Advertisement

Balancing Interpretation and Intervention in Information System Research: The Action Case Approach

  • R. Vidgen
  • K Braa
Part of the IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT)

Abstract

Understanding how technical artefacts are created and used within organizations is a central aspect of the IS research discipline. The conduct of research in an organizational setting is thus a major issue for the IS community. A research framework for in-context IS research is presented and used to position purified and hybrid forms of research method. From the framework, theoretical support for an action case research method is presented. The research framework is then used to describe and explain an IS research project from which a practice-based rationale for an action case method is argued. Characteristics of the action case method, a hybrid of interpretation and intervention, are described. Learning at three levels of analysis — concrete, general, and meta — is proposed as a way of reflecting on both the content of an IS research project and the IS research methods employed.

Keywords

Wind Tunnel Secondary User Action Case Ideal Type Organizational Setting 
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. Argyris, C., and Schön, D. A. (1991). “Participatory Action Research and Action Science Compared.” In W. F. Whyte (Editor), Participatory Action Research. Newbury Park, California: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Braa, K., and Vidgen, R. (1997). “An IS Research Framework for the Organization as Laboratory.” In M. Kyng and L. Mathiassen (Editors), Computers in Context: Joining Forces in Design. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  3. Bansler, J. (1989). “Systems Development Research in Scandinavia: Three Theoretical Schools.” Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, Volume 1, pp. 3–20.Google Scholar
  4. Baskerville, R., 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, pp. 235–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Ballantine.Google Scholar
  6. Burrell, G., and Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis. London: Heinemann Educational Books.Google Scholar
  7. Callon, M. (1986). “Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay.” In J. Law (Editor), Power, Action and Belief London: Routledge and Keagan Paul, pp 196–233.Google Scholar
  8. CCTA, (1990). SSADM Version 4 Reference Manual. Oxford: NCC Blackwell. Checkland, P. (1981). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Chichester, England: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Checkland, P. (1991). “From Framework through Experience to Learning: the Essential Nature of Action Research.” In H.-E. Nissen, H. K. Klein, and R. Hirschheim (Editors), Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  10. Checkland, P., and Scholes, J. (1990). Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Chichester, England: Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. Clegg, S. (1990). Modern Organizations: Organization Studies in the Postmodern World. Newbury Park, California: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Cook, T. D., and Campbell, D. T. (1989). Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  13. Dean, J., and Susman G. (1989). “Organizing for Manufacturable Design.” Harvard Business Review, January-February, pp. 28–36.Google Scholar
  14. Ehn, P., and Kyng, M. (1987). “The Collective Resource Approach to Systems Design.” In G. Bjerknes, P. Ehn, and M. Kyng (Editors), Computers and Democracy: A Scandinavian Challenge. Aldershot, England: Avebury, pp. 17–58.Google Scholar
  15. Galliers, R. D. (1985). “In Search of a Paradigm for Information Systems Research.” In E. Mumford, R. Hirschheim, G. Fitzgerald, and A. T. Wood-Harper (Editors), Research Methods in Information Systems. Proceedings of the IFIP WG 8.2 Colloquium, 1–3 September, 1984, Manchester Business School. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  16. Galliers, R. D. (1992). “Choosing Information Systems Research Approaches.” In R. D. Galliers (Editor), Information Systems Research: Issues, Methods and Practical Guidelines. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific.Google Scholar
  17. Galliers, R. D., and Land, F. F. (1987). “Choosing Appropriate Information Systems Research Methodologies.” Communications of the ACM, Volume 30, Number 11, pp. 900–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  19. Glaser, B., and Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  20. Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and Human Interests. London: Heinemann. Hirschheim, R. A., and Klein, H. K. (1989). “Four Paradigms of Information Systems Development.” Communications of the ACM, Volume 32, Number 10, pp. 1199–1216.Google Scholar
  21. Iivari, J. (1991). “A Paradigmatic Analysis of Contemporary Schools of IS Development.” European Journal of Information Systems, Volume 1, Number 4, pp. 249272.Google Scholar
  22. Keen, P. (1991). “Relevance and Rigor in Information Systems Research: Improving Quality, Confidence, Cohesion and Impact.” In H.-E. Nissen, H. K. Klein, and R. Hirschheim (Editors), Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  23. King, R. (1989). Better Designs in Half the Time: implementing QFD. Methuen, Massachusetts: GOAL/QPC.Google Scholar
  24. Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Lee, A. S. (1989). “A Scientific Methodology for MIS Case Studies.” MIS Quarterly, Volume 13, March, pp. 33–50.Google Scholar
  26. Liker, J.; Fleischer, M.; and Arnsdorf, D. (1992). “Fulfilling the Promises of CAD.” Sloan Management Review, Spring 1992, pp. 74–85.Google Scholar
  27. McGrath, J. (1982). “Dilemmatics: The Study of Research Choices and Dilemmas.” In J. McGrath, J. Martin, and R. Kulka (Editors), Judgement Calls in Research. Beverly Hills: Sage, pp. 69–102.Google Scholar
  28. Orlikowski, W. (1992). “The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations.” Organization Science, Volume 3, Number 3, pp. 398–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rumbaugh, J.; Blaha, M.; Premerlani, W.; Eddy, F.; and Lorensen, W. (1991). Object-Oriented Modeling and Design. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  30. Slabey, R. (1990). “QFD: A Basic Primer.” Transactions from the Second Symposium on Quality Function Deployment, June 18–19, Novi, Michigan.Google Scholar
  31. Susman, G. (1983). “Action Research: A Sociotechnical System Perspective.” In G. Morgan (Editor), Beyond Method: Strategies for Social Research. Newbury Park, California: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Star, S. L., and Ruhleder, K. (1994). “Steps Toward an Ecology of Infrastructure: Complex Problems in Design and Access for Large-Scale Collaborative Systems.” Proceedings of the CSCW’94: Transcending Boundaries. New York: ACM Press, pp. 253–265.Google Scholar
  33. Vidgen, R. (1996). Multiple Perspectives of Information System Quality. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, April, University of Salford.Google Scholar
  34. Walsham, G. (1993). Interpreting Information Systems in Organizations. Chichester, England: Wiley.Google Scholar
  35. Walsham, G. (1995). “Interpretive Case Studies in IS Research: Nature and Method.” European Journal of Information Systems, Volume 4, pp. 74–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yin, R. K. (1984). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Second Edition. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Zmud, R. W.; Olson, M.; and Hauser, R. (1989). “Field Experimentation in MIS Research.” In I. Benbasat (Editor), The Information System Research Challenge: Experimental Research Methods, Volume 2. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Research Colloquium.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Vidgen
    • 1
  • K Braa
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of ComputationUMISTManchesterEngland
  2. 2.Department of InformaticsUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations