English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In this commentary, we complement McBride’s (2018) paper by setting the debate in its historical context and building on the “rite of passage” notion that Chughtai and Myers (2017) introduced to denote the process of researchers entering a field of practice. We first summarize McBride’s (2018) main point concerning whether or not IS is a science and pick up on the systemic nature of IS. In doing so, we incorporate how researchers have historically treated the debate and distinguish science per se from the scientific method. We turn then to reflect on the point that this debate apparently refuses to die. We conclude with a forward-thinking section in which we consider the implications of our considering the topic not for the field as a whole but for individual IS researchers. We end with our own modest call for action in terms of focusing on the everyday practices of IS researchers— specifically, the rites of passage or transitions (and lack of them) we (should?) go through in how we practice our research.

Information Systems: To Be, or Not To Be, a Science? Is that the Question?