Master and Apprentice

The relationship between doctoral students and professors is very important—and very long. In fact, it may well be one of the longest, most personal, and most intensive relationships of our life. And like all relationships – it's not easy for either students or professors, both must put in the work. We discuss some of the dynamics in the relationship between advisors and students and come up with several rules for a productive student-professor relationship: First, start with reading. Second, own your project and stay curious. Third, do not expect the advisor to do your job. Fourth, use your meetings effectively. Fifth, invest in the relationship and take an interest. References Avison, D. E., & Pries-Heje, J. (Eds.). (2005). Research in Information Systems: A Handbook for Research Supervisors and Their Students Butterworth-Heinemann. Gable, G. G., Smyth, R. W., & Gable, A. (2016). The Role of the Doctoral Consortium: An Information Systems Signature Pedagogy? Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 38(33), 678–711. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2001). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference (2nd ed.). Houghton Mifflin. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Causation and Effectuation: Toward a Theoretical Shift from Economic Inevitability to Entrepreneurial Contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 243–263. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall. Cook, R. A. (2026). Dynamic Programming for Calculating the Triad Census. Social Networks, 87, 77–91. Cook, R. A., Berente, N., & Schecter, A. (2025). Closing Time: The Impact of Transitivity on Organizational Instant Messaging. 58th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Waikoloa Village, Big Island, Hawaii. Recker, J., Rosemann, M., Green, P., & Indulska, M. (2011). Do Ontological Deficiencies in Modeling Grammars Matter? MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 57–79. Aspland, T., Edwards, H., O'Leary, J., & Ryan, Y. (1999). Tracking New Directions in the Evaluation of Postgraduate Supervision. Innovative Higher Education, 24(2), 127–147. van Dongen, B. F., Alves de Medeiros, A. K., Verbeek, H. M. V., Weijters, A. J. M. M., & van der Aalst, W. M. P. (2005). The ProM Framework: A New Era in Process Mining Tool Support. In G. Ciardo & P. Darondeau (Eds.), Applications and Theory of Petri Nets 2005 (Vol. 3536, pp. 444–454). Springer.

Can you still tell which text parts you have written versus which have been generated by a generative AI tool? The lines seem to be blurring, and the question is what this blurring does to the cognitive process of knowledge construction. Are we delegating and offloading our thinking? Are we boosting and amplifying our ideas? Or are we distributing cognition and finding new ways of expressing new ideas? We ponder these questions together with Aron Lindberg, who studies what humans and machines can build together that neither could build alone. References Mandelbaum,R. (2026). AI Is Transforming Business. Now It's Transforming the MBA Classroom. Bloomberg Businessweek, September 15, 2026, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2026-09-15/how-ai-is-changing-the-skills-mba-students-need-to-learn Lindberg, A. (2026). Disillusionment with AI for writing prose and the recovery of human cognition. Building with Machines, October 6, 2026, https://aronlindberg.substack.com/p/disillusionment-with-ai-for-writing. Zahavy, T. (2026). Position: LLMs Can't Jump. 43rd International Conference on Machine Learning, Seoul, South Korea, 172863-172872. Levallet, N., Denford, J. S., & Chan, Y. E. (2021). Following the MAP (Methods, Approaches, Perspectives) in Information Systems Research. Information Systems Research, 32(1), 130–146. Schmitt, B. H., Hao, S., Pham, M. T., & Hofstetter, R. (2026). Generative Grounded Theory (GGT): Inductive Theory Building in the Age of Generative AI. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 36(4), 500–520. Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the Separation of Technology, Work and Organization. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433–474. Moyse, E. (2026). Fire Provost Santiago Schnell. The Dartmouth, September 22, 2026, https://www.thedartmouth.com/article/2026/09/moyse-fire-provost-santiago-schnell. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Sage. Cruz, J. (2026). I'm a College Professor. Writing Isn't as Important as We Think. New York Times, September 29, 2026, https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/29/opinion/writing-thinking-college-ai.html. Hutchins, E. (1996). Cognition in the Wild. MIT Press. Agarwal, R., & Konana, P. (2026). Publish and Perish. Inside Higher Ed, September 30, 2026, https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/views/2026/09/30/faculty-productivity-metrics-fuel-integrity-crisis-opinion. Karahanna, E., Li, W., de Lima Salge, C. A. (2026). Conference on Generative AI in Research Methods: Program. University of Georgia, October 1–2, 2026, https://sites.google.com/view/2026gaim/home/program. Simon, H. A. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial (3rd ed.). MIT Press.

