The Ends of Information Systems Research: A Pragmatic Framework (original) (raw)

Relevance Versus Rigor In Information Systems Research: An Issue of Quality

1991

Much research in information systems, particularly that involving hypothesis testing and laboratory experiment, is seen by some to place too much emphasis on methodology at the expense of what is being investigated. This research perspective is driven by scientiJic method and applied frequently in situations where it may not be appropriate, for example, where values and goals play an important role in understanding process, or determining outcomes.

Making Information Systems Research More Valuable

This essay explores research characteristics beyond those of rigor or relevance to propose a framework that will make information systems (IS) research more valuable to its stakeholders. The value of IS research ought to be measured by its originality, how well it addresses the needs of its sociological and discursive environment, the extent the research makes evident what is hidden, and how closely it adheres to the laws that rarify it. The originality of the research is in turn defined by its subordination to its disciplinary subject matter and how actively the research manipulates the objects and concepts that it forges in the process of creating knowledge. These characteristics define the value of IS research and what ultimately makes the research relevant and sought after.

Value of IS Research-A Response to the Rejoinders

Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 2014

This article responds to six rejoinders to Hassan [2014] and addresses their concerns surrounding the anxiety discourse in Information Systems (IS), the need to meet or exceed stakeholder expectations, the notion of originality and what it means to IS researchers, the nature of the "core" of IS research, and different strategies in establishing an academic discipline. This response argues for a focus on internal efforts to put our house in order ahead of reputational maneuverings, and proposes a closer examination of our intellectual structures.

Competing dichotomies in IS research and possible strategies for resolution

1998

The debate between 'hard' positivist and 'soft' interpretivist research approaches has been the subject of much discussion in the IS field. Typically, the debate is framed in issues central to the philosophy of science, an area where relatively few IS researchers are truly competent. This paper attempts to illuminate the issue, particularly for students and researchers not entirely familiar with the arguments. The opposing positions are caricatured in two anecdotes which illustrate the futility of research conducted at the cul de sac extremes of each approach. The main dichotomies characteristic of each research tradition are then summarised, and categorised according to various levels, namely, paradigmatic, ontological, epistemological, methodological, and axiological. Finally, the paper considers a number of strategies for resolving the debate which have been proposed.

New State of Play in Information Systems Research: The Push to the Edges

MIS Quarterly

The dominant way of producing knowledge in information systems (IS) seeks to domesticate high-level reference theory in the form of mid-level abstractions involving generic and atheoretical information technology (IT) components. Enacting such epistemic scripts squeezes IS theory to the middle range, where abstract reference theory concepts are directly instantiated or slightly modified to the IS context, whereas IT remains exogenous to theory by being treated as an independent variable, mediator, or moderator. In this design, IT is often operationalized using proxies that detect the presence of IT or its variation in use or cost. Our analysis of 143 articles published in MIS Quarterly and Information Systems Research over the past 15 years demonstrates that over 70 percent of published theory conforms to this mode of producing IS knowledge. This state of play has resulted in two negative consequences: the field (1) agonizes over the dearth of original and bold theorizing over IT and (2) satisfices when integrating theory with empirics by creating incommensurate mid-range models that are difficult to consolidate. We propose that one way to overcome these challenges is to critically examine and debate the negative impacts of the field's dominant epistemic scripts and relax them by permitting IS scholarship that more fluidly accommodates alternative forms of knowledge production. This will push IS inquiry to the "edges" and emphasize, on the one hand, inductive, rich inquiries using innovative and extensive data sets and, on the other hand, novel, genuine, high-level theorizing around germane conceptual relationships between IT, information and its (semiotic) representations, and social behaviors. We offer several exemplars of such inquiries and their results. To promote this push, we invite alternative institutionalized forms of publishing and reviewing. We conclude by inviting individual scholars to be more open to practices that permit richer theorizing. These recommendations will broaden the field's knowledge ecology and permit the creation of good IS knowledge over just getting "hits." We surmise that, if such changes are carried out, the field can look confidently toward its future as one of the epicenters of organizational inquiry that deal with the central forces shaping human enterprise in the 21 st century.

