Abstract

So opens Feyerabend’s (1993) seminal essay Against Method. The epigraph is apt for this commencement too, given the Conference theme which calls for diversification, in theory, method, and empirical contexts. The following amalgam of extracts gives the gist of Feyerabend’s thesis:

Science is an essentially anarchistic enterprise: theoretical anarchism is more humanitarian and more likely to encourage progress than its law-and-order alternative.... This is shown both by an examination of historical episodes and by an abstract analysis of the relation between idea and action. There is only one principle that can be defended under all circumstances and in all stages of human development. It is the principle: anything goes (pp. 9, 18–19).

References

  1. Ciborra, C. The Labyrinths of Information: Challenging the Wisdom of Systems, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.Google Scholar
  2. Douglas, M. Purity and Danger, London: Routledge, 2002.Google Scholar
  3. Elton, L. “The UK Research Assessment Exercise: Unintended Consequences,” Higher Education Quarterly (54:3), 2000, pp. 74–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Feyerabend, P. Against Method, London: Verso, 1993.Google Scholar
  5. Flynn, D., and Gregory, P. “The Use of Theories in 20 Years of WG 8.2 Empirical Research,” in B. Kaplan, D. P. Truex, D. Wastell, A. T. Wood-Harper, and J. I. DeGross (eds.), Information Systems Research: Relevant Theory and Informed Practice, Boston: Kluwer, 2004, pp. 365–388.Google Scholar
  6. James, W. The Varieties of Religious Experience, New York: Modern Library, 1936.Google Scholar
  7. Latour, B. “On Using ANT for Studying Information Systems: A (Somewhat) Socratic Dialogue,” in C. Avgerou, C. Ciborra, and F. Land (eds.), The Social Study of Information and Communication Technology: Innovation, Actors and Contexts, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.Google Scholar
  8. Latour, B. Pandora’s Hope: An Essay on the Reality of Science Studies, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  9. Latour, B. Science in Action, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004.Google Scholar
  10. McMaster, T., Mumford, E., Swanson, E. B., Warboys, B., and Wastell, D. G. Facilitating Technology Transfer Through Partnership: Learning from Practice and Research, London: Chapman & Hall, 1997.Google Scholar
  11. Petroski, H. Success Through Failure: The Paradox of Design, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006.Google Scholar
  12. Pierce, N. “Why it Is Fundamentally Stupid for a Business School to Try to Improve its Research Assessment Exercise Score,” European Journal of Marketing (34:1/2), 2000, pp. 27–35.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. Stoler, A. L. “Colonial Archives and the Arts of Governance,” Archival Science (2), 2002, pp. 87–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Wastell
    • 1
  • Tom McMaster
    • 2
  1. 1.Nottingham University Business SchoolNottinghamUK
  2. 2.University of SalfordSalfordUK

Personalised recommendations