EJIS values diversity in all domains: topics, research methods, philosophy of science, origin of scholars and writing styles. This strategy aims at making wider connections and avoiding conformism at the expense of pluralism. In certain aspects of the academic writings norms are good things. An introduction section and a unique format for references section considerably facilitate reading and understanding. But enforcing such elementary presentation norms should not lead by extension to conformism and academic myopia regarding the phenomenon studied and the relevant literature. If pressed by governing institutional bodies or particular interests to publish more and quickly, academic circles adopt a single type of literature genre – for example the journal article testing a two by two model or any other – such a unique norm would precipitate sooner or later the fall of any scholarly community (de Marco in Loos et al., 2010). Naturally, we as academics are free from all these pressures and we know this will not happen. Nevertheless if we imagine the case of a single genre taking over, this would be even more dangerous for EJIS because it is in contradiction with the spirit of the IS discipline and the invitation in the aims and scope of EJIS to remain critical. The variety of conceptualizations and definitions we can adopt for an information system underlines the necessity for the IS community to be open to knowledge building. Such knowledge builds upon a wide range of disciplines not limited to, and as different from each other as, anthropology, history, linguistics, psychology, sociology, economics, computer science and mathematics. Naturally, this variety of disciplines helps not only to examine different theory bases, but also to bring different tools or research methods into the study of IS-related phenomena.

In this editorial I would like to focus on writing styles, argumentative strategies or rhetoric and genres. The diversity of styles is important if we want to build an international community (Rowe, 2010), For example, not even mentioning the typical long sentences of Bourdieu, consider the prevalent French style in which the main arguments fall as a conclusion of each section and coalesce to let the main point in the conclusion of the article emerge and for which announcing the plan at the end of the introduction is neither elegant nor necessary because a good structure speaks for itself (e.g. Bourdieu, 1974; Latour, 1994; Laroche, 1995). This is quite the opposite from the dominant writing styles in the top North-American IS journals, making it, not impossible, but certainly more difficult, costly and overall a much longer journey to publish in those journals. As an international journal with a European spirit and title we should not impose a particular writing style, but only clarity of the arguments. At a more global level of the article structure, de Vaujany et al. (2011) distinguish three types of argumentative strategies that motivate the article – (1) deepening of knowledge where authors start from the identification of a gap in the literature, (2) solving an enigma characterized by an absence of consensus as to its solution and by the aim of researchers targeting an unsolved problem rather than a discrepancy in a model, and (3) addressing a practical issue. They then compare EJIS and MISQ using this typology. While EJIS tends more to combine types and be a little more practically oriented, it is also more conventional as its articles more often follow the deepening-of-knowledge strategy.

They also stress, regardless of the argumentative strategy, that most articles follow the same structure: introduction, literature, methods, empirical results and discussion. Most of the time the articles provide a theoretical analytical framework a priori or a posteriori. It is obvious that this structure and this type of theorizing are particularly followed when adopting a deepening-of-knowledge argumentative strategy. For reasons due to the efficiency of the review process, to the effectiveness of strategies for getting published, and to the discussion of ideas, it is clear that sticking to the established genre helps. The deepening-of-knowledge argumentative strategy has become the main norm that reviewers suggest when they do not see very clearly what can be done with interesting research material. In fact, a familiar genre helps to differentiate between ‘syntax’ and ‘content’ … which helps rookie readers (and reviewers) to identify the net contribution. However, savvy readers know that knowledge is not simply transferred in a paper but rather it is being formed in the mind of the reader in response to the text as whole. Thereby, prohibiting genre variety and limiting its degrees of freedom comes at the expense of new insights. I would argue that genre variety is a generative instrument that can contribute to the production of knowledge. For instance, Schultze & Avital (2011) show how different interviewing methods – appreciative interviews, laddering interviews and photo-diary interviews – can be seen as enriching descriptions beyond the realist genre when incorporated in a narrative or case study. The use of visual media can be promoted in IS research (see for instance the ICIS 2011 track description http://icis2011.aisnet.org/track2.htm) provided we do not take as given that images are richer by definition than words and speak for themselves. As any artifact coming from the lifeworld it can be used to support the creation of a new interpretation or fiction, or to replicate the conventional models.

Therefore, we would like to encourage potential authors to propose more reflexive works, whether or not they belong to the postmodernist tradition. This resonates strongly with the track chaired by Michel Avital and Lars Mathiassen at ECIS in Barcelona (see http://www.ecis2012.eu/ and CFP here: http://www.ecis2012.eu/tracks/alternative-genres-track.doc).

To be more precise, I would like to see in EJIS more literature reviews, essays and narratives that do not lend themselves to the previous formats. These genres (especially the last two) offer more occasions for reflexivity both for the author and for the audience. In their typology Vaujany, Walsh and Mitev do not mention a type of argumentative strategy which spans boundaries and pushes the envelope into a new domain of inquiry and the development of new paradigms. Seminal papers bridging two research traditions can be found in the literature such as on IS development and new product development (Nambisan, 2003) or IS and sustainable development (Melville, 2010) that fit this type.

In addition, we should not forget that descriptive works are also very valuable, be they based on case studies, surveys, ethnography or similar research designs. These tend to be excluded from top IS journals. By definition it is difficult to include both a classical literature review and a discussion section in a descriptive article, when it is implied that the literature review should focus on theoretical contributions or build on theoretical models. The scientific discourse in the prevalent genre fits nicely with the positivist model despite major advances in our field in other science philosophies and related empirical works (Klein & Myers, 1999; Myers & Klein, 2011). Unfortunately the need to anchor works to this norm results in a focus on deepening knowledge and reinforcing it as the main paradigm for argumentative strategies in most scientific journals.

We contend that it is a critical role of top journals to publish more enigmatic papers as well as practice-oriented papers, hybrid combinations of the types identified above and boundary spanning papers. In order to do so we propose that we develop and publish more papers that do not adhere to the main genre or a standardized article structure. While papers that fit with the Popperian epistemology are easier to review and – don’t get me wrong – still quite acceptable at EJIS, we contend that (1) many phenomena are not understood in their complexity and need first to be well described (as advocated by Bachelard, 1934) before being modeled and tested, and that (2) the design science approach should be encouraged because of the diversity of its approaches and argumentative strategies blended with the practical strategy. Within social sciences, design science is specific to the management sciences and in particular IS.

The management sciences, not as yet academic disciplines, but as sets of concepts associated with institutionalized practices, may be traced back to the Romans and the Greeks. The Roman etymology of management in Augustus res gestae suggests that managing is not only exercising leadership, but also accepting others’ prescriptions. Such acceptance is in fact a precondition for collective action (Hatchuel, 2001). Other examples coming from South-American culture show that systems of signs and codes to rule the state have been developed before the 18th century (Beynon-Davies, 2010). In that historical perspective management sciences and sciences of the artificial have a potential for enriching other disciplines, and information systems should not be mistaken for just an applied field. But to encourage these works, we must offer a discourse that is not systematically reducing the complexity and the diversity of building scientific knowledge with simplistic models. A good example for reflecting about this is the literature on strategic alignment and transformation. Henderson & Venkatraman's article (1993) has been heavily quoted for their model on strategic alignment, but it falls short of delivering a transformation process.

On issues like organizational transformation IS could deliver best sellers and it does not. Should they be books? Not necessarily. We need narratives to describe the phenomena. To stick with organizational transformation literature we need some critical thinking that focuses on the process itself and not just on the target view of the alignment or the Business process and go beyond Hammer and Champy's recipe or Kotter's recipe. We could imagine papers published in EJIS with core elements of this narrative or as a model, critically discussed, and the rest being published as an online appendix or in a book. This could revitalize book publishing and the interest in scientific journals. With advent of ebooks, avoiding the reviewing process, the issue of writing styles and argumentative strategies may become passé. But we’re not yet there!

In this issue …

In this issue of EJIS we have eight excellent papers between the covers. In ‘Inter Organizational Information Systems Adoption – A Configuration Analysis Approach’, Jan Damsgaaard of Copenhagen Business School and Kalle Lyytinen of Case Western Reserve University propose a new approach for Inter-Organizational Information Systems (IOIS) adoption research. In this opinion article which constitutes a good illustration of the literature genre we need, the authors argue that the proposed approach provides a complimentary approach to understanding IOIS adoption by allowing researchers to draw from the molar view of groups of interdependent adopters as opposed to the singular view of independent adopters. This molar view of adoption units suggests that different adoption configurations among a group of interdependent adopters are possible depending on such dimensions as vision, key functionality, mode of interaction, structure and mode of appropriation. Further, the authors present a typology of four genetic classes of IOIS configurations, including dyadic relationships, hub and spoke configurations, industry configurations, and community-wide configurations. This configuration analysis approach is expected to bring multi-level and dynamic investigations into IOIS research. Several future research avenues in this area of research are also offered.

In ‘Decision Support or Support for Situated Choice: Lessons for Systems Design from Effective Manual Systems’, Reeva Lederman of University of Melbourne and Robert Johnston of University College Dublin challenge the notion that all systems that provide support for making choices in the course of work may be regarded as a type of Decision Support Systems (DSS). In particular, the authors suggest that artifact-based Effective Manual Systems (EMS), such as card-based systems in emergency dispatch and the Kanban system, be distinguished from decision support systems. This particular class of systems (i.e., EMS) helps people make situated choice for their routine work activities, and may be better understood as Situated Choice Support Systems (SCSS). Findings of a case study of a manual whiteboard-based bed allocation system of a large hospital suggest that SCSS is particularly effective in structured work environments where the number of action choices is limited. Further, cue-providing information resources help reduce the number of action choices; thus, leading to a single choice. In contrast, for DSS decisions are made based on reasoning about the potential consequences of alternative actions as opposed to reducing the number of action choices.

In ‘Managing e-Government System Implementation: a Resource Enactment Perspective’, Calvin Chan of SIM University, Ray Hackney of Brunel University, Shan Pan of National University of Singapore, and Tzu-Chuan Chou of National Taiwan University of Science and Technology provide interesting insights regarding how organizational resources are utilized for e-Government system implementation. Drawing on a resource enactment perspective, the authors suggest that an environmental climate necessitates the development of a focal capability, and resources are enacted to develop this focal capability. The findings from a novel qualitative case study of an e-Government system implementation in Singapore are discussed in this paper. Specifically, in e-Government system implementation which involves three distinct phases (planning, developing and operating), a particular environmental climate at each phase of system implementation gives rise to a particular focal capability. In order to develop this particular focal capability, one of the three resources (i.e., knowledge, social capital, and leadership) is enacted. Further, this focal resource is supported by the other two complementary resources in the course of developing the focal capability.

In ‘Is Traditional, Open-source, or On-demand First Choice? Developing an AHP-based Framework for the Comparison of Different Software Models in Office Suites Selection’, Alexander Benlian of University of Munich presents a novel framework that is aimed to help evaluate different software models in office suites selection. While the rise of open-source and on-demand solutions provides new options for IS managers in selecting office suites, what remains challenging is to assess how different software models fulfill key evaluation criteria. Drawing on the literature on office suite selection, the author identifies seven factors as key to assessing packaged software applications. These seven factors are further classified as two categories: software package attributes and implementation attributes. An AHP-based framework for selecting an appropriate software model in office suites is developed using these seven factors as selection criteria. This framework is empirically tested with 254 IS managers, and the results indicate that different software models (i.e., traditional software model, open-source software model and on-demand software model) do a superior job respectively in fulfilling a particular type of evaluation criteria.