Muddling Along to Moving Beyond in IS Research: Getting from Good to Great

Journal of the Association for Information Systems

In this article, I argue that the IS field seems to be doing well when evaluated with sociometric techniques. However, while the progress of our field is commendable, we might have reached diminishing returns in the way we conduct research with our current modus operandi. Given that we are dealing with the most important phenomena of our time, I believe that it is time to become more ambitious and expand our impact to other domains and disciplines by creating more enduring and impactful research. I argue that four key dimensions on which we should place emphasis include: our institutionalization of a certain genre of research, monistic theorizing of our phenomena, the focus on questions for which data is easier to access, and our unwillingness to deeply engage with reference discipline theories. Addressing these through individual and collective efforts can help us expand the frontiers of our knowledge product and create broader value.

Information systems research that really matters: beyond the IS rigor versus relevance debate

2005

Few would refute the view that information systems have and will continue to make significant impacts on our societies. There is almost no area of human endeavor that has been untouched by information technology-based information systems. In some areas, IS has had a positive effect (finding survivors after natural disasters such as the Tsunami), while in others, the misuse of IS has aided in awe-inspiring destruction (the 9/11 attacks were planned, coordinated, and executed using a wide range of technology ...

A paradigmatic and methodological examination of information systems research from 1991 to 2001

Information Systems Journal, 2004

The field of information systems (IS) has evolved for more than three decades. Although many schools of thought have emerged and even become well established, few historical analyses of research paradigms and methodologies have been undertaken. One of the rare exceptions is . Yet, the IS research community has evolved substantially since 1991 in many aspects. A variety of journal outlets have emerged and become well established. More attention has been paid to paradigmatic and methodological issues. Political and professional contexts have also changed noticeably. Therefore, it should be an opportune time for the field to ask: 'What changes are manifested in journal publications?' 'Is the field making progress regarding pluralism in IS research?' 'How will the field's publications practices change in the future?' The purpose of this paper is to investigate these questions and, in turn, reflect on the paradigmatic and methodological progress made since 1991. We examined 1893 articles published in eight major IS publication outlets between 1991 and 2001. Our findings suggest that the long-term endeavours of interpretivist researchers might need to continue because the paradigmatic progress appears somewhat inconsequential; positivist research still dominates 81% of published empirical research. In particular, US journals, as opposed to European journals, tend to be more positivist, quantitative, cross-sectional and survey oriented. With respect to research design, survey research is still the most widely used method (41%), although case studies have gained substantial recognition (36%). Further, the increase of qualitative research (30%), empirical studies (61%) and longitudinal cases (33%) at the expense of laboratory experiments (18%) might suggest that IS researchers have become more interested in obtaining scientific knowledge in real world settings. In summary, we suggest that the field has been dominated by the positivist paradigm, despite calls to the contrary. Indeed, if the field was to truly embrace pluralism, it would have to find ways to fundamentally change the publication practices of the journal system, including the current tenure and promotion system, which pose considerable obstacles for the acceptance of alternative paradigms.

How is Information Systems Research Justified? An Analysis of Justifications Given by Authors

Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2020

This study analyses how Information Systems (IS) research is justified by authors. We assess how authors justify their research endeavors based on published IS research papers. We use justification theory [11], which along with later work, identifies seven different value systems (i.e., orders of worth) as co-existing in society, as a conceptual foundation. We qualitatively and quantitatively analyze the justifications in published IS research papers. We provide a breakdown of the justifications used in IS research. Our findings show that the importance and relevance of IS research is predominantly justified in reference to three orders of worth (market, industrial and civic values) at the neglect of the four other orders of worth (domestic, inspiration, fame, green) that equally exist in society. We provide suggestions to stimulate a broader consideration of research topics in relation to these other orders of worth and hence alternative sources of justification for authors.

Keeping pace with the digital age: Envisioning information systems research as a platform

Journal of Information Technology, 2022

In this paper, we respond to Grover and Lyytinen (2022). We agree with them that the advent of the digital age is calling for a reconsideration of the role of theory and theorizing. We also think their proposal does not go far enough. The time is ripe to question the role of theory in our field more fundamentally. We propose to instead focus on establishing IS research as a platform through which we can collect, organize, and provide access to digital trace data from various sources to analyze contemporary socio-technical phenomena. We believe that such a move allows us to more fully unleash the unique sociotechnical competences of our field in the digital age.