this IS research Podcast Por Nick Berente and Jan Recker arte de portada

this IS research

this IS research

De: Nick Berente and Jan Recker
Escúchala gratis

Professors Nick Berente from the University of Notre Dame and Jan Recker from the University of Hamburg talk about current and persistent topics in information systems research, a field that explores how digital technologies change business and society. You can find papers and other materials we discuss in each episode at http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.© 2021 Nick Berente and Jan Recker Ciencia Ciencias Sociales Economía Gestión Gestión y Liderazgo
Episodios
  • Nick’s rules for a good PhD education
    Sep 23 2025

    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.

    Más Menos
    51 m
  • Should all qualitative researchers use LLMs?
    Sep 9 2025

    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.

    Más Menos
    53 m
  • Cognitive conflict, courage, humility, and respect: Ingredients for a productive academic discourse
    Aug 26 2025

    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.

    Más Menos
    52 m
Todavía no hay opiniones