If the Tree of IS Knowledge Falls in a Forest, Will Anyone Hear?: A Commentary on Grover et al.

Abstract

Readers could be confused after reading our paper (Wade et al.) and the Grover et al. paper—both in this issue—one right after the other. Both papers examine a similar topic using a similar methodology on a similar dataset over a similar time period. Yet, we come to very different conclusions. Grover et al.’s conclusions are positive and its tone is congratulatory and upbeat. By contrast, our findings are negative, and the mood of our paper is humbling and critical. After reading Grover et al. you may feel like reaching for a glass of champagne, while after reading ours, you are more likely to reach for an aspirin! How is it that Grover et al. can conclude that the IS field is “turning the tables on its references disciplines” and has begun “repaying its debts by contributing to other disciplines,” while our paper finds that the IS field “has left a modest imprint on the other sub-fields of management” and remains “at the end of the intellectual food chain”? The answer to this question, in large measure, can be found in the assumptions made by each set of authors. The conclusions drawn by each paper are reasonable if you accept the assumptions upon which they are based. This paper will explore these assumptions,