Jason Thatcher is back on the show and he is bringing decades of experiences as a journal editor.  So we decided we play a game of round robin where each of us is giving rules of what to do (or not to do) as an editor. How long can we sit on papers before we make decisions? On what basis should we offer revise and resubmit decisions? When is it okay to desk reject a paper? How many reviews are enough? So if you want to learn more about the different editorial superhuman powers and supervillain powers – this is your episode.

Episode reading list

Recker, J. (2020). Reflections of a Retiring Editor-in-Chief. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 46(32), 751-761.

Berente, N., Gu, B., Recker, J., & Santhanam, R. (2021). Managing Artificial Intelligence. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1433-1450.

Li, J., Li, M., Wang, X., & Thatcher, J. B. (2021). Strategic Directions for AI: The Role of CIOs and Boards of Directors. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1603-1643.

Grisold, T., Berente, N., & Seidel, S. (2025). Guardrails for Human-AI Ecologies: A Design Theory for Managing Norm-Based Coordination. MIS Quarterly, 45, forthcoming.

Davis, J. L. (2020). How Artifacts Afford: The Power and Politics of Everyday Things. MIT Press.

Majchrzak, A., & Malhotra, A. (2019). Unleashing the Crowd: Collaborative Solutions to Wicked Business and Societal Problems. Springer.

Gaskin, J., Berente, N., Lyytinen, K., & Yoo, Y. (2014). Toward Generalizable Sociomaterial Inquiry: A Computational Approach for Zooming In and Out of Sociomaterial Routines. MIS Quarterly, 38(3), 849-871.

Teodorescu, M., Morse, L., Awwad, Y., & Kane, G. C. (2021). Failures of Fairness in Automation Require a Deeper Understanding of Human–ML Augmentation. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1483-1499.

Lee, J., & Berente, N. (2012). Digital Innovation and the Division of Innovative Labor: Digital Controls in the Automotive Industry. Organization Science, 23(5), 1428-1447.

Berente, N., Salge, C. A. D. L., Mallampalli, V. K. T., & Park, K. (2022). Rethinking Project Escalation: An Institutional Perspective on the Persistence of Failing Large-Scale Information System Projects. Journal of Management Information Systems, 39(3), 640-672.

Is it okay to use large language models in the research process? For what task, exactly, and to automate the task or to augment the researcher? In this episode, we try to explore whether and how LLMs could be used in five aspects of the research process - for paper writing, reviewing, data analysis, as a subject of research, or as a surrogate for research subjects. We also discuss whether they should be used at all, and what some long-term consequences could be of such a choice, and we develop a number of heuristic rules to help researcher make decisions about using LLMs for research.

Episode reading list

Kankanhalli, A. (2024). Peer Review in the Age of Generative AI. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 25(1), 76-84.

Yang, Y., Duan, H., Liu, J., & Tam, K. Y. (2024). LLM-Measure: Generating Valid, Consistent, and Reproducible Text-Based Measures for Social Science Research. arXiv preprint, https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.02234v1.

Li, J., Larsen, K. R. T., & Abbasi, A. (2020). TheoryOn: A Design Framework and System for Unlocking Behavioral Knowledge Through Ontology Learning. MIS Quarterly, 44(4), 1733-1772.

Larsen, K. R., Yan, S., & Lukyanenko, R. (2024). LLMs and Psychometrics: Global Construct Validity Integrating LLMs and Psychometrics. 45th International Conference on Information Systems, Bangkok, Thailand.

Anthis, J. R., Liu, R., Richardson, S. M., Kozlowski, A. C., Koch, B., Evans, J., Brynjolfsson, E., & Bernstein, M. (2025). LLM Social Simulations Are a Promising Research Method. arXiv preprint, https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.02234.

Abbasi, A., Somanchi, S., & Kelley, K. (2025). The Critical Challenge of using Large-scale Digital Experiment Platforms for Scientific Discovery. MIS Quarterly, 49(1), 1-28.

Is there a formula for doing and publishing research on digital phenomena? And if so, it is the same formula as the scripts for IS papers of the past, or has it changed? We discuss how our field has historically worked with reference theories from other disciplines and how we have moved beyond this one way of doing and publishing research to a variety of ways in which we can build theory about digital phenomena. We suggest that reference theories should not be viewed as immutable sacred cows but rather as a tentative basis of received wisdom, which we must problematize and adapt to move knowledge forward. Doing so requires us to find puzzles in the real world that point to things being different instead of new.

Episode reading list

Truex, D. P., Holmström, J., & Keil, M. (2006). Theorizing in Information Systems Research: A Reflexive Analysis of the Adaptation of Theory in Information Systems Research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 7(12), 797-821.

Grover, V., & Lyytinen, K. (2015). New State of Play in Information Systems Research: The Push to the Edges. MIS Quarterly, 39(2), 271-296.

Ba, S., & Pavlou, P. A. (2002). Evidence of the Effect of Trust Building Technology in Electronic Markets: Price Premiums and Buyer Behavior. MIS Quarterly, 26(3), 243-268.

Jiang, L., Hou, J., Ma, X., & Pavlou, P. A. (2025). Punished for Success? A Natural Experiment of Displaying Clinical Hospital Quality on Review Platforms. Information Systems Research, https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2021.0630.

Grover, V., & Lyytinen, K. (2023). The Pursuit of Innovative Theory in the Digital Age. Journal of Information Technology, 38(1), 45-59.

Baiyere, A., Berente, N., & Avital, M. (2023). On Digital Theorizing, Clickbait Research, and the Cumulative Tradition. Journal of Information Technology, 38(1), 67-73.

Grisold, T., Kremser, W., Mendling, J., Recker, J., vom Brocke, J., & Wurm, B. (2023). Keeping Pace with the Digital Age: Envisioning Information Systems Research as a Platform. Journal of Information Technology, 38(1), 60-66.

Berente, N., Gu, B., Recker, J., & Santhanam, R. (2021). Managing Artificial Intelligence. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1433-1450.

Dell'Acqua, F., McFowland, E., Mollick, E. R., Lifshitz-Assaf, H., Kellogg, K., Rajendran, S., Krayer, L., Candelon, F., & Lakhani, K. R. (2023). Navigating the Jagged Technological Frontier: Field Experimental Evidence of the Effects of AI on Knowledge Worker Productivity and Quality. Harvard Business School Technology & Operations Mgt. Unit Working Paper 24-013.

Fisher, G., Mayer, K. J., & Morris, S. (2021). From the Editors—Phenomenon-Based Theorizing. Academy of Management Review, 46(4), 631-639.

Gregory, R. W., & Henfridsson, O. (2021). Bridging Art and Science: Phenomenon-Driven Theorizing. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 22(6), 1509-1523.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.

Salge, C. A. D. L., & Karahanna, E. (2018). Protesting Corruption on Twitter: Is It a Bot or Is It a Person. Academy of Management Discoveries, 4(1), 32-49.

Abramova, O., Recker, J., Schemm, U., & Barwitzki, L.-D. (2025). Inclusion of Autistic IT Workforce in Action: An Auticon Approach. Information Systems Journal, https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12588.

Grisold, T., Seidel, S., Heck, M., & Berente, N. (2024). Digital Surveillance in Organizations. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 66(3), 401-410.

Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., ... Wright, R. T. (2023). "So what if ChatGPT wrote it?" Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Opportunities, Challenges and Implications of Generative Conversational AI for Research, Practice and Policy. International Journal of Information Management, 71, 102642. 

Our field of information systems is in the fortunate position that we have our own independent and self-governed association (we have more than one, in fact), which publishes one of the true top journals of our field, which means that the journal is entirely in our control as members. But as Monideepa Tarafdar, the current Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of the Association for Information Systems argues, this privileged position also demands from us collective awareness, vigilance, and responsibility. We discuss some of the tensions that exist between journals and publishers and what it means for authors, reviewers, and editors to be mindful about journals and publishing platforms. We also talk about several of the key hallmark features of the Journal of the Association for Information Systems and how to make the best use of them when you submit your best work to the journal.

