Information Systems (IS) is a relatively young field that has developed into a major body of knowledge and spread in many different ways over recent decades. The prime focus of IS is to understand and improve how sociotechnical systems comprising technical and human components or sub-systems gather, process and present data, information and knowledge to users, particularly in the context of an organizational workplace. According to Hassan and Will (2006), the IS community seems consensual in accepting that there are key problems the field addresses that are distinct from any other discipline. A number of studies have defined and mapped different elements of IS knowledge that academics and practitioners use in their work (Baskerville and Myers, 2002; Benbasat and Zmud, 2003; Chen and Hirschheim, 2004; Benbasat and Barki, 2007; Dwivedi and Kuljis, 2008; Klein and Hirschheim, 2008). These proposals reflect an interest of many to seek a firm disciplinary definition of IS in terms of core and boundary knowledge elements (Baskerville et al., 2010; Somers, 2010). To other community members there is an inherent risk in this attempt as any definition can be exclusive and potentially detrimental to the diversity of the contributing groups that form the IS community and to the fluidity of the discipline (Introna, 2003; Bryant, 2008; Paul, 2008; Oesterle et al., 2010). In the multi-disciplinary IS field borrowing of knowledge is a common method, as solutions to problems are created by drawing on theories and treatments that may have not originated in IS (Daft and Lewin, 2008). However, in this constant migration of ideas across fields, the IS field may lack some degree of originality (Wade et al., 2006), and IS may not serve as a strong reference discipline for other fields (Hansen et al., 2006). Consequently, some question if IS is on the right path to develop into a mature and lasting inter-disciplinary field (Hassan and Will, 2006).

Many internal advocates claim that within IS there is already a sufficient set of ‘core’ and ‘real’ knowledge elements (i.e., topics, concepts and phenomena) that can be considered unique and as such IS has become mature enough to become a reference discipline for others (Baskerville and Myers, 2002; Benbasat and Zmud, 2003). Related work attempts to code the body of IS knowledge by distilling published work (Hirschheim et al., 2004). By doing so, different distinct areas of IS competence, such as IS application or IS development knowledge among others, have been characterized. Calls are being made to structure the knowledge elements into reference frameworks with coherent sets of ideals and themes, which can be offered to several audiences inside or outside IS practitioners, students or academics. It is argued that these attempts, including the discussion of boundaries, can make the work of IS people more valuable and relevant (Hassan, 2006).

To understand how disciplines develop and can be organized, we now turn our attention to the ideas of Foucault (1972) regarding discursive formations and the work of Abbott (1988, 2001) on knowledge disciplines. Both sociologists provide insightful perspectives on how scientific knowledge evolves and how disciplines are established around it. Foucault (1972) provides a background against which scientific knowledge is organized and ‘ordered’ into different discourses in Western socie...