1

Journal of Information Systemsjis@sc.edu

• Why JIS exists• FYI Statistics• The future of AIS

research

2

Why JIS?

Source: Stone, D.N. Researching the Revolution: Prospects and Possibilities. Journal of Information Systems 16(1): 1-6.

3

Why JIS?

Source: Stone, D.N. Researching the Revolution: Prospects and Possibilities. Journal of Information Systems 16(1): 1-6.

4

New Submissions 1998-2005

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1998-1999

1999-2000

2000-2001

2001-2002

2002-2003

2003-2004

2004-2005

Year

# s

ub

mis

sio

ns

5

First Round Turn Around Times

0

20

40

60

80

100

1999-2000

2000-2001

2001-2002

2002-2003

2003-2004

2004-2005

2005-2006

Days

6

Acceptance RatesAAA Method

• Accepted papers divided by papers accepted + rejected + withdrawn + work-in-process

• 2002-2003 = 16.1%• 2003-2004 = 17.3%• 2004-2005 = 20.2 %

Decision Method

• Accepted papers divided by papers accepted + rejected + withdrawn

• 2002-2003 = 26.0%• 2003-2004 = 31.1%• 2004-2005 = 30.9%

Smaller WIP = higher %

7

JIS Trends

Recently Accepted• Archival• Essays• Experiments• Field/case studies• Surveys• Design Science• Other

8

Special ForumThe Role of Technology in Accounting in the

New Information Era

• Guest editors– Chris Wolfe– Bruce Dehning

• Benefit of Forum

9

Thank you• 23 manuscripts submitted jointly to JIS and

conference• Five associate editors reviewed 18 papers• 49 reviews completed by editorial board

members and ad-hoc reviewers• 45 days on average from date manuscript

received to date of editor’s JIS letter• Kelvin processed at least 270 pieces of

correspondence within this time frame

10

The Future of Accounting Research

Disclaimer:

Generalities not particulars

Not just authors – also reviewers

11

Institutional Isomorphism

• Organization change occurs as the result of processes that tend to make organizations more similar without necessarily making them more efficient.

12

How Do Fields of Human Endeavor Develop?

InitialStages of FieldDevelopment

InstitutionalIsomorphism

CompetitiveIsomorphism

Diversity in approach and form

Competitive, regulatory,and professional pressures encourage conformity

Large numbers of similar organizations produce more similarity for similarity sake

Source: DeMaggio, P.J. and W. W. Powell. 1983. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationalityin Organization Fields American Sociological Review 48: 147-160.

13

Competitive Pressures on Accounting Research

• Academic credibility

• Policy making

• Practice

• Pedagogy

14

Institutional Isomorphic Pressures

Coercive isomorphism• Pressures exerted by other organizations

upon which one is dependent• Stems from:

– Cultural expectations– Ritualized controls of credentials and group

solidarity

• Social Science versus Economics paradigms

15

Institutional Isomorphic Pressures

Mimetic processes

• Occurs when:– technologies are complex and poorly

understood– goals are ambiguous– Uncertain environment

• Organizations tend to model themselves on other organizations

16

Institutional Isomorphic Pressures

Normative pressures

• The collective struggle of members of an occupation to– define the conditions and methods of their work– to control the production of producers– to legitimatize occupational autonomy

• AAA Journals

Notes

17

Institutional Isomorphism

• Strategies that are rational for individual organizations may not be rational if adopted by large numbers. Yet the very fact that they are normatively sanctioned increases the likelihood of their adoption.

• Counter Intuitive Result: Change leads to less diversity

18

What Kind of Research Will I Do?

What makes the most

contribution to accounting?

What is most likely to be published in “top” accounting journals?

Is my research main-stream?

What research is highly prized by my

peers?

19

The Accounting Profession

Integrated, comprehensive

design

Patches to address

environmental changes

Brittle: no longer an integrated solution

Notes

Redesign

20

What is the Solution?

Current State• Historical• Descriptive Theories

of what is• Mono-Method bias• Battle lines drawn

according to Methodology

Needed State• Future• Predictive Theories

about what may be• Research cycle

approach• Battle lines drawn

according to theory