Episode reading list

Dennis, A. R., Valacich, J. S., Fuller, M. A., & Schneider, C. (2006). Research Standards for Promotion and Tenure in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(1), 1-12.

Adjerid, I., Angst, C. M., Devaraj, S., & Berente, N. (2023). Does Analytics Help Resolve Equivocality in the Healthcare Context? Contrasting Effects of Analyzability and Differentiation. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 24(3), 882-911.

Tarafdar, M., Shan, G., Thatcher, J. B., & Gupta, A. (2022). Intellectual Diversity in IS Research: Discipline-Based Conceptualization and an Illustration from Information Systems Research. Information Systems Research, 33(4), 1490-1510.

JAIS Workshop: Creating Policy Impact through Information Systems Research. LinkedIn Post by Monideepa Tarafdar, https://www.linkedin.com/posts/monideepa-tarafdar-302689_call-for-participation-journal-of-association-activity-7296267538001235968-eKwT?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAADlDdMBjNyuMhQtvmJtRw2TBKrPS4q5l9k.

King, J. L., & Kraemer, K. L. (2019). Policy: An Information Systems Frontier. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 20(6), 842-847.

McCarthy, C. (1985). Blood Meridian. Random House.

Majchrzak, A., and Markus, M. L. (2013). Methods for Policy Research: Taking Socially Responsible Action (2nd edition). Sage.

Yoo, Y. (2024) Evolving Epistemic Infrastructure: The Role of Scientific Journals in the Age of Generative AI. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 25(1), 137-144.

Nick is traveling, Jan is sick - no time to produce a new episode in time. But fear not, we still have a giant archive of episodes that you may have forgotten or not even heard so far. So we picked five of our best episodes and link to them below so that you can re-visit them, or maybe you haven't even gotten around to listening to them yet. All episodes can be found on the major podcasting platforms but you can also listen to them directly on the websites below.

Episode links

The IS field has no passion (10 November 2021). Episode recorded together with Kalle Lyytinen, available at http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/the-is-field-has-no-passion-10-november-2021/.

Writing papers on how to write papers (12 October 2022). Episode available at http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/writing-papers-on-how-to-write-papers-12-october-2022/.

The big five theories from the last millennium (17 May 2023). Episode available at http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/the-big-five-theories-from-the-last-millennium-17-may-2023/.

Anything qualitative researchers write has been said before (13 September 2023). Episode recorded together with Paul Leonardi, available at http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/anything-qualitative-researchers-write-has-been-said-before-13-september-2023/.

How to do a literature review (10 July 2024). Episode available at http://www.janrecker.com/this-is-research-podcast/how-to-do-a-literature-review-10-july-2024/. 

Is the journal publishing process and the "game" around journal publishing forcing us to give up on big ideas and instead work on small ideas about trivial matters? We are not so sure. We think that science needs many different types of academics, and they have all sorts of different ideas, big and small, and we need outlets for expressing every single one of them. But outlets, like ideas, are not all equal. Journals are an incremental genre leaning toward rigor and thus risk type-2 errors. Book are an expansive genre learning towards big ideas – and thus risk type-1 errors. So the question is rather what type of scholar you are and whether you can handle the very different processes and mechanisms – those associated with big ideas that take a long time to develop, versus the production of smaller ideas and insights that incrementally push our knowledge forward.

References

Recker, J., Zeiss, R., & Mueller, M. (2024). iRepair or I Repair? A Dialectical Process Analysis of Control Enactment on the iPhone Repair Aftermarket. MIS Quarterly, 48(1), 321-346.

Bechky, B. A., & Davis, G. F. (2025). Resisting the Algorithmic Management of Science: Craft and Community After Generative AI. Administrative Science Quarterly, 70(1), 1-22.

Kallinikos, J. (2025). Management and Information Systems (in all shapes and colours) missed the wider significance of computerization and informatization. LinkedIn, https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jannis-kallinikos-07448616_management-and-information-systems-in-all-activity-7289650197784125440-2cJm/.

Beniger, J. R. (1989). The Control Revolution: Technological and Economic Origins of the Information Society. Harvard University Press.

Zuboff, S. (1998). In The Age Of The Smart Machine: The Future Of Work And Power. Basic Books.

Zuboff, S., & Maxmin, J. (2004). The Support Economy: Why Corporations Are Failing Individuals and the Next Episode of Capitalism. Penguin Publishing Group.

Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. Profile.

Zuboff, S. (1985). Automate/Informate: The Two Faces of Intelligent Technology. Organizational Dynamics, 14(2), 5-18.

boyd, d., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230.

Zittrain, J. L. (2006). The Generative Internet. Harvard Law Review, 119, 1974-2040.

Kahneman, D. (2012). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Penguin.

Parker, G., Van Alstyne, M., & Choudary, S. P. (2016). Platform Revolution: How Networked Markets Are Transforming the Economy - and How to Make Them Work for You. W. W. Norton & Company.

Harari, Y. N. (2024). Nexus: A Brief History of Information Networks from the Stone Age to AI. Random House.

Sauer, H. (2024). The Invention of Good and Evil: A World History of Morality. Profile Books.

Harari, Y. N. (2014). Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. Harper.

von Briel, F., Davidsson, P., & Recker, J. (2018). Digital Technologies as External Enablers of New Venture Creation in the IT Hardware Sector. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 42(1), 47-69.

Davidsson, P., Recker, J., & von Briel, F. (2020). External Enablement of New Venture Creation: A Framework. Academy of Management Perspectives, 34(3), 311-332.

Davidsson, P., Recker, J., & von Briel, F. (2025). External Enablement of Entrepreneurial Actions and Outcomes: Extension, Review and Research Agenda. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 12(3-4), 300-470.

Safadi, H., Lalor, J. P., & Berente, N. (2024). The Effect of Bots on Human Interaction in Online Communities. MIS Quarterly, 48(3), 1279-1296.

Chen, Z., & Chan, J. (2024). Large Language Model in Creative Work: The Role of Collaboration Modality and User Expertise. Management Science, 70(12), 9101-9117.

Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J., & Reijers, H. A. (2018). Fundamentals of Business Process Management (2nd ed.). Springer.

Harari, Y. N. (2014). Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow. Harvill Secker.

Recker, J. (2021). Scientific Research in Information Systems: A Beginner's Guide (2nd ed.). Springer.

The Stakeholder Alignment Collaborative. (2025). The Consortia Century: Aligning for Impact. Oxford University Press. 

One of the main reasons article submissions get desk-rejected by journals is for lack of fit. But what does that actually mean? And how can we figure this out before we submit our work? Well there are several tests you can do to evaluate the fitness of your work to an information systems journal: you can evaluate whether you are writing about a discourse that already takes place in information systems journals. You can check whether your arguments have a hook for information systems academics. You can determine whether you have a digital artefact at the core of your paper because while a digital artefact at the core is not required, having such a focus can be good indicator for fitness. Finally, you can establish whether your research is at least to some extent sociotechnical in orientation.

Look at what Santa dropped when he came down the chimney last night. A bunch of valuable ThisISResearch Best paper Awards! As we do at the end of every year, we look back at the finest information systems scholarship our field has produced this year, and we pick some of our favorite papers that we want to give an award too. Like in previous years, we recognize three different kinds of best papers – a paper that is innovative in its use of research methods, a paper that is a fine example of elegant scholarship, and a paper that is trailblazing in the sense that it starts new conversations in our field.

References

Pujol Priego, L., & Wareham, J. (2023). From Bits to Atoms: White Rabbit at CERN. MIS Quarterly, 47(2), 639-668.

