Abstract
In this paper, we examine how contributions are established in interpretive case studies. By focusing on the introductory sections of articles, previous research in the organizational literature has recently shed light on how theorists construct opportunities for making contributions. Our theoretical approach is broader in scope, examining both the construction and use of contributions in all sections of an article. We use this approach to explore how a well-ited IS interpretive case study makes contributions. With respect to constructing contributions, our findings confirm previous strategies suggested by earlier research, and uncover the use of plural strategies. Our analysis of the use of contributions is more unexpected. For example, key theoretical and conceptual contributions that were central to the case study were rarely drawn on and incorporated by later texts. Rather, multiple audiences took up the softer, and simpler, conceptual contributions. Furthermore, our findings categorize a number of different types of referencing used by later texts in incorporating and using contributions, namely mistaken referencing, ambiguous referencing, incorporating into a new term, and related work referencing. We conclude by providing some suggestions as to how IS researchers can make better contributions from interpretive case studies
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Astley, W. G. “Administrative Science as Socially Constructed Truth,” Administrative Science Quarterly (30), 1985, pp. 497–513.
Baker, K. S.; Benson, B. J.; Henshaw, D. L.; Blodgett, D.; Porter, J. H.; and Stafford, S. G. “Evolution of a Multisite Newtork Information System: The LTER Information Management Paradigm,” Bioscience (50:11), November 2000, pp. 963–978.
Bateson, G. Steps to an Ecology of Mind, New York: Ballantine Books, 1978.
Benbasat, I., and Zmud, B. “Empirical Research in Information Systems: The Practice of Relevance,” MIS Quarterly (23:1), March 1999, pp. 3–16.
Beyer, J. M.; Chanove, R. G.; and Fox, W. B. “The Review Process and the Fates of Manuscripts Submitted to AMJ,” Academy of Management Journal (38), 1995, pp. 1219–1260.
Bieber, M.; Engelbart, D.; Furuta, R.; Hiltz, S. R.; Noll, J.; Preece, J.; Stohr, E. A.; Turoff, M.; and Van de Walle, B. “Toward Virtual Community Knowledge Evolution,” Journal of Management Information Systems (18:4), 2002, pp. 11–35.
Bishop, A. P.; Neumann, L. J.; Star, S. L.; Merkel, C.; Ignacio, E.; and Sandusky, R. J. “Digital Libraries: Situating Use in Changing Information Infrastructure,” Journal of The American Society for Information Science (51:4), 2000, pp. 394–413.
Bishop, A. P.; Tidline, T. J.; Shoemaker, S.; and Salela P. “Public Libraries and Networked Information Services in Low-Income Communities,” Library & Information Science Research (21:3), 1999, pp. 361–390.
Borgman, C. L. “Challenges in Building Digital Libraries for the 21 st Century,” in E-P. Lim, S. Foo, and C. Khoo (Eds.), Digital Libraries: People, Knowledge & Technology: Proceedings of the 5 th International Conference on Asian Digital Libraries ICADL 2002, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2002, pp. 1–13
Bowker, G. “Biodiversity Datadiversity,” Social Studies of Science (30:5), October 2000, pp. 643–683.
Bowker, G. “Information Mythology and Infrastructure,” in L. Bud-Frierman (Ed.), Information Acumen: The Understanding and Use of Knowledge in Modern Business, London: Routledge, 1994, pp. 231–247.
Ciborra, C.U., and Andreu, R. “Sharing Knowledge Across Boundaries,” Journal of Information Technology (16), 2001, pp. 73–81.
Davenport, T., and Markus, L. “Rigor vs.Relevance Revisited: Response to Benbasat and Zmud,” MIS Quarterly (23:1), March 1999, pp. 19–23.
DeSanctis, G., and Monge, P. “Introduction to the Special Issue: Communication Processes for Virtual Organizations,” Organization Science (10:6), November–December 1999, pp. 693–703.
Duncker, E. “How LINCs Were Made: Alignment and Exclusion in American Medical Informatics,” The Information Society (16), 2000, pp. 187–199.
Engestrom, Y. “When is a Tool?Multiple Meanings of Artifacts in Human Activity,” in Learning, Working and Imagining, Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy, 1990.
Giddens, A. The Constitution of Society, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1984.
Heracleous, L., and Barrett, M. “Organizational Change as Discourse: Communicative Actions and Deep Structures in the Context of IT Implementation,” Academy of Management Journal, (44:4), 2001, pp. 755–778.
Jacob, E. K. “The Everyday World of Work: Two Approaches to the Investigation of Classification in Context,” Journal of Documentation (57:1), January 2001, pp. 76–99.
