ISD Discourses and the Emancipation of Meaning

  • Dubravka Cecez-Kecmanovic
Conference paper


In this paper I’d like to expose the view of Information Systems Development (ISD) processes as discursive practices, the view that puts the politics of meaning making and interpretation at centre stage. Such a view aims to assist deconstruction of discursive regimes instituted by ISD processes and methodologies, the production of representations and legitimation of meaning (through business process models, information requirements specifications, databases, knowledge bases, procedures, rules, etc.) within a particular social, political and economic context and power relations. To achieve this aim I will propose a discursive framework for examining ISD that highlights particular distinctions among ISD processes as organisational discourses: on one hand, ISD are seen as sites of domination, hegemonic consent, and colonisation of meaning, and on the other, as sites of dissensus discourses, multiple value and interest positions, and the struggle for democratic change and emancipation of meaning. By drawing from three published examples of ISD research, I will illustrate the nature of these distinctions and the type of analysis enabled by the proposed discursive ISD framework and will also demonstrate the relevance of new insights thus gained.


Decision Support System Information System Business Process Model Discursive Practice Dominant Discourse 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alvesson, M. and Karreman, D., 2000, Taking the linguistic turn in organisational research, The Journal of Applied behavioral Science, 36, 2: 136–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H., 1992, On the idea of emancipation in management and organization studies, Academy of Management Review, 17, 3: 432–464.Google Scholar
  3. Asaro, P.M., 2000, Transforming society by transforming technology: the science and politics of participatory design, Accounting, Management and Information Technology, 10: 257–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berger, P. and Luckmann, T.L., 1966, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise on the Sociology of Knowledge, Doubleday, Garden City, NY.Google Scholar
  5. Bowker, G. and Star, S.L., 1994, Knowledge and infrastructure in international information management: Problems of classification and coding, in: Information Acumen. The Understanding and Use of Knowledge in Modern Business, L. Bud-Friennan, ed., Routledge, London, pp. 187–213.Google Scholar
  6. Burrell, G. and Morgan, G., 1979, Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis, Heinemann, London. Carspecken, P.F., 1999, Four Scenes for Posing the Question of Meaning and Other Essays in Critical Philosophy and Critical Methodology, New York, Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  7. Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., 2003, ISD as discursive practices-revisiting research paradigms, SISTM research paper, Faculty of Commerce and Economics, UNSW, Australia.Google Scholar
  8. Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. and Janson, M., 2002, Information Systems and rationalisation of organisations: An exploratory study. The European Conference on Information Systems ECIS 2002, Gdansk, Poland, pp. 57–67.Google Scholar
  9. Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., Janson, M. and Brown, A., 2002, The rationality framework for a critical study of Information Systems, the Journal of Information Technology, 17: 215–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Deetz, S., 1995, Transforming Communication, Transforming Business: Building Responsive and Responsible Workplaces, Hampton Press, Cresskill, NJ.Google Scholar
  11. Deetz, S., 1996, Describing differences in approaches to organization science: Rethinking Burrell and Morgan and their legacy, Organization Science, 7, 2: 191–207.Google Scholar
  12. Deetz, S., 2000, Putting the community into organizational science, Organization Science 11,6: 733–738.Google Scholar
  13. Denzin, N.K., 1994, The art and politics of interpretation, in: Handbook of Qualitative Research, N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln, eds., Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage, pp. 500–515.Google Scholar
  14. Gee, J., 1996, Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourse (r d ed.), London, Taylor Francis. Gramsci, A., 1986, Selections from Prison Notebooks (ed. and trans. Q. Hoare and G. Smith ), New Left Books, London.Google Scholar
  15. Grant, D., Keenoy, T. and Oswick, C., 1997, Organizational discourses: Text and context, Organization, 4, 2: 147–157.Google Scholar
  16. Habermas, J., 1984, The Theory of Communicative Action - Reason and the Rationalisation of Society (Vol I ), Beacon Press, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  17. Habermas, J., 1987, The theory of Communicative Action - The Critique of Functionalist Reason (Vol II ), Beacon Press, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  18. Hardy, C., Palmer, I. and Phillips, N., 2000, Discourse as a strategic resource, Human Relations, 53, 9: 1227–1247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hirchheim, R.A. and Klein, H.K., 1989, Four paradigms of Information System Development, Communication of the ACM, 32, 10: 1199–1216.Google Scholar
  20. Hirchheim, R.A. and Klein, H.K., 1994, Realizing emancipatory principles in Information Systems Development: The case for ETHICS, MISQ, 18, 1: 83–109.Google Scholar
  21. Hirschheim, R., Klein, H.K. and Lyytinen, K., 1995, Information Systems Development and Data Modelling: Conceptual and Philosophical Foundations,Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Janson, M. and Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., 2003, Information Systems and the participatory ethos, The European Conference on Information Systems ECIS 2003, Naples, Italy.Google Scholar
  23. Keenoy, T., Marshak, R.J., Oswick, C., and Grant, D., 2000, The discourse of organizing, The Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 36, 2: 133–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kincheloe, L.J. and McLaren, P., 1994, Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research, in: Handbook of qualitative research, N.K. Denzin and Y.D. Linkoln, eds, Sage, London, pp. 279–313.Google Scholar
  25. Landry, M. and Banville, C., 1992, A disciplined methodological pluralism for MIS research, Accounting, Management, and Information Technology, 2, 2: 77–97.Google Scholar
  26. Lemke, J., 1993, Discourse, dynamics, and social change, Cultural Dynamics, 6: 243–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lemke, J., 1995, Textual Politics: Discourse and Social Dynamics, London, Taylor Francis.Google Scholar
  28. Molineux, J., 1998, The application of a Dynamic System Model to the process of contestability in the Human Resources section of the ATO, in: the Proceedings of the 4th Australia and New Zealand Systems Conference on Creative Systems Practice, Sydney, NSW, Australia, pp. 234–247.Google Scholar
  29. Tietze, S., Cohen, L. and Musson, G., 2003, Understanding Organizations through Language, London, Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Waring, T.S., 1999, The challenge of emancipation in Information Systems implementation: A case study in an NHS Trust Hospital, Critical Management Studies Conference, Manchester.Google Scholar
  31. Wilson, F.A., 1997, The truth is out there: The search for emancipatory principles in Information Systems design, Information Technology and People, 10, 3: 197–204.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dubravka Cecez-Kecmanovic
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Information Systems, Technology and Management, Faculty of Commerce and EconomicsUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations