When we discuss artificial intelligence, what metaphors do we use to illustrate what we mean? Is artificial intelligence some sort of robot—like Ultron—or is it an organism—like a beehive? What happens to our expectations, our thinking, and our conclusions when we change these metaphors, say, from an entitative metaphor (say, an agent) to a relational metaphor (say, belonging to our work network)? We discuss these points with Angelos Kostis and Paavo Ritala who wrote a very interesting paper on how management scholars think about artificial intelligence.

Episode reading list

Ramaul, L., Ritala, P., Kostis, A., & Aaltonen, P. (2025). Rethinking How We Theorize AI in Organization and Management: A Problematizing Review of Rationality and Anthropomorphism. Journal of Management Studies, https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.13246.

Berente, N., Gu, B., Recker, J., & Santhanam, R. (2021). Managing Artificial Intelligence. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1433-1450.

Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2020). The Problematizing Review: A Counterpoint to Elsbach and Van Knippenberg’s Argument for Integrative Reviews. Journal of Management Studies, 57(6), 1290-1304.

Berente, N. (2020). Agile Development as the Root Metaphor for Strategy in Digital Innovation. In S. Nambisan, K. Lyytinen, & Y. Yoo (Eds.), Handbook of Digital Innovation (pp. 83-96). Edward Elgar.

Pepper, S. C. (1942). World Hypotheses: A Study in Evidence. University of California Press.

Brynjolfsson, E., Li, D., & Raymond, L. R. (2025). Generative AI at Work. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 140(2), 889-942.

Russell, S. J., & Norvig, P. (2010). Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall.

Jarrahi, M. H., & Ritala, P. (2025). Rethinking AI Agents: A Principal-Agent Perspective. California Management Review Insights, https://cmr.berkeley.edu/2025/07/rethinking-ai-agents-a-principal-agent-perspective/.

Boxenbaum, E., & Pedersen, J. S. (2009). Scandinavian Institutionalism – a Case of Institutional Work. In T. B. Lawrence, R. Suddaby, & B. Leca (Eds.), Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations (pp. 178-204). Cambridge University Press.

Iivari, J., & Lyytinen, K. (1998). Research on Information Systems Development in Scandinavia-Unity in Plurality. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 10(1), 135-186.

Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2024). The Art of Phenomena Construction: A Framework for Coming Up with Research Phenomena beyond ‘the Usual Suspects'. Journal of Management Studies, 61(5), 1737-1765.

Brunsson, N. (2003). The Organization of Hypocrisy: Talk, Decisions, and Actions in Organizations. Copenhagen Business School Press.

Floyd, C., Mehl, W.-M., Reisin, F.-M., Schmidt, G., & Wolf, G. (1989). Out of Scandinavia: Alternative Approaches to Software Design and System Development. Human-Computer Interaction, 4(4), 253-350.

Grisold, T., Berente, N., & Seidel, S. (2025). Guardrails for Human-AI Ecologies: A Design Theory for Managing Norm-Based Coordination. MIS Quarterly, 49, https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2025/18058.

Forster, E. M. (1909). The Machine Stops. The Oxford and Cambridge Review, November 1909, https://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/~koehl/Teaching/ECS188/PDF_files/Machine_stops.pdf.

We are together in South Bend and teach a class to PhD students in the Mendoza College of Business at the University of Notre Dame. Our joint teaching experience makes us wonder: What should all doctoral students learn or what should we all teach the next generation of IS students? We come up with Nick’s rules for a good PhD education: First, understand what knowledge and inferences are. Second, learn different methods and then deep dive into a primary method. Third, pick a domain and learn its foundations and history. Fourth, develop a mindset of mastery to become the world’s expert on your topic. And finally, develop and hone your writing skills.

Episode reading list

Bacon, F. (1620/2019). Novum Organum. Anodos.

Hume, D. (1748/1998). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. In J. Perry & M. E. Bratman (Eds.), Introduction to Philosophy: Classical and Contemporary Readings (3rd ed., pp. 190-220). Oxford University Press.

Popper, K. R. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Basic Books.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4th ed.). Sage Publications.

Berente, N., Ivanov, D., & Vandenbosch, B. (2007). Process Compliance and Enterprise Systems Implementation. In: Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Waikoloa, Hawaii, pp. 222-231.

Castelo, N., Bos, M. W., & Lehmann, D. R. (2019). Task-Dependent Algorithmic Aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 56(5), 809-825.

Recker, J. (2021). Scientific Research in Information Systems: A Beginner's Guide (2nd ed.). Springer.

Mackie, J. L. (1965). Causes and Conditions. American Philosophical Quarterly, 2(4), 245-264.

Gable, G. G. (1994). Integrating Case Study and Survey Research Methods: An Example in Information Systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 3(2), 112-126.

Chalmers, A. F. (2013). What Is This Thing Called Science? (4th ed.). Hackett.

Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2001). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference (2nd ed.). Houghton Mifflin.

Taylor, F. W. (1911). The Principles of Scientific Management. Harper and Bros.

March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. John Wiley & Sons.

Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Harvard University Press.

One of the big topics at the AOM 2025 conference this summer was the use of large language models in the research process, especially in qualitative studies. We expand this discussion by asking: can qualitative research be automated—or augmented? Yes and no. Some of the advantages LLMs bring to the table are hard to ignore. LLMs can act as critical reviewers, as a consistency checker, as a provider of alternative perspectives on unstructured data, or to break path dependencies in the process of data analysis. They can also help find interesting outcomes that qualitative insights could explain. At the same time, the use of LLMs comes with thorny pitfalls. We know they are unreliable and hallucinate. And the output they create is… average at best. So if you use LLMs, make sure you are not using it for automation—do not lose touch with your craft or your data. Whatever tool you use, make sure you remain a virtuous scholar.

Episode reading list

Noblit, G. W., & Hare, R. D. (1988). Meta-Ethnography: Synthesising Qualitative Studies. Sage.

Recker, J. (2021). Improving the State-Tracking Ability of Corona Dashboards. European Journal of Information Systems, 30(5), 476-495.

Rynes, S., & Gephart Jr., R. P. (2004). Qualitative Research and the "Academy of Management Journal". Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 454-462.

Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation Of Cultures. Basic Books.

Boland, R. J. (2001). The Tyranny of Space in Organizational Analysis. Information and Organization, 11(1), 3-23.

Weber, R. (2004). Editor's Comments: The Rhetoric of Positivism Versus Interpretivism: A Personal View. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), iii-xii.

Lehmann, J., Hukal, P., Recker, J., & Tumbas, S. (2025). Layering the Architecture of Digital Product Innovations: Firmware and Adapter Layers. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 26, https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00956.

Lindberg, A., Berente, N., Howison, J., & Lyytinen, K. (2024). Discursive Modulation in Open Source Software: How Communities Shape Novelty and Complexity. MIS Quarterly, 48(4), 1395-1422.

Ragin, C. C. (1987). The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. University of California Press.

Goodhue, D. L., Lewis, W., & Thompson, R. L. (2012). Comparing PLS to Regression and LISREL: A Response to Marcoulides, Chin, and Saunders. MIS Quarterly, 36(3), 703-716.

Goodhue, D. L., Lewis, W., & Thompson, R. L. (2007). Statistical Power in Analyzing Interaction Effects: Questioning the Advantage of PLS With Product Indicators. Information Systems Research, 18(2), 211-227.