Advertisement

Qualitative Research in Information Systems: Time to be Subjective?

  • L. Garcia
  • F. Quek
Part of the IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT)

Abstract

The starting point of a researcher’s methodological choice within information systems is not so much a problem of how many methods we employ or if those are of a quantitative or a qualitative nature, but the ability to identify the philosophical and theoretical assumptions which leads to the choice of the appropriate methodology. In practice, despite the recognition of the virtues and the role of qualitative methods in information systems research, explicit institutional barriers and implicit functionalistic assumptions within the field have prevented much progress in their application. There is the danger in not recognizing the resulting side-effect where researchers use qualitative methods in a quantitative manner and pass it off as qualitative research. Using qualitative methods implies allowing and acknowledging the subjectivity of the research process, which should be looked upon as a strength rather than as a weakness.

Keywords

Qualitative Research Research Process Qualitative Method Organizational Work Qualitative Research Method 
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.

References

  1. Acterberg, J. S.; van Es, G. A.; and Heng, M. S. H. (1991). “Information Systems Research in the Postmodern Period.” In H-E. Nissen, H. K. Klein, and R. Hirschheim (Editors), The Information Systems Research Arena of the 90s, Challenges, Perceptions and Alternative Approaches. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  2. Alvesson, M. (1995). Management of Knowledge-Intensive Companies. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Antill, L. (1985). “Selection of a Research Method.” In E. Mumford, R. Hirschheim, G. Fitzgerald, and A. T. Wood-Harper (Editors), Research Methods in Information Systems. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  4. Backhouse, J.; Liebenau, J.; and Land, F. (1991). “On the Discipline of Information Systems.” Journal of Information Systems, Volume 1, pp. 19–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Banville, C., and Landry, M. (1989). “Can the Field of MIS be Disciplined?” Communications of the ACM„ Volume 32, pp. 48–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baskerville, R. (1996). “The Second-Order Security Dilemma.” In W. J. Orlikowski, G. Walsham, M. R. Jones, and J. I. DeGross (Editors), Information Technology and Changes in Organizational Work. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  7. Baskerville, R. L., and Wood-Harper, A. T. (1996). “A Critical Perspective on Action Research as a Method for Information Systems Research.” Journal of Information Technology, Volume 11.Google Scholar
  8. Bell, S., and Sheppard, I. (1988). Application of a Systems Development Methodology in Less Developed Countries. Norwich, England: University of East Anglia.Google Scholar
  9. Benbasat, I.; Goldstein, D. K.; and Mead, M. (1987). “The Case Research Strategy in Studies of Information Systems.” MIS Quarterly, Volume 11, Number 3, September, pp. 369–386.Google Scholar
  10. Berger, P., and Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  11. Bikson, T. (1991). “Relevance versus Rigor in Information Systems Research: An Issue of Quality.” Panel Discussion chaired by J. A. Turner. In H-E. Nissen, H. K. Klein, and R. Hirschheim (Editors), Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  12. Boland, R. J, and Schultze, U. (1996). “From Work to Activiy: Technology and the Narrative of Progress.” In W. J. Orlikowski, G. Walsham, M. R. Jones, and J. I. DeGross (Editors), Information Technology and Changes in Organizational Work. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  13. Bryman, A. (1988). Quantity and Quality in Social Research. London: Unw in Hyman.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burrell, G., and Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  15. Calloway, L. J., and Ariav, G. (1991). “Developing and Using a Qualitative Methodology to Study Relationships among Designers and Tools.” In H-E. Nissen, H. K. Klein and R. Hirschheim (Editors), Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  16. Cash, J., and Nunamaker, J. (1989). The Information Systems Research Challenge, Vol I: Qualitative Research Methods. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  17. Cash, J., and Nunamaker, J. (1990). The Information Systems Research Challenge, Vol II: Qualitative Research Methods. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  18. Cash, J., and Nunamaker, J. (1991). The Information Systems Research Challenge, Vol IH.: Qualitative Research Methods. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  19. Cassell, C., and Symon, G. (1994). Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Clifford, J., and Marcus, G. E. (1986). Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  21. Cooper, R. (1988). “Review of Management Information Systems Research: A Management Support Emphasis.” Information Processing and Management, Volume 24, Number 1, pp. 73–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Czarniawska-Joerges, B. (1991). “Culture is a Medium of Life.” In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg and J. Martin (Editors), Reframing Organizational Culture. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Danzinger, K. (1979). “The Positivistic Repudiation of Wundt.” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, Volume 15, pp. 205–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Elejabarrieta, F. (1990). “La Rigurosidad metodologica y la precariedad teorica en Psicologia Social.” Quadern de Psicologia, Volume 10, pp. 143–160.Google Scholar
