The need for compelling problematisation in research: The prevalence of the <scp>gap‐spotting</scp> approach and its limitations

Chatterjee, Sutirtha; Davison, Robert M.

doi:10.1111/isj.12316

Cited by 36 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, another direction of problematizing the MP adoption and use research is to develop a nonlinear contextualized network effect model of MP COL. According to Chatterjee and Davison (2021), the IT adoption and use literature has implicitly assumed and investigated only linear relationships between the constructs of interest. Future research should problematize the linear relationship assumption and introduce nonlinear models of MP adoption and use (Chatterjee et al, 2015; Chatterjee, Moody, et al, 2021; Chatterjee, Sarker, et al, 2021).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Following Alvesson and Sandberg's (2011) problematization methodology and Chatterjee and Davison's (2021) guidance, we problematize and challenge the general technology adoption model assumptions underlying existing MP adoption and use research and propose the contextualization approach to examine MP COL (see Table 1). We argue that in addition to generic factors, an understanding of salient contextual factors is needed in MP adoption and use research.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This study investigated MP COL. Guided byChatterjee and Davison (2021), we positioned our article by problematizing the core assumption underlying existing MP adoption and use research and presenting an alternative set of contextual assumptions to investigate MP COL. Through the problematization methodology(Alvesson & Sandberg, 2011), we developed a contextualized network effect model of MP COL.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Battles of mobile payment networks: The impacts of network structures, technology complementarities and institutional mechanisms on consumer loyalty

Gong

Cheung

Liu

et al. 2021

Information Systems Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most information systems (IS) research takes for granted that consumers' adoption and the use of mobile payment (MP) applications are motivated by generic factors such as perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. Challenging this assumption, we argue that the salient contextual characteristics of MP applications compel a reconsideration and problematization of research on MP adoption and use.Drawing on network effect theory, we examined how contextual network effects and contextual network types determine MP consumer loyalty. Using a mixed methods design, we find that direct network effects (i.e., network size, network centrality, network capability), indirect network effects (i.e., platform-application complementarity, application-service complementarity, service-strategy complementarity) and negative network effects (i.e., general institutional structure, general structural assurance, local institutional structure and local structural assurance) are key determinants of perceived benefits, which further promote MP consumer loyalty. Furthermore, except for general institutional structure and general structural assurance, all of the network effects are important predictors of switching costs, which influence MP consumer loyalty. Finally, the impacts of network effects on MP consumer loyalty differ between consumer-and service-oriented networks. Our

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Battles of mobile payment networks: The impacts of network structures, technology complementarities and institutional mechanisms on consumer loyalty

Gong

Cheung

Liu

et al. 2021

Information Systems Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition to their remarks, I would like to ask that you pay careful attention to the way you problematise your work. Please look at the recent ISJ editorial by Chatterjee and Davison (2021) on research problematisation. I believe that this will help you both to motivate and to position your research more carefully.The issue of problematisation is one that we take very seriously.…”

Section: Produce Concise Responsesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scholarly conversation through a review response document

Davison

Techatassanasoontorn

2022

Information Systems Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this editorial, we reflect on the review response document that is crafted by authors in parallel to the revision that they undertake on their paper following a 'revise and resubmit' decision. We draw from our cumulative experiences as authors and editors to offer our view on how authors can construct a review response document that effectively addresses the concerns of the review team.We understand that from an author's perspective, writing a review response document may entail a mix of thoughts and feelings. This is because, as authors, we may view review comments in a number of ways: as an obstacle to getting our work published; as supportive critique to help us improve our work; as a scholarly obligation to engage with other scholars on topics of mutual interest; or even as the opportunity to engage with the review team in a scholarly conversation, albeit mediated by the review 'system' and the editors. Given these various views, it is not surprising that authors approach the writing of a review response document in different ways. Some authors may view the writing of this document as a chore, something that needs to be done to include as a supplement to a revised manuscript in a review process. Others may view the document as an opportunity both to inform the review team and, more importantly, to have a respectful, constructive conversation with scholars who have an interest in their work. Some may view the document as a useful reminder of all the tasks that need to be done during the revision process. Others may be quite annoyed by the need to write this document, since they may feel that the review team does not trust the author(s) to do a good job of the revision and therefore need to micromanage the process.At the ISJ, we advocate for reflective, respectful, and engaged intellectual conversation between authors and the review team. Overall, a review response document is considered as both a communication and an assessment tool in the publication process. In the following paragraphs, we elaborate on those characteristics that we consider the hallmark of healthy and productive interactions between authors and the review team. | REFLECT ON COMMENTS AND COMPOSE THOUGHTFUL RESPONSESAt the ISJ, we expect reviewers to be humane, competent, open-minded, unbiased, and ethical (Davison, 2014, 2015). However, it is sometimes the case that the reviewers and authors do not share the same epistemological values or worldview. This can certainly cause difficulties for authors who may feel that (some members of) the review team are either unsympathetic or simply ignorant about the research. Nevertheless, we do expect that reviewers should provide constructive and helpful comments, in essence behaving like discussants, engaging with the author in an intellectual conversation (Davison, 2003), listening to the author, identifying alternative perspectives, and constructively critiquing the paper, all with the objective of helping the author to ameliorate the paper. Of course, there will be rare cases where reviewer comm...

show abstract

“…Is there a significant, novel theoretical and practical contribution that is linked to the role of an IS element? As reflected in prior ISJ editorials (e.g., Chatterjee & Davison, 2021; Davison, 2019), it is essential to write a manuscript with a specific audience and journal in mind. The problem statement and introduction of the manuscript should appeal primarily to IS scholars and practitioners, yet also be understandable and relevant for a broader audience.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%