berente, N., Lyytinen, K., & Yoo, Y. (2014). Toward Generalizable Sociomaterial Inquiry: A Computational Approach for Zooming In and Out of Sociomaterial Routines. MIS Quarterly, 38(3), 849-871. Teodorescu, M., Morse, L., Awwad, Y., & Kane, G. C. (2021). Failures of Fairness in Automation Require a Deeper Understanding of Human–ML Augmentation. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1483-1499. Lee, J., & Berente, N. (2012). Digital Innovation and the Division of Innovative Labor: Digital Controls in the Automotive Industry. Organization Science, 23(5), 1428-1447. Berente, N., Salge, C. A. D. L., Mallampalli, V. K. T., & Park, K. (2022). Rethinking Project Escalation: An Institutional Perspective on the Persistence of Failing Large-Scale Information System Projects. Journal of Management Information Systems, 39(3), 640-672. | — | ||||||
| 4/15/25 | If it feels like a shortcut, it's probably a shortcut. | Is it okay to use large language models in the research process? For what task, exactly, and to automate the task or to augment the researcher? In this episode, we try to explore whether and how LLMs could be used in five aspects of the research process - for paper writing, reviewing, data analysis, as a subject of research, or as a surrogate for research subjects. We also discuss whether they should be used at all, and what some long-term consequences could be of such a choice, and we develop a number of heuristic rules to help researcher make decisions about using LLMs for research. Episode reading list Kankanhalli, A. (2024). Peer Review in the Age of Generative AI. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 25(1), 76-84. Yang, Y., Duan, H., Liu, J., & Tam, K. Y. (2024). LLM-Measure: Generating Valid, Consistent, and Reproducible Text-Based Measures for Social Science Research. arXiv preprint, https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.02234v1. Li, J., Larsen, K. R. T., & Abbasi, A. (2020). TheoryOn: A Design Framework and System for Unlocking Behavioral Knowledge Through Ontology Learning. MIS Quarterly, 44(4), 1733-1772. Larsen, K. R., Yan, S., & Lukyanenko, R. (2024). LLMs and Psychometrics: Global Construct Validity Integrating LLMs and Psychometrics. 45th International Conference on Information Systems, Bangkok, Thailand. Anthis, J. R., Liu, R., Richardson, S. M., Kozlowski, A. C., Koch, B., Evans, J., Brynjolfsson, E., & Bernstein, M. (2025). LLM Social Simulations Are a Promising Research Method. arXiv preprint, https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.02234. Abbasi, A., Somanchi, S., & Kelley, K. (2025). The Critical Challenge of using Large-scale Digital Experiment Platforms for Scientific Discovery. MIS Quarterly, 49(1), 1-28. | — | ||||||
| 4/1/25 | New theories or new scripts for the digital age? | Is there a formula for doing and publishing research on digital phenomena? And if so, it is the same formula as the scripts for IS papers of the past, or has it changed? We discuss how our field has historically worked with reference theories from other disciplines and how we have moved beyond this one way of doing and publishing research to a variety of ways in which we can build theory about digital phenomena. We suggest that reference theories should not be viewed as immutable sacred cows but rather as a tentative basis of received wisdom, which we must problematize and adapt to move knowledge forward. Doing so requires us to find puzzles in the real world that point to things being different instead of new. Episode reading list Truex, D. P., Holmström, J., & Keil, M. (2006). Theorizing in Information Systems Research: A Reflexive Analysis of the Adaptation of Theory in Information Systems Research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 7(12), 797-821. Grover, V., & Lyytinen, K. (2015). New State of Play in Information Systems Research: The Push to the Edges. MIS Quarterly, 39(2), 271-296. Ba, S., & Pavlou, P. A. (2002). Evidence of the Effect of Trust Building Technology in Electronic Markets: Price Premiums and Buyer Behavior. MIS Quarterly, 26(3), 243-268. Jiang, L., Hou, J., Ma, X., & Pavlou, P. A. (2025). Punished for Success? A Natural Experiment of Displaying Clinical Hospital Quality on Review Platforms. Information Systems Research, https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2021.0630. Grover, V., & Lyytinen, K. (2023). The Pursuit of Innovative Theory in the Digital Age. Journal of Information Technology, 38(1), 45-59. Baiyere, A., Berente, N., & Avital, M. (2023). On Digital Theorizing, Clickbait Research, and the Cumulative Tradition. Journal of Information Technology, 38(1), 67-73. Grisold, T., Kremser, W., Mendling, J., Recker, J., vom Brocke, J., & Wurm, B. (2023). Keeping Pace with the Digital Age: Envisioning Information Systems Research as a Platform. Journal of Information Technology, 38(1), 60-66. Berente, N., Gu, B., Recker, J., & Santhanam, R. (2021). Managing Artificial Intelligence. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1433-1450. Dell'Acqua, F., McFowland, E., Mollick, E. R., Lifshitz-Assaf, H., Kellogg, K., Rajendran, S., Krayer, L., Candelon, F., & Lakhani, K. R. (2023). Navigating the Jagged Technological Frontier: Field Experimental Evidence of the Effects of AI on Knowledge Worker Productivity and Quality. Harvard Business School Technology & Operations Mgt. Unit Working Paper 24-013. Fisher, G., Mayer, K. J., & Morris, S. (2021). From the Editors—Phenomenon-Based Theorizing. Academy of Management Review, 46(4), 631-639. Gregory, R. W., & Henfridsson, O. (2021). Bridging Art and Science: Phenomenon-Driven Theorizing. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 22(6), 1509-1523. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). Free Press. Salge, C. A. D. L., & Karahanna, E. (2018). Protesting Corruption on Twitter: Is It a Bot or Is It a Person. Academy of Management Discoveries, 4(1), 32-49. Abramova, O., Recker, J., Schemm, U., & Barwitzki, L.-D. (2025). Inclusion of Autistic IT Workforce in Action: An Auticon Approach. Information Systems Journal, https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12588. Grisold, T., Seidel, S., Heck, M., & Berente, N. (2024). Digital Surveillance in Organizations. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 66(3), 401-410. Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., ... Wright, R. T. (2023). "So what if ChatGPT wrote it?" Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Opportunities, Challenges and Implications of Generative Conversational AI for Research, Practice and Policy. International Journal of Information Management, 71, 102642. | — | ||||||
| 3/18/25 | Let's all cheer for the Journal of the Association for Information Systems | Our field of information systems is in the fortunate position that we have our own independent and self-governed association (we have more than one, in fact), which publishes one of the true top journals of our field, which means that the journal is entirely in our control as members. But as Monideepa Tarafdar, the current Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of the Association for Information Systems argues, this privileged position also demands from us collective awareness, vigilance, and responsibility. We discuss some of the tensions that exist between journals and publishers and what it means for authors, reviewers, and editors to be mindful about journals and publishing platforms. We also talk about several of the key hallmark features of the Journal of the Association for Information Systems and how to make the best use of them when you submit your best work to the journal. Episode reading list Dennis, A. R., Valacich, J. S., Fuller, M. A., & Schneider, C. (2006). Research Standards for Promotion and Tenure in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(1), 1-12. Adjerid, I., Angst, C. M., Devaraj, S., & Berente, N. (2023). Does Analytics Help Resolve Equivocality in the Healthcare Context? Contrasting Effects of Analyzability and Differentiation. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 24(3), 882-911. Tarafdar, M., Shan, G., Thatcher, J. B., & Gupta, A. (2022). Intellectual Diversity in IS Research: Discipline-Based Conceptualization and an Illustration from Information Systems Research. Information Systems Research, 33(4), 1490-1510. JAIS Workshop: Creating Policy Impact through Information Systems Research. LinkedIn Post by Monideepa Tarafdar, https://www.linkedin.com/posts/monideepa-tarafdar-302689_call-for-participation-journal-of-association-activity-7296267538001235968-eKwT?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAADlDdMBjNyuMhQtvmJtRw2TBKrPS4q5l9k. King, J. L., & Kraemer, K. L. (2019). Policy: An Information Systems Frontier. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 20(6), 842-847. McCarthy, C. (1985). Blood Meridian. Random House. Majchrzak, A., and Markus, M. L. (2013). Methods for Policy Research: Taking Socially Responsible Action (2nd edition). Sage. Yoo, Y. (2024) Evolving Epistemic Infrastructure: The Role of Scientific Journals in the Age of Generative AI. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 25(1), 137-144. | — | ||||||
Showing 25 of 117
Sponsor Intelligence
Sign in to see which brands sponsor this podcast, their ad offers, and promo codes.
Chart Positions
9 placements across 9 markets.
Chart Positions
9 placements across 9 markets.