December 1997 (Volume 3, Number 4) Newsletter for the UK Academy for Information Systems Edited by Steve Smithson
[Editorial] [Dearing] [Opinion] [Definition of Information Systems][Regional Groups] [UKAIS Northern Region Seminar] [BCS Accreditation] [Membership Renewal] [Board Membership]
The UKAIS held its 3rd Annual General Meeting at Manchester Metropolitan University on 5 November 1997, with 30 members present.
Tom Gough outlined new procedures to streamline membership record handling at Leeds: payments by standing order, the inclusion of membership numbers when we send out subscription acknowledgements, the holding of regional information and the compilation of an e-mail membership list. These will commence in the New Year. Tom also announced the result of the election: Frank Stowell elected vice-president with John Ward re-elected to the Board for three years.
Brent Work presented the treasurer's statement. From 3 October 1997 the Academy became a private limited company with charitable status expected shortly. The financial year will now begin on 1st November of each year. Cash reserves are in excess of £7000 with a further £1500 to come in profits from the 1997 conference. However membership fees are presently just adequate to pay for UKAIS administration. Nevertheless the financial and legal position of the Academy is secure.
Brent also reported on external relationships that Board members are pursuing in the Academy’s role as a pressure group for IS. These contacts include HEFCE (RAE and teaching funding for IS), EPSRC/ESRC (funding for IS research), BCS (accreditation), CSSA (IS skills shortage) and the Institute of Directors.
John Ward discussed the progress made in refining the definition and topic areas for the IS curriculum. We hope to present a final version at the 3rd UKAIS conference at Lincoln in April. Steve Smithson then reported on the Newsletter and other publications including brochures (in preparation) and the Web site that Tom Gough now edits.
Frank Stowell reported considerable enthusiasm among the regional groups with 50 people
attending recent meetings of both the Northern and Southern groups. This is discussed
further in this Newsletter.
Ray Hackney reported on the success of the 1997 PhD consortium as well as outlining the
arrangements for the 1998 PhD consortium at Staffordshire 2-4 July, to be organised by
Hanifa Shah and colleagues. The price will not be more than £145. Shalini Kesar
underlined the positive feedback from the PhD students who attended the 1997 consortium
and made suggestions for the 1998 event. Dave Wainwright agreed to compile a list of
recently completed UK PhDs in IS.
Denis Edgar-Nevill summarised the arrangements for the 1998 conference, to be held at Lincoln University from 15-17 April and entitled ‘Matching Technology with Organisational Needs’. The price will be less than last year (probably less than £300) and the proceedings will be published by McGraw-Hill.
David Avison concluded by presenting the future plans of the Academy. As well as continuing with present initiatives, the Academy wished to set up working groups to involve more members. The external relationships strategy was key to increasing the profile of IS and improving research and teaching funding.
I would like to comment very briefly on the Opinion column of the UKAIS Newsletter 3, 3.
The author of this piece says, among other things, "In some respects the argument of interdisciplinarity or multi-disciplinarity undermines the very status of IS since this implies that there is no single representative, but many, and this could be seen by others as a clear indication that IS is not a distinct entity" (p.6).
I consider this particular view as interesting and worth commenting on because it goes straight to the essence of this discipline we are trying to build. In my view the author is missing something about the interdisciplinary nature of IS. If we accept the definition of IS adopted by the UKAIS (UKAIS Newsletter 1, 1) as valid, we must be very clear about the concept of interdisciplinarity.
If we look around we will find examples of other emerging interdisciplines, and maybe these will help us understand the nature of own discipline. Let us take International Relations, which is formed by a variety of established disciplines, including Political Science, Law, Economics, Sociology and perhaps a few others.
Is there such a thing as the International Relations professional? Perhaps not, or not yet. People who take courses in International Relations can go into a variety of careers such as, the diplomatic service, national politics, journalism, public relations or marketing. The choice of career will depend, among other things, on the previous academic and/or professional experience of the candidate. Before the International Relations qualifications existed, these careers were filled by graduates from the more established disciplines. However, a new socio-economic global environment has created a need for a more interdisciplinary approach. So, what the new qualification will do is to enable old problems to be seen in a new light. Hence, International Relations is not yet a discipline but it is recognised as something increasingly relevant in today’s world to help deal with today’s international issues.
