Business & Information Systems Engineering

, Volume 5, Issue 6, pp 453–460 | Cite as

Methodological Pluralism in Business and Information Systems Engineering?

  • Peter LoosEmail author
  • Tobias Mettler
  • Robert Winter
  • Matthias Goeken
  • Ulrich Frank
  • Alfred Winter


For some time now, the Business and Information Systems Engineering (BISE) research community in the German-speaking countries has continuously been concerned with the development of the field as scientific discipline. This may be attributed to several reasons. First, it is a natural and necessary process for a scientific community to self-critically reflect its own discipline from time to time, especially after growth phases of a young science or after changes in the objects of research caused by technological innovations. Another reason is the necessity of internationalization, which among others led to a discussion of methods regarding behaviorist oriented and design science oriented research approaches in BISE (Österle et al. 2010). Following this, concerns have been expressed that design-oriented approaches commonly used in German-speaking countries will yield to more behavioral approaches in the future due to the pressure to publish internationally, which would not...


Conceptual System Medical Informatics Unify Medical Language System Information System Research Information System Engineer 
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.


to: Section 1

  1. Mertens P, Barbian D (2013) Forschung über „Grand Challenges“ – Eine „Grand Challenge“. Arbeitspapier Nr 1, Universität Nürnberg-Erlangen Google Scholar
  2. National Institutes of Health (2013) Accessed 2013-09-10
  1. Österle H, Becker J, Frank U, Hess T, Karagiannis D, Krcmar H, Loos P, Mertens P, Oberweis A, Sinz EJ (2010) Memorandum on design-oriented information systems research. European Journal of Information Systems 20(1):7–10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

to: Section 2

  1. APA Practice Organization (2013) Accessed 2013-07-11
  2. Bacon CJ, Fitzgerald B (2001) A systemic framework for the field of information systems. Data Base for Advances in Information Systems 32(2):46–67 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernstein A, Frank U, Gersch M, Österle H, Spiekermann S (2011) Behavioristische und gestaltungsorientierte Forschung in der Wirtschaftsinformatik: Konkurrenz oder gegenseitige Befruchtung? In: 10. Internationale Tagung Wirtschaftsinformatik, Zürich Google Scholar
  4. Chalmers A (1990) Science and its fabrication. Open University Press, Milton Keynes Google Scholar
  5. Clavien P-A, Lesurtel M, Bossuyt PMM, Gores GJ, Perrier A (2012) Recommendations for liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: an international consensus conference report. The Lancet Oncology 13(1):e11–e22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. European Research Center for Information Systems (2013) Hybride Wertschöpfung 3.0. Accessed 2013-07-11
  7. Fettke P, Loos P (2002) Der Referenzmodellkatalog als Instrument des Wissensmanagements: Methodik und Anwendung. In: Becker J, Knackstedt R (eds) Wissensmanagement mit Referenzmodellen. Konzepte für die Anwendungssystem- und Organisationsgestaltung. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 3–24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goeken M, Patas J (2010) Evidenzbasierte Strukturierung und Bewertung empirischer Forschung im Requirements Engineering. WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK 52(3):173–184 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gonzalez Vazquez JM (2012) Ein Referenzmodellkatalog für die Energiewirtschaft. Universität Oldenburg Google Scholar
  10. Innovative Medicines Initiatives (2013) Accessed 2013-07-11
  11. Jagsi R, Bekelman JE, Brawley OW, Deasy JO, Le Q-T, Michalski JM, Movsas B, Thomas CR, Lawton CA, Lawrence TS, Hahn SM (2012) A research agenda for radiation oncology: results of the radiation oncology institute’s comprehensive research needs assessment. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics 84(2):318–322 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kuhn TS (1996) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lakatos I (1978) The methodolody of scientific research programmes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. National Center for Biomedical Ontology (2013) Accessed 2013-07-11
  15. National Institutes of Health (2013) Accessed 2013-07-11
  16. Niels-Bohr-Institut (2013) QUROPE research agenda. Accessed 2013-07-11
  17. Sabir M, Breckman R, Meador R, Wethington E, Reid MC, Pillemer K (2006) The CITRA research-practice consensus-workshop model: exploring a new method of research translation in aging. The Gerontologist 46(6):833–839 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Simonton DK (2006) Scientific status of disciplines, individuals, and ideas: empirical analyses of the potential impact of theory. Review of General Psychology 10(2):98–112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. SIR Foundation (2013) Accessed 2013-07-11
  20. Siskin GP, Haskal ZJ, McLennan G, Dake MD, Haacke EM, McDonald S, Royal W, Vedantham S, Hubbard D, Sclafani SJ, Andrews RT, Sauder H (2011) Development of a research agenda for evaluation of interventional therapies for chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency: proceedings from a multidisciplinary research consensus panel. Journal of vascular and interventional radiology: JVIR 22(5):587–593 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Stokes DE (1997) Pasteur’s quadrant: basic science and technological innovation. Brookings Institute, Washington Google Scholar
  22. US National Library of Medicine (2013) Medical subject headings. Accessed 2013-07-11