  25. Felts, R. A. (1987). The Development of Information Systems in the Third World. M.Sc. Dissertation, London School of Economics.Google Scholar
  26. Filstead, W. J. (1978). “Qualitative Methods: A Needed Perspective in Evaluation Research.” In T. D. Cook and C. S. Reichardt (Editors), Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Evaluation Research. Beverley Hills, California: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Flick, U. (1992). “Triangulation Revisited: Strategy of Validation or Alternative?” Journal of the Theory of Social Behavior, Volume 22, pp. 175–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Galliers, R. D. (1991). “Choosing Appropriate Information Systems Research Approaches: A Revised Taxonomy.” In H-E. Nissen, H. K. Klein and R. Hirschheim (Editors), Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  29. Galliers, R. D., and Land, F. L. (1987). “Choosing Appropriate Information Systems Research Methodologies.” Communications of the ACM, Volume 30, Number 11, pp. 900–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Geertz, C. (1988). Works and Lives: The Anthropologist as Author. Stanford, California: California University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Glaser, B., and Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  32. Grint, K.; Case, P.; and Willcocks, L. (1996). “Business Process Reengineering Reappraised: The Politics and Technology of Forgetting.” In W. J. Orlikowski, G. Walsham, M. R. Jones, and J.I. DeGross (Editors), Information Technology and Changes in Organizational Work. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  33. Guerreiro-Ramos, A. (1981). The New Science of Organization. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  34. Guilford, J. P., and Fruchter, B. (1978). Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education. London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  35. Hammersly, M. (1992). What is Wrong with Ethnography? Methodological Explorations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Hammersly, M., and Atkinson, P. (1983). Ethnography Principles in Practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Keen, P. G. W. (1987). “MIS Research: Current Status, Trends and Needs.” In R. A. Buckingham, R. A. Hirschheim, F. F. Land and C. J. Tully (Editors), Information Systems Education: Recommendations and Implementation. Cambridge, England: University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Kirk, J., and Miller, M. L. (1986). Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Research Methods Series, Volume 1. Beverley Hills, California: Sage.Google Scholar
  39. Klein, H. K.; Hirschheim, R.; and Nissen, H-E. (1991). “A Pluralist Perspective of the Information Systems Research Arena.” In H-E. Nissen, H. K. Klein and R. Hirschheim (Editors), Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  40. Klein, H. K., and Lyytinen, K. (1985). “The Poverty of Scientism in Information Systems.” In E. Mumford, R. Hirschheim, G. Fitzgerald and A. T.Wood-Harper (Editors), Research Methods in Information Systems. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  41. Klein, H. K., and Myers, M. D. (1995). “The Quality of Interpretive Research in Information Systems.” Department of Management Science and Information Systems, University of Auckland, Working Paper No. 89, May.Google Scholar
  42. Kling, R. (1991). “Social Analyses of Computing: Theoretical Perspectives in Recent Empirical Research.” Computing Surveys, Volume 12, Number 1, pp. 61110.Google Scholar
  43. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  44. Kuutti, K. (1996). “Debates in IS and CSCW Research: Anticpating System Design for Post-Fordist Work.” In W. J. Orlikowslei, G. Walsham, M. R. Jones, and J. I. DeGross (Editors), Information Technology and Changes in Organizational Work. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  45. Latour. B. (1988). “The Prince for Machines as Well as for Machinations.” In B. Elliot (Editor), Technology and Social Processes. Edemburg: Edemburg University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Lee, A. (1989). “A Scientific Methodology for MIS Case Studies.” MIS Quarterly, Volume 13, Number 1, pp. 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Madon, S. (1994). Designing Information Systems for Development Planning. Henley-on-Thames, England: Alfred Waller Ltd.Google Scholar
  48. Markova, I. (1982). Paradigms, Thought and Language. Chichester, England: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  49. MISDOC-L (1995). IS Doctoral Mailing List. http://web.bu.edu:80/SMGMIS/ misdoc-1.Google Scholar
  50. Morgan, G. (Editor) (1983). Beyond Method. Beverley Hills, California: Sage.Google Scholar
  51. Morgan, G., and Smircich. L. (1980). “The Case for Qualititative Research.” Academy of Management Review, Volume 5, Number 4, pp. 491–500.Google Scholar
  52. Mumford, E. (1987). “Managerial Expert Systems and Organizational Change: Some Critical Research Issues.” In R. J. Boland and R. A. Hirschheim (Editors), Critical Issues in Information Systems Research. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 135–156.Google Scholar
  53. Mumford, E. (1991). “Information Systems Research-Leaking Craft or Visionary Vehicle?” In H. E. Nissen, H. K. Klein, and R. Hirschheim (Editors), Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  54. Mumford, E.; Hirschheim, R.; Fitzgerald, G.; and Wood-Harper, A. T. (Editors) (1985). Research Methods in Information Systems. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  55. Nelson, C.; Treichler, P. A.; and Grossberg, L. (1992). “Cultural Studies.” In L. Grossberg, C. Nelson and P. A. Treichner (Editors), Cultural Studies. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  56. Nissen, HE. (1985). “Acquiring Knowledge of Information Systems: Research in a Methodological Quagmire.” In E. Mumford, R. Hirschheim, G. Fitzgerald and A.T. Wood-Harper (Editors), Research Methods in Information Systems. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 39–51.Google Scholar
