Special issue: Indigenous theory
这篇特刊编辑文章呼吁发展基于全球南方本土文化元素的新理论，以挑战北方理论的普遍主义霸权，并介绍了三篇成功案例，对研究非西方情境的学者有启发。
A few years ago, I co-authored an editorial in this journal (Davison & Díaz Andrade, 2018) in which we observed that the vast majority of theories applied in the IS discipline were developed by scholars living in the developed countries of the global north. We argued that this situation is problematic because those theories may not reflect contextual realities of culturally different locations and suggested that the apparent universalism of those “northern” theories is problematic because it overwhelms, confines and even silences other voices and perspectives. Further, the dominant position of the English language is a key contributor to this situation, menacing other ways of knowing. Unfortunately, researchers in the global south tend to rely almost exclusively on theories developed in the global north. We characterise this reliance as a form of unconscious hegemonic participation (Wall, Stahl, & Salam, 2015) that privileges the superiority of theories developed in the global north at the expense of the indigenous concepts valid in the multifarious contexts of the global south. I recall a conversation that I had with senior IS and Management academics at a university in a developing country where I suggested that they attempt to theorise their own indigenous concepts for publication. Their reaction was utter bafflement! They asked me why a Western audience could possibly be interested in the indigenous concepts of their own culture. They also believed that Western reviewers would prefer to see a test of a well-grounded Western theory. Finally, they suggested that theory building takes too much time and is too risky: it is easier and safer to repeat former studies with new data collected in a new context. I explained that, as editor of the ISJ, I would certainly be interested in a submission that involved the development of indigenous theory. Their reaction? Polite disbelief! In fact, there are exceptions that can be highlighted. For instance, the Chinese cultural concept of guanxi is now well published in a number of top journals in IS, Management, Strategy and other disciplines. Other examples of cultural concepts include waqf (Arabic), sanuk (Thai), hygge (Danish/Norwegian), sisu (Finnish) and jugaad (Indian). But it is rare that leading IS journals have published articles that involved the development of indigenous theory from global south contexts. We defined (Davison & Díaz Andrade, 2018) an indigenous theory as “a theory of human behaviour or mind that is specific to a context or culture, not imported from other contexts/cultures and purposely designed for the people who live in that context or culture”. Context is thus very much bound up with theory, for a theory can only be valuable when it is plausible or appropriate in a given context (Davison & Martinsons, 2016). In this special issue, we champion the development of new theory that draws on indigenous cultural elements from specific contexts around the world. We decided to look for substantively new theoretical developments that are anchored in specific contexts, rather than modifications to existing theory. Sixteen papers were submitted and three have been accepted. They are introduced below. It is our hope that these three papers will inspire others to attempt to develop theory from indigenous concepts, and that the ideas here will be tested in other contexts. At the ISJ, we have established a culture of inclusivity. This is perhaps particularly visible in special issues, but we welcome submissions from researchers globally, and on topics that sit anywhere on the continuum from the local to the global. Twelve people served as Senior or Associate Editor for this special issue: Christoph Schneider, Julien Malaurent, MN Ravishankar, Monideepa Tarafdar, Ravi Patnayakuni, Antonio Díaz Andrade, Han-fen Hu, Jonas Hedman, Murray Jennex, Barney Tan, Stan Karanasios and Joe Feller. I would like to thank them for the time and energy that they invested, greatly contributing to the quality of the accepted papers. In the first paper, Díaz Andrade, Techatassanasoontorn, Singh, and Staniland (2021) examine how indigenous worldviews shape the professional experiences of indigenous IT professionals, as well as their approach towards the development of digital artefacts. Using the context of Aotearoa New Zealand, the authors collected stories from three IT professionals who trace their lineage to the local Indigenous People (Māori) and developed temporal, contextualised narrative accounts of their experiences. The analysis reveals that their professional activities are shaped by three distinctive yet intertwined Māori cultural elements: whakapapa (genealogical connections), tikanga (customary traditions) and tino rangatiratanga (collective cultural determination). The article theorises how indigenous IT professionals capitalise on the representational power of digital artefacts as a vehicle for cultural re-affirmation to project their Indigenous identity in contemporary society. In the second paper, Xiao, Tan, Leong, and Tan (2021) address the concept of Qinghuai, which can be understood as a principle that manifests in a way of life that is associated with following one's heart (as opposed to perfect rationality). Developed from three cases of digital entrepreneurial ventures in China, the authors unpack qinghuai into six constituent elements on the individual, organisational and ecosystem levels across the dimensions of spiritual idealism and perpetual development. Unlike the notion of guanxi, which has been the subject of much research in the domain of Chinese management, the authors frame qinghuai as a value that is internally oriented and not relationship specific. The authors suggest that it is qinghuai that helps new digital entrepreneurial ventures to attract an initial base of customers and overcome their resource constraints, which may be particularly severe as compared to the incumbent firms they are competing against. In the third paper, Abubakre, Faik, and Mkansi (2021) demonstrate how Ubuntu, an indigenous value system prevalent in South Africa and neighbouring countries, offers a basis for a community orientation to digital entrepreneurship. They argue that Ubuntu provides an alternative to dominant perspectives on digital entrepreneurship, which tend to give primacy to market values and centre entrepreneurship narratives around the heroic individual entrepreneur(s). Through a study of two innovation clusters in South Africa, they highlight the tensions faced by digital entrepreneurs as they attempt to uphold their indigenous values while operating in a competitive and rapidly changing environment. They propose the concept of “Digital Ubuntu” to capture how digital entrepreneurs adapt their enactment of Ubuntu values to an increasingly digital reality and consequently create new possibilities for navigating the tensions between indigenous and market values.