FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2912096925> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2912096925 endingPage "581" @default.
• W2912096925 startingPage "577" @default.
• W2912096925 abstract "As an editor, I am sensitive to the audience for whom an author is writing. My interest in this topic stems from what I see as a systemic yet hidden problem with the way the peer review system operates, namely, that authors focus so much on making the review team happy that they may end up not writing for any other stakeholder. As a result, while the revised article may satisfy the review team's needs (and if it does not it is unlikely to be published), it is possible that it may fail to satisfy readers, author(s), and any other third parties. These thoughts piqued my curiosity about the situation, and, in my arrogance, I thought that a small scale investigation (described below) might shed some light on the situation. The notion of the intended audience is a slight variation on that of “researcher perspective,” which normatively relates to the identity of the stakeholder whose interests are privileged in the research design (Davison, 2018). As an author myself, I would like to think that I am writing a research article because I would like it to be read, appreciated, cited, and found useful in some practical or intellectual way. I hope that my research, as expressed through the articles I write, will make the world a better place (cf Walsham, 2012). Indeed, these objectives also apply to the editorials that I write for this journal. For an article to be read, it has to be readable, and for that matter consumable, by the intended audience (Robey & Markus, 1998). The audience may be composed of fellow academics or practitioners within the disciplinary area; it could also be a more general audience of scientists, people in industry or government, or the general public (cf Churchman, 1971). Naturally, the exact audience will vary from article to article, but unless we are writing in a highly specialised field or for a niche journal with a tiny circulation, it is likely that the potential audience is at least several hundred people, and perhaps many more. Google Scholar will offer you a rough proxy for how many people found your work valuable (even if not how many bothered to read it) and may induce some humility at the same time: Many of my own articles have a citation score well below 1. Reflecting further on the nature of the audience, I realised that a high-level classification could include such groups as readers, reviewers, and oneself. Of these, readers hopefully constitute the most populous group, followed by reviewers and then oneself/oneselves. In order to validate this simple scheme, I wrote to a dozen international scholars in our field (a purposive yet diverse population of people, at all career stages, working in some seven countries and hailing from eight, all known to me personally and all likely to devote a few minutes of their time) to request a quick reaction to the following question: When you write a research article, for whom are you writing? The views of the 10 scholars who responded are openly acknowledged (with their permission) in the presentation below. It turned out that, through a very simple coding process, I was able to undertake a simple thematic classification of their responses into the three audience types (readers, reviewers, and self), with a few responses that integrated and contrasted two or all three. No other audiences were mentioned. I present below an illustrative assortment of their responses. I do not pretend to claim that this is a rigorous assessment of opinions about the nature of the audience, but I do think that this anecdotal evidence constitutes valuable food for thought. If nothing else, I wonder how often you have conversations about your audience. Towards the end of the editorial, I offer my own reflections and consider the implications for whom we write. Several of my respondents indicate that, at least initially, they are writing for a very particular group of readers. For instance, Ann Majchrzak noted “If I'm writing for an IS audience … then I make sure that the problem statement is one that IS people would find interesting.” Walter Fernandez opined similarly: “When I write a paper for first time submission, I write for the readership of a given journal that publishes the type of research I'm interested in pursuing.” He also commented “I'm writing about something that I care about, for readers that I suspect also care about that area of knowledge. I'll try to engage with the on-going conversation at the selected journal as much as possible.” Meanwhile, Lynne Markus maintained that she tries to “write for the readers first and [herself] second (but I have to satisfy myself, which can be a challenge).” Alem Molla indicated “In writing, I anticipate what a potential reader can get out of it.” Finally, Luiz Joia expressed both nostalgia and disquiet in this extended comment that will lead us to the second audience: “For several years, I was an executive … working in industry. At that time, I used to write papers and submit them to journals. … my main concern was to please the readers and make a significant impact in the society through my work. Alas, when I joined Academia as a full time scholar, this changed. Nowadays, my papers have been developed mostly to get published … thus, in consequence, my main current target is to please the reviewers and the EIC/AE as well. Yet, I do hope that the readers will also be satisfied with my work, but I am not aware of that. Sometimes this may be frustrating and once in a while I miss the old times [as an] executive when I wrote papers just for pleasure.” This is the audience that attracted most epistolary attention from my expert informants. Allen Lee speaks for many when he asserts: “I believe that many or most seasoned researchers write with reviewers in mind, if not for the first submission, then certainly by the third revision. In fact, the exasperation is so great by the third or fourth revision that the general audience has completely disappeared from the author's mind and the author is left just wanting to address what the reviewers and editor want.” This view is reiterated by David Avison who explains that in the revision process, “the paper [is] being written for the reviewers, definitely.” A similar perspective is taken by Alem Molla who admits “that the subsequent versions of the manuscript are primarily written to address the review team's feedback.” Antonio Díaz Andrade moderates this view slightly: “The message I want to convey is non-negotiable [yet] I have to admit that a couple of times my original message has been substantially changed along the way to satisfy reviewers' comments.” Gerhard Schwabe also acknowledges the need to address review team comments “but only after an internal sense-making process that takes the original audience into account.” Ann Majchrzak notes that when she is revising a paper (and about half the time she chooses not to revise, for instance, when the revision process will take the paper into a direction she was not planning on), then she always rewrites “to answer the issues addressed by the reviewers ….” The issue of where the review process takes the paper is also raised by Yingqin Zheng who notes “In a good scenario, a paper is significantly improved through the reviewing process and comes out stronger and more readable to a wider audience. … What could happen in the reviewing process, however, is that the AE/reviewers may not know the area very well, yet feel the obligation to be critical and constructive, thus take the paper in a very different, perhaps worse, direction. As an author I try to defend my position and do not follow reviewers' comments blindly, but it needs the support from the AE and SE. Many authors may just do whatever they are told to get published.” Alem Molla also identifies a significant challenge associated with “balancing the views of some dogmatic and prescriptive (instead of developmental) reviewers who want to see the idea, flow and craft of a manuscript in a certain way … [compared to his] own initial interest/idea in writing the manuscript in the first place.” Walter Fernandez echoes this with the observation that “we start adding material that is not so relevant in order to make the reviewers happy and in doing so we may be forced to drop some of the best ideas in terms of what may be interesting.” This brings us back to the third audience, ie, writing for the self, for the original ideas that the author wanted to bring are always present, even if submerged in the deeper layers of the palimpsest. While all the respondents mentioned the self to some degree, even if implicitly, few explored it in detail. Gerhard Schwabe is forthright in claiming that “I do not typically write the first version for the reviewers or the editor. Rather I write for myself. I ask myself whether the paper is the most convincing, aesthetically pleasing and true account that I can give. The value system on what is convincing etc. is heavily influenced by whom I have collaborated with and what I have read. Thus, if I am honest, I never have the eventual readers directly in my mind when I write something.” Similarly, Antonio Díaz Andrade observed that in his early writings, perhaps before the arrival of pragmatism, his “focus was on conveying the message that I had in mind, maybe with not much consideration for readers' interest.” Walter Fernandez's position is similar: “When doing the draft I'm writing for myself and for my co-authors, as articulation of ideas allows to me find the problems with those ideas.” Alem Molla moderates this view only slightly, noting “I write the first draft for myself and for a ‘reader.’ I have to be satisfied with both the idea and craft of the manuscript before I submit it.” As editor and author, these various sentiments resonate strongly, and I freely concur that at different times I write for different audiences. However, while my presentation of anecdotes above is deliberately siloed, I find that in reality the audiences are intertwined. Thus even though the “publish or perish” maxim is never far away, with the resulting need to satisfy the requirements of reviewers, I find that it is possible to do this without ignoring the broader audience of readers and also by remaining true to my own views. Perhaps, this is an intellectual juggling act and the finesse with which we achieve it increases with experience. There are also elements of both luck and perseverance: A constructive review team is clearly easier to work with than a destructive or bigoted one, while long-term success requires substantial intellectual