Isr Topic Selection

---
name: isr-topic-selection
description: Use when shaping or sanity-checking a research question for Information Systems Research (ISR) — testing sociotechnical, intradisciplinary fit, IT-artifact centrality, the level(s) of analysis, and whether the question belongs at ISR versus MISQ, JMIS, or Management Science. Locks the question and genre; it does not build the mechanism (isr-theory-development).
---

# Topic Selection & ISR Fit (isr-topic-selection)

## When to trigger

- You have a phenomenon, dataset, or analytical model but are unsure it is an ISR question
- The idea may be "IT-adjacent" rather than genuinely about the design, use, valuation, or impact of IT
- You are choosing between ISR and a neighboring venue
- A colleague says "interesting, but is this IS, or just OB/econ/CS done with IT data?"

## The ISR fit test

ISR is receptive to phenomena on the **design, management, use, valuation, and impacts of information technology**, examined at **multiple levels of analysis** — individuals, groups, firms, networks, societies, and nations. Pressure-test on four dimensions:

1. **IT-artifact centrality.** The IT artifact (a system, platform, algorithm, digital infrastructure, data product) must shape the mechanism, not just supply the setting or the data. If you could swap "IT" for "any tool" and the story survived, fit is weak.
2. **Sociotechnical framing.** ISR prizes work where the **social and the technical co-constitute** the phenomenon. Pure-technical (a CS systems paper) or pure-social (an OB paper that happens to use platform data) questions sit at the edge of fit.
3. **Intradisciplinary potential.** ISR explicitly values work that **bridges IS silos** — integrating behavioral, design-science, economic, and organizational perspectives — over single-paradigm contributions.
4. **Level(s) of analysis.** Name the level(s) and whether the contribution is within-level or cross-level.

## Choose your genre early — ISR houses two co-equally

ISR is methodologically pluralistic and publishes, as **co-equal first-class genres**: (a) behavioral/empirical sociotechnical research, and (b) analytical economic/game-theoretic/econometric and design-science modeling. The 2025 multimethod-research framework editorial (ISR 36(2)) legitimizes combining them — but with explicit justification, not as garnish.

## Fit vs. neighboring venues

- **ISR vs. MISQ**: both Basket-of-Eight; MISQ carries a stronger **design-science genre identity**. ISR welcomes DSR but as one of several co-equal genres.
- **ISR vs. JMIS**: overlapping scope, different editorial conventions.
- **ISR vs. Management Science**: MS is the broader INFORMS management/OR journal; if the IS angle is incidental, MS may fit better.

## Checklist

- [ ] IT artifact central to the mechanism, not just the setting
- [ ] Framing genuinely sociotechnical
- [ ] Intradisciplinary, silo-bridging angle present
- [ ] Level(s) of analysis named; within- vs cross-level stated
- [ ] Genre chosen with rationale; ISR chosen over MISQ/JMIS/MS for a reason

## Anti-patterns

- **IT-as-wallpaper**: a generic OB/econ/CS question dressed in platform data.
- **Single-silo by default** when an intradisciplinary framing was stronger.
- **Genre drift**: claiming an analytical contribution but doing descriptive empirics.

## Output format

```
【Phenomenon】[...]
【IT-artifact centrality】central / context-only
【Sociotechnical framing】yes / weak
【Intradisciplinary angle】silos bridged: [...]
【Level(s)】within/cross-level
【Genre】behavioral / analytical / design-science / multimethod — because [...]
【Venue】ISR vs MISQ/JMIS/MS: [...]
【Next step】isr-theory-development
```