Z. Golez, R.

Kivzchheim ] Omega 28 (2000)

249−268 P
Omega 28 (2000) 249− 268 A
G
www.elsevier.com] loceat] orms E
2
5
3

Paradigma sudah mati, paradigmanya sudah mati...

panjang umur paradigma "warisan Burrell dan Morgan
Tim Goles, Rudy Hirschheim *
Deposisi Decizion dan Infovmation Sciencez, College of Buzinezz Adminiztvation, Jnirevzity of Kouzton, Kouzton,
ZX 77204-6282, JSA

Diterima 1 Desember 1998; diterima 1 Juli 1999

Abstrast

Sebagian besar penelitian di bidang Sistem Informasi tampaknya dipandu oleh satu set asumsi filosofis - yaitu
positivisme. Persatuan paradigma seperti itu bisa terbukti bermasalah karena mungkin menghalangi konsepsi
alternatif masalah di bidang IS. Makalah ini menanyakan apakah bidang tersebut memang mengadopsi
paradigma soliter dan jika demikian, apa implikasinya. Dengan demikian, makalah ini memberikan gambaran
tentang positivisme, landasan paradigmatiknya, mengapa menjadi populer, dan hambatan untuk berubah.
Makalah ini melihat kemungkinan pluralisme paradigma terutama yang berkaitan dengan pragmatisme.
Hubungan antara pragmatisme dan panggilan untuk lebih relevan dalam penelitian IS juga dieksplorasi. Dalam
pemeriksaannya terhadap topik-topik ini, makalah ini mencatat arti yang agak
mengejutkan, Burrell dan gagasan Morgan tentang paradigma telah bermain dalam konsepsi diskusi filosofis
lapangan. Ⓢ2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. Semua hak dilindungi undang-undang.

Keywovdz "Paradigma; Pragmatisme; Perang Paradigma; Positivisme; Anti-positivisme; Epistemologi

1. Introduction presentasi dari output. Ives dkk. [2]

mendefinisikan IS dalam hal lima lingkungan
Unhile ada kesepakatan umum bahwa bidang Sistem (eksternal, organisasi, pengguna,
pembentukan sistem informasi (IS) adalah luas dan pengembangan IS dan operasi IS), tiga
mewujudkan banyak tema dan daerah, ada jauh lebih sedikit proses (pengguna, pengembangan IS dan
kesepakatan ketika datang untuk memutuskan apa lapangan operasi IS), dan subsistem informasi.
benar-benar termasuk dan tidak termasuk , dan apa fitur Lyytinen [3] membagi bidang menjadi
intinya. Mason dan MitroR [1], misalnya, dalam kerangka kerja sembilan komponen "sistem informasi itu
klasik IS, mengkarakterisasi komponen inti menjadi "tipe sendiri, lingkungan operasi IS, lingkungan
psikologis (pengguna), kelas masalah yang harus dipecahkan, pengembangan IS, lingkungan pengguna,
konteks organisasi, metode pembuktian dan penjamin. bukti, lingkungan organisasi, lingkungan eksternal,
dan mode proses penggunaan, proses
pengembangan, dan proses operasi.
Swanson dan Ramiller
* Penulis yang sesuai. Tel. „+ 1-713-743-4692; faks „+ 1-713-743- [4] mendiskusikan bidang ini dalam hal
4693. luasnya area orang menulis makalah
E-mail addvezz „ rudy@uh.edu (R. Hirschheim). tentang 'kerja kooperatif yang didukung
komputer, informasi dan antarmuka,
dukungan keputusan dan sistem berbasis
pengetahuan, proyek sistem, evaluasi dan
kontrol, pengguna, ekonomi dan strategi ,
pengenalan dan dampak, dan penelitian IS.
Orang lain telah menggunakan analisisuntuk
mengidentifikasi subbidang intelektual pada
gabungan0305-0483] 00] $ - lihat materi depan Ⓢ2000 Elsevier Science Ltd.
Semua hak dilindungi undang-undang. PII „S 03 0 5 - 04 8 3 (99) 0 00 4 2 - 0

Z. Golez, R. Kivzchheim ] Omega 28 (2000)

P 249−268
A
G
E
2
5
4
 yang dianggap sebagai kompeten dan berguna kontribusi ''
yang IS menggambar [lih. 5− 8]. Yang lain [9,10] telah
[36, pp. 88-123 seperti dikutip Banville dan Landry [ 31, hal.
enggunakan analisis historis untuk menggali wawasan tentang
54]].
Z. Golez, R. Kivzchheim ] Omega 28 Selain itu, penelitian melibatkan ketidakpastian tugas
(2000)
sifat lapangan. 249−268 P
tinggi, karena masalah untukmulations tidakA stabil, prioritas
Secara keseluruhan, bidang IS dapat dicirikan sebagai G
bervariasi di antara komunitas penelitian yang
E berbeda dan

beragam dan pluralistik. Ada keragaman masalah yang ada sedikit kontrol atas tujuan
5
oleh2 pembentukan
3 papan lisensi
kepemimpinan profesional (seperti bar atau
ditangani; keragaman yayasan teoritis dan disiplin referensi; dan
untuk dokter dan insinyur). Sebagai contoh, beberapa
keragaman metodologi penelitian [11]. Pertimbangkan, kelompok penelitian IS dapat memilih untuk menentukan dan
menghargai proyek yang tidak mengikuti pola rekayasa atau
misalnya, fenomena implementasi SI. Telah diperiksa dari
ilmu sosial empiris yang akrab, meskipun kelompok-kelompok
beragam perspektif yang seperti teknis seperti itu umumnya berada dalam minoritas. Tampaknya ada
- setidaknya sampai tingkat tertentu - otonomi lokal untuk
implementasi[12,13], model perubahan yang
merumuskan masalah penelitian, dan standar untuk
direncanakan Lewin dan Schein [14,15], teori politik [16− 19], melakukan dan mengevaluasi hasil penelitian. Yang lain telah
meragukan apakah 'otonomi lokal' semacam itu benar-benar
pembelajaran aksi [20− 22], teori ekonomi marxis [ 23,24,147],
ada atau hanya isapan jempol belaka [23,38]. Semua ini telah
dan ekonomi institusional [25-27]. Untuk membuat keadaan menyebabkan perdebatan yang agak hidup pada sifat dan
tujuanIS
menjadi lebih buruk, mungkin ada banyak pesan yang
penelitian[2,7,11,28,39− 50].
bertentangan tentang apa yang merupakan 'implementasi IS

yang baik' karena ada perspektif [145]. Terlepas dari apakah

keragaman dianggap sebagai berkah [misalnya, 28] atau

kutukan [misalnya, 11], itu secara luas diterima sebagai ciri dari

lapangan [4,23,29− 33]. Mungkin karena keragaman ini,

beberapa orang sudah terlalu jauh mempertanyakan apakah

bidang IS benar-benar ada. Hing [34], misalnya, mengacu pada

studi tentang sistem informasi yang bisa dibilang '' bahkan

bukan bidang, tetapi lebih merupakan pertemuan intelektual ''