In ‘Coping with Rapid Information Technology Change in Different National Cultures’, Xiang Fang of Miami University, John Benamati of Miami University, and Albert Lederer of the University of Kentucky investigate how cultural differences between China and the United State influence coping with IT change. This novel study aims to enhance our understanding of mechanisms for coping with IT change in different cultures by drawing on national culture theory. The findings of a large survey of IT executive and managers in China and the U.S. are discussed. Focusing on three most prominent cultural differences between the two counties (in-group collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, assertiveness), the authors found that Chinese IT organizations employ coping mechanisms of vendor support, education and training, and internal procedures more extensively than do U.S. IT organizations. Further, the findings suggest that the success of coping with IT changes has a relationship with vendor support only in Chinese IT organizations while education and training, internal procedures, and endurance are found to have a relationship with the success of coping in both cultures.

In ‘Illusions of Control and Social Domination Strategies in Knowledge Mapping System Use’, Aurélie Dudezert of Ecole Centrale Paris and Dorothy Leidner of Baylor University critically examine the use of knowledge mapping system (Kmap) in organizations. While it is known that the use of visualization technologies for knowledge representation, such as knowledge mapping system helps organizations manage their knowledge assets effectively, the authors argue that it may cause users to develop illusions of control. This argument is investigated with a multiple case study of three firms’ use of Kmap. The findings of the case study indeed indicate that the use of Kmap engenders two types of illusions: illusions of knowledge control and illusions of executive control. Further, managers take advantage of users’ illusions and employ Kmaps as symbolic objects to reinforce their authority in organization. In particular, three types of social domination strategies are found in each case: a signal and symbol strategy, an avoidance strategy, and an evidence strategy. This novel study provides a critical perspective to investigating the use of knowledge mapping system in organizations.

In ‘Opening the Black Box of System Usage: User Adaptation to Disruptive IT’, Christophe Elie-Dit-Cosaque of Université Paris-Dauphine and Detmar Straub of Georgia State University investigate users’ coping behaviors with disruptive IT. Motivated by the recent discussion on user adaptation as a form of mediation for system usage, the authors apply the Coping Model of User Adaption (CMUA) to the context of disruptive IT. Disruptive IT provides an appropriate ground for studying users’ adaptation behavior, because it involves pervasive and radical changes in organizations. This study develops and presents new measures for the Coping Model of User Adaptation. Also, the findings of a laboratory experiment suggest that users adopt different adaptation strategies depending on whether an IT event is perceived to be opportunity or threat (i.e., primary appraisal) and the degree of control that a user has over the IT event (i.e., secondary appraisal). This fascinating study enhances our understanding of systems usage by showing user adaptation behaviors as a form of mediation, and contributes to system usage research by developing new measures for CMUA.

In ‘Investigating the Reliability of Second-Order Formative Measurement in Information Systems Research’, Gimun Kim of Konyang University and Bongsik Shin of San Diego State University address an important measurement issue in Information Systems Research. In recent years, several scholars have raised concerns about the reliability of formative measurement constructs. At the heart of these concerns is potential interpretational confounding which results from the disparity between empirical and nominal meanings of a formatively measured construct. In particular, formative measurements may be prone to interpretational confounding, because the estimation of construct weights for formative measurements is dependent on other constructs, such as endogenous variables. In order to address this issue, the authors examine the reliability of second-order formative constructs (i.e., reflective-formative modeling) in Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). Covariance matrices from a previous survey study are used for the estimation of proxy models, and the estimation results suggest that the theoretical relationship between reflectively designed first-order constructs and formatively designed second-order constructs becomes unpredictable when endogenous variables change. This study challenges the wide acceptance of reflective-formative modeling, and encourages scholars to re-examine the construct validity and external validity of the second-order formative construct.

The set of papers to be published in this issue was marshaled by Richard Baskerville, with the precious help of Thomas Acton (National University of Ireland), Sergio De Cesare (Brunel University), Tamara Dinev (Florida Atlantic University), Aurelio Ravarini (Universita Cattaneo) Virpi Tuunainen (Aalto University) and John Wells (University of Masschusetts) whom we thank for their work as AEs. Many thanks also to Jong Seok Lee for compiling the article summaries for the editorial.