Artificial intelligence as digital agency

References

• Aakhus, M., Ågerfalk, P. J., Lyytinen, K., & Te’eni, D. (2014). Symbolic action research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 38(4), 1187–1200
   Google Scholar
• Abbasi, A., Sarker, S., & Chiang, R. H. (2016). Big data research in information systems: Toward an inclusive research agenda. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 17(2), i–xxxii.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abdelnour, S., Hasselbladh, H., & Kallinikos, J. (2017). Agency and institutions in organization studies. Organization Studies, 38(12), 1775–1792.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abdul, A., Vermeulen, J., Wang, D., Lim, B. Y., & Kankanhalli, M. (2018, April). Trends and trajectories for explainable, accountable and intelligible systems: An HCI research agenda. Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (p. 582). Montréal, Canada: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Ågerfalk, P. J., & Eriksson, O. (2004). Action-oriented conceptual modelling. European Journal of Information Systems, 13(1), 80–92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ågerfalk, P. J. (2004). Investigating actability dimensions: A language/action perspective on criteria for information systems evaluation. Interacting with Computers, 16(5), 957–988.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ågerfalk, P., & Sjöström, J. (2007, October 22–23). Sowing the seeds of self: A socio-pragmatic penetration of the web artefact. The 2nd International Conference on the Pragmatic Web, ICPW 2007 (pp. 1–8). Tilburg, The Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Ågerfalk, P. J. (2010). Getting pragmatic. European Journal of Information Systems, 19(3), 251–256.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ågerfalk, P. J. (2014). Insufficient theoretical contribution: A conclusive rationale for rejection? European Journal of Information Systems, 23(6), 593–599.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ågerfalk, P. J. (2018). Going through changes. European Journal of Information Systems, 27(1), 1–2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alter, S. (2008). Defining information systems as work systems: Implications for the IS field. European Journal of Information Systems, 17(5), 448–469.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ananny, M., & Crawford, K. (2018). Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability. New Media & Society, 20(3), 973–989.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Avison, D., & Elliot, S. (2006). Scoping the discipline of information systems. In J. L. King (Ed.), Information systems: The state of the field (pp. 3–18). Hoboken NJ: Wiley and Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Avison, D. E., & Myers, M. D. (1995). Information systems and anthropology: An anthropological perspective on IT and organizational culture. Information Technology & People, 8(3), 43–56.
   Google Scholar
• Baskerville, R., Myers, M., & Yoo, Y. (Forthcoming). Digital first: The ontological reversal and new challenges for IS. MIS Quarterly. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/ebcs_articles/9/
   Google Scholar
• Baskerville, R. L., & Myers, M. D. (2002). Information systems as a reference discipline. MIS Quarterly, 26(1), 1–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benbasat, I., & Zmud, R. W. (2003). The identity crisis within the IS discipline: Defining and communicating the discipline’s core properties. MIS Quarterly, 27, 183–194.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beynon-Davies, P. (2016). Instituting facts: Data structures and institutional order. Information and Organization, 26(1–2), 28–44.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buchanan, B. G. (2005). A (very) brief history of artificial intelligence. AI Magazine, 26(4), 53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buckingham, R. A., Hirschheim, R. A., Land, F. F., & Tully, C. J. (Eds). (1987). Information systems education: Recommendations and implementation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Couldry, N., & Hepp, A. (2017). The mediated construction of reality. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• de Reuver, M., Sørensen, C., & Basole, R. C. (2018). The digital platform: A research agenda. Journal of Information Technology, 33(2), 124–135.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diakopoulos, N. (2015). Algorithmic accountability: Journalistic investigation of computational power structures. Digital Journalism, 3(3), 398–415.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eriksson, O., Johannesson, P., & Bergholtz, M. (2018). Institutional ontology for conceptual modeling. Journal of Information Technology, 33(2), 105–123.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94–118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
   Google Scholar
• Goldkuhl, G., & Ågerfalk, P. J. (2005). IT artifacts as socio-pragmatic instruments: Reconciling the pragmatic, semiotic, and technical. International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction (IJTHI), 1(3), 29–43.