Like International Relations, IS is also an emerging discipline, whose need is clearly felt by practitioners and academics, but which still does not have a ‘distinct entity’ in terms of other academic disciplines. I do not see anything wrong with that. It is in the nature of any emerging discipline not to have a distinct identity. The issues related to, and the consequences of, the integration of IT in organisations and society are only now beginning to be felt. So it is very early days for a fully fledged identity of the IS discipline to emerge. It is complicated to start talking of ‘IS professionals’ as opposed to ‘IT professionals’ as it gives an indication that the former will eventually replace the later. Will that be the case? I doubt it. Coming back to the example of International Relations, it would be the same as saying that the new International Relations graduates will eventually replace Political Science graduates in international affairs.
IS brings a new dimension to various older and more established disciplines, such as Computer Science, Management, Organisation Science, Psychology and Sociology, among others. It will probably not replace any of them but it will definitely give science a contribution that no other discipline or interdiscipline can give. The type of contribution that IS can give with its interdisciplinary approach, for example, to Computer Science, is in finding new ways of making the technology more accessible to people and organisations. Such an objective for IS might be derived from and validated by the following statement by Michael Dertouzos, Head of MIT’s Laboratory for Computer Science "Some people maintain that increased complexity is an inevitable consequence of the times and that the role of computers is to manage complexity. Nonsense. (...) The purpose of technology is to make new artifacts fulfill the needs of humans, not to make their lives more complicated" (Dertouzos, p297).
Having said this, I believe that although IS is not likely to replace any of the more established disciplines, it must work hard and efficiently towards establishing its own intellectual domain. Let us not deceive ourselves. All of the above disciplines which together make up the interdiscipline of IS have also been concerned, for a long time, with the same interface areas that today IS claims to represent (e.g. the human-computer, the organisation-computer or the society-computer interfaces). One needs only to look at the better known academic journals from those disciplines and search for research articles on topics that we would easily identify as IS topics. Hence, independently, various academic disciplines are tackling research issues which are typically IS issues. Some do it better than others, but what IS, as an autonomous discipline, must show is that it can do it even more competently. And, of course, the first step in this direction is for IS to be fairly clear about what its primary research areas are.
Dertouzos, M. (1997) What will be: How the New World of Information will Change our Lives. Piatkus, London.
Rodrigo Magalhães
Research Fellow, LSE
This is the text of a letter written to Martin Everitt, at the DTI, which comprised the UKAIS response to the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education (Dearing Committee).
Dear Martin,
The UK Academy for Information Systems (UKAIS) represents around 600 academics that teach and research in the area of information systems in the higher education sector of the UK. We welcome the opportunity to comment on the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education.
We find the Committee’s report constructive. We particularly support its recommendations which:
The members of the UKAIS have been working for many years to ensure that British graduates have not only the knowledge and skills, but also the habits of mind which industry requires.
However, in our experience the structure and funding of higher education severely hinder teaching and research in areas which:
The subject of information systems has all the above three elements. The case of information systems is an important illustration of how higher education in Britain discriminates against initiatives to achieve these ends.
Two distinct views of technology exist in higher education. The dominant school assumes that computer scientists and electronic engineers should create novel technologies without regard for how they may be used. Effectively, this is the pursuit of technology for its own sake. On the other hand, information systems practitioners believe that the emphasis should be placed on people using information technology for the benefit of society and organisations. There is ample evidence that Communication and Information Technologies (C&ITs) have consistently failed to realise their promise because too little attention has been given to their use in organisations and their management.
The divide between proponents of the communication and technology view and the information systems view is palpable. Nevertheless, HEFCE explicitly recognises only the former. In the recent research assessment exercise HEFCE did not make information systems an independent unit of assessment. Instead it proposed that UKAIS members submit their research as library management. This indicates a misunderstanding of the nature of information systems. In the event, IS academics submitted to three panels, with library management receiving the fewest because the subject matter is not appropriate to library management. The largest group submitted to the business and management panel because of the applied nature of the area of study.
