Professional Desire, Competence and Engagement in IS Context

  • Peter M. Bednar
  • Christine Welch
Conference paper


This paper attempts to address the failings of a predominant paradigm in IS research and practice that emphasises technological determinism. This paradigm makes use of a false belief in the power of rationality in organizational decision-making, and a mythology in which organizational actors can be viewed as passive “users” of technology. We wish to create a discussion of the nature and role of professionalism as an expression of more than technical competence. Both system analysts and organizational stakeholders (e.g. “users”) are to be viewed as professionals. We discuss desire, exercise of will and their role in professional judgment in relation to transcendent values espoused within communities of practice. We go on to relate this to the environments of Information Systems research and practice. It is pointed out that many researchers, over a number of years, have dealt with these issues in relation to effective management of technological development and organizational change. The paper attempts to encourage renewed attention to interpretivist perspectives on IS development and organizational change, including recognition of the importance of contextual dependencies.


Organizational Change Organizational Citizenship Behaviour Technology Acceptance Model Information System Research Extra Role Behaviour 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Lindblom CE (1959) The science of muddling through. Pub Admin Rev 19(2):79–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bateson G (1972) Steps to an ecology of mind. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bateson G (2002) Mind and nature: a necessary unity, 5th edn. Hampton Press, CresskillGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mintzberg H (1979) The structuring of organizations: a synthesis of the research. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mumford E, Hirschheim R, Fitzgerald G, Wood-Harper T (eds) (1985) Research methods in information systems. North-Holland Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nissen H-E, Klein HK, Hirschheim R (eds) (1991) Information systems research: contemporary approaches and emergent traditions. Elsevier Science, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Weick KE (1995) Sensemaking in organizations. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weick KE (1998) Improvisation as a mindset for organisational analysis. Organ Sci 9(5):543–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ciborra C (2000) From control to drift. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ciborra CU (2002) The labyrinths of information. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ciborra CU (2004) Encountering information systems as a phenomenon. In Avgerou C, Ciborra CU, Land F (eds) The social study of information and communication technology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Whitaker R (2007) Applying phenomenology and hermeneutics in IS design: a report on field experiences. In Nissen H-E, Bednar PM, Welch C (eds) Use and design in IS: double helix relationships? Informing Science Press, Santa RosaGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nissen H-E (2002) Challenging traditions of inquiry in software practice. In Dittrich Y, Floyd C, Klischewski R (eds) Social thinking-software practice. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 71–89Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bednar PM, Welch C (2008) Bias, misinformation and the paradox of neutrality. Inform Sci 11:85–106Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bednar PM, Welch C (2009) Paradoxical relationships in collaboration, competition and innovation: a critical systemic perspective. Proceedings WOA 2009, Cagliari, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bednar PM, Welch C (2009) Inquiry into informing systems: critical systemic thinking in practice. Chapter 14 in Gill G (ed) Foundations of informing science. Informing Science Press, Santa RosaGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bednar PM (2000) A contextual integration of individual and organizational learning perspectives as part of is analysis. Inform Sci 3(3):145–156Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nissen H-E, Bednar P, Welch C (2007) Double helix relationships in use and design of informing systems: lessons to learn from phenomenology and hermeneutics. Inform Sci 10:1–19Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Argyris C (1990) Overcoming organizational defenses. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mumford MD, Scott GM, Gaddis B, Strange JM (2002) Leading creative people: orchestrating expertise and relationships. Leadersh Q 13:705–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Etzioni A (1968) The active society. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Churchman CW (1968) The systems approach. Dell Publishing, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Churchman CW (1979) The systems approach and its enemies. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lawler EJ (2001) An affect theory of social exchange. Am J Sociol 1007(2):321–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Baskerville R, Land F (2004) Socially self-destructing systems. In Avgerou C, Ciborra C, Land F (eds) The social study of information and communication technology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gilovich T (1991) How we know what isn’t so. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Williams P (2007) Make sure you get a positive return. Computer Weekly, 13 Nov 2007Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Langefors B (1995) Essays on infology. Studentlitteratur, LundGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR (1989) User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manage Sci 35:982–1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lee Y, Kozar KA, Larsen KRT (2003) The technology acceptance model: past, present, and future. Commun AIS 50(12):752–780Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bednar PM, Welch C (2006) Incentive and desire: covering a missing category. MCIS 2006. Proceedings, Università degli Studi di Trento, San Servolo, OctoberGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bednar P, Welch C (2007) A double helix metaphor for use and usefulness in informing systems. Inform Sci 10:273–295Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    McGrath K (2006) Affection not affliction: the role of emotions in information systems and organizational change. Inf Organ 16:277–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Organ DW (1988) Organizational citizenship behaviour: the good soldier syndrome. Lexington Books, LexingtonGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nemeth CJ, Staw BM (1989) The tradeoffs of social control and innovation in groups and organizations. In Berkowitz L (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology, vol 22. Academic Press, New York, pp 175–210Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Van Dyne L, LePine AJ (1998) Helping and voice extra-role behaviour: evidence of construct and predictive validity. Acad Manage J 41, 108–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of innovations. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Brandeis L (1928) Dissenting judgment of Justice Brandeis in Olmstead v United States 277US479(1928): 29 May 2009 at
  39. 39.
    Maister D (2008) Strategy and the fat smoker. Spangle Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bednar PM, Welch C (2006) Structuring uncertainty: sponsoring innovation and creativity. In: Adam F, Brezillon P, Carlsson S, Humphreys P (eds) Creativity and innovation in decision making and decision support, vol 2. Decision Support Press, London, pp 867–886Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Friis S (1991) User controlled information systems development. Lund University Publications, LundGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Checkland P, Holwell S (1998) Information, systems and information systems. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mumford E (2003) Redesigning human systems. IRM Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bednar PM, Welch C, Depaoli P (2007) Transformation of information systems: relevance of expectations. MCIS 2007, Università degli Studi di Trento, Venice. OctoberGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bednar PM, Welch C (2007) Loitering with intent: dealing with human-intensive systems. In: D’Atri A, DeMarco M, Casalino N (eds) (2008) Interdisciplinary aspects of information systems studies. Physica, Heidelberg, pp 33–41Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Klein HK, Meyers MD (2009) A set principles for conducting and evaluating critical field studies in information systems. Working paperGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of ComputingUniversity of PortsmouthPortsmouthUK
  2. 2.Department of Strategy and Business SystemsUniversity of PortsmouthPortsmouthUK

Personalised recommendations