How many conferences does a global community need? Jan and Nick admittedly know only little about all the different IS research initiatives happening all over the planet. Time to change that. We talk with Mazen Shawosh, Founder and Past-President of the Saudi Association for Information Systems (SaudiAIS), and Nui Vatanasakdakul, founding President of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Chapter and the Thailand Chapter of the Association for Information Systems, President of the Qatar AIS Chapter, and a founding member of SIG Green. Both Mazen and Nui are super active and engaged in building IS communities in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. We learn that many IS scholars exist around the world that may or may not be formal association members, that training and incentive systems differ across communities, and that registration and membership fees can present steep barriers in some parts of the world. But we also learn that all IS scholars share a sense of phenomenon and interest, a vision for how IS scholarship can help business and society in different regions, an aspiration to become better in research, and a desire to belong in a global community. References Techatassanasoontorn, A. A., Waizenegger, L., & Doolin, B. When Harry, the Human, met Sally, the Software Robot: Metaphorical Sensemaking and Sensegiving Around an Emergent Digital Technology. Journal of Information Technology, 38(4), 416–441. Gartenberg, C., Hasan, S., Murray, A., & Pierce, L. (2026). More Versus Better: Artificial Intelligence, Incentives, and the Emerging Crisis in Peer Review. Organization Science, 37(3), 795–812. Bhargava, H. K., Bana, S. H., Zhang, Z., Brandimarte, L., Choudhary, V., Li, J. F., Loupos, P., & Zantedeschi, D. (2026). Fighting Fire with Fire: Infusing Artificial Intelligence into Peer Review to Sustain Quality Scholarship. Management Science, 72(9), 7381–7393. Vogel, D., Vatanasakdakul, N., Alias, R. A., Clarke, R. J., Kankanhalli, A., Zaza, S., & Henriksen, H. Z. (2021). PACIS Panel: Roles, Activities, and Opportunities for AIS Chapters. In: 2021 Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, paper 252. Urquhart, C., Niederman, F., & Bailey, A. (2024). Editorial: What is the Future of AIS Conferences in Our Community? Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 54(47), 937–948. AlMarzouq, M., Yoo, Y., Karhade, P., Grisold, T., Alashoor, T., Shawosh, M., & Albashrawi, M. A. (2025). Digital Transformation in the IS field: GREAT Research Opportunities in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council Countries. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 57(1), 271–288. Österle, H., Becker, J., Ulrich, F., Hess, T., Karagiannis, D., Krcmar, H., Loos, P., Mertens, P., Oberweis, A., & Sinz, E. J. (2010). Memorandum on Design-oriented Information Systems Research. European Journal of Information Systems, 20(1), 7–10. Buhl, H. U., Müller, G., Fridgen, G., & Röglinger, M. (2012). Business and Information Systems Engineering: A Complementary Approach to Information Systems – What We Can Learn from the Past and May Conclude from Present Reflection on the Future. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 13(4), 236–253. Clarke, R. J., Ridley, G., Gregor, S., Smyth, R. W., & Gable, G. G. (Eds.). (2008). The Information Systems Academic Discipline in Australia. ANU Press. Ahuja, M. (2024). Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Considerations for AIS Conferences. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 54(46), 949–959. Hsu, C., Lin, Z., Tuunanen, T., Venkatesh, V. (2026). Call for Papers: Special Issue on Indigenous Theory Development. MIS Quarterly, https://misq.umn.edu/pages/call_for_papers_indigenous_theory_development.