(hlm. 293). Denning et al. [35] menganggapnya sebagai bagian

dari ilmu komputer. Banville dan Landry [31] ORER beberapa

apa diRepandangan sewa. Dengan menerapkan model

pelembagaan sosial dan kognitif [26,37] dari Uhitley [36,37],

mereka menyimpulkan bahwa bidang IS adalah '' adhokrasi
yang terfragmentasi ''. Hal ini terjadi karena untuk dapat
bekerja di IS, seseorang tidak memerlukan konsensus yang
kuat dengan rekan sejawatnya tentang signifikansi dan
pentingnya masalah penelitian selama ada beberapa
komunitas luar yang mendukung. Ada juga diterima secara
luas, melegitimasi hasil atau prosedur yang satu harus
membangun '' dalam rangka untuk membangun tahulklaim tepi
 dibingkai dalam hal pekerjaan seminal
Burrell dan Morgan [54]. Kemudian alasan
Bahkan, diskusi tentang sifat dan tujuan
untuk dominasi perspektif ini dieksplorasi,
penelitian IS memberikan motivasi untuk bersama dengan rintangan untuk berubah.
makalah Ue(2000)
Z. Golez, R. Kivzchheim ] Omega 28
ini. Ini adalah pendapat kami bahwa kemudian mengeksplorasi beberapa
P 249−268 pendekatan alternatif berdasarkan
A
sementara
G tidak ada keraguan keragaman di pragmatisme. Akhirnya, kami memiliki
E
bidang IS, keragaman ini belum sepenuhnya beberapa pemikiran tentang implikasi
2 pragmatisme untuk arah penelitian saat ini
diperluas
5
4
ke seperangkat asumsi filosofis dan masa depan.
yang menjadi dasar mayoritas penelitian
sistem informasi. Lebih khusus lagi,
seperangkat asumsi tertentu - 2. When masalahpenting dari ssiense
fungsionalisme di sekitarnya - telah
Siapapun yang melakukan penelitian
mendominasi penelitian IS hingga saat ini dalam bidang apapun harus datang untuk
[23,29,38,51,52]. Ini, meskipun banyak yang mengatasi dengan dua masalah mendasar
dalam nya] mengejar nya pengetahuan.
memperjuangkan pandangan bahwa Mereka sering disebut sebagai '' masalah
ketergantungan pada paradigma penelitian penting dalam sains ''. Itu adalah ''
'bagaimana kita tahu apa yang kita ketahui' ',
soliter menghambat pemahaman penuh dan
dan mengikuti dari itu,' 'bagaimana kita
apresiasi untuk realitas sistem informasi memperoleh pengetahuan' '? Masalah kuno
multifaset [misalnya, 47− 50,53]. Uhy apakah ini telah menjadi inti sains sejak awal. Dan
solusi untuk masalah ini, bisa dibilang,
perbedaan ini ada? Apa itu pernah sebagai perdebatan sekarang seperti yang
diselesaikan? Makalah ini membahas telah terjadi selama berabad-abad [55].
Ini adalah tipikal untuk melacak masalah
pertanyaan-pertanyaan ini. Tujuannya ada
kembali ke Yunani yang merasa peran
dua kali lipat '(1) untuk memeriksa mengapa utama sains adalah mengubah doxa (yang
penelitian sistem informasi begitu miring diyakini benar) menjadi epizteme (yang
diketahui benar). Tetapi kaum Sophis
dalam satu arah; dan (2) menyarankan posisi mempertanyakan bagaimana, dan bahkan
paradigmatik alternatif - pragmatisme - jika, ini bisa dilakukan. Mereka bertanya
apakah mungkin untuk benar-benar
sebagai sarana untuk bergerak menuju aliran mengetahui bahwa ada sesuatu yang benar.
penelitian yang lebih seimbang. Argumen sejak itu telah berubah pada
Makalah ini disusun sebagai berikut. apakah pengetahuan dapat pernah '' terbukti
Pertama ada tinjauan singkat tentang isu-isu '' [56]. Untuk lebih jelasnya, apakah masuk
filosofis seputar pengetahuan dan akuisisi, akal untuk mencari '' kebenaran '' seolah-
dan munculnya positivisme. Selanjutnya, olah itu ada sebagaiindependen
kita akan meringkas literatur yang
menunjukkan dominannya penelitian
positivis di bidang sistem informasi. Ini
kenyataan. Kearifan filosofis konvensional sekarang
menyatakan bahwa pengetahuan tidak sempurna tetapi
bersyarat; itu adalah konvensi kemasyarakatan dan relatif
Z. Golez,adalah
terhadap waktu dan tempat [57]. Knowledge R. Kivzchheim ] Omega 28 (2000)
masalah
249−268
penerimaan masyarakat. Kriteria untuk penerimaan adalah
seperangkat konvensi yang disepakati yang harus diikuti jika
pengetahuan tersebut diterima oleh masyarakat. Kumpulan
konvensi ini tidak sembarangan tetapi dipikirkan dengan baik
dan secara historis telah menghasilkan klaim pengetahuan
yang telahbertahan dalam ujian waktu. Di masyarakat mana
pun ada segudang klaim pengetahuan; yang diterima adalah
yang dapat didukung oleh kekuatan argumen yang lebih baik. 1
Mereka adalah pemahaman terbaik yang disepakati tentang
apa yang telah dihasilkan pada suatu titik waktu tertentu.
(Klaim pengetahuan tersebut dapat menjadi tidak dapat
diterima karena informasi lebih lanjut dihasilkan di masa
depan.) Dengan demikian, Ue menganggap sains, dalam
pengertiannya saat ini, untuk menjadi konvensi - yang terkait
dengan norma, harapan, dan nilai-nilai sosial - yang digunakan
untuk terlibat dalam pencarian untuk pengertian. Sains
menggunakan alat, teknik, dan pendekatan apa pun yang
dianggap tepat untuk materi pelajaran tertentu yang diteliti.
Snyder [58] membahas sains dalam hal
... sesuatu yang dilakukan orang. Ini bukan seperangkat
pernyataan atau teori tertentu, tetapi serangkaian kegiatan
yang mungkin atau mungkin tidak menghasilkan teori yang
terorganisasi.
Ilmu pengetahuan, untuk semua maksud dan tujuan, adalah
kendaraan pemecahan masalah. Seperti Anderson [59, hal.
25] menempatkannya "pada dasarnya proses pembentukan
konsensus". Konsekuensi dari konsep sains ini adalah bahwa
hampir setiap upaya ilmiah untuk memperoleh pengetahuan
dapat ditafsirkan sebagai '' sains ''. Demarkasi antara sains
(ilmu normal) dan non-sains (pseudo-science) mengaburkan.
Dan tidak mungkin bahwa blur ini akan bersih. Laudan [60]
menulis "
Kenyataan bahwa 2400 tahun mencari demar-
1
Habermas [100] memberi penilaian teoretis yang baik tentang
bagaimana hal ini bisa dilakukan melalui apa yang disebut '' pidato
yang ideal ''. Situasi berbicara yang ideal memungkinkan peserta untuk
menyelesaikan perbedaan dan kesalahpahaman tanpa melepaskan
orientasi konsensual mereka, karena dengan tidak adanya kekuatan
eksternal, kekuatan akal akan membuat menang argumen yang lebih
baik. Sejauh konsensus ini hanya didasarkan '' pada kekuatan
argumen yang lebih baik '', itu dapat disebut '' rasional '' (lih. [16], bab
I.3). Misalnya, jika sebuah argumen "menang" karena oportunisme,
pertimbangan kekuasaan atau kurangnya motivasi oleh pihak lain
untuk menjelaskan sudut pandang mereka, maka ia tidak menang
dengan "kekuatan" dari akal murni dan karenanya konsensus tidak
akan disebut rasional. Sebuah konsensus rasional akan direplikasi
setiap saat sepanjang keadaan pengetahuan tidak berubah yang
dapat menyebabkan argumen baru yang '' lebih kuat ''.
Kriteria kation telah meninggalkan kita
dengan tangan kosong menimbulkan
anggapan bahwa objek dari quest tidak
ada. (hal. 275)
P
A
Penting untuk dicatat bagaimana gagasan G
E
sains ini menempatkan penekanan pada
akuisisi pengetahuan pada '' komunitas ''. 2
5
pengetahuan (kebenaran) adalah 3
pencapaian komunal. Ini adalah apa yang
komunitas setuju untuk memberikan label ''
pengetahuan 'atau' 'kebenaran' 'atas. Ini
juga tidak sewenang-wenang karena
didasarkan pada konvensi yang diterima
pada saat itu. Juga tidak sepenuhnya
relativistik. Sekarang, dalam konteks ini,
bukanlah gagasan relativistik bahwa ''
semuanya relatif, di mana tidak ada klaim
pengetahuan yang lebih baik daripada yang
lain '', seperti yang dapat diperdebatkan,
misalnya, Feyerabend [61]. Sebaliknya,
klaim pengetahuan diteliti melalui konvensi
komunitas yang diterima; hanya klaim-klaim
yang dinilai dapat diterima melalui debat
yang diinformasikan diadopsi. Tetapi apa
yang dimaksud dengan '' dapat diterima ''?
Meskipun penulis seperti Laudan [60] dan Anderson
[59] mungkin percaya perbedaan antara
sains ('' klaim pengetahuan yang dapat
diterima '') dan non-sains ('' klaim
pengetahuan yang tidak dapat diterima '')
tidak secara khusus jelas, bobot bukti
menentang mereka [62]. Perbedaan antara
ilmu pengetahuan (ilmu normal) dan non-
ilmu pengetahuan atau quasi-ilmu(ilmu
semu)- setidaknya di western World - relatif
jelas. Untuk sesuatu yang dianggap ilmiah,
ia harus menggunakan kumpulan konvensi
yang disepakati - metode ilmiah. Ini adalah
manifestasi dari konsepsi positivistik sains]
penyelidikan - atau apa yang mungkin
disebut 'ilmu positif' - dan memiliki sejarah
panjang dalam memberikan pemahaman
alam yang diterima [63].
3. Penjelasanssiense positirist
Positivismetelah didefinisikan oleh banyak
orang selama bertahun-tahun. Holakowski
[64], misalnya, menyatakan bahwa
positivisme mencakup empat poin doktrin
"(1) aturan fenomenalisme yang
menegaskan bahwa hanya ada
pengalaman; semua abstraksi menjadi
'materi' atau 'roh' harus ditolak; (2) aturan
nominalisme yang menegaskan bahwa kata-
kata, generalisasi, abstraksi, dll. Adalah
fenomena linguistik dan tidak memberikan
wawasan baru ke dunia; (3) pemisahan
fakta dari nilai; dan (4) kesatuan metode
ilmiah. Burrell dan Morgan [54]
mendefinisikannya sebagai epistemologi ''
yang berusaha menjelaskan dan
memprediksi apa yang terjadi di dunia sosial
dengan mencari keteraturan dan hubungan
kausal antara unsur-unsur penyusunnya ''. hubungan kausal Humean;
Untuk tujuan diskusi kita, positivisme dapat
diringkas sebagai didasarkan pada lima pilar
"(1) Kesatuan metode ilmiah; (2) Cari
Z. Golez, R. Kivzchheim ] Omega 28 (2000)
P 249−268
A
G
E
2
5
4
(3) Keyakinan pada empirisme; (4) Sains (dan Researche
prosesnya) bebas nilai; dan (5) Landasan ilmu rs should
didasarkan pada logika dan matematika. R focus on
Satu, kesatuan metode ilmiah Z. Golez, bahwa
berarti R. Kivzchheim ] Omega 28 (2000) e empirical
249−268 a P
pendekatan yang diterima untuk akuisisi pengetahuan l evidence A
i and G
(metode ilmiah) berlaku untuk semua bentuk t E
penyelidikan. Tidak masalah apakah domain y hypothesis
testing, 2
penelitian adalah benda mati atau benda mati; i 5
s looking for
kehidupan manusia, hewan atau tumbuhan; 3
fundament
fenomena fisik atau non-fisik; dll. Dua, pencarian e al laws and
x
hubungan kausal Humean mencerminkan keinginan t causal
untuk menemukan keteraturan dan hubungan sebab- e relationship
r
akibat di antara unsur-unsur penelitian. Proses yang n s
digunakan didasarkan pada reduksionisme, di mana a (positivism)
l
keseluruhannya semakin jauh dikurangi menjadi .
bagian-bagian penyusunnya. Tiga, keyakinan dalam t Humans are
o products of
empirisme mengacu pada konformasi yang dipegang
t their
kuat bahwa satu-satunya data yang valid adalah yang h
e environments
dialami dari indera. Pengalaman ekstrasensori, alat O (determinism).
pengatur sadar dan tidak sadar, persepsi subyektif, b i Operationalizin
j n
dan sejenisnya, tidak dianggap dapat diterima. e d g and
Empat, sains dan prosesnya bebas-nilai c i measuring
t v
mencerminkan keyakinan bahwa tidak ada nilai i i constructs,
intrinsik dalam sains. Pelaksanaan sains tidak v dRealitalong with
e u
memiliki hubungan dengan keyakinan politik, ideologi, ya is quantitative Hu
atau moral. Ini melampaui semua keyakinan budaya l
interpr analysis
.eted techniques ma
and
dan sosial yang dipegang oleh ilmuwan. Lima, logika, ns
I thehypothesis
by pos
dan lebih umum, matematika memberikan fondasi tindividtesting, will
sains. Mereka menyediakan bahasa universal dan ses
iual. It uncover s
dasar formal untuk analisis kuantitatif, senjata penting s
is universal laws
free
dalam mencari hubungan kausal. sociall
a that explain
will
Positivisme juga mencakup posisi ontologis y and govern
tertentu. (Ontologi mengacu pada sifat dunia di ‘constrreality and
‘ hav
sekitar kita; khususnya, potongan realitas yang dipilih g
ucted (nomothetic).
i e
oleh para ilmuwan.) Posisi yang diadopsi oleh (nomi
v aut
positivis adalah salah satu realisme. Ini mendalilkan nalism
e ono
n
).
bahwa alam semesta terdiri dari objek dan struktur ’ my
yang diberikan secara obyektif. Ini ada sebagai ’Hnowl (vol
edge unt
entitas empiris, pada mereka sendiri, independen dari (
is
r aris
apresiasi pengamat dari mereka.2 Ini sangat berbeda e
relativ
a m).
dengan ontologi alternatif, yaitu relativisme atau e.
l Und
instrumentalisme, yang menyatakan bahwa realitas T Resea
i erst
adalah konstruksi subyektif dari pikiran. Konsep dan a srchers
S m andi
b u should
nama yang disampaikan secara sosial mengarahkan l ) ng
b .focus
bagaimana realitas dipahami dan disusun; Karena itu e j the
1 e on
realitas bervariasi dengan bahasa dan budaya yang A c worl
meani d is
berbeda. Uhat secara subyektif dialami sebagai s t
i ng and best
realitas obyektif s v A
exami don
u e s
ne theE
m se by
p totalityp anal
O i u
ti of
n a s yzin
m
2
Posisi ontologis realis ini sering disebut sebagai 'realisme o tsituatit g
o e p
na na' dan bagi banyak ilmuwan sosial telah digantikan oleh n on
l m subj
ti
bentuk 'realisme ilmiah' yang lebih moderat. Realisme ilmiah s (anti-
o o ecti
g l o
menyatakan bahwa sementara dunia ada secara a positivi ve
i o n
b sm).
c g
independen dari yang dirasakan ('realisme klasik'), dunia sacc
o a i
hanya dapat diketahui melalui model-model dunia. Model- l c oun
a
u
model itu sendiri tidak dapat diubah - mereka tidak pernah a ts of
b
t a l
dapat diketahui secara pasti ('realisme fallibilistic'); memang, t s a
o
pekerjaan sains adalah untuk mengembangkan model dunia h s a situ
u
yang lebih baik [140]. u s atio
t
e m s
n p u n or
h
a t m phe
u
i p
t o t no
m
u n i me
a
r s o na
n n
e s (ide
n
o ogr
a
f aphi
t
s c).
Tabel 2
Asumsi tentang sifat masyarakat [54]

Peraturan Perubahan radikal

Z. Golez, R. Kivzchheim ] Omega 28 (2000)
Masyarakat
P cenderung menuju persatuan dan kohesi.
249−268 Masyarakat mengandung konflik struktural yang mendalam.
A
Kekuatan masyarakat menjunjung tinggi status quo. Masyarakat cenderung menindas dan membatasi anggotanya.
G
E
2 digunakan dalam pengertian yang lebih luas dari Burrell dan Morgan
hanya
5 ada di pikiran pengamat. (Sikap ontologis yang terakhir daripada gagasan Huhn yang lebih khusus.
4 yang didukung oleh anti-positivisme.)
adalah
Selama berabad-abad, positivisme telah menikmati
kesuksesan besar. Ini telah memiliki hubungan yang sangat
bahagia dengan ilmu-ilmu fisik di mana pertumbuhan yang luar
biasa dalam pengetahuan telah dialami. Ini telah
memungkinkan manusia untuk mencapai bulan,
mengembangkan obat-obatan dan prosedur untuk melawan
penyakit, membangun gedung pencakar langit, menemukan
komputer, dan sejumlah kemajuan lain yang terlalu banyak
untuk disebutkan. Namun aplikasinya dalam ilmu-ilmu sosial
kurang spektakuler. Sepanjang sejarah, individu telah berusaha
menerapkan positivisme ke alam manusia, memperkuat atau
memodifikasi konsepsi yang diperlukan. (Munculnya
'postpositivisme' sebagai perkembangan evolusioner dari
pikiran positif hanyalah satu contoh nyata; bnd. [65− 67]). Kritik
telah muncul untuk mempertanyakan validitasnya pada
sejumlah kesempatan [68-70]. Dari perspektif historis, orang
dapat dengan jelas melihat ketegangan yang tidak
menyenangkan yang telah ada dalam penerapan positivisme
dalam ilmu-ilmu sosial. Ini telah menimbulkan apa yang
Tashakkori dan Teddlie [71] sebut sebagai '' perang paradigma
'' '' pertempuran 'yang diperjuangkan oleh penganut
positivisme melawan anti-positivis. Namun, ilmu positivis masih
berkuasa. Visibilitasnya di seluruh ilmu sosial jelas bagi semua
orang untuk melihat [62], dan popularitasnya di IS adalah tanpa
pertanyaan [23,38]. Dalam makalah ini, kita akan
mengeksplorasi popularitas ini melalui lensa paradigma-
paradigma Burrell dan Morgan.

