The problem of defining the IS discipline has been approached from two perspectives: purpose and practice. While both of these approaches provide useful windows into the science of IS, they include a common limitation in capturing and defining its amorphous character. This paper examines defining statements of two IS-related disciplines to identify their components. We examine the components in the context of the IS discipline to identify key problems which impede progress in distinguishing a discipline-generative statement. Two characteristics of the definition components appear to sidetrack a clear disciplinary focus in IS: 1) Our concepts of information, far from uniform, affect our perceptions of what we do and why.2) The practice of IS science itself is operating on its context in a manner which increasingly redefines and undermines traditional definitions of the business organizational context.