We all know about the infamous reviewer two. They are late with their reviews, read our paper only halfway, unduly criticize our work, and make us cite their own mediocre work. What if we replaced reviewer two with an AI reviewer? They could be more friendly, developmental, consistent, knowledgeable, timely… and would take an enormous amount of service work off our shoulders. At ICIS2026 and ECIS2027, such an AI reviewer is being trialed already – would it not be timely to see how this technology would work in our journals? Would it not be nice if we took subjective and cognitive biases out of the review process? Then again—at what cost? Would we trade resource efficiency for epistemic heterogeneity? Would we see even more submissions and review load rather than less? We talk with Hemant Bhargava, Sarah Bana, and Zhe Zhang about their proposal to infuse AI reviewer agents into the scholarly peer review process. They modeled such a workflow and have several exciting ideas about how the future of the peer review process could be explored. References Bhargava, H. K., Bana, S. H., Zhang, Z., Brandimarte, L., Choudhary, V., Li, J. F., Loupos, P., & Zantedeschi, D. (2026). Fighting Fire with Fire: Infusing Artificial Intelligence into Peer Review to Sustain Quality Scholarship. Management Science, 72(9), 7381-7393. Bhargava, H. K., Brown, S. A., Ghose, A., Gupta, A., Leidner, D. E., & Wu, D. J. (2025). Exploring Generative AI's Impact on Research: Perspectives from Senior Scholars in Management Information Systems. ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems, 16(2), 1–9. Gartenberg, C., Hasan, S., Murray, A., & Pierce, L. (2026). More Versus Better: Artificial Intelligence, Incentives, and the Emerging Crisis in Peer Review. Organization Science, 37(3), 795–812. Sorrell, S. (2009). Jevons' Paradox Revisited: The Evidence for Backfire From Improved Energy Efficiency. Energy Policy, 37(4), 1456–1469. European Parliament. (2023). EU AI Act: First Regulation on Artificial Intelligence. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/20230601STO93804/eu-ai-act-first-regulation-on-artificial-intelligence. WORTH 2027: 2nd Workshop On Responsible TecH, https://sites.google.com/arizona.edu/worth. Russo, G., Ribeiro, M. H., Davidson, T. R., Veselovsky, V., & West, R. (2025). The AI Review Lottery: Widespread AI-Assisted Peer Reviews Boost Paper Scores and Acceptance Rates. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 9(7), 1–28. Ho, S. Y., Recker, J., Tan, C.-W., Vance, A., & Zhang, H. (2023). MISQ Special Issue on Registered Reports. MIS Quarterly, https://misq.umn.edu/call_for_papers/registered-reports.

In information systems, we saw the rise of qualitative scholarship in the 1990s. In the 2000s, we saw the rise of analytics in research, fueled by the emergence of big data. In the 2010s, we saw the rise of econometric methods, diff-in-diff designs, and field experiments. What is next? Autonomous scholarship, fueled by AI agents that get infused into research processes. We are the cusp of this new era and are beginning to experiment and trial how research might look like going forward. We discuss a few options for what autonomous scholarship could look like: will AI be a surrogate for humans? Will AI augment humans and lead to new forms of collaborative research? Will AI merely scale research processes? And how would we validate the autonomous components of research processes? We can only speculate but we do know one thing that is certain: exciting times are upon us. References Bichler, M., Xu, H., Zhang, N., Zimmerman, T. (2026). ICIS 2026 Professional Development Workshop (PDW) on Autonomous Scholarship. https://sites.nd.edu/autonomous-workshop/. Chandra Kruse, L., Recker, J., Young, A. (2026). ECIS2027 Call for Submissions. https://ecis2027.uni.lu/call-for-submissions/. Eisenmann, T., Parker, G., & Van Alstyne, M. (2011). Platform Envelopment. Strategic Management Journal, 32(12), 1270–1285. Schätzing, F. (2007). The Swarm: A Novel of the Deep. Hodder Paperbacks. Abbasi, A., Bichler, M., Gopal, M., Karahanna, E., Sarker, S. (2026). ISR Special Issue: Generative AI and New Methods of Inquiry in Information Systems Research. Information Systems Research, https://pubsonline.informs.org/page/isre/calls-for-papers. Gartenberg, C., Hasan, S., Pierce, L., Bail, C., Dai, H., Hauser, O., Rahman, H., Zhang, D. (2026). Special Issue: AI-Enabled Frontiers in Organizational Science. Organization Science, https://pubsonline.informs.org/pb-assets/filesorsc/CFP_AI-Enabled%20Frontiers%20in%20Organizational%20Science-1785685920943.pdf. Lalor, J. P., & Rodriguez, P. (2023). py-irt: A Scalable Item Response Theory Library for Python. INFORMS Journal of Computing, 35(1), 5–13. Pillet, J.