How might implicit aesthetic perspectives shape what Information Systems (IS) scholarship recognises as worthy of study (or not)? In this hermeneutic literature analysis, we surface foundational aesthetic assumptions underpinning IS research. We identify four perspectives (aesthetics as imitation, sensory experience, world-making, and political doing) that guide how IS scholars perceive and appreciate sociotechnical phenomena. These perspectives influence what becomes recognisable as legitimate research and what remains unseen. By making aesthetic assumptions explicit, we show how they form epistemic infrastructure that conditions horizons of inquiry. We apply this framework to algorithmic management and digitally mediated intimacy, revealing how alternative perspectives open new research questions whilst exposing dimensions that dominant framings overlook. This analysis foregrounds the importance of aesthetic philosophy to IS literature, offering a vocabulary for articulating how aesthetic perspectives shape theorising, method, and contribution.
The post-ChatGPT surge has rapidly reframed IS research and practice. As organizations and society grapple with GenAI adoption, a body of secondary studies and research agendas has emerged to synthesize early evidence and chart directions for future inquiry. This study reviews secondary and roadmap papers to synthesize the state of knowledge on GenAI's benefits and challenges in IS, and to identify future research directions. We performed a systematic search across Scopus, WoS, and eAIS for publications from 2023 onwards. Following a rigorous, multi-stage screening process, we selected a final set of 28 papers for analysis using bibliometric mapping and thematic analysis. We also conducted a quality assessment of all sources to gauge confidence in each source's contribution to the findings. GenAI offers transformative potential to drive productivity, accelerate innovation, personalize services, and democratize access to expertise. However, its adoption is constrained by interrelated challenges: technical unreliability, societal-ethical risks, and a governance vacuum. Interpreted through a socio-technical lens, our findings reveal a persistent misalignment between GenAI's fast-evolving technical subsystem and the slower-adapting social subsystem, positioning IS research as critical for achieving joint optimization. To bridge this gap, we propose a research agenda that reorients IS scholarship from analyzing impacts toward actively shaping the co-evolution of technical capabilities with organizational routines, societal values, and regulatory institutions: emphasizing hybrid human-AI ensembles, situated validation, design principles for probabilistic systems, and adaptive governance. For practitioners and policymakers, responsible adoption requires balancing automation with human augmentation alongside transparent governance and adaptive regulations to ensure broadly shared benefits.
Aleksander Jarzębowicz, Adam Przybyłek, Jacinto Estima +14
Over fourty years after the initial publication of "Implications of Theories of Language for Information Systems" in MIS Quaterly, Lyytinen reflects about the origins of his publication and the developments in this area of research over the past decades. In the here presented interview, Lyytinen discusses the linguistic core of information systems also in light of recent trends and developments in the field, especially with regards to large language models and generative AI. Future research directions following a linguistic perspective on Information Systems (IS) research are outlined.
Kalle J. Lyytinen, Pierre Maier, Paul Ackah Toffey
This study examines how alternative systems of scholarly representation identify and characterize broad public administration (PA) and artificial intelligence related public administration (AI-in-PA) scholarship. Using Web of Science and OpenAlex, it compares five approaches based on author-defined, citation-driven, and AI-assisted representations. The results highlight substantial differences in corpus size, publication types, publishing outlets, temporal development, and thematic clustering and structure. The alternative approaches often identify different knowledge domains instead of varied subsets of the same scholarship and therefore produce distinct representations, as evidenced by no overlap in publications and publishing outlets across representations. The findings suggest that algorithmic knowledge organization increasingly influences how interdisciplinary scholarship is classified, structured, and understood and, epistemologically, how its visibility, intellectual structure, and boundaries are represented. AI-enabled scholarly classifications and representations are not neutral but interpretative, likely self-reinforcing, and potentially constrain the evolution and adaptation of disciplinary boundaries. Human disciplinary judgment is essential and is complemented rather than replaced.