  57. Nissen, H-E., Klein, H. K.; and Hirschheim, R. (Editors) (1991). Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions. Amsterdam: North-Holland.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  58. Olaisen, J. (1991). “Pluralism or Positivistic Trivialism: Important Trends in Contemporary Philosophy of Science” In H-E. Nissen, H. K. Klein and R. Hirschheim (Editors), Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  59. Oppenheimer, J. R. (1954). “Analogy in Science.” American Psychologist, Volume 11, pp. 127–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Orlikowski, W. J. (1991). “Relevance versus Rigor in Information Systems Research: An Issue of Quality.” Panel Discussion chaired by J. A. Turner. In H-E. Nissen, H. K. Klein, and R. Hirschheim (Editors), Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  61. Orlikowski, W. J. (1993). “CASE Tools as Organizational Change: Investigating Incremental and Radical Changes in Systems Development.” MIS Quarterly, Volume 17, Number 3, pp. 309–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Orlikowski, W. J., and Baroudi, J. (1990). “Studying Information Technology in Organizations: Research Approaches and Assumptions.” Sloan Management School, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Working Paper.Google Scholar
  63. Polanyi, M. (1964). Science, Faith and Society: A Searching Examination of the Meaning and Nature of Scientific Inquiry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  64. Preston, A. M. (1991). “The `Problem’ in and of Management Information Systems.” Journal of Accounting, Management and Information Technology, Volume 1, Number 1, pp. 43–69.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Reed, M. (1985). Redirections in Organizational Analysis. London: Tavistock. Riley, P. (1991). “Cornerville as Narration.” In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg and J. Martin (Editors), Reframing Organizational Culture. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  66. Said, E. W. (1989). “Representing the Colonized: Anthopology’s Interlocutors.” Critical Inquiry, Volume 15, pp. 205–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Spielberg, H. (1972). Phenomenology in Psychology and Psychiatry: A Historical Introduction. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  69. Thompson, J. B. (1990). Ideology and Modern Culture. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  70. Toraskar, K. V. (1991). “How Managerial Users Evaluate Their Decision Support: A Grounded Theory Approach.” In H-E. Nissen, H. K. Klein and R. Hirschheim (Editors), Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  71. Van Maanen, J. (1979). “Reclaiming Qualitative Methods for Organizational Research: A Preface.” Administrative Science Quarterly, Volume 24, pp. 520–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Vidgen, R., and McMaster, T. (1996). “Black Boxes, Non-human Stakeholders and the Translation of IT Through Mediation.” In W. J. Orlikowski, G. Walsham, M. R. Jones, and J. I. DeGross (Editors), Information Technology and Changes in Organizational Work. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  73. Vidich, A. J., and Lyman, S. M. (1994). “Qualitative Methods: Their History in Sociology and Anthropology.” In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Editors), Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  74. Vogel, D. R., and Wetherbe, J. C. (1984). “MIS research: A Profile of Leading Journals and Universities.” DataBase, Volume 16, Number 3.Google Scholar
  75. Walsham, G. (1993). Interpreting Information Systems in Organizations. Chichester, England: Wiley.Google Scholar
  76. Walsham, G. (1995). “Interpretive Case Studies in IS Research: Nature and Method.” European Journal of Information Systems, Volume 4, pp. 74–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Weill, P., and Olson, M. H. (1989). “An Assessment of the Contingency Theory of Management Information Systems.” Journal of Management Information Systems, Volume 6, Number 1, pp. 59–86.Google Scholar
  78. Westrup, C. (1996). “Transforming Organizations Through Systems Analysis: Developing New Techniques for Organizational Analysis in IS Development.” In W. J. Orlikowski, G. Walsham, M. R. Jones, and J. I. DeGross (Editors), Information Technology and Changes in Organizational Work. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  79. Wood-Harper, A. T. (1985). “Research Methods in Information Systems: Using Action Research.” In E. Mumford, R. Hirschheim, G. Fitzgerald and A. T. Wood-Harper (Editors), Research Methods in Information Systems. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  80. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case Study Research, Design and Methods, Second Edition. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  81. Zuboff, S. (1996). “The Emperor’s New Information Technology.” In W. J. Orlikowski, G. Walsham, M. R. Jones, and J. I. DeGross (Editors), Information Technology and Changes in Organizational Work. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. Garcia
    • 1
  • F. Quek
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Social PsychologyLondon School of Economics and Political ScienceLondonEngland
  2. 2.Department of Information SystemsLondon School of Economics and Political ScienceLondonEngland

Personalised recommendations