Bourdieu has made the theoretical claim that cultural capital is a source of social power, and that it is crucial in the battle for relative standing within the academy (Swartz, 1997). Theory is one form that cultural capital can take, and the ownership of interesting and controversial theories is one of the ways in which a field can support its claims for relevance, interest, and public endorsement. For a theory to generate that type of interest, however, it is important that it addresses issues of general rather than specialised concern.

It has been argued that an opportunity exists for IS academics to develop a broad theory linking IS structures to social relationships and behaviours. An influential theory would bring with it a variety of benefits for the field, including an increase in public visibility, new ideas for practitioners working at the portfolio level, and a set of framing concepts for researchers.

Two recommendations are made; the first for an empirical investigation into the issues surrounding disciplinary recognition, and the second for further theory-oriented research into the social implications of contemporary IS developments. It would be possible, but perhaps somewhat gratuitous, to recommend that ‘somebody’ take up the responsibility for developing a grand theory in IS; history shows that the time and effort required are such as to require a major personal commitment. There is also a risk involved, in that the resulting theory is just as likely (perhaps more likely) to be received with an outpouring of scorn and contumely (Fish, 1999, p. 117) than it is to be accepted with approbation.

An empirical investigation into the extent to which IS is a ‘recognisable’ discipline could, however, be expected to be both possible and useful. A survey-based approach, designed to investigate the extent to which samples of different populations are aware of IS, its topics of interest, and its particular perspectives, is one possibility. Populations of interest would include secondary-level students, parents of school-age children, tertiary-level students already enrolled, and academics in other disciplines. Depending on their nature, the findings from such a study would help either to confirm the existence of an IS identity problem, or to refute the idea that the discipline is facing a crisis.

The second recommendation is that detailed literature-based research into what is known about the ‘hard-wiring’ of societal structures be undertaken. Anthropologists (e.g. Wolf, 1999), sociologists (e.g. Foucault, 1972) and linguists (e.g. Chomsky, 1996) have all addressed the ways in which societies constrain their human constituents. A synthesis of this work would be a useful preliminary to introducing IS considerations, and addressing the fact that it is now possible for social controls to be exercised, and influence exerted, by IS that operate independently of people. Such systems are no longer ‘representations’ of more fundamental systems (Wand and Weber, 1995), but rather are independent entities with significant social autonomy.

The development of one or more general IS theories will not, of course, be a panacea for IS image problems, but it can contribute to their correction. General theory has played an important part in the advancement of other disciplines (Abbott, 1988), and could do the same for IS. It is not necessary for all, or even a significant proportion, of IS academics to be involved in this type of theory development, or to be interested in its implications. The issue is one of public perceptions, and promotion of the view that IS has relevance beyond its own borders.