Jacob, E. K., and Shaw, D. “Sociocognitive Perpsectives on Representation,” Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (33), 1998, pp. 131–185.
Jewett, T., and Kling, R. “The Dynamics of Computerization in a Social Science Research Team: A Case Study of Infrastructure, Strategies, and Skills,” Social Science Computer Review (9), 1991, pp. 246–275.
Klein, H. K., and Myers, M. D. “A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems,” MIS Quarterly (23:1), 1999, pp. 67–94.
Kling, R. “A Bit More to It: Scholarly Communication Forums as Socio-Technical Interaction Networks,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (54:1), 2003, pp. 47–67.
Kling, R. “Learning About Information Technologies and Social Change: The Contribution of Social Informatics,” The Information Society (16), 2000, pp. 217–232.
Kling, R., and Scacchi, W. “The Web of Computing: Computing Technology as Social Organization,” Advances in Computers (21), 1982, pp. 3–78.
Knorr-Cetina, K. The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science, New York: Pergamon Press, 1981.
Latour, B. Science in Action, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987.
Locke, K., and Golden-Biddle, K. “Constructing Opportunities for Contribution: Structuring Intertextual Coherence and ‘Problematizing’ in Organizational Studies,” Academy of Management Journal (40:5), 1997, pp. 1023–1062.
March, S.T., and Smith, G.F. “Design and Natural Science Research on Information Technology,” Decision Support Systems (15), 1995, pp. 251–266.
McCarthy, J. “The Paradox of Understanding Work for Design,” International Journal Human-Computer Studies (53), 2000, pp. 197–219.
Min, H., and Galle, W.P. “Electronic Commerce Usage in Business-to-Business Purchasing,” International Journal of Operations & Production Management (19:9), 1999, pp. 909–921.
Mingers, J., and Taylor, S. “The Use of Soft Systems Methodology in Practice,” Journal of Operational Research Society (43:4), 1992, pp. 321–332.
Mone, M. A., and McKinley, W. “The Uniqueness Value and its Consequences for Organization Studies,” Journal of Management Inquiry (2), 1993, pp. 284–296.
Orlikowski, W. J., and Baroudi, J. J. “Studying Information Technology in Organizations: Research Approaches and Assumptions,” Information Systems Research (2:1), 1991, pp. 1–28.
Palmer, C. L., and Malone, C. K. “Elaborate Isolation: Metastructures of Knowledge About Women,” The Information Society (17), 2001, pp. 179–194.
Robey, D., and Boudreau, M. “Accounting for the Contradictory Organizational Consequences of Information Technology: Theoretical Directions and Methodological Implications,” Information Systems Research (10:2), 1999, pp. 167–185.
Star, S. L., and Ruhleder, K. “Steps Toward an Ecology of Infrastructure: Design and Access for Large Information Spaces,” Information Systems Research (7:1), 1996, pp. 111–134.
Valentine, G., and Holloway, S. L. “Cyberkids?Exploring Children’ s Identities and Social Networks in On-Line and Off-Line Worlds,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers (92:2), 2002, pp. 302–319.
Walsham, G. “The Emergence of Interpretivism in IS Research,” Information Systems Research (6:4), 1995(a), pp. 376–394.
Walsham, G. “Interpretive Case Studies in IS Research: Nature and Method,” European Journal of Information Systems (4), 1995(b), pp. 74–81.
Webster, J., and Watson, R. T. “Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review, MIS Quarterly (26:2), June 2002, pp. xiii–xxiii
Weick, K. E. “Editing Innovation into Administrative Science Quarterly,” in L L. Cummings and P.J. Frost (Eds.), Publishing in the Organizational Sciences, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1995, pp. 284–296.
Whetten, D. A. “What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution?” Academy of Management Review (14), 1989, pp. 490–495.
Whyte, A., and Macintosh, A. “Transparency and Teledemocracy: Issues from an ‘E-consultation’,” Journal of Information Science (27:4), 2001, pp. 187–198.
Winsor, D. A. “Constructing Scientific Knowledge in Gould and Lewontin’s ‘The Spandrels of San Marco’,” in J. Selzer (Ed.), Understanding Scientific Prose, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1993, pp. 127–143.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2004 Springer Science + Business Media, Inc.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Barrett, M., Walsham, G. (2004). Making Contributions From Interpretive Case Studies: Examining Processes of Construction and Use. In: Kaplan, B., Truex, D.P., Wastell, D., Wood-Harper, A.T., DeGross, J.I. (eds) Information Systems Research. IFIP International Federation for Information Processing, vol 143. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-8095-6_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-8095-6_17
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-8094-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-8095-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive