This IS research is back for a new season and Jan and Nick are eager to run their mouth again. This time, they chat about how we as a community measure and communicate research outcomes and success. Have we created a culture where we pursue click-bait research to improve our standing on some self-created ranking lists that count our productivity but not our scholarly contributions? Also, Jan admits that he has learned something from Nick – for the first time. As usual, the references to all the articles we mention are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

It is award season and it is time to celebrate the highlights of 2021. We decided to hand out two awards, the Trailblazing Research Award, and the Innovative Research Approach Award, to recognize brilliant work done by our colleagues in 2021. Find out who got nominated and who won the awards in this final episode of this podcast before we take a small break. Happy new year everybody! In this episode, the intro and outro music were produced by Doctor Decade. As usual, the references to all the articles we mention are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

Jan and Nick are both fan boys of grounded theory so it is about time we talk to someone who knows more about it than we do. Thankfully, Cathy Urquhart agreed to join us. With her we talk about the procedures and outcomes of grounded theorizing, what sort of contributions we can build through this approach and whether IS scholars should build grand or substantive theories. But because Cathy has been around the block a long time, we also talk about our own community institutions and whether they need a reform. In short, we are being naughty. As usual, the readings we refer to are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

We talk about the dominant research method in information systems, survey research. Can you believe that still one in five papers in our main journals are based on surveys? We think survey research is past its prime – or is it? We discuss what is so good and what is so difficult about it. We try to find a future in which survey is one key part of our method portfolio and how it can continue to stand as a cornerstone of our IS knowledge tradition. As usual, the readings we refer to are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

Imagine there was a time where the MIS Quarterly was struggling to fill its issues. Can't believe it? Well so it was in the early 2000s says our guest, Ron Weber. With him, we continue our conversation about the history of the information systems field. Ron was around when a new digital technology called E-mail got introduced in a small cluster of U.S. universities in the 1980s. We discuss about the need for a core of the information systems field, theoretical progress in the field, how accessible or precise ideas have to be to create a following, and how academics can learn to develop passion and enjoy a balanced and sustainable career and life. Please excuse the audio issues – this conversation spanned US, Europe, and Australia. As usual, the readings we refer to are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

So says at least Kalle Lyytinen, our guest today. He is the head of the Case mafia - or so at least Jan says - and the main referent of the infamous Erdős-Bacon-Lyytinen number – or so at least Nick says. We pick Kalle's brain a little bit to learn more about the origins of the information systems field and what is was really like in the 80s and 90s. We also talk about publishing in the old days and now, the debates in our field at that time and why they stopped, and what we can learn from the past that helps us advance as scholars in the future. As usual, the readings we refer to are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

We are joined by Kirsten Martin, a technology and ethics expert. We talk about who is responsible – and who is accountable – for what algorithms do. But as usual we drift off onto tangents: we talk about how to publish on technology and ethics, why emergent scholars focus more on these topics than before, what we can do to help them, and how we engage in normative writing. As usual, the readings we refer to are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

Jan's voice is loud and clear but Nick comes up with the better phrases. Or does he? In this episode, Nick and Jan discuss the history and role of affordances theory in information systems. Are we actually contributing to this theory or are we just using it? Should we abandon it, just as we abandoned TAM? Or how can we move forward with affordances theory and what options does it allow pursuing for us as a field? Join us to find out. As usual, the readings we refer to are listed on http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/.

Jan received an invite to join a paper about a new technology he has no clue about. Of course, he joins the research project. Jan and Nick use the occasion to discuss a few questions: How do we actually theorize about new technologies? Why is this so important to us in comparison to other fields? And should we principally fill gaps or solve problems?

We have the brilliant Sarah Lebovitz, Hila Lifshitz-Assaf, and Natalia Levina on the show and we talk about a lot of things. We talk about how they constructed their ethnography on AI in medical decision-making, what they initially planned to do (AI in HR), how valuable digital seminars can be, and why Natalia refuses to upgrade her dropbox plan. Lebovitz, S., Levina, N., & Lifshitz-Assaf, H. (2021). Is AI Ground Truth Really "True"? The Dangers of Training and Evaluating AI Tools Based on Experts' Know-What. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1501-1525.