Recker, J., Zeiss, R., & Mueller, M. (2024). iRepair or I Repair? A Dialectical Process Analysis of Control Enactment on the iPhone Repair Aftermarket. MIS Quarterly, 48(1), 321-346.

Seidel, S., Frick, C. J., & vom Brocke, J. (2025). Regulating Emerging Technologies: Prospective Sensemaking through Abstraction and Elaboration. MIS Quarterly, 49, https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2024/18039.

Abbasi, A., Somanchi, S., & Kelley, K. (2025). The Critical Challenge of using Large-scale Digital Experiment Platforms for Scientific Discovery. MIS Quarterly, 49, https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2024/18201.

Lindberg, A., Schecter, A., Berente, N., Hennel, P., & Lyytinen, K. (2024). The Entrainment of Task Allocation and Release Cycles in Open Source Software Development. MIS Quarterly, 48(1), 67-94.

Kitchens, B., Claggett, J. L., & Abbasi, A. (2024). Timely, Granular, and Actionable: Designing a Social Listening Platform for Public Health 3.0. MIS Quarterly, 48(3), 899-930.

Chen, Z., & Chan, J. (2024). Large Language Model in Creative Work: The Role of Collaboration Modality and User Expertise. Management Science, 70(12), 9101-9117.

Matherly, T., & Greenwood, B. N. (2024). No News is Bad News: The Internet, Corruption, and the Decline of the Fourth Estate. MIS Quarterly, 48(2), 699-714.

Morse, L., Teodorescu, M., Awwad, Y., & Kane, G. C. (2022). Do the Ends Justify the Means? Variation in the Distributive and Procedural Fairness of Machine Learning Algorithms. Journal of Business Ethics, 181(4), 1083-1095.

Hansen, S., Berente, N., & Lyytinen, K. (2009). Wikipedia, Critical Social Theory, and the Possibility of Rational Discourse. The Information Society, 25(1), 38-59.

Habermas, J. (1984). Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Heinemann. 

What do academics have to offer that practitioners do not already have? They have the data academics want. They can analyse it by themselves, sometimes better than academics. They are also not reading our articles. So why would academics bother engaging with them? Why should we even bridge that perceived or existing gap between theory and practice? Because academics need to dip their toes into practice, and they need to mingle with industry to stay relevant. So says Jonny Holmström, director and co-founder of the Swedish Center for Digital Innovation. He has been at the forefront of doing academic research that blends theory and practice, rigor and relevance, and he knows a thing or two about how to do so successfully. His secret? Maximize the gap between academics and practitioners, don't close it.

References

Holmström, J., Magnusson, J., & Mähring, M. (2021). Orchestrating Digital Innovation: The Case of the Swedish Center for Digital Innovation. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 48(31), 248-264.

Churchman, C. W. (1972). The Design of Inquiring Systems: Basic Concepts of Systems and Organization. Basic Books.

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford University Press.

Holmström, J. (2022). From AI to Digital Transformation: The AI Readiness Framework. Business Horizons, 65(3), 329-339.

Recker, J., Bockelmann, T., & Barthel, F. (2024). Growing Online-to-Offline Platform Businesses: How Vytal Became the World-Leading Provider of Smart Reusable Food Packaging. Information Systems Journal, 34(1), 179-200.

Abbasi, A., Somanchi, S., & Kelley, K. (2025). The Critical Challenge of using Large-scale Digital Experiment Platforms for Scientific Discovery. MIS Quarterly, 49, https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2024/18201.

Sandberg, J., Holmström, J., & Lyytinen, K. (2020). Digitization and Phase Transitions in Platform Organizing Logics: Evidence from the Process Automation Industry. MIS Quarterly, 44(1), 129-153.

