Abstract
The debate between protagonists of different theoretical approaches continues in the Information Systems field, with little prospect of resolution. The debate is typically characterized by tendentious arguments as advocates from each approach offer a somewhat one-sided condemnation of other approaches. A recent debate in the Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems (SJIS) illustrates the manner in which IS researchers are polarized into opposing camps, each tending to view the other as inferior. Ironically further polarization is occurring in the manner various groups of IS scholars are simultaneously calling for order, discipline and clearer notions of the “core of the discipline” while other scholars call for greater research diversity. In order to overcome this polarization we advocate a strategy recommended by Weick (1996): Drop your tools, hold your concepts lightly and update them frequently. Three reasons for dropping our theoretical tools are suggested as a means for moving forward, both for individual researchers as well as for the research community as a whole.
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D., and Mead, M. “The Case Research Strategy in Studies of Information Systems,” MIS Quarterly (11:3), September 1987, pp. 369–386.
Benbasat, I., and Zmud, R. W. “Empirical Research in Information Systems: The Practice of Relevance,” MIS Quarterly (23:1), March 1999, pp. 3–16.
Benbasat, I., and Zmud, R. W. “The Identity Crisis Within the IS Discipline: Defining and Communicating the Discipline’s Core Properties,” MIS Quarterly (27:2), June 2003, pp. 183–194.
Blair, D. Language and Representation in Information Retrieval, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers, 1990.
Davenport, T. H., and Markus, M. L. “Rigor vs Relevance Revisited: Response to Benbasat and Zmud,” MIS Quarterly (23:1), March 1999, pp. 19–23.
Dutton, W. “Letter to the Editor, MIS Quarterly (12:4), December 1988, p. 521.
Fitzgerald, B., and Howcroft, D. “Towards Dissolution of the IS Research Debate: From Polarization to Polarity,” Journal of Information Technology (13:4), 1998, pp. 313–326.
Gregor, S. “The Nature of Theory in Information Systems,” MIS Quarterly (30:3), September 2006, pp. 611–642.
Hanseth, O. “Beyond Metaphysics and Theory Consumerism: A Comment to Rose, Jones, and Truex,’ socio-Theoretic Accounts of IS: The Problem of Agency,’” Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems (17:1), 2005, pp. 159–166.
Holmström, J. “Theorizing in IS Research: What Comes First and What Comes After?,” Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems (17:1), 2005, pp. 167–174.
Jones, M. “Information Systems and the Double Mangle: Steering a Course between the Scylla of Embedded Structure and the Charybdis of Strong Symmetry,” in T. J. Larsen, L. Levine, and J. I. DeGross (eds.), Information Systems: Current Issues and Future Changes, Laxenburg, Austria; IFIP, 1999, pp. 287–302.
Jones, M. R. “The Moving Finger: The Use of Social Theory in WG8.2 Conference Papers, 1975–1999,” in J. Baskerville, J. Stage, and J. I. DeGross (eds.), Organizational and Social Perspectives on Information Technology, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000, pp. 15–31.
Keen, P. G. W. “Relevance and Rigor in Information Systems Research: Improving Quality, Confidence, Cohesion and Impact,” in H-E. Nissen, H. K. Klein, and R. Hirschheim Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions, Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1991, pp. 27–49.
Koch, N., Gray, P., Hoving, R., Klein, H., Myers, M., and Rockart, J. “IS Research Relevance Revisited: Subtle Accomplishments, Unfulfilled Promise, or Serial Hypocrisy?,” Communications of the AIS (8), 2002, pp. 330–346.
Landry, M., and Banville, C. “A Disciplined Methodological Pluralism for MIS Research,” Accounting, Management and Information Technologies (2:2), 1992, pp. 77–98.
Langer, S. K. Feeling and Form, New York: Charles Scribner Sons, 1953.
Langer, S. K. Problems of Art, New York: Charles Scribner Sons, 1957.
Lyytinen, K. “Empirical Research in Information Systems: On the Relevance of Practice in Thinking of IS Research,” MIS Quarterly (23:1), March 1999, pp. 25–27.
Lyytinen, K., and King, J. “Nothing at the Center? Information Systems as a Reference Discipline?,” Journal of the Association for Information Systems (5:6), 2004, pp. 220–246.
McMaster, T., and Wastell, D. G. “The Agency of Hybrids: Overcoming the Symmetrophobic Block,” Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems (17:1), 2005, pp. 175–182.
McMaster, T., and Wastell, D. “Organisational Dynamics of Technology-Based Innovation: Diversifying the Research Agenda,” Call for Papers, IFIP WG 8.6 Working Conference, University of Salford, 2006 (http://www.ifip86-2007.salford.ac.uk/papers/).
Moody, D. L. “Building Links Between IS Research and Professional Practice: Improving the Relevance and Impact of IS Research,” in W. J. Orlikowski, S. Ang, P. Weill, H. C. Kcmar, and J. I. DeGross (eds.), Proceedings of the 21 st International Conference on Information Systems, Brisbane, Australia, December 10–13, 2000, pp. 351–360.
Orlikowski, W. J. “The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations,” Organization Science (3), 1992, pp. 398–429.
Orlikowski, W. J. “Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations,” Organization Science (11), 2000, pp. 404–428.
Orlikowski, W. J., and Baroudi, J. “Studying Information Technology in Organizations: Research Approaches and Assumptions,” Information Systems Research (2:1), 1992, pp. 1–28.
Robey, D., and Markus, M. L. “Beyond Rigor and Relevance: Producing Consumable Research about Information Systems,” Information Resources Management Journal (11:1), 1998, pp. 7–15.
Rose, J., Jones, M., and Truex, D. “The Problem of Agency Revisited,” Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems (17:1), 2005a, pp. 187–196.
Rose, J., Jones, M., and Truex, D. “Socio-Theoretic Accounts of IS: The Problem of Agency,” Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems (17:1), 2005b, pp. 133–152.
Rose, J., and Truex, D. “Machine Agency as Perceived Autonomy: An Action Perspective,” in R. Baskerville, J. Stage, and J. I. DeGross (eds.), The Social and Organizational Perspective on Research and Practice in Information Technology, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers:, 2000, pp. 371–390.
Truex, D. P., Holmström, J., and Keil, M. “Theorizing in Information Systems Research: A Reflexive Analysis of the Adaptation of Theory in Information Systems Research,” Journal of the AIS (7:12), December 2006, pp. 797–821.
Turkle, S. The Second Self: Computers and the Human Sprit, New York: Touchstone Press, 1984.
Walsham, G. “Agency Theory: Integration or a Thousand Flowers?,” Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems (17:1), 2005, pp. 153–158.
Weick, K. E. “Drop your Tools: An Allegory for Organizational Studies,” Administrative Science Quarterly (41), 1996, pp. 301–313.
Weick, K. E. “What Theory Is Not, Theorizing Is,” Administrative Science Quarterly (40), 1995, pp. 385–390.
Yin, R. K. Case Study Research, Design and Methods (2nd ed.), London: Sage Publications, 1994.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 International Federation for Information Processing
About this paper
Cite this paper
Truex, D., Holmström, J. (2007). Dropping Your Tools. In: McMaster, T., Wastell, D., Ferneley, E., DeGross, J.I. (eds) Organizational Dynamics of Technology-Based Innovation: Diversifying the Research Agenda. TDIT 2007. IFIP International Federation for Information Processing, vol 235. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-72804-9_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-72804-9_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-72803-2
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-72804-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)