to: Section 3

  1. Achinstein P (2010) Evidence, explanation, and realism: essays in the philosophy of science. Oxford University Press, Oxford Google Scholar
  2. Baskerville R (2009) Preparing for evidence based management (editorial). European Journal of Information Systems 18(6):523–525 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baskerville R, Myers MD (2009) Fashion waves in information systems research and practice. MIS Quarterly 33(4):647–662 Google Scholar
  4. Baskerville R, Pries-Heje J (2010) Explanatory design theory. Business & Information Systems Engineering 2(5):271–282 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fitzgerald B, Howcroft D (1998) Competing dichotomies in IS research and possible strategies for resolution. In: Proceedings of the international conference on information systems (ICIS) Google Scholar
  6. Goeken M (2011) Towards an evidence-based research approach in information systems. In: Proceedings of the international conference on information systems (ICIS) Google Scholar
  7. Hiatt H, Goldman L (1994) Making medicine more scientific. Nature 100(371):100 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Krcmar H (2009) Innovationen als Voraussetzung für Grundlagenforschung in der Wirtschaftsinformatik. WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK 51(2):224–225 Google Scholar
  9. Markus ML, Saunders C (2007) Looking for a few good concepts... and theories...for the information systems field. MIS Quarterly 31(1):iii–vi Google Scholar
  10. Peffers K et al. (2007) A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems 24(3):45–77 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Webster J, Watson RT (2002) Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly 26(2):xiii–xxiii Google Scholar

to: Section 4

  1. Berger PL, Luckmann T (1966) The social construction of reality: a treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Doubleday, Garden City Google Scholar
  2. Morgan G (1986) Images of organization. Sage, Beverly Hills Google Scholar

to: Section 5

  1. Gesellschaft für Informatik eV (2006) Was ist Informatik? Gesellschaft für Informatik eV (GI), Bonn. Accessed 2013-07-25
  2. Haux R (1989) On medical informatics. Methods of Information in Medicine 28:66–68 Google Scholar
  3. Haux R, Ammenwerth E, Herzog W, Knaup P (2002) Health care in the information society: a prognosis for the year 2013. Int J Med Inform 66(1–3):3–21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Haux R (2003) Kriterien für gute medizinische Forschung. In: Eich W, Bauer AW, Haux R, Herzog W, Rüegg JC (eds) Wissenschaftlichkeit in der Medizin, Teil IV: Qualität und Integrität in Lehre und Forschung der Medizin – Perspektiven bis ins Jahr 2013. VAS Frankfurt, pp 144–181 Google Scholar
  5. Haux R, Knaup P, Leiner F (2007) On educating about medical data management – the other side of the electronic health record. Methods Inf Med 46(1):74–79 Google Scholar
  6. Moehr JR (2006) Where to in the next ten years of health informatics education? Methods of Information in Medicine 45(3):283–287 Google Scholar
  7. Österle H, Becker J, Frank U, Hess T, Karagiannis D, Krcmar H, Loos P, Mertens P, Oberweis A, Sinz EJ (2010) Memorandum zur gestaltungsorientierten Wirtschaftsinformatik. ZFBF. Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift fur Betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung 6(62):664–672 Google Scholar
  8. Prokosch HU (2001) KAS, KIS, EKA, EPA, EGA, E-Health: Ein Plädoyer gegen die baylonische Begriffsverwirrung in der Medizinischen Informatik. Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie in Medizin und Biologie 32:371–382 Google Scholar
  9. Protti DJ, van Bemmel JH, Gunzenhäuser R, Haux R, Warner H, Douglas JV, Lang E (1994) Can health/medical informatics be regarded as a separate discipline? Methods of Information in Medicine 33(3):318–326 Google Scholar
  10. US National Library of Medicine (2013) Unified medical language system (UMLS). US National Library of Medicine, Bethesda. Accessed 2013-04-25
  11. van Bemmel JH (1996) Medical informatics, art or science? Methods of Information in Medicine 35:157–172 Google Scholar
  12. Winter A, Ahrens W, Bergh B, Bohrer-Steck M, Chang-Claude J et al. (2008) Ethische Leitlinien der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Medizinische Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie e.V. (GMDS), des Arbeitskreises der IT-Leiter/innen der Universitätsklinika (AL-KRZ), des Berufsverbandes Medizinischer Informatiker (BVMI), des Bundesverbandes der Krankenhaus-IT-Leiterinnen/Leiter e. V. (KH-IT) und des Deutschen Verbandes Medizinischer Dokumentare e.V. (DVMD). Deutsche Gesellschaft für Medizinische Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie (GMDS), Bonn. Accessed 2013-07-25
  13. Winter A, Alt R, Ehmke J, Haux R, Ludwig W, Mattfeld D, Oberweis A, Paech B (2012) Manifest: Kundeninduzierte Orchestrierung komplexer Dienstleistungen – Gestaltung eines Paradigmenwechsels. Informatik Spektrum 35(6):399–408 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Loos
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tobias Mettler
  • Robert Winter
  • Matthias Goeken
  • Ulrich Frank
  • Alfred Winter
  1. 1.IWi at DFKISaarland UniversitySaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations