Cet article plaide en faveur de l’interdisciplinarité dans la recherche en systèmes d'information. Nous commençons par une réflexion sur la notion de discipline et sur l’échange disciplinaire. Cela nous amène à retracer l’histoire de la discipline systèmes d'information, en nous appuyant sur trois critères - l’objet d’étude, la méthode, puis l’institutionnalisation (de la communauté des systèmes d'information) - en mettant en lumière le fait que l’interdisciplinarité est restée minoritaire. Puis, nous montrons qu’aujourd'hui cette dernière est devenue plus que jamais nécessaire pour répondre aux grandes questions contemporaines, telles celles liées au climat ou à l’égalité, et aussi pour s’affirmer face aux autres disciplines. Enfin, bien que le chemin soit semé d'embûches, nous proposons un agenda de recherche tourné vers l’interdisciplinarité.
Society is now profoundly shaped by digital platforms such as Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Google/Alphabet, Facebook/Meta, and X. Although these “Big Tech” firms exert pervasive influence across all spheres of life, their growing power remains insufficiently theorized and critically debated within information systems (IS) research. This article systematically reviews the IS literature to examine how the concept of digital platform power has been constructed. We find that current IS research addresses Big Tech power through four interconnected themes: (1) technological power, (2) economic power, (3) societal power, and (4) associated threats and risks. Our findings highlight a fragmented literature, dominated by instrumental views and business priorities, with insufficient critical problematization. We contend that “Big Tech power” represents a missing and necessary construct within IS scholarship; accordingly, this article seeks to conceptualize its foundations and mechanisms. We advocate for the adoption of a more integrative and responsible research agenda in IS, enabling scholars and practitioners to better understand, evaluate, and shape the future governance of digital platforms—ultimately contributing to a more responsible and desirable digital society.
Issu d’un double dialogue – d’abord entre la première autrice et Jean-Louis Le Moigne, puis entre les deux autrices autour de son œuvre –, cet article propose une relecture contemporaine de la pensée de Jean-Louis Le Moigne, notamment dans les domaines du management et du management des systèmes d’information. Il met en lumière la portée actuelle de ses contributions méthodologiques et épistémologiques pour penser la recherche collaborative en sciences de gestion, la validation des connaissances produites, ainsi que l’ancrage des sciences de gestion et du Design Science Research dans l’archétype des sciences de l’artificiel.
Shadow IT (SIT) usage can be characterized as follows: (1) employees’ voluntary adoption of unapproved IT tools for the purpose of working more efficiently, and (2) employees’ infringement on corporate security policies even when they act without malicious intent. We used the coping model of user adaptation to conduct a survey of 480 SIT users to investigate the ways in which employees cope with SIT usage. Our findings indicate that in the context of SIT usage, employees feel satisfied regardless of their level of control over their SIT usage and that a greater level of perceived control allows employees to maximise their performance at work, increasing satisfaction. We also show that perceived threat fosters the implementation of security measures via problem-focused coping (PFC) behaviours and mi[1]tigates emotion-focused coping (EFC) behaviours. As SIT usage can be perceived both as beneficial and threatening, we contribute to behavioural information systems (IS) research by showing that even when employees covertly use unapproved IT resources and infringe on corporate IT policies, they nevertheless engage in risk mitigation to preserve the increased efficiency they gain from using SIT.
