Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Paradigm lost … paradigm gained: a hermeneutical rejoinder to Banville and Landry’s ‘Can the Field of MIS be Disciplined?’

  • Research Essay
  • Published:
European Journal of Information Systems

Abstract

This study offers an alternative interpretation to Banville and Landry’s (B&L, 1989) Can the Field of MIS Be Disciplined?, the canonical text that argued persuasively against the adoption of the Kuhnian view of scientific progress for the information systems (IS) field. Much has transpired in the quarter of a century since its publication, which provides us with new sources of understanding about paradigms and how they relate to the challenges faced by the IS field. On the basis of the hermeneutical principles of tradition, prejudice, temporal distance, history of effect and application, this study describes the context from which B&L was written, its dependence on Whitley’s (1984) The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences, and examines several of its claims and assertions. In contrast to B&L, this study finds the Kuhnian model of scientific progress well suited for a multidisciplinary and pluralistic field like IS and concludes with guidelines on how to reclaim the more transformative aspects of the paradigm concept, engender a culture of contextual borrowing from reference disciplines, and encourage conceptual development and autonomous theory construction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackoff RL (1967) Management misinformation systems. Management Science 14 (4), 147–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adam F and Fitzgerald B (2000) The status of the IS field: historical perspective and practical orientation. Information Research 5 (4), Available at http://informationr.net/ir/5-4/paper81.html.

  • Alter S (2003) Sidestepping the IT artifact, scrapping the IS silo, and laying claim to “systems in organizations”. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 12 (30), 494–526.