HEFCE has also ruled that ‘high cost’ computer science courses should be treated in the future as ‘lab-based’. This should result in more generous funding for courses, which meet the requisite criteria. Unfortunately, under these guidelines, it will be difficult for information systems courses to be considered ‘high cost’ and this leads to situations where, for example, information systems courses cannot afford credible commercial software for their students. This makes students less valuable to industry because their experience will be less relevant to the use of technology.
The manner in which research councils treat information systems is also inequitable.
Our members often report that their requests for funding have been shunted from one
council to another - each council arguing that the proposal is outside its remit. This
leads to our members not applying for research council funding. They are more likely to
receive funding from industry. In these circumstances our members are rarely able to
undertake large projects which examine long-term or fundamental issues.
Unfortunately, we feel that the Committee's report itself reflects this bias towards
technology for its own sake. Many of the recommendations focus too narrowly on C&ITs
rather than on the effective use of information. We offer three illustrations:
Recommendation 27 considers JISC's responsibility for providing a national technological infrastructure, but does not mention JISC's role in improving the uses of information within higher education.
Recommendation 41 conflates information systems planning and information technology planning. Many universities do have plans for developing C&ITs, but few understand what an information systems plan would entail. JISC has produced guidance on the development of information systems plans. Unfortunately, research demonstrates that JISC's approach has not been effective in industry or in the public sector.
Recommendation 9 concerns the radical impact of C&ITs in higher education. There is little evidence that this promise can ever be achieved. Todd Oppenheimer's commentary (The Observer, 5 October 1997, p. 25) on the use of C&ITs in learning and teaching summarises the results of this research in a very readable form.
We hope that our comments will be perceived neither as negative nor as special pleading. On the contrary, the UKAIS supports the ideals of the Committee. Our members have worked tirelessly for many years to achieve these ideals. However, it is our considered belief that explicit mechanisms must be created if we are to achieve the desired results.
The members of the UK Academy for Information Systems have a broad understanding of these problems. We are eager to share our insights with others who have an interest in the future of British higher education so that the Committee's vision may be realised. We hope that in future industry, government and academia will exploit this more effectively.
Yours sincerely,
David Avison
Reactions to the letter would be gratefully received by David or the editor.
In 1995 we proposed a rapidly developed definition of our subject to HEFCE in order to influence the 1996 RAE. That definition/domain scope has some innate flaws, parts have been criticised and omissions pointed out. In Board discussions this Autumn we have revised the basic definition/domain scope in an attempt to improve on that early work. Further work is needed to define each of the topic headings to make clear what each covers. This is proceeding but we are seeking comments from members of the Academy on the current version, as below, and also advice on the detail which each topic should cover.
The overall purpose of developing the definition is to state clearly the uniqueness of the subject in order to:
Bearing these points in mind, we hope you will contribute to the debate.
Proposed Definition and Scope
Definition
Information systems are the means by which organisations and people, utilising information
technologies, gather, process, store, use and disseminate information.
Domain of study
The domain of information systems requires a multi-disciplinary approach to studying the
range of socio-technical phenomena which determine their development, use and effects in
organisations and society.
Scope of domain of study
Theoretical underpinnings of information systems
Please send your views and comments on the above to John Ward. We wish to discuss this at the next Board Meeting on 15 January, so comments by then if possible. We will be presenting the final outcome of the work at the Conference in April.
