انضباط پژوهش بدون مرز : تأملاتی درباره 20 سال تعریف تحقیقات سیستم های اطلاعاتی حسابداری

Some twenty years ago, Sutton (1992) posed the question, “Can we research a field we cannot define?” This article provides an assessment of the AIS research discipline's current state and future prospects. In reflecting upon the state of the discipline twenty years earlier, I find that the concerns voiced in the earlier paper have been largely addressed and the discipline's research quality has greatly improved. The AIS research discipline has all the appearances of a vibrant discipline generating relevant, high quality research. However, underneath that exterior, a closer examination reveals a discipline that may not be sustainable in the long term and still faces many challenges. I discuss these concerns and briefly touch on the key areas the discipline needs to focus in order to better insure its long-term sustainability.

In the position piece published in the first issue of Advances in Accounting Information Systems (which became the International Journal of Accounting Information Systems in 2000), Sutton (1992) posed the question, “Can we research a field we cannot define?” Sutton noted that the accounting information systems (AIS) discipline suffered from (1) an absence of identity, (2) too many AIS scholars researching in areas other than AIS, (3) too few researchers driving the discipline, and (4) too much AIS research lacking appropriate academic rigor. The future could have been viewed as very bleak, but Sutton argued for a concerted effort to build the discipline by fostering diversity, growing the research community, and letting the research community define the discipline—not through restrictiveness, but through demands for high quality while maintaining relevance and openness. This article is a reflection on that vision and where it has led us twenty years later.1 Few within the discipline would argue that the rigor of the work has not improved. The AIS research published in top AIS journals consistently has a stronger theory base, more rigorous development of artifacts, hypotheses and/or models; and utilizes stronger and better adapted analyses in assessing research results and drawing implications and conclusions. Some in our discipline may be troubled by whether we have managed to avoid pushing rigor to the point of rigormortis and the accompanying affliction of irrelevance, but I believe we have improved our research without suffering such maladies. Indeed, as is articulated later in this essay, the AIS discipline in many cases has taken a leadership role and led practice. The discipline has moved past the surveys of current practice in firms and the following of practice, to in many cases driving practice. This is a strength of the AIS discipline that is not matched by any of our colleagues in the sister disciplines of accounting. While the relevance of AIS research has steadily increased, I would argue the relevance of accounting research as a whole has seriously deteriorated. While I will make the case in the following pages that the AIS discipline is maturing and steadily increasing its quality, I will also come back to the basic issue of sustainability. We have an odd paradox in that I believe the quality and diversity of AIS research has never been better. At the same time, I am not sure I have ever been as concerned about our long-term viability and I strongly believe we need to assess our plans as a discipline for sustainability and assess whether the current path is best for the growth and evolution of the discipline. In the following pages I will explore the discipline's growth, the great gains that have been made in AIS research, and focus on how we make the AIS research model sustainable. The opportunity is there, the quality is there, but we need more impassioned researchers to continually build the momentum and to carry the torch in the future. Not for the faint of heart, but a great opportunity for those who are willing to provide leadership and have the passion to continuously push the boundaries.

My assessment of the AIS research discipline 20 years later is much more upbeat in terms of the quality of work being produced and the strength of the research core that now leads the discipline. I would like to think that the International Journal of Accounting Information Systems (and its predecessor Advances in Accounting Information Systems) has been a major part of that growth, but that is for others than me to assess. What is far more important to me is that we have a viable discipline in what I consider a critical sub-discipline of both the accounting and the information systems disciplines. While we are strong, we should not rest on our laurels. I have no intention of being in a position to reflect upon the discipline another 20 years from now. As the TNT basketball crew says, it will be time to hang out the “Gone Fishin'” sign long before that. My bigger concern is that there is an AIS discipline for someone else to reflect upon and make their own meager efforts at providing direction for the future. But that means as a discipline we must continue to grow, continue to improve and continue to have a voice for practice that is worth listening to. It also means maintaining a viable research pyramid—the one where you have a core of quality researchers leading a discipline, but you have a much larger cadre of young, enthusiastic researchers flowing into the discipline and providing a continuous supply of new energy. If we do not take care of both ends of the pyramid, there will not be a pyramid tomorrow.