Information Systems and other academic fileds struggle with what is termed an identity crisis. For Information Systems, an ongoing debate focuses on defining the field narrowly versus broadly. Defining the field narrowly, as called for by Benbesat and Zmud’s nomological core [2003] is compelling because it distinctly defines what is IS research and what is not. Those who find the distinctness of IS lacking may find this a pragmatic solution. However, the narrow definition excludes a large portion of the IS community and their research. Alter’s [2003] Systems in Organizations proposal broadly defines the IS discipline in an inclusive way that embraces our historic diversity and makes IS distinct too.