4. Paradigma

Pada tahun 1979, Burrell dan Morgan [54] memperluas

kesadaran kolektif para peneliti dengan memperkenalkan
tipologi paradigma mereka untuk analisis teori sosial dan
organisasi.3 Dengan mengidentifikasi asumsi fundamental
yang berbeda tentang sifat

3
Istilah '' paradigma '' telah ditafsirkan cukup berbeda oleh peneliti
yang berbeda. Dalam pengertian Huhnian, paradigma adalah ''
prestasi ilmiah yang diakui secara universal yang untuk sementara
waktu memberikan masalah model dan solusi kepada komunitas
praktisi '[57, hal. viii]. Burrell dan Morgan [54] menggunakan istilah ini
sebagai "kesamaan perspektif yang mengikat kerja sekelompok ahli
teori bersama-sama" [54, hal. 23]. Dalam makalah ini, paradigma
ilmu sosial (lihat Tabel 1) dan sifat pada pengaturan sosial dan organisasi yang
masyarakat (lihat Tabel 2), mereka tiba pada ada. Ini terutama berfokus pada struktur dan
matriks yang terdiri dari empat paradigma analisis hubungan kekuatan ekonomi.
penelitian yang berbeda „fungsionalisme, Paradigma humanis radikal mencari
Z.
interpradisitisme, strukturalisme radikal, Golez,
dan R. Kivzchheim ] Omega perubahan
28 (2000) radikal, emansipasi, dan potensi,
249−268
humanisme radikal (Lihat Gambar 1). dan menekankan peran yang dimainkan P A
Paradigma fungsionalis berkaitan dengan kekuatan sosial dan organisasi dalam G
E
memberikan penjelasan tentang status quo, memahami perubahan. Ini berfokus pada
tatanan sosial, integrasi sosial, konsensus, semua bentuk penghalang untuk emansipasi 25
kepuasan kebutuhan, dan pilihan rasional. "khususnya, ideologi (komunikasi 3
Ini berusaha untuk menjelaskan bagaimana terdistorsi), kekuatan dan dorongan
elemen-elemen individu dari suatu sistem psikologis dan kendala sosial; dan mencari
sosial berinteraksi bersama untuk cara untuk mengatasinya.
membentuk keseluruhan yang terintegrasi. ~
2 yang tampaknya sederhana Matriks 2ini memiliki

Paradigma interpretivist mencari penjelasan dampak yang jauh melampaui apa yang
di dalam alam kesadaran individu dan dapat diantisipasi oleh pembuatnya, atau
subjektivitas, dan dalam kerangka acuan siapa pun, [73,74]. Mungkin kontribusi yang
dari perspektif '' 'peran sosial dan institusi paling signifikan dari gambar Burrell dan
ada sebagai ekspresi makna yang Morgan -
dilekatkan laki-laki ke dunianya' '[72] p. 134].
Para ahli strukturalis radikal memiliki
pandangan masyarakat dan organisasi yang Gambar 1. Paradigma Burrell dan
Morgan.
menekankan perlunya menggulingkan atau
mengatasi keterbatasan yang ditempatkan
 Baroudi yang kedua, meskipun Ualsham agak lebih optimis
tentang kemungkinan tren.

Z. Golez, R. Kivzchheim ] Omega 28 (2000)

P 249−268 4
Meskipun seperti akan diperlihatkan di bagian 'Breaking the Mould',
A
G ini mulai berubah.
E
2
5
4

Gambar. 2. Representasi proporsional dari penelitian IS dimodelkan

pada kerangka Burrell dan Morgan (diadaptasi dari [77, p. 586]).

kerja telah untuk melegitimasi (atau setidaknya memberikan

dorongan untuk melegitimasi) pendekatan alternatif untuk
mempelajari organisasi dengan membawa cahaya ''
ketidakpuasan yang berkembang dengan dominan, ortodoksi
fungsional '' [75, hal. 681). Di bidang sistem informasi, pekerjaan
Burrell dan Morgan telah digunakan untuk menunjukkan tidak
adanya paradigma pemersatu [76]. Uhile ada perdebatan yang
sedang berlangsung mengenai keinginan satu paradigma
tunggal untuk mempelajari sistem informasi (lihat, misalnya,
[11,28]), pemeriksaan sebelumnya di lapangan meninggalkan
sedikit keraguan bahwa informasi penelitian sistem hingga saat
ini telah dikelompokkan di sekitar paradigma soliter. Alavi dkk.
[29] meninjau 792 artikel yang diterbitkan lebih dari 20 tahun
dalam jurnal MIS utama. Kesimpulan mereka '' '' Hampir semua
metodologi penelitian yang digunakan dalam artikel yang
termasuk dalam penelitian dapat dicirikan sebagai metodologi
tradisional yang bermotif setelah penelitian dalam ilmu alam ''
(hal. 369). Orlikowski dan Baroudi [23], dalam analisis penelitian
yang dipublikasikan selama periode lima tahun (Januari 1983 −
Mei 1988) dari empat sumber utama (Communication dari
ACW, Pvoceedingz dari Intevnational Confevence pada
Infovmation Syztemz, WIS Quavtevly, dan Wanagement
Science), melangkah lebih jauh dan menentukan bahwa ''
sementara tidak ada satu bidang topik atau teori yang
mendominasi penelitian sistem informasi, jelas ada seperangkat
asumsi yang berlaku tentang apa yang menjadi konstitusi
penelitian sistem informasi yang dapat diterima '' (hal. 6).
Ualsham [38] memperluas pekerjaan Orlikowski dan Baroudi
untuk memasukkan periode dari Januari 1992 hingga Juli 1993,
menggunakan skema klasifikasi mereka tetapi memperluas
ulasannya untuk memasukkan jurnal-jurnal Eropa. Dia juga
menjatuhkan Sains Wanagement dan menambahkan
Infovmation Syztemz Rezeavch untuk mencapai pilihan jurnal IS
mainstream yang lebih akurat. Temuan Ualsham, Orlikowski dan
 informasi dapat memperoleh beberapa
menuju penerimaan yang lebih besar dari wawasan dari pengalaman sepupu mereka
perspektif penelitian alternatif di bidang IS. di bidang teori organisasi.
Meskipun proporsi positivist ke artikel non- Stern dan Barley [78] telah
positivist bervariasi dari studi ke Z.studi, mengidentifikasi
Golez, R. Kivzchheim ] Omega 28 (2000) empat set situasi yang
249−268 membatasi ahli teori dari mengadopsi P
konsensus yang tak terbantahkan adalah A
bahwa positivisme mendominasi penelitian perspektif alternatif "lingkungan di mana G
E
sistem informasi. Ini secara grafis lapangan didasarkan; pencarian lapangan
direpresentasikan dalam bentuk paradigma untuk kehormatan; diAkultur dalam 2
5
Burrell dan Morgan pada Gambar. 2. pengaturan batas di dalam lapangan; dan 3
konstruksi sosial yang mengatur karier
akademis. Untuk ini kita bisa menambahkan
satu lagi "kurangnya yang dirasakan
5. Hambatan untuk perubahan alternatif enak.

Jelas bahwa sebagian besar penelitian

5.1. Lingkungan sosial
sistem informasi dilakukan dari perspektif
positivis. Tetapi mengapa demikian?
Mungkin instruktif untuk memberikan Studi organisasi tumbuh dari sebuah
jawaban dalam hal perdebatan serupa di gerakan oleh mereka yang tertarik di
bidang teori organisasi. Paralel antara lapangan untuk membangun identitas yang
bidang sistem informasi dan teori organisasi akan memisahkan mereka dari sosiolog dan
mencolok [28,31]. Pada tahap awal mereka ahli teori man- agerial. Dalam mencari
(dan sampai batas tertentu masih hari ini) rumah untuk bidang yang menggerakkan ini,
keduanya menarik peneliti dengan berbagai ahli teori organisasi mencatat preseden di
latar belakang. Arus penelitian di kedua banyak sekolah bisnis, di mana program
bidang sering kali tampak tidak perilaku organisasi telah dipintal dari bidang
berhubungan. Keduanya menggunakan ilmu manajemen (yaitu, manajemen operasi
berbagai metodologi. Keduanya dan penelitian). Akibatnya, pada tahun
memanfaatkan bidang referensi yang terkait 1980-an sejumlah peneliti organisasional,
erat, terutama psikologi dan sosiologi terlepas dari apakah latar belakang mereka
(antara lain). Penelitian, pada umumnya, di dalam sosiologi, psikologi, atau teori
kedua bidang telah didominasi oleh manajemen, telah mendirikan kamp di
perspektif positivis [31,77,78].4 Tampaknya sekolah-sekolah bisnis. Namun demikian,
seolah-olah bidang sistem informasi, sampai migrasi ini datang terkait tekanan
batas tertentu, mengalami teori
pertumbuhan yang sama dengan teori
organisasi. Akibatnya, peneliti sistem
. Disiplin yang ada di sekolah bisnis (misalnya, akuntansi,
keuangan, ilmu manajemen) didasarkan pada tradisi yang
relatif positivis. Siswa menyerukan relevansi pragmatis dan
penerapan untuk karir masa depan Z. Golez, R. Kivzchheim
mereka. ] Omega 28
Konstituen
P 249−268
eksternal
A sekolah bisnis, yang menyediakan peluang
G
pendanaan dan penelitian, juga didasarkan pada '' dunia nyata
E
''. Hasil bersih dari lingkungan sekolah bisnis adalah untuk
2
menyenggol penelitian organisasional terhadap sudut tenggara
5
dari4 kerangka Burrell dan Morgan - paradigma fungsionalis
[78].
Dalam pembuluh darah seperti itu, para peneliti awal IS
datang dari sejumlah latar belakang diRerent. Namun dalam
kasus IS, ini termasuk bidang ilmu komputer dan teknik, dua
disiplin yang disebut '' keras ''. Hal ini tercermin dari banyaknya
makalah IS awal yang membahas masalah teknis [34]. Peneliti
sistem informasi juga tertarik pada sekolah bisnis.
Kecenderungan sekolah bisnis terhadap positivisme,
digabungkan dengan pengaruh fungsionalis para ilmuwan dan
insinyur komputer, membantu menjangkarkan penelitian
sistem informasi dalam paradigma fungsionalis.
5.2. Seavch fov vezpectability
Sebagai bidang muda dan muncul, ada kecenderungan yang
kuat pada bagian peneliti dalam studi organisasi untuk
mencerminkan praktek-praktek bidang yang lebih mapan,
terutama '' keras '' ilmu pengetahuan [79]. Ini juga berlaku
untuk sistem informasi, dengan ketergantungan pada bidang
referensi dalam pencarian awal untuk legitimasi. '' Cara cepat
untuk penerimaan dan stabilitas tampaknya sesuai dengan
budaya dan norma penelitian disiplin referensi '' [11, hlm
390− 391]. Namun, model sains yang dipilih untuk emulasi oleh
peneliti IS pada umumnya didasarkan pada pandangan yang
objektif dan rasional tentang realitas [11,47]. Akibatnya,
pencarian lapangan untuk kehormatan menjadi sangat
beralasan dalam paradigma fungsionalis.
5.3. Pvoblematic boundavy zetting
Peran organisasi telah berubah secara substansial sejak
1950-an. Merger, akuisisi, dan globalisasi telah menghasilkan
organisasi yang melampaui batas regional dan bahkan
nasional. Hubungan dan jaringan interorganisasional semakin
mengaburkan garis antara organisasi '' tradisional '' dan entitas
masa kini. Organisasi telah menjadi semakin kompleks dan
meresap, namun pada beberapa waktu lebih amorf. Batas-
batas lapangan dan fenomena yang menarik bergeser dan
berkembang, menyebabkan teori dan empiris diAculties [78].
Ketika organisasi dan lingkungan mereka berevolusi dan
menjadi lebih kompleks, banyak peneliti memilih untuk
fokus pada serangkaian variabel yang lebih
kecil, dan untuk memperbaiki atau
mengisolasi variabel-variabel tersebut, ''
(2000)
dibandingkan dengan (mempelajari) sistem
keterkaitan antar kelompok variabel '' [79 ,
hal. 240]. Peneliti menemukan mereka dapat
meningkatkan atau melindungi reputasi
mereka dengan mempersempit ruang
lingkup masalah yang mereka selidiki [78].
Hahn [57] paling baik menjelaskan alasan di
balik pilihan ini "
Di bawah kondisi sains normal, ilmuwan
penelitian bukanlah inovator tetapi
pemecah teka-teki, dan teka-teki yang
menjadi konsentrasinya hanya yang ia
yakini dapat dinyatakan dan dipecahkan
dalam tradisi ilmiah yang sudah ada
Penerapan ini untuk IS adalah jelas.
Serupa dengan pertumbuhan dan
transformasi organisasi, sistem informasi
telah menyebar luas dan meresap di semua
aspek organisasi dan masyarakat. Batas-
batas di bidang IS, tidak pernah didefinisikan
dengan jelas, menjadi semakin tidak pasti.
Peneliti IS dengan kecenderungan positivis
berada dalam kebingungan. Fenomena
minat yang mereka coba pelajari adalah
membesar dan berevolusi. Itu tidak akan
tahan cukup lama bagi mereka untuk
mengukurnya. Secara kiasan, itu seperti
mencoba memaku Jell-O ke dinding. Untuk
mengatasi perasaan gejolak ini, mereka
mencari hiburan dalam kerangka acuan di
mana mereka merasa kom- pleks dan
memegang kendali - fungsionalisme. Cara
lain untuk melihat ini adalah menerapkan
Hukum Haplan tentang Instruktur "" Berikan
anak kecil palu, dan dia akan menemukan
bahwa semua yang dia temui perlu
ditumbuk. Itu bukan kejutan khusus untuk
menemukan bahwa seorang ilmuwan
merumuskan masalah dengan cara yang
membutuhkan solusi mereka hanya teknik-
teknik di mana ia sendiri sangat terampil ''
[80, hal. 28].
5.4. Conztvuction sosial caveevz akademis
Terkait erat dengan masalah kehormatan
sebagai lapangan adalah pencarian individu
dari anggota lapangan untuk kehormatan
akademik. Untuk pertama, mendapatkan
masa jabatan, dan kedua, membangun
reputasi, seseorang harus mempublikasikan
di jurnal yang lebih mapan dan dihormati.
Commen- tators in both the organizational
studies and infor- mation systems fields
have noted that one consequence of the
''publish or perish'' imperative is that newco-
mers, in order to improve their chances of
acceptance by a ''high quality'' journal, tend
to follow the path of those who have
previously had success [38,47,75,78]. Since,
as previously discussed, pioneers in the
infor- mation systems field based their work
on objective foundations, the eRect was to this ''pub- lish positivism or perish'' mindset.
reconfirm positivism as the underlying One is the nature of
philosophy of practically all the papers
published in mainstream information
systems journals, at least in the US [23,38].
Z. Golez, R. Kivzchheim ] Omega 28 (2000)
249−268
There are two other factors that reinforce P
A
G
E
2
5
3
objective research. According to Ualsham [38], in con- trast to Uhile there may be some referees and
the interpretive approach, positivist methods are usually less journal editors open-minded and non-
time consuming. A researcher can com- plete more studies in egotistical enough to contem- plate such an
less time using empirical tech- niques, Z. Golez,
and thusR.improve
Kivzchheim
his ]or
Omega 28 (2000)
alternative, very few have actually done so.5
P 249−268
her A chances of publication. The second factor is the Similarly, for functionalists, moving
G
socialization of newcomers to the field. Although one could northward on the regulation — radical
E
argue that, after tenure, scholars are free to adopt alternative change dimension would be akin to opening
2
research philosophies, it is unlikely that they will aban- don the the city gates to a horde of barbarians„
5
4
approach that has enabled them to achieve tenure, for two anarchy would reign. A mind conditioned to
reasons. One, their future success remains dependent on, or stability and consensus has diAculty
at least strongly influenced by, adhering to the values of the accepting change and con- flict. Given these
established ortho- doxy, which controls access to refereed unpalatable alternatives, it is not sur- prising
journals, research opportunities, funding, and further pro- that paradigmatic conversions remain rare.
motions and academic appointments [23,75]. This tends to
admit those who have a shared paradigmatic perspective with
the gatekeepers, while excluding others [47,78]. Two, by this
point in his or her career a particular set of assumptions has 6. Breaking the mold
become ingrained in the individual. For a researcher to migrate
from one frame of reference to another is tantamount to a reli- Notwithstanding the barriers to breaking
gious conversion„ it happens, but is so unusual an event as to
be ''heralded... in the literature, in that the theorist is usually out of the functionalist mold, a growing
welcomed by those whom he has joined and often disowned number of scholars argue that the
by his former paradigm col- leagues'' [54, p. 25].
dominance of a single perspective results in a
narrow view that does not fully reflect the
5.5. Jnpalatable altevnatirez
multifa- ceted nature of social,
Through the process of accepting papers for publi- cation, organizational, and phenomeno- logical
referees and journal editors have achieved a position of
influence and leadership. As has previously been shown, the reality [eg, 75,81,82]. There have been an
vast majority of these individuals have strong functionalist increasing number of scholars advocating the
leanings. If one accepts Bur- rell and Morgan's premise of
paradigm incommensur- ability, then the only alternative to appli- cation of multiple methods, theories,
positivism is some form of anti-positivism. Making this shift and philosophical approaches to information
would amount to a tacit admission by an individual that his or
her prior eRorts were misguided. His status would change from systems research [23,38,47− 50,53].
a leader of the ''mainstream navigators'' to a camp follower of Proponents of this viewpoint argue that a
the ''knights of change'' [47].
single research perspective limits, distorts, or

