The Mikropolis Model: A Framework for Transdisciplinary Research of Information Systems in Society

  • Jan-Hendrik Wahoff
  • João Porto de Albuquerque
  • Arno Rolf
Part of the Integrated Series in Information Systems book series (ISIS, volume 29)


Today information and communication technology is extensively used in business and private contexts. Rapid technological developments drive a process of tapping new areas and further penetrating existing areas of application with ­information and communication technology. This not only affects the way we live and work on an individual level – it affects our society on a global level. While the effects of information technology on individual, group, and organizational level have been, and continue to be, studied on the basis of a wide array of frameworks, models, and theories, we lack a means of doing research with respect to the societal-level aspects of information and communication technology and information systems, in particular. Questions about how technology and organization coevolve, and about how these coevolutionary processes interact with societal factors and conditions are not adequately addressed. Information systems in society are a genuine area of study of the information systems research community. We believe, however, that a problem-oriented, transdisciplinary approach is necessary. The Mikropolis Model presented in this chapter provides a framework for studying information systems in society in a problem-oriented, transdisciplinary manner.


Development and use of ICT Information systems in society Problem-oriented research Transdisciplinarity 



Information and communication technology


Information systems


Information systems research


Information technology


  1. Balsiger, P. W. (2005). Transdiziplinarität. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.Google Scholar
  2. Bassanini, A. P., & Dosi, G. (2001). When and how chance and human will can twist the arms of clio: An essay on path dependence in a world of irreversibilities. In R. Garud & P. Karnøe (Eds.), Path dependence and creation (pp. 41–68). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Benbasat, I., & Zmud, R. W. (2003). The identity crisis within the IS discipline: Defining and communicating the discipline’s core properties. MIS Quarterly, 27(2), 183–194.Google Scholar
  4. Conrad, J. (2002). Limitations to interdisciplinarity in problem oriented social science research. The Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies, 1(1). Accessed 11 June 2010.
  5. Coser, L. A. (1977). The significance of Simmel’s work. In L. A. Coser (Ed.), Masters of sociological thought: Ideas in historical and social context (pp. 177–194). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  6. de Albuquerque, J. P., Simon, E., Wahoff, J. H., & Rolf, A. (2008). The challenge of transdisciplinarity in information systems research: Towards an integrative platform. In A. Cater-Steel & L. Al Hakim (Eds.), Information systems research methods, epistemology and applications (pp. 88–103). Hershey: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Deflem, M. (2003). The sociology of the sociology of money: Simmel and the contemporary battle of the classics. Journal of Classical Sociology, 3(1), 67–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dijkstra, E. (1989). On the cruelty of really teaching computer science. Communications of the ACM, 32(12), 1398–1404.Google Scholar
  9. Drews, P. (2008). Consequences of ICT-innovations on division of labor in health care – A socio-technical analysis of telemedicine. In R. Anderl, B. Arich-Gerz, & R. Schmiede (Eds.), Technologies of globalization – International conference proceedings (pp. 156–169). Darmstadt: Technische Universität Darmstadt.Google Scholar
  10. Drews, P. (2010). Vorläufige und notwendige Formalisierungslücken in der IT-Beratung. In Schu-mann, M. et al. (Eds.), Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik 2010 (pp. 121–122, 583–593). Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Göttingen.Google Scholar
  11. Finck, M., Janneck, M., & Rolf, A. (2006). Techniknutzung zwischen Kooperation und Konkurrenz: Eine Analyse von Nutzungsproblemen. In F. Lehner, H. Nösekabel, & P. Kleinschmidt (Eds.), Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik 2006 – MKWI 2006 (pp. 20–22, 363–376, Buch 1). Passau: Teilkonferenz “Collaborative Business”.Google Scholar
  12. Floyd, C., & Klären, H. (1999). Informatik als Praxis und Wissenschaft. Tübingen: Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
  13. Frisby, D. (2002). Georg Simmel. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Galliers, R. D. (2003). Change as crisis of growth? Toward a trans-disciplinary View of information systems as a field of study: A response to Benbasat and Zmud’s call for returning to the IT artifact. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 4(6), 337–351.Google Scholar
  15. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamic of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Habermas, J. (1989). The theory of communicative action: Lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reason (Vol. 2). Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
