东南大学经济管理学院学术前沿讲座
报告题目 | Reconsidering the Value of Empirical Contributions in Information Systems Research | ||
报告人（单位） | Mikko Siponen教授（芬兰于韦斯屈莱大学） | ||
点评人（单位） | 高星 副教授（东南大学） | 点评人（单位） | 邵秀燕 博士（东南大学） |
时间地点 | 2021年10月14日（周四）下午14:00 腾讯会议ID：949 809 508 | ||
报告人简介 | |||
Mikko Siponen is a full professor of Information Systems (IS). His degrees include Doctor of Social Sciences, majoring in Applied Philosophy; M.Sc. in Software Engineering; Lic.Phil. in information systems; and Ph.D. in Information Systems. Siponen has undertaken several managerial positions, including Vice Dean for Research (University of Jyvaskyla), Head of Department (University of Jyvaskyla), Vice Head of Research (University of Oulu), and Director of an IS security Research Centre (University of Oulu). He has published more than 80 journal articles. His current H index is 49, and he has cited more than 13 200 times. Despite there being several prominent Finnish IS scholars (in Finland and outside of Finland), Professor Siponen is the only Information Systems professor who has been invited to be a member of The Finnish Academy of Science and Letters. He is an Honorary Professor in the University of Melbourne.
| |||
报告内容摘要 | |||
The failure to make a theoretical contribution” is reported as a key reason why many papers are rejected by the “top journals” in IS (Straub 2009, p. vi). Professor Siponen argues that the requirement of a theoretical contribution is grounded in misunderstandings of the old philosophy of science, which flourished around 1920–1970. Making a theoretical contribution is too strong a requirement for paper acceptance, especially in research areas that aim for an intervention or predictive effect. Moreover, placing a premium on new theory contributions has imposed several negative “side effects” on IS research. Using examples from over 30 years of IS security (ISS) research, Prof. Siponen suggests that (1) little is known about the conditions and situations to which new theories (or constructs) do not apply, (2) we do not know which of these new theories are more effective than others in solving an ISS problem, and (3) we have not demonstrated that our best research, or new theoretical contributions, can supplant industry best practices or practitioners’intuitive approaches. Prof. Siponen provides examples that illustrate how intervention research, which is a type of predictive research, does not necessarily entail new theories, “contextualized theories,” or the addition of IT artifacts to theories. Rather, Prof. Siponen claims, the ultimate success of such programs hinges on the question of which program can demonstrate the best track record with regard to the intervention effect rate for a given ISS problem. The lesson learned apply any predictive or intervention research, including Action Research, Experiments, case studies with intervention.The license for predictive or intervention research comes from a predictive success (the success of the intervention) not from a theoretical contribution.
| |||