5 even obscures our view of relationships

This is not intended as a blanket indictment of referees and editors,
but rather as an acknowledgement of human nature. Most of us find it between information systems, people,
diAcult to grant credence to radi- cally opposing viewpoints, much less
switch our allegiance to them. However, there has been a trend organizations, and society.
towards methodologi- cal pluralism in IS journals [38], and those
individuals who have demonstrated receptivity towards research An exclusive view is, in our opinion,
outside the functionalist domain are to be commended. Nevertheless, always only a partial view, and the
the overall state of aRairs remains such that research in the positi- vist dominance of positivism, by not
mode is generally accepted without questioning its philo- sophical
acknowledging the legitimacy of other
underpinnings, while non-positivist researchers must still justify their
research traditions, has limited what
assumptions and approaches [38].
aspects of information systems
phenomena we have studied, and how
we have studied them. This has
implications not only for the development
of theory and our understand- ing of
information systems phenomena, but also
for the practice of information systems
work. The find- ings of information
systems research filter into the
practitioner community and are used as
prescrip- tions for practice. Restricted
research, thus, has far- reaching
consequences. [23, p. 7]

6.1. Altevnatire appvoachez

 going about one's research'', p. 329) allows
One way to view the debate about us to further cast the debate in terms of
alternative para- digms may be to view it in methodological monism versus methodo-
terms of research approaches. For example, logical pluralism (''a diversity of methods,
Galliers [83] has developed a taxonomy Z. Golez, theories,
of R. Kivzchheim ] Omega 28 (2000)
249−268 P
research approaches in the context of A
objective and interpretive philosophies. G
E
Galliers' defi- nition of approaches (''a way of
2
5
3
even philosophies'' [47, p. 78]). By adopting this point of view,
information systems researchers may be roughly divided into
three diRerent groups, each with its own outlook on paradigm
appropriateness. Landry and Banville Z. Golez,
[47] haveR. characterized
Kivzchheim ] Omega 28 (2000) winds of change in academia. In
P 249−268
these A groups as mainstream navigators, unity advocates, and
G emergence of interpretivism as a valid
knights
E of change. The first group, mainztveam narigatovz, is
composed of supporters of the dominant orthodoxy. Their
2 editorial policy and contents [38]. Ue have
epistemological
5 roots are in logical positivism, which cements
them 4 in the functionalist paradigm. The second group, unity
adrocatez, is more concerned with the acceptance of
information systems as a scientific discipline than with a
specific paradigm. In the unity advocates' view of the world, an
immature or pre- science discipline is characterized by the
existence of several competing paradigms. A more desirable
state, that of a full-fledged scientific discipline, is character-
ized by the reign of a single dominant paradigm. Since the
current state of information systems research is dominated by
positivism, unity advocates tend to clus- ter towards this end of
the paradigm dimension. The third group, knightz of change, is
of the opinion that reality is multifaceted, and forged from the
interpret- ations and interactions of individual actors. They also
give credence to the belief that no single research approach
can fully capture the richness and complexity of what we
experience as reality. Thus they champion a manifold (some
might say motley) assortment of research approaches
springing forth from diverse para- digms.
Perhaps the best way to illustrate the past and cur-
rent attitude towards alternative research paradigms in the
information systems field is with a quote from a recent editor of
WIS Quavtevly„
On the empirical side, we welcome research based on
positivist, interpretive, or integrated approaches.
Traditionally, WIS Quavtevly has emphasized positi- vist
research methods. Though we remain strong in our
commitment to hypothesis testing and quanti- tative data
analysis, we would like to stress our interest in research that
applies interpretive tech- niques, such as case studies,
textual analysis, ethno- graphy, and participant]observation.
[84, p. vii]
Although there are a number of ways to interpret this
statement (and a number of issues that can be raised if it were
to be thoroughly analyzed), one point stands out. The journal
has a ''commitment'' to positi- vist research, but only an
''interest'' in other approaches. Uhile some may feel that this is
semantic nit-picking, we would argue that it is an accurate
reflection of the general attitude towards research approaches
in the IS field. There may be growing inter- est in interpretive
research, but its reception runs the
gamut from enthusiastic embracing to grudging
accep- tance to outright disdain.
Journals often serve as indicators of the
prevailing
the IS field, it is poss- ible to trace the
research approach through monitoring their
already seen a quote that demonstrates how
WIS Quavtevly is opening its doors to
interpretive methods. The editorial policy of
Infovmation Syztemz Rezeavch as set forth
in 1990 was to publish the ''full variety'' of IS
research [85]. Although interpretive research
is not specifically men- tioned in this or
subsequent editorial remarks, ensuing
editorial statements emphasize the
''significance of in- formation technology in a
broader social context'' [34] and the
importance of ''diversity in our research per-
spectives'' [86]. These declarations bespeak
of a recep- tivity to interpretive methods and
positions. Perhaps the most broad-minded
IS journal is Accounting, Wan- agement, and
Infovmation Zechnologiez, with its call for
''openly interpretive and critical analy- sis,...
histories,.. .(and) field research which avoids
a naı¨ ve sense that one can just see,
record, or report accurately'' [87]. Taken as a
whole, these remarks indi- cate a growing
tolerance, or even enthusiasm, for inter-
pretivism.
Editorial policy statements are well and
good, but what is more to the point is journal
content. As was noted earlier, in 1989 Alavi
et al. [29] found little evi- dence of
interpretive methodologies in a 20-year span
of MIS literature. Two years later, Orlikowski
and Baroudi [23] determined that, in a five
year period from 1983 to 1988, only 3.2% of
articles published in mainstream US MIS
journals were interpretive. In a follow-up
study, Ualsham [38] concluded that there is
compelling evidence for the emergence of
interpreti- vism in journal content, especially
in European IS journals. In place of
summarizing Ualsham's work, it may be
more telling to illustrate his conclusion with
an example. A recent issue of Infovmation
Syztemz Jouvnal (April 1997) consisted
entirely of interpretive research. This
particular issue is notable not only for the
fact that all of the articles in it were
interpretive, but also for the strong, even
extreme, nature of the articles. The issue
began with a relatively traditional example of
interpretive research; case histories from
Lacity and Uillcocks [88] examining
outsourcing in government agencies. This
was followed by a participant obser- vation
study by Nandhakumar and Jones [52],
which forcefully argued for much closer
interaction, or engagement, between the
researcher and the phenom- ena of interest,
in this case EIS development at a large
manufacturing company. Then Brooks [89]
used a technique of paradigm bridging,
structuration model analysis, to examine the
introduction of new technol- ogy to an
organization. Finally, Harvey [90] provided

Z. Golez, R. Kivzchheim ] Omega 28 (2000)

249−268 P
A
G
E
2
5
3
a series of ethnographic field studies in powerfully arguing that
IT is a masculine culture that represses feminine expression.
Harvey's work is especially notable because it is an extremely
rare example of research in the radical Z. Golez, R. Kivzchheim
change ] Omega 28
dimension.
P 249−268
Research
A of this type, whether considered critical theory or
G humanist research, it is still virtually unheard of in
radical
E
mainstream IS journals (but note the two counter- examples of
2
Hirschheim and Hlein [91] and Ngwe- nyama and Lee [92]).
5 categorized both symbolic interac- tionism
The4point here is that not only is more interpretive research
seeing the light of day, but that it is breaking out of the case-
study stereotyping that was prevalent not so very long ago. 6
6.2. Wultipavadigm pevzpectirez
Yet even the knights of change, with their clarion call for
methodological pluralism, argue for change within Burrell and
Morgan's four paradigms. Others argue that Burrell and
Morgan's framework, by virtue of its widespread acceptance
and impact, has normal- ized and rationalized emerging
streams of research, constraining alternative perspectives.
In time, influential frameworks can become as restraining
and restrictive as those they originally challenged. .. we are
sometimes presented through responses to a conceptual
framework... with a new, rich set of alternative perspectives
through which we can continue our study and talk about our
sub- ject matter. [82, p. 190]
Although there are a number of proposed alterna- tives to
Burrell and Morgan [eg, 74], we shall focus on two in particular„
multiparadigm perspectives, and paradigm interplay. These
concepts both question one of the pillars upon which Burrell
and Morgan have based much of their argument — paradigm
incommen- surability.
Paradigm incommensurability is an outgrowth of Burrell and
Morgan's contention that paradigms are mutually exclusive.
Proponents of incommensurability argue for the separate and
distinct development and application of each paradigm. They
contend that the diRerent epistemological, ontological,
methodological, and sociological assumptions upon which
each para- digm is based are so contradictory as to erect
insur-
6
As mentioned earlier in this paper, the field of information systems
seems to be following in the footsteps of organiz- ational studies. In
that light, the interested reader may want to peruse one of the more
unusual and interesting approaches to organization theory„ Jermier's ''
'Uhen the Sleeper Uakes'„ A Short Story Extending Themes in Radical
Organization Theory'' [141], and related commentary by Smircich
[142].
mountable barriers between the paradigms
[93]. Opponents of incommensurability
counter with argu- ments that, while that the
(2000)assumptions of each paradigm are
central
indeed incompatible, the paradigm
boundaries are permeable [77,94]. For
example, Burrell and Morgan have
and abstracted empiricism in the
functionalist paradigm, while hermeneutics is
placed in the interpre- tive paradigm. It can
be argued that interactionists, with their
emphasis on understanding social phenom-
ena through an analysis of the interaction
between humans and their social context,
have more in com- mon with proponents of
hermeneutics (''Hermeneutics is concerned
with interpreting and understanding the
products of the human mind which
characterize the social and cultural world''
[54, p. 235]) than with abstract empiricists
(''research in which the social world is
treated methodologically as if it were a world
of hard, concrete, tangible reality'' — ibid., p.
106). This facilitates a greater flow of ideas
and information between interactionists and
hermeneutics advocates than between
interactionists and empiricists, undermin- ing
the notion of an impenetrable barrier
between paradigms. From a conceptual
standpoint, multipara- digm adherents also
argue that perspectives involving multiple
paradigms open more windows through
which to view a particular phenomenon,
permitting a more comprehensive outlook.
This stance implies that the provincialism
that comes with paradigm confinement
might instead be turned toward the
production of more complete views of
organizational phenomena via multipara-
digm consideration [77, p. 587].
Multiple paradigm advocates, in general,
look for limited paradigmatic de´ tente where
feasible via contra- dictions, tensions, and
linkages inherent in the diRerent paradigms
[75]. This may be best illustrated by using
the analogy of studying religion. Uhile there
may be basic diRerences between Islamic,
Buddist, and Chris- tian beliefs, there are
nonetheless similarities as well. By
comparing and contrasting the similarities
and diRerences, the religious scholar comes
to a greater understanding of each in its own
light, as well as a fuller appreciation of the
connections between them.
Gioia and Pitre [77] oRer one thesis on
how perspec- tives arising from diRerent
paradigms might be linked to yield a more
sweeping vista of organizational
phenomena. They recognize the existence
of bound- aries between paradigms, but
unlike Burrell and Mor- gan, they consider
the boundaries to be ill-defined. In a sense,
this is an extension of Burrell and Morgan's
position that each paradigm defines ''a range
of intel- lectual territory... with room for much
variation within them'' [54, p. 24]. If theorists
can ''adopt more