  17. Hirsch Hadorn, G., Hoffmann-Riem, H., Biber-Klemm, S., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Joye, D., Pohl, C., Wiesmann, U., Zemp, E., et al. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Husserl, E. (1996). Die Krisis der europäischen Wissenschaften und die transzendentale Phänomenologie: Eine Einleitung in die phänomenologische Philosophie. Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar
  19. Jantsch, E. (1970). Inter- and transdisciplinary university – A systems approach to education and innovation. Policy Sciences, 1(4), 403–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jantsch, E. (1972). Towards interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in education and innovation. In Interdisciplinarity: Problems of teaching and researching in universities (pp. 97–121). Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.Google Scholar
  21. Keen, P. G. W. (1987). MIS research: Current status, trends and needs. In R. A. Buckingham, R. A. Hirschheim, F. F. Land, & C. J. Tully (Eds.), Information systems education: Recommendations and implementation, British computer society monographs in informatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Klein, J. T. (2004). Prospects for transdisciplinarity. Futures, 36(2), 515–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Krause, D., Rolf, A., Christ, M., & Simon, E. (2006). Wissen, wie alles zusammenhängt. Informatik Spektrum, 29(4), 263–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kröber, G. (1983). Interdisziplinarität – ein aktuelles Erfordernis der Gesellschafts- und Wissenschaftsentwicklung. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie, 31(5), 575–589.Google Scholar
  25. Kubicek, H., & Rolf, A. (1985). Mikropolis, mit Computernetzen in die “Informationsgesellschaft”: Pläne der deutschen Bundespost, wirtschaftliche Hintergründe, soziale Beherrschbarkeit, technische Details. Hamburg: VSA-Verlag.Google Scholar
  26. Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  27. Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human–computer interaction research. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human–­computer interaction (pp. 17–44). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Leontev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  29. Lyytinen, K., & King, J. L. (2004). Nothing at the center? Academic legitimacy in the information systems field. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 5(6), 220–246.Google Scholar
  30. Markus, M. L., Majchrzak, A., & Gasser, L. (2002). A design theory for systems that support emergent knowledge processes. MIS Quarterly, 26(3), 179–212.Google Scholar
  31. Mittelstraß, J. (2001). Wissen und Grenzen: Philosophische Studien. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  32. Mittelstraß, J. (2003). Transdisziplinarität – wissenschaftliche Zukunft und institutionelle Wirklichkeit. Konstanz: UVK.Google Scholar
  33. Möller, A., & Bornemann, B. (2005). Kyoto ist anderswo. Informatik Spektrum, 28(1), 15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Popper, K. R. (1969). Die Logik der Sozialwissenschaften. In Th Adorno, H. Albert, R. Dahrendorf, J. Habermas, H. Pilot, & K. Popper (Eds.), Der Positivismusstreit in der deutschen Soziologie (pp. 103–123). Neuwied: Luchterhand.Google Scholar
  35. Rolf, A. (1998). Grundlagen der Organisations- und Wirtschaftsinformatik. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rolf, A. (1999). Von Leitbildern, Moden und Langfristzielen der Wirtschaftsinformatik. Wirtschaft-sinformatik, 41(2), 184–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rolf, A. (2008). Mikropolis 2010: Menschen, Computer, Internet in der globalen Gesellschaft. Marburg: Metropolis-Verlag.Google Scholar
  38. Schneberger, S., & Wade, M. (Ed.) (2010). Theories used in IS research. Accessed 11 June 2010.
  39. Simmel, G. (1890). Über sociale Differenzierung: Sociologische und psychologische Untersuchungen. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
  40. Simmel, G. (1908). Soziologie: Untersuchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
  41. Simmel, G. (1917). Grundfragen der Soziologie. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  42. Simon, E. J., de Albuquerque, J. P., & Rolf, A. (2008). Notwendige und vorläufige Formalisierungslücken in Organisationen. In C. Funken & I. Schulz-Schaeffer (Eds.), Digitalisierung der Arbeitswelt: Zur Neuordnung formaler und informeller Prozesse in Unternehmen (pp. 239–260). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, GWV Fachverlage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human–machine communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan-Hendrik Wahoff
    • 1
  • João Porto de Albuquerque
    • 2
  • Arno Rolf
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Informatics, Center for Architecture and Design of Information SystemsUniversity of HamburgHamburgGermany
  2. 2.School of Arts, Sciences and HumanitiesUniversity of Sao PauloSão Paulo/SPBrazil

Personalised recommendations