Contemporary studies of academic life suggest that a strong profile within the academy is crucial to disciplinary success (Slaughter and Leslie, 1997; Aronowitz, 2000). If this view is correct, then it follows that recognition is even more important for a discipline like IS that is struggling for an identity distinct from computer science at one extreme, and business studies at the other. The assumption that the importance of recognition has actually increased recently is predicated on the view that the field is facing a long-term reduction in its funding (and hence a loss of economic capital) consequent on a decrease in the number of students enrolled and a loss of management faith in the discipline (Hirschheim and Klein, 2003). A more concentrated focus on the development of cultural capital, at least for the time being, would seem to be mandatory.

The question of visibility is seen here as the critical issue. While internal disputes about the nature of the discipline and the constitution of its ‘core’ (Benbasat and Zmud, 2003) can be taken as a sign of disciplinary vitality, uncertainty about disciplinary content can become a problem when it is coupled with a low external recognition factor (Avgerou et al., 1999, p. 136). One probable outcome is a decrease in the extent to which the general public will recognise IS either as an area of independent interest, or as a source of acceptable jobs for young people, including new graduates.

It is of course possible to identify quite a number of related areas where IS contributions are significant, including knowledge management, IT governance, IT management, e-business, e-government and many more (Baskerville and Myers, 2002). But it is also correct to say that these topics generally fall within academically contested areas, and that other disciplines are staking their claims to ownership of some of the key issues, usually by developing courses and units dealing with those topics. At the same time, traditional IS concerns with systems definition and building are increasingly being subsumed by analysts and consultants better described as working in applied business and economics than in IS. ‘Green field’ systems development, on which the discipline first built its foundations (Somogyi and Galliers, 1987), is becoming progressively less significant as the business environment moves ever closer to full automation, and the prevalence of proprietary software and packaged technical solutions increases (Gosain, 2004). The danger is that the building of systems will increasingly be regarded as a purely technical matter, and that the more interesting questions of systems meaning and social significance will be arrogated by other disciplines.

The view presented here is a pessimistic one with respect to the discipline’s current standing, and it is therefore important to note alternative views. Perhaps the most positive perspective put forward in the last couple of years was in a major paper by Baskerville and Myers (2002), where the authors claim that IS has made the academic and intellectual strides necessary for the discipline to be seen as fully independent, and therefore able to take its place as a source of ideas for other disciplines. Accepted at face value, this claim would invalidate the argument presented in this paper. The following discussion therefore focuses on the key issues raised by the authors, with a view to identifying points of disagreement. It should be noted that there is no fundamental disagreement about the general value of IS work – the question of concern is whether high quality IS output is having, or more importantly will have in the future, any significance outside IS.