Z. Golez, R. Kivzchheim ] Omega 28 (2000)

249−268 P
A
G
E
2
5
3

Z. Golez, R. Kivzchheim ] Omega 28 (2000)
P 249−268
A mensurability, paradigm integration, and
G paradigm
E
2 any possibility of eRective ''joint ventures''
5
4 between paradigms, making this approach
Fig. 3. Burrell and Morgan's four paradigms with transition zones.
extreme positions in terms of one or both of the two
dimensions'' (ibid.), it follows that the dimensions are
continuums, and it becomes diAcult to envision an ab- solute or
impassable barrier dividing them. Gioia and Pitre [77] argue that
this is the case; that it is ''diAcult, if not impossible, to establish
exactly where one para- digm leaves oR and another begins''
(p. 592). In place of hard and fast barriers between paradigms,
they posit the existence of transition zones, or intermediate
regions with blurred and shifting lines of demarcation (see Fig.
3). Gioia and Pitre argue that these zones may be bridged. For
example, in his work on ztvucuva- tion theovy Giddens [95]
rejects the dualistic nature of the objective]subjective
dichotomy, arguing that sub- jects (people) and objects
(structure) do not constitute separate realities, but rather a
duality within the same reality. For Giddens, structure is simply
'memory traces in the human mind'. Structuration theory takes
up a central location on the objective-subjective conti- nuum,
eRectively bridging the transition zone between the two
extremes. Orlikowski and Robey [96] and Orli- kowski [97] draw
on structuration theory to provide examples of this approach in
the information systems field. In a like vein, the cvitical theovy
of Jurgen Haber- mas [98− 100] may be seen in the context of
bridging in that it encompasses empirical knowledge (which
may be considered functionalist), hermeneutic knowledge
(which may be considered interpretivist) and critical knowledge
(knowledge devoted to exposing oppression and domination,
or, in Burrell and Morgan's terms, radical humanism) [101]. Gioia
and Pitre [77] argue that other philosophical perspectives, such
as action research, some forms of Marxism and Ueberian the-
ories, and solipsism, may be seen as having a foot in more than
one paradigm.
6.3. Pavadigm intevplay
In another approach to multiparadigm research, Schultz and
Hatch [93] introduce the concept of inter-
play between paradigms. Their position is
that there are three possible paradigmatic
positions from which to launch
multiparadigm
research„ paradigm incom-
crossing. Pavadigm
incommenzuvability, as mentioned, excludes
moot as far as paradigm interplay is
concerned. Pavadigm inte- gvation
synthesizes contributions from diRerent
para- digms in an attempt to achieve a more
general model or theory. There is one major
drawback to this approach. Although the
paradigms may blur at the edges, they
remain based on competing and irreconcil-
able assumptions. Advocates of paradigm
integration often underestimate or overlook
entirely the impli- cations of blending
concepts and arguments grounded in
diRerent paradigms while ignoring the
incompatible assumptions upon which they
are based. Pavadigm cvozzing postulates
interdependent relationships between
paradigms by emphasizing interparadigmatic
contrasts and connections. A researcher
engaged in paradigm crossing ''recognizes
and confronts multiple paradigms, rather
than ignoring them as in the integra- tionist
position, or refusing to confront them as in
the incommensurability position'' [93, p.
533].
Schultz and Hatch [93] identified four
basic approaches to paradigm crossing„
zequential, pavallel, bvidging, and intevplay.
In sequential paradigm crossing the
relationship between paradigms is linear and
uni- directional. The results of research in
one paradigm are used to inform or advance
research in another. Lee [102,146] illustrated
this approach in organizational studies, in
which insights developed using interpretive
methods were used to lay the groundwork
for func- tional research into the same
phenomena.
Parallel paradigm crossing applies
diRerent para- digms at the same time, on
equal terms, to a particular problem.
Examples of this are Hassard's [103] study
of the British Fire Service, Martin's [104]
work on organ- izational culture, and Lacity
and Hirschheim's [105] analysis of IS
outsourcing. Hassard presented four
diRerent accounts of work behavior in the
British Fire Service, with each account
based on a diRerent Burrell and Morgan
paradigm. Martin [104] took a multipara-
digm approach to the study of dynamic
organizational cultures, arguing that as
organizational culture changes, viewing it
from diRerent social science per- spectives
yields a more comprehensive understanding
of the process. Lacity and Hirschheim [105]
analyzed
13 case studies using alternative
multiparadigmatic lenses. Parallel paradigm
crossing allows for the com- parison of crossing is based on the work of Gioia and
paradigms, but emphasizes contrasts and Pitre [77], as pre-
diRerences between paradigms while
neglecting simi- larities.
Bridging as a technique of paradigm
Z. Golez, R. Kivzchheim ] Omega 28 (2000)
249−268 P
A
G
E
2
5
3
viously discussed. It involves the use of what Schultz and
Hatch [93] term ''second-order concepts'' (p. 534) such as
structuration, negotiated order, and organiz- ing. By using
these means of alternative social and Z. or-Golez, R. Kivzchheim
ganizational
inquiry,
P 249−268
researchers
A can work in transition zones between paradigms.
ThisG
E
approach is the con- verse of parallel paradigm crossing.
Bridging empha- sizes similarities between paradigms at the
2
expense of diRerences. For example, Barley [106] applied
5
4 turation theory [95] to investigate the relationship
struc-
between technology and organization structure. He analyzed
how the implementation of new technology, a CT scanner used
as a diagnostic tool in hospitals, pro- vided an opportunity for
organizational structural change by way of altering the
interaction between physicians and radiology technicians. By
recognizing that the human activities of social construction
which help create organizational structure are in turn influ-
enced by the objective characteristics of the very struc- ture
thus created, Barley [106] bridged the gap between subjective
and objective perspectives of the same phenomena.
Paradigm interplay simultaneously acknowledges both
diRerences and similarities between paradigms. It permits the
researcher to take advantage of cross-ferti- lization between
paradigms by transposing contri- butions from studies in one
paradigm into the theoretical frameworks of another. ''This
transposition allows the findings of one paradigm to be
recontextua- lized and reinterpreted in such a way that they
inform the research conducted within a diRerent paradigm'' [93,
p. 535]. Paradigm interplay utilizes a mind-set of both− and
instead of eithev− ov to produce a new state of awareness. This
is done in two steps. First, the researcher focuses on three sets
of contrasts and con- nections between paradigms„
generality]contextuality; clarity]ambiguity;
stability]instability. After identi- fying and probing these
contrasts and connections in relation to the research
question(s), the next step is to move between paradigms by
exploring the implications of the contrasts and connections in
terms of one another on opposing dimensions. According to
Schultz and Hatch, this ''transforms the paradigm debate from
war.. . into a much more fluid or nomadic situation, where a
shifting number of positions and researchers interact'' (p. 552).
Although Orlikowski and Robey
[96] do not explicitly refer to their work as paradigm interplay,
their research into the relationship between information
technology and organizations may serve as an example. They
constructed a theoretical frame- work that focuses on the
interaction between the objec- tive and subjective dimensions
of social reality, arguing that information technology is ''.. .
physically and socially constructed by subjective human action,
while (it is) also objectified and reified through institutionali-
zation'' (p. 164). By bringing to light the interchanges
between ongoing human actions, social
processes, con- texts, and organizational
properties, Orlikowski and Robey provide an
] Omega 28
(2000)
alternative to researchers uncomfor- table
with the either]or choice between objectivism
and subjectivism.
7. Whe end of the paradigm wars
— the rise of pragmatism
Paradigm warriors have been
characterized as main- stream navigators,
unity advocates, and knights of change [31].
However, a new group is emerging which is
calling for an end to the paradigm wars —
the pacif- ists. These theorists and
researchers argue that there are strengths
and weaknesses in both the positivist and
anti-positivist positions, and point out that
the con- flicting paradigms have, in spite of
the best eRorts of their most ardent
supporters, achieved a state of coex- istence
[71]. Datta [107] has presented five
compelling arguments in support of this
assertion.
1. Both paradigms have been in use for a
number of years.
2. There are a considerable (and growing)
number of scholars arguing for the use of
multiple paradigms and methods.
3. Funding agencies support research in
both para- digms.
4. Both paradigms have had an influence on
various policies.
5. Much has been learned via each paradigm.
and
This paradigmatic coexistence, or de´ tente,
has abetted the emergence of a fresh
perspective on research. This viewpoint,
grounded in the philosophical school known
as pvagmatizm, is based on the proposition
that researchers should use ''whatever
philosophical and]or methodological
approach (that) works best for the par-
ticular research program under study'' [71, p.
5]. Uhile a full examination of pragmatism is
beyond the scope of this article, a brief
overview will help clarify its appeal as an
alternative approach to information sys-
tems research.
Pragmatism has its roots in the work of
late 19th and early 20th century scholars
and philosophers Uilliam James, CS Pierce,
John Dewey, and Oli- ver Uendell Holmes,
and contemporary philosophers such as
Richard Rorty and Donald Davidson [108]. It
represents a distinctively American
approach to philosophy, and as such has
met with a lukewarm reception by European
scholars, possibly due to its emphasis on
''what works'' while abstaining from the use
of metaphysical concepts such as ''Truth''
and ''Reality'' which have led to much
discussion and debate that, however
enjoyable, has arguably
Z. Golez, R. Kivzchheim ] Omega 28 (2000)
249−268 P
A
G
E
2
5
3
produced little in the way of research results [71]. In a nutshell,
the overriding issue for pragmatists is whether or not
something, be it philosophical assumptions, methodology, or
information, is useful Z. Golez, R. Kivzchheim ] Omega 28
P 249−268
— useful
A in the sense that the something in ques- tion is
G
instrumental in producing desired or antici- pated results.
E
However, it is important to understand that the pragmatists'
use 25 of the term ''useful'' is not the same as utilitarian.
4
Pragmatists infuse ''useful'' with value, but the value is depen-
dent on the researcher's beliefs and interpretation of the
relevance and importance ''of a set of ideas as defined by their
purposes and those shared by their community'' [148, p. 129].
In a research setting, pragmatists place the research question
above such considerations as methodology or the underlying
worldview [71]. A fuller understanding of this con- cept may be
facilitated by a comparison of some fundamental assumptions
of pragmatism to those of positivism and anti-positivism.
Assumptions concerning what forms the basis for
''legitimate'' research help create the conceptual
7
To some extent, it is tempting to draw a parallel between
pragmatism and the scientific realism of Bhaskar [143]. For Bhaskar,
scientific realism is more than an ontological stance in that it adopts a
particular epistemology as well. His version of scientific realism agrees
with Huhn that knowledge is a social and historical product. The task of
science is to invent theories that aim to represent the world. In this
way, science generates its own rational criteria that determine which
the- ories are to be accepted or rejected. Crucially, it is possible for
these criteria to be rational precisely because there is a world that
exists independently of our cognizant experience [144]. The theories
which result from these rational criteria may be wrong, since they are
based on the known world rather than the world itself. But nonetheless,
they are what the community agrees on and is based on a community
stan- dard of what constitutes ''valid'' or ''believable'' knowledge claims.
According to Bhaskar [143], it is our knowledge of the world that is
circular; the world itself exists, and we experi- ence perceptions of that
world. The goal of science is to build sophisticated models using
rational criteria to represent the world. As already mentioned, the
models represent only what we know of the world and this knowledge
is inherently flawed; but as we build successive models we may
improve our representation. By making use of cognitive materials and
operating under the control of something like a logic of ana- logy or
metaphor, we can postulate a model. Ue do not believe that the model
exactly duplicates the world; but, if this model were to exist and act in
the way specified, then it allows us to account for observed
phenomena. Lastly, Bhas- kar notes that models are composed of
abstractions and are untruthful, by definition, since they oversimplify.
The greater the level of abstraction, the more this is so since they
move further from empirical phenomena and oversimplify by group- ing
lower level abstractions.
framework within which a scholar operates.
To help diRerentiate pragmatism from
positivism and anti- positivism, we shall
on three of these assump- tions„
(2000)
focus
ontology (the nature of reality); epistemology
(the acquisition of knowledge); and axiology
(the role of values in research).
As noted earlier in the paper, positivists
argue that there is an external, objective
reality that exists inde- pendent of the
individual. Anti-positivists counter that reality
is equivocal, that each individual uniquely
inter- prets it. Pragmatists take the position
that there is an objective reality, existing
externally to the individual. However, this
reality is grounded in the environment and
experience of each individual, and can only
be imperfectly understood. The choice of
one version of reality over another by a
researcher is governed by how well that
choice results in anticipated or desired
outcomes [71]. For example, upon observing
an object consisting of a flat surface
supported by four legs, a positivist would
define it as a table, no matter how it was
being used. An anti-positivist would define
the object based on his or her individual
perspective„ if he were eating oR it, it would
be a table; if he were sitting on it, it would be
a bench; if he were standing on it, it would
be a platform, and so forth. A pragmatist
would define the object based on what use it
was to him. If he intended to eat, it would be
a table. If he intended to sit on it, it would be
a bench. If he intended to stand on it, it
would be a platform. The crucial diRerence
is that the object is not defined in terms of
what it is or how it was or is being used, but
rather by how it helps the pragmatist achieve
his pur- pose.
In a like vein, positivists believe that
knowledge is objective, and is acquired by
examining empirical evi- dence and testing
hypotheses to uncover general or
fundamental laws. By contrast, anti-
positivists believe knowledge is relative and
reality is too complex to be ''known'' by a
single perspective. Pragmatists fall
somewhere in between positivists and anti-
positivists. They view the process of
acquiring knowledge as a continuum, rather
than as two opposing and mutually exclusive
poles of objectivity and subjectivity. This
allows the pragmatist to select the approach
and meth- odology most suited to a
particular research question, providing a
conceptual foundation for the use of both
quantitative and qualitative tools.7
Positivists believe research is (or should
be) value- free„ ''Researchers stand as
neutral observers, using scientific
techniques that allow them to get beyond
human biases so that they can make contact
with 'rea- lity' and document facts'' [148, p.
125]. Positivists typi- cally go to great
lengths to minimize their personal values
and theoretical leanings and to ensure the
in- ternal and external validity of their work,
as exempli- fied by the wide acceptance and
use of the principles