Know your acronyms and succeed in information systems:
ISDN - It Still Does Nothing
SCSI - System Can’t See It
DOS - Defective Operating System
BASIC - Bill’s Attempt to Seize Industry Control
IBM - I Blame Microsoft
DEC - Do Expect Cuts
CDROM - Consumer Device, Rendered Obsolete in Months
OS/2 - Obsolete Soon, Too
WWW - World Wide Wait
MACINTOSH - Most Applications Crash; If Not, The Operating System Hangs
PENTIUM - Produces Erroneous Numbers Through Incorrect Understanding of Mathematics
COBOL - Completely Obsolete Business Oriented Language
AMIGA - A Merely Insignificant Game Addiction
LISP - Lots of Infuriating & Silly Parentheses
WINDOWS - Will Install Needless Data on Whole System
One of the first items to be discussed at the meeting of the regional group convenors in October was whether "Regional Group" may be a misleading title. The regional name may not be particularly helpful to members who seem to fit into one region but actually are closer to another, e.g. some members from Wales find it easier to attend the Northern Group than a group named Wales Region, and some members in the Southern Region might find it easier to meet in the Welsh Region. We felt that a better approach might be to consider the cluster of universities that form the ‘region’. So one of the first tasks for the regions to think about concerns the name of their group. There is another issue: should it be group, chapter, or branch? I am not sure that we have solved all the problems but, following this short introduction, you will find the list of ‘regions’ and the names of their convenors. Please email any of the people listed and I am sure that they will be able to guide you to your closest group.
Forming a Group
As you can see, the number of groups has increased, which is most encouraging. To form a group you will need to describe the area that you can represent and have at least a chair (convenor), treasurer and a secretary. Some of the groups are quite well established now, having already put on one or more events and have others planned. Each group has offered to support other groups in their activities and offer advice gained from their own experiences. Each member of the Board has offered to come to speak at any of the regional activities, either about the UKAIS or on a topic related to their speciality. As the groups develop, the Board hope that they will become the focal point for local activities, (e.g. workshops, seminars, research collaboration) and the source of information about the UKAIS and Information Systems. If you are thinking of forming a group please do not hesitate to contact Frank Stowell or any of the regional convenors.
RAE and the Regions
Clearly one of the most important issues for members is the formal recognition of Information Systems as a subject discipline. As you know we had partial success in the last RAE and the Board are continuing to take this important issue forward on your behalf. We are presently producing a response to a consultation paper from HEFCE on the RAE, which comprises 42 questions! This needs to be completed early in the New Year and we want to include the revised definition of IS with our response. We would like to consult with members on this important issue. Our plan is to post our initial views on the Web page in the New Year and encourage discussion of them in regional meetings.
The Web material should be available by 26th January and we need a response from the regions before 6th February 1998. This will allow us to consider these before responding finally to HEFCE. Members of the Board are willing to attend group meetings to discuss any questions arising from the modifications.
Groups:
Central Scotland
Mark Stansfield
m.stansfield@napier.ac.uk
East Midlands
Atta Badii
atta.badii@nene.ac.uk
London
Elayne Coakes
coakess@westminster.ac.uk
Northern
David Allen
d.k.allen@sheffield.ac.uk
Wales & West
Paul Beynon-Davis
pbeynon@comp.glamorgan.ac.uk
Wessex
Galereh Roushan
groushan@bournemouth.ac.uk
Regional Groups Coordinator:
Frank Stowell
Wednesday 25 February 1998 2.00 - 5.30
UMIST Department of Computation
Collaboration between Business & Academia
The target audience is researchers from UK universities and individuals from business organisations, whose common interest is in research collaboration in information systems.
The aims of the seminar are to:
raise awareness of joint funding opportunities in the IS area
2.00 Invited Paper
Research Grant Opportunities
Karen Sandler, Manchester
2.45 Coffee
3.15 Panel on Experiences of Collaboration
Proselytiser - types of collaboration in IS field Bob Wood, Salford
Business Manager - current joint research project Martin Evans, BT
Business Coordinator - academic/business collaboration Jane Searles, ICL
Academic Manager - current joint research project Chris Holland, MBS
Business R&D Manager - why we do/don't collaborate with academia Geoff Creamer,
Edbro
Academic Coordinator - academic/business collaboration Trevor Wood-Harper, Salford
Themes for panel discussion will include:
4.45 Discussion
5.30 Conclusion
Admission Free
Organised by: Donal Flynn (Computation, UMIST), Nathalie Mitev (ITI, Salford),
Vivien Sheard (BIT, MMU)
If you would like to come to the seminar please email v.sheard@mmu.ac.uk
Look at the UKAIS Northern Region website at: http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/nukais/
The UKAIS Northern Group was formed on 22 May 1997 and its coordinator is David Allen from Sheffield University.
