Advertisement

European Journal of Information Systems

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 135–146 | Cite as

Pragmatism vs interpretivism in qualitative information systems research

  • Göran Goldkuhl
Research Article

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.

Keywords

qualitative research interpretivism pragmatism paradigm information systems 

References

  1. Arens E (1994) The Logic of Pragmatic Thinking. From Peirce to Habermas. Humanities Press, Atlantic Highlands.Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Baskerville R (1999) Investigating information systems with action research. Communication of AIS 2, 1–32.Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Baskerville R and Pries-Heje J (1999) Grounded action research: a method for understanding IT in practice. Accounting, Management & Information Technology 9, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benbasat I, Goldstein D and Mead M (1987) The case research strategy in studies of information systems. MIS Quarterly 11 (3), 369–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blumer H (1969) Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Butler T (1998) Towards a hermeneutic method for interpretive research in information systems. Journal of Information Technology 13, 285–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chua WF (1986) Radical development in accounting thought. The Accounting Review 61 (4), 601–632.Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Cronen V (2001) Practical theory, practical art, and the pragmatic-systemic account of inquiry. Communication Theory 11 (1), 14–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davison RM, Martinsons MG and Kock N (2004) Principles of canonical action research. Information Systems Journal 14, 65–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dewey J (Ed.) (1931) The development of American pragmatism. In Philosophy and Civilization. Minton, Balch & Co, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Dewey J (1938) Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. Henry Holt, New York.Google Scholar
  18. Fishman DB (1999) The Case for Pragmatic Psychology. New York University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  19. Fitzgerald B and Howcroft D (1998) Towards resolution of the IS research debate: from polarization to polarity. Journal of Information Technology 13, 313–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. Goldkuhl G (2008b) What kind of pragmatism in information systems research? AIS SIG Prag Inaugural Meeting, Paris.Google Scholar
  25. 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
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gregor S and Jones D (2007) The anatomy of a design theory. Journal of AIS 8 (5), 312–335.Google Scholar
  28. Hevner AR, March ST, Park J and Ram S (2004) Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly 28 (1), 75–15.Google Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Iivari J (2007) A paradigmatic analysis of information systems as a design science. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 19 (2), 39–64.Google Scholar
  31. Iivari J and Venable J (2009) Action research and design science research – seemingly similar but decisively dissimilar. 17th European Conference on Information Systems, Verona.Google Scholar
  32. Joas H (1993) Pragmatism and Social Theory. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  33. Järvinen P (2007) Action research is similar to design science. Quality & Quantity 41, 37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kock N (Ed.) (2007) Information Systems Action Research. An Applied View of Emerging Concepts and Methods. Springer, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kock N and Lau F (2001) Information systems action research: serving two demanding masters. Information Technology & People 14 (1), 6–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Lee A (1989) Integrating positivist and interpretive approaches to organizational research. Organization Science 2 (4), 342–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.Google Scholar
  40. Lee AS, Liebenau J and Degross JI (Eds) (1997) Information Systems and Qualitative Research. Chapman & Hall, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Leonardi PM and Barley SR (2008) Materiality and change: challenges to building better theory about technology and organizing. Information and Organization 18, 159–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lovejoy AO (1908) The thirteen pragmatisms. The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods 5 (1–2), 5–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.Google Scholar
  45. MÅrtensson P and Lee A (2004) Dialogical action research at Omega corporation. MIS Quarterly 28 (3), 507–536.Google Scholar
  46. Mathiassen L (2002) Collaborative practice research. Information Technology & People 15 (4), 321–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mead GH (1934) Mind, Self and Society. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  48. Mead GH (1938) Philosophy of the Act. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  49. Metcalfe M (2008) Pragmatic inquiry. Journal of the Operational Research Society 59, 1091–1099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mingers J (2001) Combining IS research methods: Towards a pluralist methodology. Information Systems Research 12 (3), 240–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mumford E, Hirschheim R, Fitzgerald G and Wood-Harper T (Eds) (1985) Research Methods in Information Systems. North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  52. Myers M and Avison D (Eds) (2002a) Qualitative Research in Information Systems: A Reader. Sage, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Myers M and Walsham G (1998) Exemplifying interpretive research in information systems: an overview. Journal of Information Technology 13, 233–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nissen H-E, Klein H and Hirschheim R (Eds) (1991) Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions. North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  56. Orlikowski WJ (1992) The duality of technology: rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science 3 (3), 398–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Orlikowski WJ (2000) Using technology and constituting structures: a practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science 11 (4), 404–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Orlikowski WJ (2008) Sociomaterial practices: exploring technology at work. Organization Studies 28 (9), 1435–1448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Orlikowski WJ and Baroudi JJ (1991) Studying information technology in organizations: research approaches and assumptions. Information Systems Research 2 (1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Peirce CS (1878) How to make our ideas clear. Popular Science Monthly.Google Scholar
  61. Pleasants N (2003) A philosophy for the social sciences: realism, pragmatism, or neither? Foundations of Science 8, 69–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rescher N (2000) Realistic Pragmatism. An Introduction to Pragmatic Philosophy. SUNY Press, Albany, NY.Google Scholar
  63. Rorty R (1980) Pragmatism, relativism and irrationalism. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 53 (6), 719–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Schutz A (1970) On Phenomenology and Social Relations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  65. Sein M, Henfridsson O, Purao S, Rossi M and Lindgren R (2011) Action design research. MIS Quarterly 35 (1), 37–56.Google Scholar
  66. Shusterman R (2004) Pragmatism and East-Asian thought. Metaphilosophy 35 (1/2), 13–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Silverman D (1970) The Theory of Organizations. Heineman, London.Google Scholar
  68. Stevenson C (2005) Practical inquiry/theory in nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing 50 (2), 196–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Susman GI and Evered RD (1978) An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Administrative Science Quarterly 23 (4), 582–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Thayer HS (1981) Meaning and Action. A Critical History of Pragmatism. Hackett Publishing, Indianapolis, IN.Google Scholar
  71. Torbert W (1999) The distinctive questions developmental action inquiry asks. Management Learning 30 (2), 189–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Trauth EM (Ed.) (2001) Qualitative Research in IS: Issues and Trends. Idea Group, Hershey, PA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Trauth EM (Ed.) (2001b) The choice of qualitative research methods in IS. In Qualitative Research in IS: Issues and Trends. Idea Group, Hershey, PA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Van de ven A (2007) Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  75. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Walsham G (1993) Interpreting Information System in Organizations. John Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  77. Walsham G (1995) Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method. European Journal of Information Systems 4, 74–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Walsham G (2006) Doing interpretive research. European Journal of Information Systems 15, 320–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Weber M (1978) Economy and Society. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  80. Weber R (2004) The rhetoric of positivism vs. interpretivism: a personal view. MIS Quarterly 28 (1), iii–xii.Google Scholar
  81. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Winograd T and Flores F (1986) Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design. Ablex, Norwood, MA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Operational Research Society 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Linköping UniversityLinköpingSweden
  2. 2.Stockholm UniversityKistaSweden

Personalised recommendations