Z. Golez, R. Kivzchheim ] Omega 28 (2000)

249−268 P
A
G
E
2
5
3
and methods set forth by Cook and Campbell [110]. Anti-
positivists, on the other hand, view research as bound by the
values of the researcher. They readily acknowledge their
biases and subjectivity, arguing that the Z. alternate
Golez, R. Kivzchheim ] Omega 28
perspectives
P 249−268
generated
A by this approach oRer a more accurate reflection of
G
a complex and multi-faceted reality. Pragmatists once again
E
take a middle position. They cheerfully concede that an indi-
2
vidual's values play a significant role in research, but believe
5 survey data, as opposed to using case data
that4the positivist zeal for objectivity is mis- spent time and
eRort in attempting to attain the unat- tainable [71]. Similarly,
pragmatists see the anti- positivists relativistic approach as
problematic due to its notion that all insights, perspectives, and
values are equally valid [109]. To a pragmatist, values are rel-
evant and important only insofar as they influence what to
study and how to do so.
Thus, pragmatists decide what they want to research,
guided by their personal value systems; that is, they study
what they think is important to study. They then study the
topic in a way that is congruent with their value system,
including vari- ables and units of analysis that they feel are
most appropriate for finding an answer to their research
question. [71, p. 26]
It should not be taken from the preceding, however, that
pragmatism espouses an anything-goes approach to research.
On the contrary, pragmatism oRers a wel- come opportunity to
improve the rigor and relevance of IS research. Pragmatism
recognizes the importance of theory as a means of explaining
and predicting phenomena, while subjecting it to the test of
practice and time in order to determine its usefulness or value
[109]. Similarly, regardless of what particular method- ology is
selected, the standards of scholarly rigor and thoroughness are
still applicable.
8. Implisations of pragmatism for information systems
researsh
To summarize in metaphorical terms, positivism may be
viewed as an orchestra. There is one common score, with
clear-cut and well-defined roles and expec- tations for each
musician. Anti-positivism might be likened to a solo performer,
free to select and interpret a piece of music according to his or
her own prefer- ences. Pragmatism, then, is a jazz ensemble,
with each performer having a certain amount of freedom within
a general but loosely-defined framework. It oRers a very
practical basis for research that has great appeal to an applied
field such as IS„ ''Study what interests and is of value to you,
study it in the diRerent ways that you deem appropriate, and
use the results in ways
that can bring about positive consequences
within your value system'' [71, p. 30].
One example of this approach in the IS
(2000)
field may be seen in Gable's [111] use of
both qualitative and quan- titative methods
to study IS consultant engagement success
factors. By integrating case study and
to feed the survey process, Gable was able
to develop a contextual rich- ness
characteristic of ideographic research, while
at the same time triangulating the results to
improve the study's validity. Although Gable
refers to this as multi-method, his emphasis
on the research objectives and call for
tolerance of methodological pluralism clearly
falls within the spirit of pragmatism. More
recently, Hing and Applegate [45], while not
explicitly mentioning pragmatism, echo its
underlying doctrine„
Ue use the methods that work for us,
nothing more and nothing less. Ue are
not wedded to these methods, but to the
insights they can uncover and the
understandings they can aRord us. Ue
use them until they no longer provide
benefit, and then we either switch
methods or move on to other topics.. .
The rising acceptance within the IS field of
alternate research methods and paradigms
is earnestly welcome. It signifies a growing
maturity of the field and its con- stituents.
However, the use of multiple research
methods does not necessarily indicate the
researcher is approaching the question from
multiple paradigms. To truly reflect a multi-
faceted reality, methodological pluralism
must have a philosophical foundation that
embraces a pluralistic perspective.
Otherwise the use of multiple methods within
a single paradigm will still only result in a
unidimensional view of the rich and varied
tapestry called reality.
As we have argued, pragmatism
undercuts the tra- ditional dichotomistic
warfare between conflicting paradigms by
providing a philosophical basis grounded in
pluralism [112]. Through its position that
there are multiple concepts, interpretations,
and classificatory formats of a phenomenon,
pragmatism facilitates the construction of
meaningful bridges and interplay between
conflicting paradigms [109]. This is
illustrated by the recent attention
pragmatism is receiving as a philosophical
foundation for futures studies [113], the
study of business ethics [109,112], and
organization studies [109].
Uhat does this growing acceptance of
pragmatism as a philosophical basis for
academic research mean to the IS field? If,
as some claim, the paradigm wars are over,
what are the next steps in the evolution of IS
research? One insight might be found in
Markus' address to the 1997 International
Federation for Infor- mation Processing
(IFIP) conference. She argued that

Z. Golez, R. Kivzchheim ] Omega 28 (2000)

249−268 P
A
G
E
2
5
3
one of the directions the field should now take is ''the
appreciation of practicality in IS research'' [33, p. 18]. The
intent of what she terms practical research is not to replace or
overshadow research that builds or tests Z. Golez, R. Kivzchheim
academic ] Omega 28
theory, but
P 249−268
rather
A to complement theoretical research with ''rigorous
G
research that describes and evaluates what is going on in
E
practice'' [33, p. 18]. This is underscored by the 1997
2
International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), with
5
4
its emphasis on ''the issue of relevance and relationship of IS
research to practice'' [114, p. xvii]. More recently, WIS Quav-
tevly announced a renewed thrust aimed ''at better imbuing
rigorous research with the element of rel- evance to managers,
consultants, and other prac- titioners'' [102, p. viii]. The
discussions presented by Benbasat and Zmud [115],
Applegate and Hing [116], Lyytinen [117], and Lee [118]
support this thrust. Prag- matism provides an attractive
approach to meet these calls for increased interplay between
research and prac- tice. For example, pragmatism is
suggested as a philo- sophical basis for the synergistic
combination of consulting and academic research in IS [119].
Daven- port and Markus [120], in like fashion, note the value of
consulting and academic research learning from each other.
Similarly, although not overtly referred to, Avison et al.'s [39]
advocacy for greater use of action research to make IS
academic research more relevant to practitioners endorses the
tenets of pragmatism.
9. Conslusions
As has been suggested in the paper, there is con- siderable
evidence to support the case that paradig- matic dominance
has occurred in the short span of the evolution of IS. In a
classical article Dickson [9] noted that the ''genesis'' of the IS
concept can be linked to decision making and ''viewing the
management process as a cybernetic control system within the
organization, relying heavily upon the computer as the control
mech- anism'' (p. 6). Several more recent articles note that this
control notion is still predominant in IS research [121− 124]. This
is hardly surprising when one considers that the one dominant
paradigm guiding IS research, namely functionalism, embracing
the so-called 'scienti- fic method', favors control over
interpretation and emancipation. Parenthetically, it can be
noted that the idea that IS can contribute to better
organizational control has become a cornerstone of Uestern
manage- ment ideology [24,125,126]. It also underlies the
research on IT for competitive advantage [127− 129]. But whilst
the preeminence of functionalism has been the case historically,
need it continue in the future?
It is our belief that paradigmatic unity (or more specifically,
paradigmatic dominance) is fundamentally
undesirable. It is done at the expense of
constraining the domain of inquiry by taking
one viewpoint and construing all others
(2000) its lens. This we argue leads to a
through
reduction in the variety of research
approaches and limits their potential cross-
fertilization. Instead, paradigmatic pluralism
is needed. Indeed, paradigmatic pluralism
should not simply be tolerated, but a goal
the IS community should strive for.
Paradigmatic pluralism's strength is its
recognition of the intrinsic diversity of
problem formulations faced by the
community of IS researchers. There are
commu- nities and sub-communities
addressing rich and varied problems. Ue
believe the next step is to intensify the
interactions between these sub-communities
because no one community has a privileged
position over the others nor is always
superior in its problem solving capabilities.
(Indeed, to be consistent with the pragma-
tist position, one might sensibly argue that
the final verdict ought to rest with the
practitioner community which relies on the
outcomes of IS research.) Instead, the
credibility of the IS research community as a
whole rests on its competence in handling
diverse problems, in its ability to solve
problems in the sense of generat- ing
successful IS solutions. This necessitates that
diRer- ent research communities recognize
one another and interrelate their research
outputs. IS researchers should exhibit more
tolerance towards adherents of diRerent
research orientations. This includes the claim
for equi- table distribution of research
resources among adher- ents of diRerent
traditions. Several institutional arrangements
can serve this end. For example, tenure and
promotion committee compositions should
reflect competencies in a variety of research
traditions, thus leading to more favorable
decisions for those engaging in non-
traditional research. Publication policies
should not only reflect the pluralistic nature
of the field but encourage research that
interrelates diRerent IS pro- blem solving
capabilities. In some specialties such as [50], ''In- formation Systems and Qualitative
Computer Supported Cooperative Uork this Research'' [48], the Software Engineering
has already occurred [cf. 130− 132]. It can also Conference on 'Reality Con- struction' [133];
Z. Golez, R. Kivzchheim ] Omega 28 (2000)
be seen in the publication decisions of249−268
some specific papers such as Hirschheim and P
A
major research jour- nals, for example, ACW Hlein's [76] paradigmatic analysis of GE
Zvanzactionz on (Oflce ) Infov- mation information sys- tems development, 2
5
Syztemz' special issue on the Language Cooper's [134] review of the IS research 3
Action View (April 1988) and WISQ's special literature, Iivari's [135] analysis of seven con-
issue on Inten- sive Research (March 1999); temporary IS schools, Orlikowski and
conferences such as IFIP UG8.2's conferences Baroudi's [23] article on IS research
on ''Information Systems Research„ A traditions, and Iivari et al.'s.
Dubious Science?'' [49] and ''The Infor-
mation Systems Research Arena for the 90's''
[136] paradigmatic review of five 'contrasting' ISD approaches; her case study research methods, but for
and even on the web [45]. her ideas on organizational use of
Publication policy changes are starting to become visible. technology. Methods and per- spectives are
Z. Golez, R. Kivzchheim ] Omega 28 (2000) They provide standards on which
important.
Uhilst 249−268
P the major IS research journals such as Communicationz
A to judge the rigor and relevance of a piece of
G
of the
E ACW, Wanagement Science, WIS Quavtevly, Infovmation
research. But they are secondary to the
contributions of ideas. This is where the true
Syztemz
2 Rezeavch, Jouvnal of Wanagement Infovmation value of research diver- sity becomes
5
4
Syztemz, and Decizion Science have traditionally published apparent. To revisit the metaphor of ''many
flowers blooming'', the seeds from which the
mostly functional- ist IS research, there has been an increasing flowers spring are the various and sundry
number of non-functionalist pieces beginning to appear [eg, research methods and philosophies intrinsic
to the information systems field. The more
38,91,92,137− 139]. One can also see the emergence of journals these seeds are nurtured, the more flowers
which have specifically recognized the need to publish scholarly we will see.