investment. I suspect that there is also a strong element of personality in how and for whom we write. If writing is an unpleasant chore that is shirked until the last moment, and all we care about is to be published, essentially ignoring the readership, then the review team is likely to be omnipotent in our firmament to the exclusion of all others. If we only care for the readers, then editorials, book reviews, and other unreviewed articles apart, publication may seldom be achieved: Ignoring review team requests for revisions is one of the surest ways to get rejected. In reality, reviewers must always be satisfied unless you can illuminate their minds through your arguments so that they believe that their original comments were misguided. However, if you feel that the reviewers are taking you in a direction you would rather not pursue, then you can withdraw and submit elsewhere, though not indefinitely. Finally, if you enjoy the process of writing itself, as I do, and relish the challenge of satisfying the reviewers, delighting the readers, and remaining loyal to yourself, then all three audiences and their respective requirements can be juggled, if not with equanimity then at least with a fair degree of aplomb. As merchants of ideas, words are our currency and one measure of our worth. Enjoy the reading and the writing! In the first article, Tan, Pan, and Zuo (2019) present a model of how platform firms develop information technology (IT)–enabled capabilities in order to realise operational agility. The authors undertake a case study of M.com, a leading multisided online retailing platform in China, in order to provide a clear thesis of resource interdependencies and IT-enabled capabilities forged during operational processes. Their model postulates three IT-enabled capabilities (localised, synergistic, and optimised) which reflect the effective co-ordination of three resource interdependencies (pooled, sequential, and reciprocal) during complex platform operations and processes. The study contributes to the body of knowledge on the process for realising IT-driven operational agility on e-business platforms. It also underscores the important interactions between a multisided platform and its internal and external environments and addresses how resource interdependencies in a platform are tied to the sensing and responding capabilities required to achieve agility. In the second article, Mueller, Mendling, and Bernroider (2019) discuss the importance of salient groups and their perceptions towards critical success factors (CSFs) for enterprise resource planning (ERP) program success. Using an interpretive case study and the coding techniques of the grounded theory method, the paper extends extant ERP research by introducing a new theoretical perspective to clarify how stakeholder perceptions and CSFs are interrelated and evolve throughout the life cycle of a large ERP program. In that way, the paper offers a dialectic process view of ERP program implementation success, which (1) considers the different perceptions of salient groups (2) at different points in time (phases) and (3) proposes that a low perceptual fit in relation to a specific CSF contributes to program failure as opposed to (4) a high perceptual fit in relation to the respective CSF, which contributes to program success. All results are grounded in data using Social Identity Theory as a metatheory for interpretation. In the third article, Taylor and Joshi (2019) note that when many people think about the gig economy, they picture companies like Uber or Instacart that use contract workers for manual tasks, but the reality of the contract workforce is much more dynamic. Many knowledge workers are choosing freelance contracts as an alternative to traditional jobs. For technology managers who already struggle with attracting, retaining, and developing workers, the shift of more professionals to contract work may be especially challenging. Given the number of traditional job opportunities available for digital employment, this paper asks what motivates digital workers participating in the gig economy and whether the gig economy could be used to expand the digital workforce. They found that digital workers participating in the gig economy were diverse professionals, many of whom were not interested in traditional employment. These workers appreciated the flexibility and autonomy that comes with participating in the gig economy. They also felt that through contract work, they were better able to develop new digital skills while earning income to meet their needs. Without access to the gig economy, many of these workers felt that they would have left digital occupations. In the fourth article, Ned Kock (2019) explains how partial least squares (PLS) methods possess desirable characteristics that have led to their extensive use in the field of information systems for path analyses with latent variables. In spite of their desirable characteristics, classic PLS methods suffer from a fundamental problem: They do not deal with factors, but with composites, and as such do not fully account for measurement error. This leads to biased parameters, even as sample sizes grow to infinity. Anchored on a new conceptual foundation, in this article, Ned Kock discusses a method that builds on the consistent PLS technique and that estimates factors. This method, called PLSF, fully accounts for measurement error. The article provides evidence that PLSF shares the property of statistical consistency with full-information maximum likelihood structural equation modelling but has greater statistical power. In the fifth article, Schultze and Brooks (2019) challenge the predominant definition of social presence as the perceived capacity of a communication medium to convey contextual cues normally available in face-to-face settings. Noting that this way of theorising social presence has been challenged for decades, they theoretically develop and empirically demonstrate an interactional view of social presence. Drawing on Goffman's concepts of involvement and involvement obligation, they conceive of social presence as an ongoing accomplishment that entails interactants' joint construction of each other as “real.” Virtual others become socially present when they conform to the norms of everyday social interaction. Key to these norms is the moral obligation to become involved in an interaction and to respond appropriately to the other. The authors abductively develop an interactional process model that identifies three phases through which social presence is produced: (1) (virtual) co-presence, (2) focused interaction, and (3) interlocking involvement obligation. To the extent that these successive phases are completed and build on each other, the virtual other becomes real and social presence is accomplished. The primary contribution is to offer IS research a theoretically informed punctuated process model of social presence that relies on the situated and dynamic interaction between virtual participants rather than on technological affordances. In the sixth article, Twitchell and Fuller (2019) consider the applicability of a 15-year stream of IS research on automated deception detection systems. They find that prior research includes important discoveries, but when it has proposed these systems for specific contexts, especially those contexts with low base rates, it has not provided adequate evidence of usefulness. They provide their own example of the effects base rates and costs can have when using a system to detect fraud in crowdfunding platforms. They conclude with several recommendations, the most important of which recommends incorporating base rates and costs when proposing automated deception detection systems for specific contexts. I am indebted to the 10 scholars who took the trouble to offer their insights into the somewhat vexed question of for whom they write: Alem Molla, Allen Lee, Ann Majchrzak, Antonio Díaz Andrade, David Avison, Gerhard Schwabe, Luiz Joia, M. Lynne Markus, Walter Fernandez, and Yingqin Zheng." @default.
• W2912096925 created "2019-02-21" @default.
• W2912096925 creator A5006120288 @default.
• W2912096925 date "2019-02-15" @default.
• W2912096925 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2912096925 title "For whom do we write?" @default.
• W2912096925 cites W2023102928 @default.
• W2912096925 cites W2078622454 @default.
• W2912096925 cites W2775592013 @default.
• W2912096925 cites W2890112805 @default.
• W2912096925 cites W2893764163 @default.
• W2912096925 cites W2894350341 @default.
• W2912096925 cites W2896258663 @default.
• W2912096925 cites W2901019176 @default.
• W2912096925 cites W2904172776 @default.
• W2912096925 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12238" @default.
• W2912096925 hasPublicationYear "2019" @default.
• W2912096925 type Work @default.
• W2912096925 sameAs 2912096925 @default.
• W2912096925 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W2912096925 countsByYear W29120969252019 @default.
• W2912096925 countsByYear W29120969252021 @default.
• W2912096925 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2912096925 hasAuthorship W2912096925A5006120288 @default.
• W2912096925 hasBestOaLocation W29120969251 @default.
• W2912096925 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2912096925 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2912096925 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2912096925 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2912096925 hasConceptScore W2912096925C144024400 @default.
• W2912096925 hasConceptScore W2912096925C15744967 @default.
• W2912096925 hasConceptScore W2912096925C17744445 @default.
• W2912096925 hasConceptScore W2912096925C41008148 @default.
• W2912096925 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W2912096925 hasLocation W29120969251 @default.
• W2912096925 hasOpenAccess W2912096925 @default.
• W2912096925 hasPrimaryLocation W29120969251 @default.
• W2912096925 hasRelatedWork W1596801655 @default.
• W2912096925 hasRelatedWork W2130043461 @default.
• W2912096925 hasRelatedWork W2350741829 @default.
• W2912096925 hasRelatedWork W2358668433 @default.
• W2912096925 hasRelatedWork W2376932109 @default.
• W2912096925 hasRelatedWork W2382290278 @default.
• W2912096925 hasRelatedWork W2390279801 @default.
• W2912096925 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2912096925 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2912096925 hasRelatedWork W2530322880 @default.
• W2912096925 hasVolume "29" @default.
• W2912096925 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2912096925 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2912096925 magId "2912096925" @default.
• W2912096925 workType "article" @default.