-C., Larsen, K. R., Dobolyi, D., Queiroz, M., Handler, A., Arnulf, J. K., & Sharma, R. (2026). AI-Augmented Content Validation in Behavioral Research: Development and Evaluation of the RATER System. MIS Quarterly, 50(1), 59–86. Schmitt, B. H., Hao, S., Pham, M. T., & Hofstetter, R. (2026). Generative Grounded Theory (GGT): Inductive Theory Building in the Age of Generative AI. Journal of Consumer Psychology, https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.70036. De Lima Salge, C. A., Karahanna, E., Li, W. (2026). Conference on Generative AI in Research Methods. Atlanta, Georgia, https://sites.google.com/view/2026gaim/home. Glymour, C. (2004). The Automation of Discovery. Daedalus, 133(1), 69–77. Debortoli, S., Müller, O., Junglas, I., & Vom Brocke, J. (2016). Text Mining For Information Systems Researchers: An Annotated Topic Modeling Tutorial. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 39(7), 110–135. Gao, Y., Lee, D., Burtch, G., & Fazelpour, S. (2025). Take Caution in Using LLMs as Human Surrogates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(24), e2501660122. Ghasemi, H., Astvansh, V., & Sepehri, A. (2026). How Should Content Creators Narrate their Content? The Impact of Emotionality Flips on Audience Engagement. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 54(4), 1080–1100. Berente, N., Seidel, S., & Safadi, H. (2019). Data-Driven Computationally-Intensive Theory Development. Information Systems Research, 30(1), 50–64. Huysman, M. (2026). Studying AI in the Wild: Reflections from the AI@Work Research Group. Journal of Management Studies, 63(2), 315–334.

While Jan vacated his desk and took some weeks off in the summer, Nick has been busy working on paper revisions. Time to figure out how to handle the review and process. When is it okay to approach editors about a paper under review? Should you write the response before or after you revised the paper? When can you push back against a reviewer suggestion? Do you always have to get new data if reviewers ask you? How about contacting the editor in between review rounds to approve your approach? Tune in to find out. References Pang, M.-S., & Thatcher, J. B. (2023). A Practical Guide for Successful Revisions and Engagements with Reviewers. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 24(2), 317–327. Lindberg, A., Schecter, A., Berente, N., Hennel, P., & Lyytinen, K. (2024). The Entrainment of Task Allocation and Release Cycles in Open Source Software Development. MIS Quarterly, 48(1), 67–94. Greenwood, B. N., Agarwal, R., Agarwal, R., & Gopal, A. (2019). The Role of Individual and Organizational Expertise in the Adoption of New Practices. Organization Science, 30(1), 191–213. Berente, N., Seidel, S., & Safadi, H. (2019). Data-Driven Computationally-Intensive Theory Development. Information Systems Research, 30(1), 50–64. Gaskin, J., Berente, N., Lyytinen, K., & Yoo, Y. (2014). Toward Generalizable Sociomaterial Inquiry: A Computational Approach for Zooming In and Out of Sociomaterial Routines. MIS Quarterly, 38(3), 849–871. Sting, F. J., Tarakci, M., & Recker, J. (2024). Performance Implications of Digital Disruption in Strategic Competition. MIS Quarterly, 48(3), 1263–1278. Berente, N., Hansen, S., Rosenkranz, C., & Tumbas, S. (2026). Translating Agile Development in Different Institutional Contexts: Dynamism, Pluralism, and Ratcheting over Time. Information Systems Research, https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2021.0352. Seidel, S., Frick, C. J., & vom Brocke, J. (2025). Regulating Emerging Technologies: Prospective Sensemaking through Abstraction and Elaboration. MIS Quarterly, 49(1), 179–204.