pieces that are not necessarily informed by the functionalist

paradigm„ eg Account- ing, Wanagement and Infovmation
Asknowledgements
Zechnologiez; Scandi- narian Jouvnal of Infovmation Syztemz;
Infovmation Syztemz Jouvnal; Infovmation Zechnology and This paper has benefited from discussions
the authors have had with Heinz Hlein, Halle
People; and Euvopean Jouvnal of Infovmation Syztemz. Note Lyytinen, Juhani Iivari, Uynne Chin, and
though how these journals are all very new (none of them is George Zinkhan. Ue would like to also thank
two anonymous reviewers who provided
older than 1990). This shows that research communities valuable comments on the paper.
addressing problems within diRerent paradigms have
developed enough of a critical mass to make their knowledge
Referenses
claims acceptable to a wider audience, but this is a relatively
recent phenomenon. [1] Mason R, MitroR I. A program for research
Another positive sign is that the academic credibility of on man- agement information systems.
scholars within the field is not as interwoven with their choice
of methods and perspectives as it once was. This new and Management Science 1973;19(5)„475− 87.
refreshing openness is reflected in the growing number of [2] Ives B, Hamilton S, Davis G. A framework for
alternative research works appearing in mainstream IS journals
research in computer-based management
as was noted above. This in turn reflects the intent of many
influen- tial leaders in the IS field to truly let ''many flowers information systems. Management Science
bloom''. 1980;26(9)„910− 34.
However, to continue with the metaphor, this is not to say
[3] Lyytinen H. A taxonomic perspective of
that everything is coming up roses. Pressures still exist for ''...
quick and dirty, close to market out- put, both in teaching and information systems development„
research. This should keep functionalism alive and kicking.. . '' theoretical constructs and rec-
[75, p. 706]. Researchers are unlikely to fully reorient
themselves until criteria for tenure and promotion become ommendations. In„ Boland R, Hirschheim R,
more focused on diversity and quality of publications, and less editors. Critical Issues in Information Systems
focused on quantity. An individual academic insti- tution is Research. Chichester„ Uiley, 1987. p. 3− 41.
unlikely to change tenure criteria until other schools do the
same. Breaking this logjam will most likely require collective [4] Swanson E, Ramiller N. Information systems
action, or at least an initiative by top-ranked universities [78], research thematics„ submissions to a new
neither of which is cer- tain. Uhat is more likely is that the trend
journal, 1987− 1992. Information Systems
towards greater acceptance of non-traditional research will
gradually grow from a trickle to a respectable stream. Research 1993;4(4)„299− 330.
Yet in the long run, what is important is not so much the [5] Cheon M, Lee C, Grover V. Research in MIS
methods or paradigmatic groundings of scholars, but their
— points of work and reference„ A
ideas [78]. For example, Izak Benba- sat is cited in the
information systems literature not for his skill in multivariate replication and extension of the Culnan and
statistics, but for his ideas on the adoption and impact of Swanson study. Data Base 1992;23(2)„21− 9.
technology on individ- ual behavior. Uanda Orlikowski is
recognized not for [6] Culnan M. The intellectual development of
manage- ment information systems,
1972− 1982„ A co-citation analysis.
Management Science 1986;32(2)„156− 72.
[7] Culnan M. Mapping the intellectual structure
 of MIS, 1980− 1985„ A co-citation analysis. [9] Dickson GU. Management information
MIS Quarterly 1987;11(3)„341− 53. systems„ Evolution and status. In„ Yovitz M,
[8] Culnan M, Swanson EB. Research in editor. Advances in Computers, vol. 20. New
management in- formation systems, York„ Academic Press, 1981. p. 1− 29.
Z. Golez, R. Kivzchheim ] Omega 28 (2000)
249−268 P
1980− 1984„ Points of work and rel- evance. [10] Friedman A, Cornford D. Computer Systems A
G
E
MIS Quarterly 1986;10(3)„286− 301.
2
5
3
 Development„ History, Organization and Henderson JC, Honsynski BR, editors.
Implementation. Chichester„ Uiley, 1989.
Proceedings of the Tenth International
[11] Benbasat I, Ueber R. Rethinking diversity in infor- mation systems
Conference on Information Systems, 1989. p.
Z. Golez, R. Kivzchheim ] Omega 28 (2000)
P research. Information Systems Research 1996;7(4)„389− 99.
249−268
A
[12]GDeMarco T. Structured Analysis and Systems Specification. New 363− 75.
E York„ Yourdon Press, 1978.
[30] Backhouse J, Liebenau J, Land F. On the
[13]2 Gane C, Sarson T. Structured Systems Analysis„ Tools and
5 Techniques. Englewood CliRs„ Prentice Hall, 1979. discipline of information systems. Journal of
4
[14] Alter S, Ginzberg MJ. Managing uncertainty in MIS Information Systems 1991;1(1)„19− 27.
implementation. Sloan Management Review 1978;19„23− 31. [31] Banville C, Landry M. Can the Field of MIS be
[15] Heen P, Scott-Morton M. Decision Support Systems„ An
Disciplined? Communications of the ACM
Organizational Perspective. Reading, MA„ Addison- Uesley,
1978. 1989;32(1)„48− 60.
[16] Bardach E. The Implementation Game. Cambridge„ MIT Press,
[32] Heen P. Relevance and rigor in information
1977.
[17] Heen P. Information systems and organizational change. systems research„ improving quality,

Communications of the ACM 1981;24(1)„24− 33. confidence, cohesion, and impact. In„ Nissen

[18] Newman M, Rosenberg D. Systems analysts and the politics of HE, Hlein HH, Hirschheim R, edi- tors.

organizational control. Omega 1985;13(3)„393− 406. Information Systems Research„

[19] Uilensky H. Organizational Intelligence„ Hnowledge and Policy in Contemporary Approaches and Emergent
Government and Industry. New York„ Basic Books, 1967.
[20] Argyris C, Schon D. Organizational Learning„ A Theory of Action Traditions. Amsterdam„ North-Holland, 1991.
Perspective. Reading, MA„ Addison- Uesley, 1978. p. 27− 49.
[21] Heiskanen A. Issues and Factors ARecting the Success and
Failure of a Student Record System Development Process — A [33] Markus ML. The qualitative diRerence in
Longitudinal Investigation Based on Reflection-in-Action. PhD information systems research and practice.
Dissertation, Helsinki School of Economics and Business
Administration, Helsinki, 1994. In„ Lee A, Liebenau J, DeGross J, editors.
[22] Holb D. Experiential Learning, Experience as the Source of Information Systems and Qualitative
Learning and Development. Englewood CliRs, NJ„ Prentice Hall,
1984. Research. London„ Chapman & Hall, 1997. p.
[23] Orlikowski U, Baroudi J. Studying information tech- nology in 11− 27.
organizations„ research approaches and assumptions. [34] Hing J. Editorial notes. Information Systems
Information Systems Research 1991;2(1)„1− 28. Research 1993;4(4)„291− 8.
[24] Sandberg A. Socio-technical design, trade union strat- egies and [35] Denning P, Comer D, Gries D, Mulder M,
action research. In„ Mumford E, Hirschheim R, Fitzgerald G, Tucker A, Turner AJ, Young P. Computing as
Uood-Harper AT, editors. Research Methods in Information a discipline„ Final report of the task force on
Systems. Amsterdam„ North- Holland, 1985. p. 79− 92. the core of computer science.
[25] Alchian A, Demsetz H. Production, information costs and Communications of the ACM
economic organizations. American Economic Review 1989;32(1)„9− 23.
1972;62(5)„777− 95. [36] Uhitley R. The Intellectual and Social
[26] Heikkila J. The DiRusion of a Learning Intensive Technology into Organization of the Sciences. Oxford„
Organizations„ The case of PC technol- ogy. PhD Dissertation, Clarendon Press, 1984.
Department of Computer Science, University of Tampere, 1995. [37] Uhitley R. The development of management
[27] Uilliamson O. Markets and Hierarchies„ Analysis and Antitrust
Implications. New York„ Free Press, 1975. studies as a fragmented adhocracy. Social
[28] Robey D. Diversity in information systems research„ threat, Science Information 1984;23(4]5)„775− 818.
promise, and responsibility. Information Systems Research [38] Ualsham G. The emergence of interpretivism
1996;7(4)„400− 8. in IS research. Information Systems Research
[29] Alavi M, Carlson P, Brooke G. The ecology of MIS research„ A 1995;6(4)„376− 94.
twenty year review. In„ DeGross JI,
[39] Avison D, Lau F, Myers M, Nielsen PA. Action
research. Communications of the ACM
1999;42(1)„94− 7.
[40] Benbasat I, editor. The Information Systems
Research Challenge„ Experimental
Research Methods, vol. 2. Boston„ Harvard
University Press, 1989.
[41] Cash J, Lawrence P, editors. The
Information Systems Research Challenge„
Qualitative Research Methods, vol. 1.
 Boston„ Harvard University Press, 1989. trends and needs. In„ Buckingham R,
[42] Farhoomand A. Scientific progress of Hirschheim R, Land F, Tully C, editors.
Information Systems Education„
management in- formation systems. Data Recommendations and Implementation.
Base 1987;Summer„48− 56. Cambridge„ Cambridge University Press,
Z. Golez, R. Kivzchheim ] Omega 28 (2000)
249−268 1987. P
[43] Galliers R. In search of a paradigm for [45] Hing J, Applegate L. Crisis in the case study A
G
information systems research. In„ Mumford crisis„ marginal diminishing returns to scale E
in the quantitat- ive-qualitative research
E, Hirschheim R, Fitzgerald G, Uood-Harper 2
debate. www.hbs.edu]applegate] 5
cases]research], 1997. 3
T, editors. Research Methods in Information
[46] Hraemer H, editor. The Information Systems Research
Systems. Amsterdam„ North- Holland, 1985.
p. 281− 97.
[44] Heen P. MIS research„ current status,
 Challenge„ Survey Research Methods, vol. 3. Boston„ Harvard [67] Popper H. Objective Hnowledge. Oxford„
University Press, 1991. Oxford University Press, 1972.
[47] Landry M, Banville C. A disciplined methodological pluralism for [68] Berger P, Luckmann T. The Social
Construction of Reality. New York„
Z. Golez, R. Kivzchheim ] Omega 28 (2000)
P MIS research. Accounting, Management,249−268 and Information Doubleday, 1967.
A [69] Fay B. Social Theory and Political Practice.
GTechnologies 1992;2(2)„77− 97.
E London„ George Allen & Unwin, 1975.
[48] Lee A, Liebenau J, DeGross J, editors. Information Systems and [70] Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic Inquiry.
2 Qualitative Research. London„ Chapman & Hall, 1997.
5 Beverly Hills, CA„ Sage, 1985.
[49]4 Mumford E, Hirschheim R, Fitzgerald G, Uood- Harper T, editors. [71] Tashakkori A, Teddlie C. Mixed
Research Methods in Information Systems. Amsterdam„ North- Methodology„ Combining Qualitative and
Holland, 1985. Quantitative Approaches. London„ Sage,
[50] Nissen HH, Hlein H, Hirschheim R. Information Systems 1998.
Research„ Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Themes. [72] Silverman D. The Theory of Organizations.
Amsterdam„ North-Holland, 1991. London„ Heinemann Books, 1970.
[51] Hirschheim R, Hlein H, Lyytinen H. Exploring the intellectual [73] Chua U. Radical developments in accounting
structures of information systems develop- ment„ a social action thought. The Accounting Review
theoretic analysis. Accounting, Management and Information 1986;61(4)„601− 32.
Technologies 1996;6(1] 2)„1− 64. [74] Deetz S. Describing diRerences in
[52] Nandhakumar J, Jones M. Too close for comfort? Distance and approaches to organ- ization science„
engagement in interpretive information systems research. Rethinking Burrell and Morgan and their
Information Systems Journal 1997;7(2)„109− 31. legacy. Organization Science
[53] Hirschheim R, Hlein H, Lyytinen H. Information Systems 1996;7(2)„191− 207.
Development and Data Modeling„ Conceptual and Philosophical
Foundations. Cambridge„ Cambridge University Press, 1995. [75] Uillmott H. Breaking the paradigm mentality.
[54] Burrell G, Morgan G. Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Organization Studies 1993;14(5)„681− 730.
Analysis. London„ Heinemann Books, 1979.
[55] Suppe F. The search for philosophical understanding of scientific [76] Hirschheim R, Hlein H. Four paradigms of
theories. In„ Suppe F, editor. The Structure of Scientific information systems development.
Theories, 2nd ed. Urbana„ University of Illinois Press, 1977.
[56] Toulmin S. Human Understanding„ The Collective Use and Communications of the ACM
Evolution of Concepts. Princeton„ Princeton University Press, 1989;32(10)„1199− 216.
1972.
[57] Huhn T. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago„ [77] Gioia D, Pitre E. Multiparadigm perspectives
University of Chicago Press, 1970. on theory building. Academy of
[58] Snyder P. Toward One Science„ The Convergence of Traditions.
Management Review 1990;15(4)„584− 602.
New York„ St. Martin's Press, 1978.
[59] Anderson P. Marketing, scientific progress, and scienti- fic [78] Stern R, Barley S. Organizations and social

method. Journal of Marketing 1983;46(Fall)„18− 31. systems„ or- ganization theory's neglected

[60] Laudan L. Views of progress„ separating the pilgrims from the mandate. Administrative Science Quarterly

rakes. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 1980;10„273− 86. 1996;41(1)„146− 62.

