Information systems researchers, like those in many other disciplines in the social sciences, have debated the value and appropriateness of using students as research subjects. This debate appears in several articles that have been published on the subject as well as in the review process. In this latter arena, however, the debate has become increasingly like a script —the actors (authors and reviewers) simply read their parts of the script; some avoid the underlying issues whereas others cursorily address generalizability without real consideration of those issues. As a result, despite the extent of debate, we seem no closer to a resolution. Authors who use student subjects rely on their scripted arguments to justify the use of student subjects and do not always consider whether those arguments are valid. But reviewers who oppose the use of student subjects are equally culpable. They, too, rely on scripted arguments to criticize work using student subjects, and do not always consider whether those arguments are salient to the particular study. By presenting and reviewing one version of this script in the context of theoretical discussions of generalizability, we hope to demonstrate its limitations so that we can move beyond these scripted arguments into a more meaningful discussion. To do this, we review empirical studies from the period 1990-2010 to examine the extent to which student subjects are being used in the field and to critically assess the discussions within the field about the use of student samples. We conclude by presenting recommendations for authors and reviewers, for determining whether the use of students is appropriate in a particular context, and for presenting and discussing work that uses student subjects.
Business ethics is an emerging area of research in many subfields of management, including information systems (IS). Empirical IS research has studied differences in users' attitudes and in moral judgments regarding ethical computer-related behavior. This study applied the "domains of morality" approach to determine how users felt about certain computer-related behaviors. Vignettes describing ethical dilemmas involving computer technology (e.g., uploading a computer virus on an electronic network/bulletin board system) were presented to a sample of Internet users. The research findings offered several interesting and, in some cases, unexpected results. The empirical results indicated that older computer users have a less permissive sense of what is right and wrong for an illegal game. When computers were used to test a banned game, men and women differed in their assessment of its appropriateness. A surprising finding was that participants were not likely to endorse civil liberties, and were more concerned about the harm to, and violations of, social norms when the scenario described a situation involving a computer virus. How users perceive, prejudge, and discriminate computer ethics and abusive computer actions raises numerous questions and implications for IS researchers, IS practitioners, and policy makers. The results of this study foster a better understanding of Internet users' moral categorization of specific computer behaviors and, hopefully, help to further reduce risks and vulnerabilities of systems by identifying computer actions deemed ethically acceptable by users. Opportunities for IS researchers to further explore this timely issue are also discussed.