Methodological practice and policy for organisationally and socially relevant IS research: an inclusive-exclusive perspective

  • Robert M. Davison
  • Maris G. Martinsons
Chapter

Abstract

In this research paper, we argue that the tendency of Information Systems (IS) researchers to work with a rather parsimonious set of research methods, notably those that follow the positivist tradition, demonstrates a significant degree of methodological exclusiveness. We contend that such an exclusive practice is both counterproductive to good IS research and unethical. Further, it severely and unreasonably limits the extent to which IS research and researchers can contribute to both pressing organisational problems and the scholarly literature. We synthesise our position in a set of four arguments that guide our discussion of the nature and consequences of methodological exclusiveness, as well as possible solutions. We end the paper with an exposition of steps that could be taken to address the current situation.

Keywords

epistemology methods rigour relevance inclusiveness exclusiveness 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Avison, D.E. and Myers, M.D. (1995). Information Systems and Anthropology: An anthropological perspective on IT and organizational culture, Information Technology & People 8(3): 43–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baskerville, R. (1999). Investigating Information Systems with Action Research, Communications of the AIS 2(19): 1–32.Google Scholar
  3. Boland, R.J. and Day, W.F. (1989). The Experience of System Design: A hermeneutic of organizational action, Scandinavian Journal of Management 5(2): 87–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Davison, R.M., Martinsons, M.G. and Kock, N. (2004). Principles of Canonical Action Research, Information Systems Journal 14(1): 65–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davison, R.M., Martinsons, M.G. and Ou, C.X.J. (2010). Knowledge Sharing in Professional Services Firms in China, in M.C. Lacity, L.P. Willcocks, and Y.Q. Zheng (eds.) China’s Emerging Outsourcing Capabilities: The services challenge London & New York: Palgrave-Macmillan, Chapter 7, pp. 165–183.Google Scholar
  6. Dennis, A.R., Hilmer, K.M. and Taylor, N.J. (1998). Information exchange and use in GSS and verbal group decision making: effects of minority influence, Journal of Management Information Systems 14: 61–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Galliers, R.D. (1991). Choosing information systems research approaches, in R.D. Galliers (ed.) Information Systems Research: Issues, methods and practical guidelines, Henley-on-Thames, UK: Alfred Waller, pp. 144–162.Google Scholar
  8. Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B.C.Y. and Wei, K.K. (2005). Contributing Knowledge to Electronic Knowledge Repositories: An empirical investigation, MIS Quarterly 29(1): 113–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kaplan, R. and Norton, D. (1992). The Balanced Scorecard — Measures that drive performance, Harvard Business Review 70(1): 71–79.Google Scholar
  10. Kohli, R. and Kettinger, W.J. (2004). Informating the Clan: Controlling physicians’ costs and outcomes, MIS Quarterly 28(3): 363–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Landry, M. and Banville, C. (1992). A Disciplined Methodological Pluralism for MIS Research, Accounting, Management and Information Technologies 2(2): 77–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lee, A.S. (1989). A Scientific Methodology for Case Studies, MIS Quarterly 13(1): 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lee, A.S. (1991). Integrating Positivist and Interpretivist Approaches to Organizational Research, Organization Science 2(4): 342–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lee, A.S. (1994). Electronic Mail as a Medium for Rich Communication: An empirical investigation using hermeneutic interpretation, MIS Quarterly 18(2): 143–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lee, A.S. (2010). Retrospect and Prospect: Information systems in the last and next twenty five years, Journal of Information Technology 25(4): 336–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lee, A.S. and Dennis, A.R. (2012). A Hermeneutic Interpretation of a Controlled Laboratory Experiment: A case study of decision making with a group support system, Information Systems Journal, doi:10.1111/j.1365–2575.2010.00365.x.Google Scholar
  17. Mårtensson, P. and Lee, A.S. (2004). Dialogical Action Research at Omega Corporation, MIS Quarterly 28(3): 507–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Maznevski, M. and Chudoba, K. (2000). Bridging Space Over Time: Global virtual team dynamics and effectiveness, Organization Science 11(5): 473–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Myers, M.D. (1995). Dialectical Hermeneutics: A theoretical framework for the implementation of information systems, Information Systems Journal 5(1): 51–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Myers, M.D. (1999). Investigating Information Systems with Ethnographic Research, Communications of the AIS 2(23): 1–19.Google Scholar
  21. Orlikowski, W.J. (1993). Organizational Change: Investigating incremental and radical changes in system development, MIS Quarterly 17(3): 309–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Orlikowski, W.J. and Baroudi, J.J. (1991). Studying Information Technology in Organisations: Research approaches and assumptions, Information Systems Research 2(1): 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ricoeur, P. (1981). The Model of the Text: Meaningful action considered as text, in J.B. Thompson (ed.) Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 197–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Robey, D. (1996). Diversity in Information Systems Research: Threat, promise and respectability, Information Systems Research 7(4): 400–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sen, A. (2000). Social Exclusion: Concept, applications, and scrutiny, Social Development Papers No. 1, Office of Environment and Social Development, Asian Development Bank.Google Scholar
  26. Stabell, C.B. and Fjelstad, O.D. (1998). Configuring Value for Competitive Advantage: On chains, shops and networks, Strategic Management Journal 19(5): 413–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Vogel, D.R., Martz, W.N., Nunamaker, J.F., Grohowski, R.B. and McGoff, C. (1990). Electronic Meeting System Experience at IBM, Journal of Management Information Systems 6(3): 25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Walsham, G. (1995). The Emergence of Interpretivism in IS Research, Information Systems Research 6(4): 376–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ward, K.J. (1999). Cyber-Ethnography and the Emergence of the Virtually New Community, Journal of Information Technology 14(1): 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zheng, Y. and Walsham, G. (2008). Inequality of What? Social Exclusion in the E-Society as Capability Deprivation, Information Technology and People 21(3): 222–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zmud, R. (1996). Editor’s Comments: On rigor and relevancy, MIS Quarterly 20(3): xxxvii–xxxviii.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Journal of Information Technology (JIT) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert M. Davison
    • 1
  • Maris G. Martinsons
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Information SystemsCity University of Hong KongHong Kong
  2. 2.Department of ManagementCity University of Hong KongHong Kong

Personalised recommendations