Following the numerous conversations at the Southampton conference arising from the session which John Jenkins organised on BCS accreditation, the Board has given Geoff McMullen, the BCS Vice President responsible for Professional Formation, a summary of the concerns expressed by our members on this issue. He suggested that we meet with Professor Gordon Bull of Brighton University, who is the chairman of the BCS Accreditation Committee.
Brent Work met with Professor Bull on October 22 to discuss the problems of accrediting courses which have a significant information systems content. Professor Bull believes that the BCS treats these courses equitably as long as they are predominantly computing, not business. He would be very happy to listen to any comments about our members’ experiences of the BCS accreditation process and promises a response from the BCS on the concerns which we raise. In addition he would welcome more of our members on BCS accreditation panels and encourages us to put our names forward.
Since the meeting with Professor Bull, the BCS Accreditation Committee has agreed to consider courses which might not be suitable for accreditation under SARTOR (Standards and Routes to Registration), old or new, but which would be suitable for approval as meeting the academic requirements for membership of the Society. Also, the Professional Formation Board has agreed that the academic requirements for membership of the Society should remain at Honours degree (i.e. not be set as for C.Eng. under the new SARTOR, namely M.Eng.). It is not yet clear whether this position will have to be approved by the BCS Council.
It is unclear what effect these decisions will have on the accreditation of information systems courses. The implication seems to be that courses which are currently accredited are likely to retain accreditation but only at BCS membership level not C.Eng. level. It may now also be easier for some courses which are not accredited to receive BCS accreditation. Nevertheless, this would seem to affect only a small number of courses, possibly none of them being IS courses.
However, in our estimate the long-term prospects are not so good. The new version of SARTOR which the Engineering Council has approved seems certain to create a distinction between BCS members and more highly regarded Chartered Engineers. This will undoubtedly discriminate against members of the Academy and our students because there is no similar manner of distinguishing people with matching accomplishments in information systems.
Nevertheless, it seems to the Board that in the short term there is an opportunity to influence the BCS accreditation procedures and cooperate with the BCS. Therefore, we recommend that Academy members who also belong to the BCS volunteer as potential assessors for BCS accreditation. To do this you need to contact Caroline Bucklow at the BCS in Swindon. Let us know if you have volunteered as well, so that we can keep a record.
Also, we wish to establish a working party to collect information about the difficulties which our members have had when seeking BCS accreditation. The working party may also examine the problem of gaining accreditation for courses which do not have sufficient computer science content to be considered by the BCS. Would any members who wish to join such a committee, please contact Brent Work? Or if you simply have particular experiences concerning the way the BCS has dealt with your accreditation, Brent would also be happy to hear from you.
So, 1997 is being consigned to the history books and now we are all trying to adapt to writing 1998 in its place, without being too self-conscious about it all. This annual process seems to become less exciting and more irritating as one becomes more experienced and mature - the word older is not used here, in deference to the sensitivities of the Board.
Now is also the time for New Year resolutions, ranging from the generic and politically correct "being a more upright citizen" to the more specific and pragmatic "not smoking pipes in bed on Thursdays". Somewhere between these two extremes is paying one’s subscription to the UKAIS. It is very much part of being a better person in general, and it also has immediate value in terms of discounts at Academy events. It also greatly reduces any feelings of alienation one might experience within the Information Society.
Any day now you will receive a renewal form. Stick to your resolution! Please fill in the form, send it off with your subscription and experience that feeling of renewal.
David Avison (President)
dea@socsci.soton.ac.uk
John Ward (Vice President)
j.m.ward@cranfield.ac.uk
Tom Gough (Membership Secretary)
tgg@comp.leeds.ac.uk
Ray Hackney
Shalini Kesar (Student Representative)
Steve Smithson
s.smithson@lse.ac.uk
Frank Stowell
Brent Work (Secretary and Treasurer)
Please email queries about the Academy to a member of the Board Any queries or suggestions for the Academy's Web page to:
© United Kingdom Academy for Information Systems Last modified: 3 November 1997