We have TC Eley IV on the show, a freshly minted assistant professor that just completed his PhD program. He is starting a new mentorship program for the AOM CTO Division, which marks a great opportunity to talk about supervision, advice, and mentoring in the IS field. Should mentors be collaborators on papers? Can you trust all advice you have been given? When does mentoring go bad? How do you pick a mentor or an advisor to begin with? Tune in to find out. And if our podcast triggered your interest to become a mentor for the AoM CTO Career Mentoring Program, send an e-mail to [email protected] with the subject "Interested in being a mentor for the AoM Career Mentoring Program." References Berente, N., & Yoo, Y. (2012). Institutional Contradictions and Loose Coupling: Postimplementation of NASA's Enterprise Information System. Information Systems Research, 23(2), 376–396. Glanze, E., Recker, J., & Bockelmann, T. (2026). Digital Sustainability with Physical Constraints: Insights from Twin Transformations in the German Manufacturing Industry. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, forthcoming. Lehmann, J., Recker, J., Yoo, Y., & Rosenkranz, C. (2022). Designing Digital Market Offerings: How Digital Ventures Navigate the Tension Between Generative Digital Technology and the Existing Environment. MIS Quarterly, 46(3), 1453–1482. Recker, J. (2021). Scientific Research in Information Systems: A Beginner's Guide (2nd ed.). Springer. Berente, N., Hansen, S., Pike, J. C., & Bateman, P. J. (2011). Arguing the Value of Virtual Worlds: Patterns of Discursive Sensemaking of an Innovative Technology. MIS Quarterly, 35(3), 685–709. AIS Doctoral Student College: https://communities.aisnet.org/doctoralstudentcollege/home. Lee, J., & Berente, N. (2012). Digital Innovation and the Division of Innovative Labor: Digital Controls in the Automotive Industry. Organization Science, 23(5), 1428–1447. Schecter, A., Pilny, A., Leung, A., Poole, M. S., & Contractor, N. (2018). Step by step: Capturing the Dynamics of Work Team Process Through Relational Event Sequences. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(9), 1163–1181. Lehmann, J., Berends, H., Berente, N., & Tumbas, S. (2026). Architectural Learning in the Professional 3D Printing Ecosystem: Proxies and the Complementarity Space. Organization Science, 37(1), 157–185. 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(6), 1630–1650. AIS Senior Scholar Mentoring Program: https://archives.aisconferences.org/icis2022/mentoring-program/index.html. AIS Women's Network College: https://www.aiswn.org/. Canadian Chapter of the Association for Information Systems Mentorship Program: https://communities.aisnet.org/canada-thrive/mentor. AIS SIG DITE Early Career Mentorship Program: https://communities.aisnet.org/sigdite/early-career-mentorship-program.

The Academy of Management has just moved the next AOM conferences outside of the United States. The Association for Information Systems has been rotating the International Conference for Information Systems between three different regions for many years. Picking conference locations seems to be hard, and pretty political—or not? What are the criteria by which academic conferences are selected and what are those by which they should be selected? We discuss a few different ways how conferences and academic programs could be organized. References 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. Stapleton, A. (2024). How Many People Have PhDs? Number of People With Doctoral Degree. Academia Insider, https://academiainsider.com/how-many-people-have-phds/. Lyytinen, K., Baskerville, R., Iivari, J., & Te'Eni, D. (2007). Why the Old World Cannot Publish? Overcoming Challenges in Publishing High-Impact IS Research. European Journal of Information Systems, 16(4), 317–326. Mettler, T., & Sunyaev, A. (2023). Are We on the Right Track? An Update to Lyytinen et al.'s Commentary on Why the Old World Cannot Publish. European Journal of Information Systems, 32(2), 263–276. Voronov, M. (2026). When a Flagship Conference Stops Caring: The Case of the AOM Annual Meeting. Journal of Management Inquiry, https://doi.org/10.1177/10564926261432898.

Do you think AI will have an impact on science? You are wrong. It will not–it already does. The annual International Conference on Information Systems received over 1,000 more paper submissions this year. Our main journals report a 20%, 40%, or even 100% increase in submission numbers. This could be great if these papers were good, if we simply saw more and better research being produced. Problem is: We don't. What we see is an AI slop tsunami of less readable papers, hastily produced, with marginal insights if any. How should we handle this situation? We discuss a few possible levers on the supply and demand side of research that we as a field could implement. References Gartenberg, C., Hasan, S., Murray, A., & Pierce, L. (2026). More Versus Better: Artificial Intelligence, Incentives, and the Emerging Crisis in Peer Review. Organization Science, 37(3), https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2026.ed.v37.n3. Ho, S. Y., Recker, J., Tan, C.-W., Vance, A., & Zhang, H. (2023). MISQ Special Issue on Registered Reports. MIS Quarterly, https://misq.umn.edu/call_for_papers/registered-reports. Liang, W., Zhang, Y., Cao, H., Wang, B., Ding, D. Y., Yang, X., Vodrahalli, K., He, S., Smith, D. S., Yin, Y., McFarland, D. A., & Zou, J. (2024). Can Large Language Models Provide Useful Feedback on Research Papers? A Large-Scale Empirical Analysis. NEJM AI, 1(8). https://doi.org/10.1056/AIoa240019 Saunders, C. (2005). Editor's Comments: Looking for Diamond Cutters. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), iii–viii. Tyner, A. H., Abatayo, A. L., Daley, M., . . . Errington, T. M. (2026). Investigating the Replicability of the Social and Behavioural Sciences. Nature, 652(8108), 143–150. Dennis, A. R., Valacich, J. S., Fuller, M. A., & Schneider, C. (2006). Research Standards for Promotion and Tenure in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(1), 1–12.

We devote enormous time and effort to developing a research idea, crafting a research design, executing a study, and then writing and polishing a paper – only to then find out that the reviewers do not find our contribution interesting enough to publish the paper. Years of work—wasted. There must be a better way. Thankfully, Murat Tarakci has an idea - flipping the script: deal with demand uncertainty first and with empirical uncertainty second. But before you do that you still need to ask one key question: Is this project worthy of me? Tune in to find out. References Pienta, D., Vishwamitra, N., Somanchi, S., Berente, N., & Thatcher, J. B. (2025). Do Crowds Validate False Data? Systematic Distortion and Affective Polarization. MIS Quarterly, 49(1), 347–366. Fewer, T. J., & Tarakci, M. (2025). CEO Political Partisanship and Corporate Misconduct. Academy of Management Journal, 68(2), 357–379. Sting, F. J., Tarakci, M., & Recker, J. (2024). Performance Implications of Digital Disruption in Strategic Competition. MIS Quarterly, 48(3), 1263–1278. Christensen, C. M. (1997). The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Harvard Business Review Press. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development. Harvard University Press. Utterback, J. (1994). Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation: How Companies Can Seize Opportunities in the Face of Technological Change. Harvard Business Review Press. Christensen, C. M., McDonald, R., Altman, E. J., & Palmer, J. E. (2018). Disruptive Innovation: An Intellectual History and Directions for Future Research. Journal of Management Studies, 55(7), 1043–1078. Tyner, A. H., Abatayo, A. L., Daley, M., Field, S., Fox, N., Haber, N. A.,. . . Errington, T. M. (2026). Investigating the Replicability of the Social and Behavioural Sciences. Nature, 652(8108), 143–150.