Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Pragmatism vs interpretivism in qualitative information systems research

  • Research Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Information Systems

Abstract

Qualitative research is often associated with interpretivism, but alternatives do exist. Besides critical research and sometimes positivism, qualitative research in information systems can be performed following a paradigm of pragmatism. This paradigm is associated with action, intervention and constructive knowledge. This paper has picked out interpretivism and pragmatism as two possible and important research paradigms for qualitative research in information systems. It clarifies each paradigm in an ideal-typical fashion and then conducts a comparison revealing commonalities and differences. It is stated that a qualitative researcher must either adopt an interpretive stance aiming towards an understanding that is appreciated for being interesting; or a pragmatist stance aiming for constructive knowledge that is appreciated for being useful in action. The possibilities of combining pragmatism and interpretivism in qualitative research in information systems are analysed. A research case (conducted through action research (AR) and design research (DR)) that combines interpretivism and pragmatism is used as an illustration. It is stated in the paper that pragmatism has influenced IS research to a fairly large extent, albeit in a rather implicit way. The paradigmatic foundations are seldom known and explicated. This paper contributes to a further clarification of pragmatism as an explicit research paradigm for qualitative research in information systems. Pragmatism is considered an appropriate paradigm for AR and DR.

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

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arens E (1994) The Logic of Pragmatic Thinking. From Peirce to Habermas. Humanities Press, Atlantic Highlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris C, Putnam R and Mclain SD (1985) Action Science. Concepts, Methods and Skills for Research and Intervention. Jossey Bass, San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baskerville R (1999) Investigating information systems with action research. Communication of AIS 2, 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baskerville R and Myers M (2004) Special issue on action research in information systems: making IS research relevant to practice – foreword. MIS Quarterly 28 (3), 329–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baskerville R and Pries-Heje J (1999) Grounded action research: a method for understanding IT in practice. Accounting, Management & Information Technology 9, 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benbasat I, Goldstein D and Mead M (1987) The case research strategy in studies of information systems. MIS Quarterly 11 (3), 369–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumer H (1969) Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boland RJ (1985) Phenomenology: a preferred approach to research on information systems. In Research Methods in Information Systems (MUMFORD E, HIRSCHHEIM R, FITZGERALD G, WOOD-HARPER T, Eds), North-Holland, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boland RJ (1991) Information systems use as a hermeneutic process. In Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions (NISSEN H-E, KLEIN H, HIRSCHHEIM R, Eds), North-Holland, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braa K and Vidgen R (1999) Interpretation, intervention, and reduction in the organizational laboratory: a framework for in-context information system research. Accounting, Management & Information Technology 9, 25–47.

    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 

  • Chua WF (1986) Radical development in accounting thought. The Accounting Review 61 (4), 601–632.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole R, Purao S, Rossi M and Sein M (2005) Being proactive: where action research meets design research. Proceedings of the Twenty-sixth International Conference on Information Systems, pp 325–336, Association for Information Systems, Atlanta.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronen V (2001) Practical theory, practical art, and the pragmatic-systemic account of inquiry. Communication Theory 11 (1), 14–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davison RM, Martinsons MG and Kock N (2004) Principles of canonical action research. Information Systems Journal 14, 65–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey J (Ed.) (1931) The development of American pragmatism. In Philosophy and Civilization. Minton, Balch & Co, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey J (1938) Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. Henry Holt, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishman DB (1999) The Case for Pragmatic Psychology. New York University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald B and Howcroft D (1998) Towards resolution of the IS research debate: from polarization to polarity. Journal of Information Technology 13, 313–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gasson S (1998) A social action model of situated information systems design. In Proceedings of IFIP WG8.2 & WG8.6 Joint Working Conference on Information Systems: Current Issues and Future Changes (KEIL M, MCLEAN ER, LARSEN TJ and LEVINE L), ACM, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldkuhl G (2004) Meanings of pragmatism: Ways to conduct information systems research. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Action in Language, Organisations and Information Systems (ALOIS). Linköping University, Linköping.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldkuhl G (2007) What does it mean to serve the citizen in e-services? – towards a practical theory founded in socio-instrumental pragmatism. International Journal of Public Information Systems 2007 (3), 135–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldkuhl G (2008a) Practical inquiry as action research and beyond. In Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Information Systems (GOLDEN W, ACTON T, CONBOY K, VAN DER HEIJDEN H and TUUNAINEN VK, Eds), pp 267–278, Galway, Ireland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldkuhl G (2008b) What kind of pragmatism in information systems research? AIS SIG Prag Inaugural Meeting, Paris.

  • Goldkuhl G and Lyytinen K (1982) A language action view of information systems. In Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Informations Systems (GINZBERG and ROSS, Eds), Ann Arbor.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregor S and Jones D (2007) The anatomy of a design theory. Journal of AIS 8 (5), 312–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hevner AR, March ST, Park J and Ram S (2004) Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly 28 (1), 75–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschheim R, Klein H and Lyytinen K (1996) Exploring the intellectual structures of information systems development: a social action theoretic analysis. Accounting, Management & Information Technology 6 (1/2), 1–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iivari J (2007) A paradigmatic analysis of information systems as a design science. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 19 (2), 39–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iivari J and Venable J (2009) Action research and design science research – seemingly similar but decisively dissimilar. 17th European Conference on Information Systems, Verona.

  • Joas H (1993) Pragmatism and Social Theory. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Järvinen P (2007) Action research is similar to design science. Quality & Quantity 41, 37–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kock N (Ed.) (2007) Information Systems Action Research. An Applied View of Emerging Concepts and Methods. Springer, Berlin.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kock N and Lau F (2001) Information systems action research: serving two demanding masters. Information Technology & People 14 (1), 6–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuutti K (1996) Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In Context and consciousness. Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction (NARDI BA, Ed.), MIT Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee A (1989) Integrating positivist and interpretive approaches to organizational research. Organization Science 2 (4), 342–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee A and Nickerson J (2010) Theory as a case of design: lessons for design from the philosophy of science. Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

  • Lee AS, Liebenau J and Degross JI (Eds) (1997) Information Systems and Qualitative Research. Chapman & Hall, London.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Leonardi PM and Barley SR (2008) Materiality and change: challenges to building better theory about technology and organizing. Information and Organization 18, 159–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovejoy AO (1908) The thirteen pragmatisms. The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods 5 (1–2), 5–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madill A, Jordan A and Shirley C (2000) Objectivity and reliability in qualitative analysis: realist, contextualist and radical constructionist epistemologies. British Journal of Psychology 91, 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall P, Kelder J-A and Perry A (2005) Social constructionism with a twist of pragmatism: a suitable cocktail for information systems research. 16th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Sydney.

  • MÅrtensson P and Lee A (2004) Dialogical action research at Omega corporation. MIS Quarterly 28 (3), 507–536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathiassen L (2002) Collaborative practice research. Information Technology & People 15 (4), 321–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mead GH (1934) Mind, Self and Society. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mead GH (1938) Philosophy of the Act. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe M (2008) Pragmatic inquiry. Journal of the Operational Research Society 59, 1091–1099.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mumford E, Hirschheim R, Fitzgerald G and Wood-Harper T (Eds) (1985) Research Methods in Information Systems. North-Holland, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers M and Avison D (Eds) (2002a) Qualitative Research in Information Systems: A Reader. Sage, London.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Myers M and Avison D (Eds) (2002b) An introduction to qualitative research in information systems. In Qualitative Research in Information Systems: A Reader. Sage, London.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Myers M and Walsham G (1998) Exemplifying interpretive research in information systems: an overview. Journal of Information Technology 13, 233–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nissen H-E, Klein H and Hirschheim R (Eds) (1991) Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions. North-Holland, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski WJ (1992) The duality of technology: rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science 3 (3), 398–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski WJ (2000) Using technology and constituting structures: a practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science 11 (4), 404–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski WJ (2008) Sociomaterial practices: exploring technology at work. Organization Studies 28 (9), 1435–1448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski WJ and Baroudi JJ (1991) Studying information technology in organizations: research approaches and assumptions. Information Systems Research 2 (1), 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peirce CS (1878) How to make our ideas clear. Popular Science Monthly.

  • Pleasants N (2003) A philosophy for the social sciences: realism, pragmatism, or neither? Foundations of Science 8, 69–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rescher N (2000) Realistic Pragmatism. An Introduction to Pragmatic Philosophy. SUNY Press, Albany, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rorty R (1980) Pragmatism, relativism and irrationalism. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 53 (6), 719–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schutz A (1970) On Phenomenology and Social Relations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sein M, Henfridsson O, Purao S, Rossi M and Lindgren R (2011) Action design research. MIS Quarterly 35 (1), 37–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shusterman R (2004) Pragmatism and East-Asian thought. Metaphilosophy 35 (1/2), 13–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silverman D (1970) The Theory of Organizations. Heineman, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson C (2005) Practical inquiry/theory in nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing 50 (2), 196–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Susman GI and Evered RD (1978) An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Administrative Science Quarterly 23 (4), 582–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thayer HS (1981) Meaning and Action. A Critical History of Pragmatism. Hackett Publishing, Indianapolis, IN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torbert W (1999) The distinctive questions developmental action inquiry asks. Management Learning 30 (2), 189–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trauth EM (Ed.) (2001) Qualitative Research in IS: Issues and Trends. Idea Group, Hershey, PA.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Trauth EM (Ed.) (2001b) The choice of qualitative research methods in IS. In Qualitative Research in IS: Issues and Trends. Idea Group, Hershey, PA.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Van de ven A (2007) Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walls JG, Widmeyer GR and El Sawy OA (1992) Building an information systems design theory for vigilant EIS. Information Systems Research 3 (1), 36–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsham G (1993) Interpreting Information System in Organizations. John Wiley, Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsham G (1995) Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method. European Journal of Information Systems 4, 74–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsham G (2006) Doing interpretive research. European Journal of Information Systems 15, 320–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber M (1978) Economy and Society. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber R (2004) The rhetoric of positivism vs. interpretivism: a personal view. MIS Quarterly 28 (1), iii–xii.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wicks AC and Freeman RE (1998) Organization studies and the new pragmatism: positivism, anti-positivism, and the search for ethics. Organization Science 9 (2), 123–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winograd T and Flores F (1986) Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design. Ablex, Norwood, MA.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden

    Göran Goldkuhl

  2. Stockholm University, Kista, Sweden

    Göran Goldkuhl

Authors
  1. Göran Goldkuhl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Göran Goldkuhl.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Goldkuhl, G. Pragmatism vs interpretivism in qualitative information systems research. Eur J Inf Syst 21, 135–146 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.54

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.54

Keywords

Search

Navigation