[61] Feyerabend P. Against Method. London„ Lowe and Brydone, [79] Parkhe A. 'Messy' research, methodological
1975.
predisposi- tions, and theory development in
[62] Guba E, Lincoln Y. Competing paradigms in qualitat- ive research.
international joint ventures. Academy of
In„ Denzin NH, Guba EG, editors. Handbook of Qualitative
Management Review 1993;18(2)„227− 68.
Research. Thousand Oaks, CA„ Sage, 1994. p. 105− 17. [80] Haplan A. The Conduct of Inquiry„
[63] Brown S, Fauvel J, Finnegan R, editors. Concepts of Inquiry. Methodology for Behavioral Science. San
London„ Open University Press, 1981. Francisco„ Chandler, 1964.
[64] Holakowski L. Positivist Science. Harmondsworth„ Penguin [81] Blau J. Organizations as overlapping
Books, 1972.
[65] Alexander J, editor. Neofunctionalism. Beverly Hills„ Sage jurisdictions„ Restoring reason in
Publications, 1985. organizational accounts. Administrative
[66] Popper H. Conjectures and Refutations. London„ Routledge &
Hegan Paul, 1963. Science Quarterly 1996;41(1)„172− 9.
[82] Frost P. Crossroads. Organization Science
1996;7(2)„190.
[83] Galliers R. Choosing appropriate information
systems research approaches„ A revised
taxonomy. In„ Nissen HH, Hlein H,
Hirschheim R, editors. Information Systems
Research„ Contemporary Approaches and
Emergent Themes. Amsterdam„ North-
 Holland, 1991. p. 327− 46. research agendas. Accounting,
[84] DeSanctis G. Theory and research„ Goals, Management, and Information Technologies
priorities, and approaches. MIS Quarterly 1991;1(1)„1− 7.
1993;17(1)„vi− viii. Z. Golez, R. Kivzchheim ] Omega 28 (2000)
[88] Lacity M, Uillcocks L. Information systems
249−268 P
A
[85] Swanson E. Introducing information sourcing„ examining the privatization option G
systems research. Information Systems E
Research 1990;1(1) Forward. in USA public ad- ministration. Information
2
[86] Hing J. Editorial notes. Information Systems Systems Journal 1997;7(2)„85− 108. 5
Research 1996;7(4)„388. 3
[89] Brooks L. Structuring theory and new technology„ ana-
[87] Boland R, O'Leary T. Technologies of
inscribing and organizing„ Emerging
 [110] Cook T, Campbell D. Quasi-Experimentation„ Design
lysing organizationally situated computer-aided design (CAD).
Information Systems Journal 1997;7(2)„133− 51.
[90] Harvey L. A genealogical exploration Z.of Golez,
gendered gen- res in] IT
R. Kivzchheim Omega 28 (2000)
P 249−268
A cultures. Information Systems Journal 1997;7(2)„153− 72.
G
E
[91] Hirschheim R, Hlein H. Realizing emancipatory prin- ciples in
2
5 information systems development„ the case for ETHICS. MIS
4
Quarterly 1994;18(1)„83− 109.
[92] Ngwenyama O, Lee A. Communication richness in elec- tronic
mail„ critical social theory and the contextuality of meaning. MIS
Quarterly 1997;21(2)„145− 66.
[93] Schultz M, Hatch M. Living with multiple paradigms„ the case of
paradigm interplay in organizational culture studies. Academy of
Management Review 1996;21(2)„529− 57.
[94] Hassard J. Overcoming hermeticism in organization theory„ an
alternative to paradigm incommensurability. Human Relations
1988;41(3)„247− 59.
[95] Giddens A. The Constitution of Society„ Outline for a Theory of
Structuration. Cambridge„ Polity Press, 1984.
[96] Orlikowski U, Robey D. Information technology and the
structuring of organizations. Information Systems Research
1991;2(2)„143− 69.
[97] Orlikowski U. The duality of technology„ rethinking the concept of
technology in organizations. Organization Science
1992;3(3)„398− 427.
[98] Habermas J. Theory and Practice. London„ Heinemann, 1974.
[99] Habermas J. Communication and the Evolution of Society.
London„ Heinemann, 1979.
[100] Habermas J. In„ The Theory of Communicative Action
— Reason and the Rationalization of Society, vol. I. Boston„
Beacon Press, 1984.
[101] Turner J. The Structure of Sociological Theory. Belmont„
Uadsworth Publishing, 1991.
[102] Lee A. The MIS field, the publication process, and the future
course of MIS Quarterly. MIS Quarterly 1999;23(1)„v− xi.
[103] Hassard J. Multiple paradigms and organizational analysis„ a case
study. Organization Studies 1991;12(2)„275− 99.
[104] Martin J. Cultures in Organizations. New York„ Oxford University
Press, 1992.
[105] Lacity M, Hirschheim R. Information Systems Outsourcing„
Myths, Metaphors and Realities. Chichester„ Uiley, 1993.
[106] Barley S. Technology as an occasion for structuring„ evidence
from observations of CT scanners and the social order of
radiology departments. Administrative Science Quarterly
1986;31(1)„78− 108.
[107] Datta L. Paradigm wars„ A basis for peaceful coexis- tence and
beyond. In„ Reichardt CS, Rallis SF, editors. The Qualitative-
Quantitative Debate„ New Perspectives. San Francisco„ Jossey-
Bass, 1994. p. 53− 70.
[108] Menard L. The return of pragmatism. American Heritage
1997;48(6)„48− 63.
[109] Uicks AC, Freeman RE. Organization studies and the new
pragmatism. Organization Science 1998;9(2)„123− 39.
 & Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Boston„ Hlein HH, Humar H, editors. Systems
Houghton MiÆin, 1979.
Development for Human Progress.
[111] Gable GG. Integrating case study and survey
Amsterdam„ North-Holland, 1989. p. 1− 19.
research methods„ an example in R. Kivzchheim ] Omega 28 (2000)
Z. Golez, [122] Briefs U. User participation from the view
249−268 P
information systems. European Journal of A
point of the workers and the trade union G
Information Systems 1994;3(2)„112− 26. E
policy. In„ Docherty H, Fuchs-Hittowski,
[112] Buchholz R, Rosenthal S. Toward a new 2
Holm P, Mathiassen L, editors. System 5
understanding of moral pluralism. Business 3
Design for Human Development and
Ethics Quarterly 1996;6(3)„263− 75.
Productivity„ Participation and Beyond.
[113] Tapio P. From technocracy to participation?
Amsterdam„ North-Holland, 1987. p.
Futures 1996;28(5)„453− 70.
155− 62.
[114] Humar H. Program Chair's statement. In„
[123] Gurstein M. The politics of intelligence„
Humar H, DeGross J, editors. Proceedings of
Micro-technol- ogy and micro-politics. In„
the Eighteenth International Conference on
Hlein H, Humar H, editors. Systems
Information Systems, 1997. p. xvii− xix.
Development for Human Progress.
[115] Benbasat I, Zmud R. Empirical research in
Amsterdam„ North-Holland, 1989. p. 57− 76.
information systems„ The practice of
[124] Hling R, Iacono S. The control of information
relevance. MIS Quarterly 1999;23(1)„3− 16.
systems development after implementation.
[116] Applegate L, Hing J. Rigor and relevance„
Communications of the ACM
careers on the line. MIS Quarterly
1984;27(12)„1218− 26.
1999;23(1)„17− 8. [125] Braverman H. Labor and Monopoly Capital.
[117] Lyytinen H. Empirical research in information New York„ Monthly Review Press, 1974.
[126] Hraft P. Programmers and Managers. New
systems„ on the relevance of practice in York„ Springer, 1977.
thinking of IS research. MIS Quarterly [127] Clemons EH. Evaluation of strategic
1999;23(1)„25− 7. investments in in- formation technology.
[118] Lee A. Rigor and relevance in MIS research„ Communications of the ACM
beyond the approach of positivism alone. 1991;34(1)„22− 36.
MIS Quarterly 1999;23(1)„29− 33. [128] Earl M. Management Strategies for
Information Technology. Englewood CliRs„
[119] Ormerod RJ. Combining management Prentice Hall, 1989.
consultancy and research. Omega [129] McFarlan FU. Information technology
1996;24(1)„1− 12. changes the way you compete. Harvard
[120] Davenport T, Markus ML. Rigor vs. relevance Business Review 1984;62(3)„98− 103.
revisted„ Response to Benbasat and Zmud. [130] Bannon L, Schmidt H. CSCU„ Four
characters in search of a context. In„
MIS Quarterly 1999;23(1)„19− 23. Proceedings of the First
[121] Alvarez R, Hlein HH. Information systems
develop- ment for human progress? In„
 European Conference on Computer Support for Cooperative [140] Hunt S. Truth in marketing theory and
Uork, 1989. p. 358− 72. research. Journal of Marketing
[131] Ellis CA, Gibbs SJ, Rein GL. Groupware„Z. Golez,Some issues and
R. Kivzchheim 1990;54(3)„1− 15.
] Omega 28 (2000)
P 249−268
A experiences. Communications of the ACM 1991;34(1)„38− 58. [141] Jermier J. 'Uhen the Sleeper Uakes'„ a short
G
[132]E Suchman L. Notes on Computer Support for Cooperative Uork. story extending themes in radical
2 Paper Presented at the Information Technology '89 Conference, organization theory. Journal of Management
5
4
Jyvaskyla, Finland, May 16− 18, 1989. 1985;11(2)„67− 80.
[133] Floyd C, Zullighoven H, Budde R, Heil-Slavik R, edi- tors. [142] Smircich L. Stories of Mike Armstrong and
Software Development and Reality Construction. Berlin„
Springer, 1991. exemplary research. In„ Frost P, Stablein,
[134] Cooper R. Review of management information systems research„ editors. Doing Exemplary Research. Newbury
A management support perspective. Information Processing & Park„ Sage, 1992. p. 227− 32.
Management 1988;24(1)„73− 102. [143] Bhaskar R. A Realist Theory of Science.
Leeds„ Leeds Books, 1975.
[135] Iivari J. Contemporary schools of information systems
[144] Manicas P, Secord P. Implications for
development. European Journal of Information Systems
psychology of the new philosophy of
1991;1(4)„249− 72.
science. American Psychologist
[136] Iivari J, Hirschheim R, Hlein H. A paradigmatic analy- sis
1983;38„399− 413.
contrasting information systems development approaches and
[145] Beath C, Orlikowski U. The contradictory
methodologies. Information Systems Research 1998;9(2)„164− 93.
structure of systems development
[137] Hirschheim R, Newman M. Symbolism and infor- mation systems
methodologies„ deconstructing the IS-user
development„ myth, metaphor and magic. Information Systems
relationship in information engineering.
Research 1991;2(1)„1− 34.
Information Systems Research
[138] Markus ML, Bjorn-Andersen N. Power over users„ its exercise by
1994;5(4)„350− 77.
systems professionals. Communications of the ACM
[146] Lee A. Integrating positivist and interpretive
1987;30(6)„498− 504.
approaches to organizational research.
[139] Ualsham G, Sahay S. GIS for district-level adminis- tration in India„
Organization Science 1991;2(4)„342− 65.
problems and opportunities. MIS Quarterly 1999;23(1)„39− 65. [147] Nygaard H. The Trade Unions New Users of
Research. Personnel Review 4, No 2 as
referenced on page 94 in
H. Nygaard, The Iron and Metal Project„
Trade Union Participation. In Sandberg, A.,
(Ed.), Computers Dividing Man and Uork,
Arbetslivcentrum, Stockholm, 1975.
[148] Reichardt CS, Rallis SF. Qualitative and
quantitative inquiries are not incompatible„ a
call for a new partner- ship. In„ Reichardt CS,
Rallis SF, editors. The Qualitative-
Quantitative Debate„ New Perspectives. San
Francisco„ Jossey-Bass, 1994. p. 85− 92.