Isr Literature Positioning

---
name: isr-literature-positioning
description: Use when positioning an Information Systems Research (ISR) manuscript in the IS literature — naming the conversation(s) you join, bridging behavioral, economic, design-science, and organizational IS silos, and showing the intradisciplinary move that ISR prizes. Positions the work; it does not build the mechanism (isr-theory-development) or write the contribution statement (isr-contribution-framing).
---

# Literature Positioning (isr-literature-positioning)

## When to trigger

- Your front end lists references but does not name a live IS conversation
- The paper sits in one silo when an intradisciplinary framing was available
- A reviewer says "this does not engage the IS literature" or "the contribution to IS is unclear"
- You cite reference-discipline work (econ, psych, CS) but not the IS scholarship that owns the phenomenon

## Join a conversation, don't catalog a gap

ISR reviewers reward work that **enters an ongoing IS conversation** and changes it, not work that merely spots an unfilled cell in a table. Identify the specific stream — e.g., platform competition, digital labor, IT and firm value, security economics, recommender/algorithmic systems, knowledge collaboration, digital transformation — and state what that stream currently believes, what tension or anomaly you address, and how your result moves it.

## Bridge IS silos — the intradisciplinary move

ISR's defining mission is **intradisciplinary**: it prizes work that integrates **behavioral, design-science, economic, and organizational** perspectives rather than single-paradigm contributions. Positioning is where you make that bridge visible. Strong moves include:

- Bringing an **economic/analytical** lens to a phenomenon studied only **behaviorally** (or vice versa).
- Using a **design-science** artifact to open a behavioral or economic question.
- Connecting two IS streams that share a sociotechnical core but rarely cite each other.

Name both conversations and show the seam you stitch. This is what distinguishes an ISR-grade front end from a competent single-silo review.

## Engage IS, not only the reference disciplines

Because ISR draws on cognitive psychology, economics, computer science, operations research, design science, organization theory, sociology, and strategic management, it is tempting to cite only the reference discipline. ISR expects you to engage the **IS** scholarship that owns the phenomenon and to show how the IT artifact makes this an IS contribution, not a borrowed one.

## Checklist

- [ ] The specific IS conversation(s) named, with what they currently hold
- [ ] The tension/anomaly/opening you address stated explicitly
- [ ] An intradisciplinary bridge across at least two IS perspectives attempted
- [ ] IS scholarship (not only reference disciplines) engaged
- [ ] The IT artifact's role in making this an IS contribution is clear
- [ ] Positioning consistent with the chosen genre and level(s) of analysis

## Anti-patterns

- **Gap-cataloging**: "no one has studied X" instead of joining a conversation.
- **Single-silo review** when an intradisciplinary framing was stronger.
- **Reference-discipline-only** citing that treats IS as a venue, not a field.
- **Mismatched streams**: positioning against a literature your design cannot speak to.

## Output format

```
【Conversation(s)】[...]
【Current belief / tension】[...]
【Intradisciplinary bridge】perspectives joined: [...]
【IS engagement】owns-the-phenomenon cites present? [...]
【IT-artifact framing】[...]
【Next step】isr-methods or isr-contribution-framing
```