Werder, K., Seidel, S., Recker, J., Berente, N., Kundert-Gibbs, J., Abboud, N., & Benzeghadi, Y. (2020). Data-Driven, Data-Informed, Data-Augmented: How Ubisoft's Ghost Recon Wildlands Live Unit Uses Data for Continuous Product Innovation. California Management Review, 62(3), 86-102.

Sting, F. J., Tarakci, M., & Recker, J. (2024). Performance Implications of Digital Disruption in Strategic Competition. MIS Quarterly, 48(3), 1263-1278.

Tarakci, M., Sting, F. J., Recker, J., & Kane, G. C. (2024). Three Questions to Ask About Your Digital Strategy. MIT Sloan Management Review, July, https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/three-questions-to-ask-about-your-digital-strategy/.

Davenport, T. H. (1993). Process Innovation: Reengineering Work Through Information Technology. Harvard Business School Press.

Davenport, T. H. (1998). Putting the Enterprise into the Enterprise System. Harvard Business Review, 76(4), 121-131.

Schecter, A., Wowak, K. D., Berente, N., Ye, H., & Mukherjee, U. (2021). A Behavioral Perspective on Service Center Routing: The Role of Inertia. Journal of Operations Management, 67(8), 964-988.

Sundberg, L., & Holmström, J. (2024). Innovating by Prompting: How to Facilitate Innovation in the Age of Generative AI. Business Horizons, 67(5), 561-570.

Kronblad, C., Essén, A., & Mähring, M. (2024). When Justice is Blind to Algorithms: Multilayered Blackboxing of Algorithmic Decision Making in the Public Sector. MIS Quarterly, 48(4), 1637-1662.

You set up an assumption, you have a theory, you analyze your data, and you show that the assumption does not hold. Doing good qualitative research is that simple. Except that it's not, of course. On the ground, in the research and writing process, these basic rules can be quite tricky to implement. So we discuss some heuristics researchers can use to limit their conversants, settle on suitable theoretical lenses to examine their data, and collecting more data than what they thought was necessary.  

References

Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation Of Cultures. Basic Books.

Goodall, J. (1986). The Chimpanzees of Gombe: Patterns of Behavior. Harvard University Press.

Popper, K. R. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Basic Books.

Durkheim, E. (1895). The Rules of Sociological Method. Free Press.

Giddens, A. (1976). New Rules of Sociological Method. Hutchinson.

Barley, S. R. (1986). Technology as an Occasion for Structuring: Evidence from Observations of CT Scanners and the Social Order of Radiology Departments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(1), 78-108.

Kellogg, K. C. (2022). Local Adaptation Without Work Intensification: Experimentalist Governance of Digital Technology for Mutually Beneficial Role Reconfiguration in Organizations. Organization Science, 33(2), 571-599. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1445

Mertens, W., Recker, J., Kummer, T.-F., Kohlborn, T., & Viaene, S. (2016). Constructive Deviance as a Driver for Performance in Retail. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 30, 193-203.

Markus, M. L. (1983). Power, Politics, and MIS Implementation. Communications of the ACM, 26(6), 430-444.

Berente, N., Lyytinen, K., Yoo, Y., & King, J. L. (2016). Routines as Shock Absorbers During Organizational Transformation: Integration, Control, and NASA's Enterprise Information System. Organization Science, 27(3), 551-572.

Alashoor, T., Keil, M., Smith, H. J., & McConnell, A. R. (2023). Too Tired and in Too Good of a Mood to Worry about Privacy: Explaining the Privacy Paradox through the Lens of Effort Level in Information Processing. Information Systems Research, 34(4), 1415-1436.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4th ed.). Sage.

Berente, N., Recker, J., & Leonardi, P. (2023). Anything qualitative researchers write has been said before. This IS Research podcast, 13 September 2023.

Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15-31.

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.

Ryle, G. (1949). The Concept of Mind. University of Chicago Press.

Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691-711.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis (2nd ed.). Sage.

Cramton, C. D., & Hinds, P. J. (2014). An Embedded Model of Cultural Adaptation in Global Teams. Organization Science, 25(4), 1056-1081.