Accounting for unintended consequences in IS research: a call to action

Unintended consequences in Information Systems (IS) research are typically examined only after they have surfaced in practice, often treated as isolated instances rather than being systematically identified and understood. This reactive stance constrains our ability to anticipate risks, recognize emerging opportunities, and build cumulative insights across studies. To assess the current state of IS research on unintended consequences, we conducted a scoping review of literature in the Association for Information Systems' Senior Scholars' Basket of Journals. Our review highlights significant gaps in how unintended consequences are defined, theorized, and systematically compared. To address these gaps, we propose three foundational considerations: (1) conceptual clarity, to refine definitions and delineate boundaries; (2) relational configurations, to analyze the interplay between actors, technologies, and contexts; and (3) temporal configurations, to capture the evolving nature of consequences over time. Building on these dimensions, we introduce a set of guiding questions designed to provide shared analytical vocabulary rather than a prescriptive framework. These questions enable researchers to more systematically identify, categorize, and compare unintended consequences across contexts, thereby fostering theoretical precision, facilitating cross-contextual learning, and supporting a more anticipatory and comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon.