Advertisement

Mutual Learning and Informing Between Academia and Practice in ISD

A Learning Theory perspective
  • Maung K. Sein
  • Robert P. Bostrom
  • Lorne Olfman

Abstract

We postulate that the argument about whether research in the field of Information Systems has relevance for practice is moot. We believe that there is constant learning and informing between academia and practice. This paper uses Kolb’s learning cycle theory (KLCT) to demonstrate our conjecture. It presents a critique of the KLCT and an interpretation of its usefulness to the understanding of how research and practice mutually and continuously inform each other in the context of information systems development. An explanation of the learning cycle is following by a description of three illustrative cases that show how mutual and continuous informing between academia and practice takes place. The paper concludes with a discussion of how informing can be facilitated, and what additional research can be performed to further understand and apply the concepts and processes described in the paper.

Keywords

Active Experimentation Information System Abstract Conceptualization Memory Source Organizational Memory 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Argyris, C. (1993). On Organizational Learning, Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Astley, W.G. and Zammuto, R.F. (1992). Organization Science, managers and language games, Organization Science, 3, 443–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of Practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. CAIS (2001) Communication of the AIS (Special Issue on IS Relevance), 6. http://www.ais.org.Google Scholar
  5. Dilts, R. (1990). Changing Belief Systems with NLP. Cupertino, CA: Meta Publications.Google Scholar
  6. Edberg, D. T. (1999). Viewing software enhancement through an organizational learning lens (Doctoral dissertation, Claremont Graduate University, 1997). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60 (02), 273A.Google Scholar
  7. Fox, S. (1998). Situated learning versus traditional cognitive learning theory: Why management education should not ignore management learning. Systems Practice, 10, 727–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jennex, M. E. (1997). Organizational memory effects on productivity (information systems, knowledge workers) (Doctoral dissertation, Claremont Graduate University, 1997). Dissertation Abstracts International, 58 (03), 617A.Google Scholar
  9. Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the source of learning and development, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  10. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lehman, M.M. (1996). Feedback in the Software Evolution Process. Information and Software Technology, 38, 681–686.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Luckett, S. and Luckett, K. (1999). Developing ‘reflective’ development practitioners through an action-learning curriculum: Problems and challenges in a South African context. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 6, 171–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mandviwalla, M. (1994). The design of group support systems: generic requirements, design framework, systems development strategies, and a case study (Doctoral dissertation, Claremont Graduate University, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts International, 54 (06), 3188B.Google Scholar
  14. Mauws, M.K. and Phillips, N. (1995). Understanding language games, Organization Science 6, 322–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. March, J.G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in Organizations; Three Perspectives.New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Michelson, E. (1996). Beyond Galileo’s telescope: Situated knowledge and the assessment of experiential learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 46, 185–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sein, M.K. (2001). The relevance of IS academic research: Not as good as it can get. Communications of the AIS (Special Issue on IS Relevance), 6, Article 24.Google Scholar
  19. Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  20. Walsh, J. P. and Ungson, G. R. (1991). Organizational memory. Academy of Management Review, 16, 57–91.Google Scholar
  21. Wildemeersch, D. (1992). Ambiguities of experiential learning and critical pedagogy. In Wildemeersch, D. and Jansen T. (Eds.), Adult Education, Experiential Learning and Social Change, Driebergen: VUGA, 19–33.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maung K. Sein
    • 1
  • Robert P. Bostrom
    • 2
  • Lorne Olfman
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Information SystemsAgder University CollegeKristiansand SNORWAY
  2. 2.Terry School of BusinessUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  3. 3.School of Information ScienceClaremont Graduate UniversityClaremontUSA

Personalised recommendations