   Google Scholar
• Gomes, C., Fern, X., Fink, D., Fisher, D., Flecker, A., Freund, D., … Fern, A. (2019). Computational sustainability: Computing for a better World and a sustainable future. Communications of the ACM, 62(9), 56–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanseth, O. (2010). From systems and tools to networks and infrastructures-from design to cultivation: Towards a design theory of information infrastructures. In Holmström, J., Wiberg, M. & Lund, A. (Eds.), Industrial informatics design, use and innovation: Perspectives and services (pp. 122–156). IGI Global.
   Google Scholar
• Hanseth, O., & Monteiro, E. (1997). Inscribing behaviour in information infrastructure standards. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 7(4), 183–211.
   Google Scholar
• Hirschheim, R., Klein, H. K., & Lyytinen, K. (1996). Exploring the intellectual structures of information systems development: A social action theoretic analysis. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 6(1–2), 1–64.
   Google Scholar
• Hultin, L., & Mähring, M. (2014). Visualizing institutional logics in sociomaterial practices. Information and Organization, 24(3), 129–155.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iannacci, F. (2010). When is an information infrastructure? Investigating the emergence of public sector information infrastructures. European Journal of Information Systems, 19(1), 35–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katz, A., & Te’eni, D. (2007). The contingent impact of contextualization on computer-mediated collaboration. Organization Science, 18(2), 261–279.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latour, B. (1991). Technology is society made durable. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters. Essays on power, technology and domination (pp. 103–131). London, New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, A. S. (2001). Editor's Comments. MIS Quarterly 25(1), iii–vii.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, K. F. (2018). AI superpowers: China, Silicon valley, and the new world order. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
   Google Scholar
• Leigh Star, S. (2010). This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35(5), 601–617.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Makridakis, S. (2017). The forthcoming Artificial Intelligence (AI) revolution: Its impact on society and firms. Futures, 100(90), 46–60.
   Google Scholar
• Mathiassen, L. (2002). Collaborative practice research. Information Technology & People, 15(4), 321–345.
   Google Scholar
• O’neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. New York, NY: Broadway Books.
   Google Scholar
• Oberländer, A. M., Röglinger, M., Rosemann, M., & Kees, A. (2018). Conceptualizing business-to-thing interactions–A sociomaterial perspective on the Internet of Things. European Journal of Information Systems, 27(4), 486–502.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404–428.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28(9), 1435–1448.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433–474.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paul, R. J. (2010). Loose change. European Journal of Information Systems, 19, 379–381.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rai, A., Constantinides, P., & Sarker, S. (2019). Editor’s comments: Next-generation digital platforms: toward human–AI hybrids. MIS Quarterly, 43(1), iii–ix.
   Google Scholar
• Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263.
   Google Scholar
• Rowe, F. (2011). Towards a greater diversity in writing styles, argumentative strategies and genre of manuscripts. European Journal of Information Systems, 20(5), 491–495.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowe, F. (2012). Toward a richer diversity of genres in information systems research: New categorization and guidelines. European Journal of Information Systems, 21(5), 469–478.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Searle, J. R. (2006). Social ontology: Some basic principles. Anthropological Theory, 6(1), 12–29.
   Google Scholar
• Sein, M. K., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., & Lindgren, R. (2011). Action design research. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 37–56.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharma, R., & Mithas, S. (2014). Transforming decision-making processes: A research agenda for understanding the impact of business analytics on organisations. European Journal of Information Systems, 23(4), 433–441.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stamper, R., Liu, K., Hafkamp, M., & Ades, Y. (2000). Understanding the roles of signs and norms in organizations-a semiotic approach to information systems design. Behaviour & Information Technology, 19(1), 15–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Te’eni, D. (2001). A cognitive-affective model of organizational communication for designing IT. MIS Quarterly, 25(2), 251–312.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Te’eni, D. (2006). The language-action perspective as a basis for communication support systems. Communications of the ACM, 49(5), 65–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Te’eni, D. (2015). Current issue and future submissions, contextualized. European Journal of Information Systems, 24(4), 361–363.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Te’eni, D., Seidel, S., & Vom Brocke, J. (2017). Stimulating dialog between information systems research and practice. European Journal of Information Systems, 26(6), 541–545.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (Vol. 1). Univ of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Weitzner, D. J., & Abelson, H., Berners-Lee, T., Feigenbaum, J., Hendler, J., & Sussman, G. J. (2008). Information accountability. Communications of the ACM, 51(6), 82–87.
   Google Scholar
• Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. New York, NY: Public Affairs.
   Google Scholar