    Google Scholar 

  • Attewell P and Rule J (1984) Computing and organizations: what we know and what we don’t know. Communications of the ACM 27 (12), 1184–1192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avison D (1997) The ‘discipline’ of information systems: teaching, research and practice. In Information Systems: An Emerging Discipline? (Mingers J and Stowell F, Eds), pp 113–139, McGraw-Hill, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Avison DE (2003) Is IS an intellectual subject? European Journal of Information Systems 12 (3), 229–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bachelard G (1938/2002) The Formation of the Scientific Mind: A Contribution to a Psychoanalysis of Objective Knowledge (A Translation of La Formation de L’ Esprit Scientifique 1938). Clinamen, Manchester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banville C and Landry M (1989) Can the field of MIS be disciplined? Communications of the ACM 32 (1), 48–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnes B (1982) T. S. Kuhn and Social Science. Columbia University Press, New York.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Baskerville RL and Myers MD (2002) Information systems as a reference discipline. MIS Quarterly 26 (1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benbasat I and Zmud R (2003) The identity crisis within the IS discipline: defining and communicating the discipline’s core properties. MIS Quarterly 27 (2), 183–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benbasat I and Zmud RW (1999) Empirical research in information systems: the practice of relevance. MIS Quarterly 23 (1), 3–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger PL and Luckmann T (1966) The Social Construction of Reality. Anchor Books, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein RJ (1983) Beyond Objectivism and Relativism: Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxis. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bird A (2000) Thomas Kuhn. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjorn-Andersen N (1985) Conference review: IS research – a doubtful science. In Research Methods in Information Systems, Proceedings: IFIP WG 8.2 Colloquium, Manchester, 1–3 September 1984, Amsterdam: North Holland (Mumford E, Hirschheim RA, Fitzgerald G and Wood-Harper AT, Eds), pp 273–277, Elsevier Science Publishers B. V, North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloor D (1976) Knowledge and Social Imagery. Routledge and Kegan Paul, Henley-on-Thames, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloor D (1997) The conservative constructivist. History of the Human Sciences 10 (1), 123–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumenthal SC (1969) Management Information Systems: A Framework for Planning and Development. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boland RJ (1987) The in-formation of information systems. In Critical Issues in Information Systems Research (Boland RJ and Hirschheim RA, Eds), pp 363–379, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boring EG (1964) Cognitive dissonance: its use in science. Science 145 (3633), 680–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burrell G and Morgan G (1979) Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis. Heinemann, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton-Jones A and Straub DW (2006) Reconceptualizing system usage: an approach and empirical test. Information Systems Research 17 (3), 228–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler T (1998) Towards a hermeneutic method for interpretive research in information systems. Journal of Information Technology 13, 285–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers AF (1998) What is This Thing Called Science? Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen W and Hirschheim R (2004) A paradigmatic and methodological examination of information systems research from 1991 to 2001. Information Systems Journal 14 (3), 197–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole M and Avison D (2007) The potential of hermeneutics in information systems research. European Journal of Information Systems 16 (6), 820–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Culnan MJ (1986) The intellectual development of management information systems, 1972–1982: a co-citation analysis. Management Science 32 (2), 156–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Culnan MJ and Swanson EB (1986) Research in management information systems, 1980–1984: points of work and reference. MIS Quarterly 10 (3), 289–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cushing BE (1990) Frameworks, paradigms, and scientific research in management information systems. Journal of Information Systems 5 (1), 38–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis G (1974) Management Information Systems: Conceptual Foundations, Structure and Development. McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Mey M (1982) The Cognitive Paradigm. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dearden J (1972) MIS is a mirage. Harvard Business Review 50 (1), 90–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dilthey W (1883/1989) Introduction to the Human Sciences. Princeton University Publishers, Princeton, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckberg DL and Hill Jr. L (1979) The paradigm concept and sociology: a critical review. American Sociological Review 44 (6), 925–937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ein-Dor P and Segev E (1981) A Paradigm for Management Information Systems. Praeger Publishers, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elias N, Martins H and Whitley R (Eds) (1982) Scientific Establishments and Hierarchies. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht Holland.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Emery JC (1973) An overview of management information systems. Data Base 5 (1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falkenberg ED, Lyytinen K and Verrijn-Stuart AA (Eds) (2000) Information System Concepts: An Integrated Discipline Emerging, IFIP TC8/WG8.1 International Conference on Information System Concepts: An Integrated Discipline Emerging (ISCO-4), September 20–22, University of Leiden, The Netherlands. Kluwer Academic, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleck L (1935/1979) Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault M (1970) The Order of Things: An Archeology of the Human Sciences. Pantheon Books, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault M (1972) The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language. Pantheon Books, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedrichs RW (1970) A Sociology of Sociology. Free Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller S (2000) Thomas Kuhn: A Philosophical History for Our Times. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gadamer HG (1975) Truth and Method. Continuum Publishing Group, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galliers RD (1985) In search of a paradigm for information systems research. In Research Methods in Information Systems (Mumford E, Ed.), Elsevier Science Publications B. V., North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galliers RD (2003) Change as crisis or 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 

  • Goles T and Hirschheim R (2000) The paradigm is dead, the paradigm is dead … long live the paradigm: the legacy of Burrell and Morgan. Omega 28 (3), 249–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorry GA and Scott Morton MS (1971) A framework for management information systems. Sloan Management Review 13 (1), 55–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray P (2003) Introduction to the debate on the core of the information systems field. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 12 (1), Art. 42.

  • Grover V, Ayyagari R, Gokhale R, Lim J and Coffey J (2006) A citation analysis of the evolution and state of information systems within a constellation of reference disciplines. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 7 (5), 270–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grover V, Lyytinen K and Weber R (2012) Panel on native IS theories. In Special Interest Group on Philosophy and Epistemology in IS (SIGPHIL) Workshop on IS Theory: State of the Art, Orlando, FL, 16–19 December.

  • Harzing A-W (2007) Publish or Perish, http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm, accessed 30 June, 2013.

  • Hassan NR (2011) Is information systems a discipline? Foucauldian and Toulminian insights. European Journal of Information Systems 20 (4), 456–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hesse M (1967) Models and analogy in science. In The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Edwards P, Ed) Palgrave Macmillan; The Free Press, New York pp 354–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch ED (1967) Validity in Interpretation. Yale University Press, New Haven.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschheim R, Klein HK and Lyytinen K (1996) Exploring the intellectual structures of information systems development: a social action theoretical analysis. Accounting, Management & Information Technology 6 (1/2), 1–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschheim RA and Klein HK (2003) Crisis in the IS field? a critical reflection on the state of the discipline. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 4 (5), 237–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoyningen-Huene P (1993) Reconstructing Scientific Revolutions. Thomas S Kuhn’s Philosophy of Science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iivari J (1991) A paradigmatic analysis of contemporary schools of IS development. European Journal of Information Systems 1 (4), 249–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iivari J, Hirschheim R and Klein HK (1998) A paradigmatic analysis contrasting information systems development approaches and methodologies. Information Systems Research 9 (2), 164–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iivari J, Hirschheim RA and Klein HK (2004) Towards a distinctive body of knowledge for information systems experts: coding ISD process knowledge in two IS journals. Information Systems Journal 14 (4), 313–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Introna LD (2003) Disciplining information systems: truth and its regimes. European Journal of Information Systems 12 (3), 235–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ives B, Hamilton S and Davis GB (1980) A framework for research in computer-based management information systems. Management Science 26 (9), 910–934.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones M (1997) It all depends what you mean by discipline. In Information Systems: An Emerging Discipline? (Mingers J and Stowell F, Eds), pp 97–112, McGraw-Hill, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan B, Truex III DP, Wastell D, Wood-Harper AT and DeGross JI (Eds) (2004) Information Systems Research: Relevant Theory and Informed Practice. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan S (2001) Different Paths, Different Summits: A Model for Religious Pluralism. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keen PGW (1980) MIS research: reference disciplines and a cumulative tradition. In International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS) (Mclean E, Ed), pp 9–18, ACM Press, Philadelphia, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keen PGW (1991) Relevance and rigor in information systems research: improving quality, confidence, cohesion and impact. In Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions (Nissen H-E, Klein HK and Hirschheim R, Eds), pp 27–49, Elsevier Science Publishers B. V., North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennevan WJ (1970) MIS Universe. Journal of Data Management 8 (9), 62–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khazanchi D and Munkvold BE (2000) Is information systems a science? An inquiry into the nature of the information systems discipline. The Database for Advances in Information Systems 31 (3), 24–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khazanchi D and Munkvold BE (2003) On the Rhetoric and Relevance of IS Research Paradigms: A Conceptual Framework and Some Propositions. In Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-36), Hawaii, 6–9 January.

  • King MD (1971) Reason, tradition, and the progressiveness of science. History and Theory 10 (1), 3–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein HK and Hirschheim R (2006) Further reflections on the IS discipline: climbing the tower of Babel. In Information Systems: The State of the Field (King JL and Lyytinen K, Eds), pp 307–323, Wiley, Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein HK and Hirschheim R (2008) The structure of the IS discipline reconsidered: implications and reflections from a community of practice perspective. Information and Organization 18 (4), 280–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein HK, Hirschheim RA and Nissen H-E, Eds (1991) A pluralist perspective of the information systems research arena. In Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions. Elsevier Science Publishers, North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein HK and Myers MD (1999) A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly 23 (1), 67–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knorr-Cetina KD (1981) The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. Pergamon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn TS (1970a) Reflection on my critics. In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (Lakatos I and Musgrave J, Eds), pp 231–278, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn TS (1970b) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn TS (1977) The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn TS, Conant J and Haugeland J (2000) The Road since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970–1993, with an Autobiographical Interview. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lange C (2005a) Development and Status of the Information Systems/Wirtschaftsinformatik Discipline: An Interpretive Evaluation of Interviews with Renowned Researchers Part I – Research Objectives and Method. ICB (Institute für Informatik und Wirtschaftsinformatik), Universität Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lange C (2005b) Development and Status of the Information Systems/Wirtschaftsinformatik Discipline: An Interpretive Evaluation of Interviews with Renowned Researchers Part II – Results. ICB (Institute für Informatik und Wirtschaftsinformatik), Universität Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsen TJ and Levine L (2008) Ciation patterns in MIS: an analysis of exemplar articles. In Open IT-Based Innovation: Moving Towards Cooperative IT Transfer and Knowledge Diffusion (León G, Bernardos AM, Casar JR, Kautz K and DeGross JI, Eds), pp 23–38, Springer, Boston.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Latour B and Woolgar S (1979) Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee AS (1994) Electronic mail as a medium for rich communications: an empirical investigation using hermeneutic interpretation. MIS Quarterly 18 (2), 143–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee AS and Dennis AR (2012) A hermeneutic interpretation of a controlled laboratory experiment: a case study of decision-making with a group support system. Information Systems Journal 22 (1), 3–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyytinen K (2009) Data matters in IS theory building. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 10 (10), 715–720.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyytinen K and King JL (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 

  • Madison GB (1988) The Hermeneutics of Postmodernity: Figures and Themes. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markus ML and Saunders CS (2007) Editorial comments: looking for a few good concepts … and theories … for the information systems field. MIS Quarterly 31 (1), iii–vi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason RO and Mitroff II (1973) A program for research on management information systems. Management Science 19 (5), 475–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masterman M (1970) The nature of a paradigm. In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge: International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science. (Bedford College, 1965) (Lakatos I and Musgrave A, Eds), pp 59–89, Cambridge University Press, London.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Merton RK (1973) The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton RK (1977) The sociology of science: an episodic memoir. In The Sociology of Science in Europe (Merton RK and Gaston J, Eds), pp 3–141, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mingers J (2001) Combining IS research methods: towards a pluralist methodology. Information Systems Research 12 (3), 240–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mingers J (2004) Paradigm wars: ceasefire announced who will set up the new administration. Journal of Information Technology 19 (3), 165–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mingers J and Stowell F (Eds) (1997) Information Systems: An Emerging Discipline? McGraw-Hill, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mingers JC (1995) Information and meaning – foundations for an intersubjective account. Information Systems Journal 5 (4), 285–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minsky M (1975) A framework for representing knowledge. In Mind Design II (Haugeland J, Ed.), pp 111–142, MIT Press, Cambridge MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moody D, Iacob M-E and Amrit C (2010) In search of paradigms: identifying the theoretical foundations of the is field. In European Conference on Information Systems, 6–9 June, Pretoria, South Africa.

  • Mulkay MJ (1979) Science and the Sociology of Knowledge. G. Allen & Unwin, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mumford E (1991) Information systems research – leaking craft or visionary vehicle? In Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions (Nissen H-E, Klein HK and Hirschheim RA, Eds), pp 21–26, Elsevier Science Publishers B. V., North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nerur SP, Mahapatra R, Balijepally V and Mangalaraj G (2006) Is information systems a reference discipline? In 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 39), Lihue, Hawaii.

  • Nolan RL and Wetherbe JC (1980) Toward a comprehensive framework for MIS research. MIS Quarterly 4 (2), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer RE (1969) Hermeneutics: Interpretation Theory in Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Heidegger and Gadamer. Northwestern University Press, Evanston, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul RJ (2002) (IS)3: Is Information Systems an intellectual subject? European Journal of Information Systems 11 (2), 174–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry N (1977) A comparative analysis of ‘paradigm’ proliferation. The British Journal of Sociology 28 (1), 38–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfetsch FR (1979) The ‘finalization’ debate in germany: some comments and explanations. Social Studies of Science 9 (1), 115–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi M (1958) Personal knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper KR (1959) The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Basic Books, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper KR (1970) Normal science and its dangers. In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge: International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science. (Bedford College 1965) (Lakatos I and Musgrave A, Eds) pp 51–58, Cambridge University Press, London.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Price DJDS (1963) Little Science, Big Science. Columbia University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price DJDS and Beaver D (1966) Collaboration in an invisible college. American Psychologist 21 (11), 1011–1018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhees R (1968) Wittgenstein’s notes for lectures on ‘private experience’ and ‘sense data’. The Philosophical Review 77 (3), 271–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson H and Robinson B (2007) The mysterious case of the missing paradigm: a review of critical information systems research 1991–2001. Information Systems Journal 17 (3), 251–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritzer G (1980) Sociology: A Multiple Paradigm Science. Allyn and Bacon, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robey D (2003) Identity, legitimacy and the dominant research paradigm: an alternative prescription for the is discipline! a response to benbasat and zmud’s call for returning to the it artifact. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 4 (7), 352–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson B and Richardson H (1999) The crisis of the information systems discipline: a Vygotskyan analysis. In The Proceedings of the Critical Management Studies Conference, pp 1–37, University of Manchester, 14−17 July.

  • Schopman J (1980) Finalization and functionalization. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 11 (2), 347–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapere D (1964) The structure of scientific revolutions. The Philosophical Review 73 (3), 383–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapere D (1971) The paradigm concept. Science 172 (3984), 706–709.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sismondo S (2003) An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. Wiley-Blackwell, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer H (1897) The Principles of Sociology. D. Appleton, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin S (1970) Does the distinction between normal and revolutionary science hold water. In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (Lakatos I and Musgrave J, Eds), pp 39–47, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin S (1972) Human Understanding: The Collective Use and Evolution of Concepts. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Gigch JP and Le Moigne JL (1989) A paradigmatic approach to the discipline of information systems. Behavioral Science 34 (2), 128–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wade M, Biehl M and Kim H (2006) Information systems is not a reference discipline (and what we can do about it). Journal of the Association for Information Systems 7 (5), 247–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wand Y and Weber R (1986) On Paradigms in the IS Discipline: The Problem of the Problem. In Annual Meeting of the Decision Science Institute, 23–25 November, pp 566–568, Honolulu, HI.

  • Wand Y and Weber R (1995) On the deep structure of information systems. Information Systems Journal 5 (3), 203–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watkins J (1970) Against ‘normal science’. In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (Lakatos I and Musgrave J, Eds), pp 25–37, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K..

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Weber R (1987) Toward a theory of artifacts: a paradigmatic base for information systems research. The Journal of Information Systems 1 (2), 3–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber R (2003) Editor's comment: still desperately seeking the IT artifact. MIS Quarterly 27 (2), iii–xi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber R (2006) Reach and grasp in the debate over the IS core: an empty hand? Journal of the Association for Information Systems 7 (10), 703–713.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weberman D (2000) A new defense of Gadamer's hermeneutics. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 60 (1), 45–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitley R (Ed) (1974) Social Processes of Scientific Development. Routledge and K. Paul, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitley R (1982) The establishment and structure of the sciences as reputational organizations. In Scientific Establishments and Hierarchies (Elias N, Martins H and Whitley R, Eds), pp 313–357, D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht Holland.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Whitley R (1984) The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitley RD (1983) From the sociology of scientific communities to the study of scientists’ negotiations and beyond. Social Science Information 22 (4/5), 681–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zachman JA (1978) The information systems management system: a framework for planning. DataBase 9 (3), 8–13.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Minnesota Duluth, Duluth, MN, U.S.A.

    Nik R Hassan

Authors
  1. Nik R Hassan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nik R Hassan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hassan, N. Paradigm lost … paradigm gained: a hermeneutical rejoinder to Banville and Landry’s ‘Can the Field of MIS be Disciplined?’. Eur J Inf Syst 23, 600–615 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2013.29

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2013.29

Keywords

Search

Navigation