@article {894,
	title = {Defining the Core Properties of the IS Discipline: Not Yet, Not Now},
	journal = {Communications of the AIS},
	volume = {12},
	year = {2003},
	pages = {582-587},
	abstract = {I believe that a lively and vigorous debate about the nature of the IS discipline is important. Weneed an open and constructive debate about the identity of the IS field and its subject matter. Forthis reason I welcome Benbasat and Zmud{\textquoteright}s June 2003 article in MIS Quarterly in which theysuggested that the core of IS research should be the IT artifact. I also welcome Alter{\textquoteright}s responsein this issue of Communications of the AIS, in which he argues that the core of IS research shouldbe {\textquotedblleft}systems in organizations{\textquotedblright}. However, both articles take one point for granted: that the ISdiscipline is ready and able to define a core. In this article I take issue with this fundamentalassumption. I believe the attempt to narrow the field to a core is misguided, at least at this point intime. The argument of this paper is that the field of information systems is nowhere near ready todefine a core in information systems.},
	author = {Michael D. Myers}
}
