Advertisement

Justifying ISD Knowledge Claims

  • Mike Metcalfe
Conference paper

Abstract

This paper is a revisit of Churchman’s “The Design Of Inquiring Systems” from the perspective of Argumentative Inquiry. It will argue that Churchman’s five guarantors of “truth” can be interlocked with the idea that knowledge (objective or interpreted) is created and validated through argumentation. The implications of this is that Churchman’s guarantors, the ancient art of argument and perspectival thinking become three stands woven together to provide interpretive ISD with a workable definition of distinguishing “myth” from “fact”.

Keywords

Knowledge Claim Fact Node Strategic Level Information System Development Universal Audience 
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. Churchman, C W., 1971, The Design of Inquiring Systems, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Cohen, H. F., 1994, The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  3. Crosswhitc, J. 1996, Rhetoric of Reason. University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  4. Eemercn, F. H., Grootcndorst, R and Kruigcr, T. 1987, Handbook of Argumentation Theory, Foris Publications, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  5. Linstone, H. A., 1999, Decision Making for Technology Executives: Using Multiple Perspectives to Improve Performance, Artech House, Norwood, MA.Google Scholar
  6. Mason, R. O. and Mitroff, I., 1981, Challenging Strategic Planning Assumptions, John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Meyers, R. A. and Seibold, D. R., 1989, Perspectives on Group Argument, Communications Yearbook, 14: 268–302.Google Scholar
  8. Nicderman, F and DcSanctis, G., 1995, The Impact of the Structured Argument Approach on Group Problem Formulation, Decision Sciences, 26 (4): 451–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Perelman, C. and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L., 1969, The New Rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation,University of Notre Dame.Google Scholar
  10. Popper K. R., 1972, Conjectures and Refutations. Routledge and Paul, London.Google Scholar
  11. Stove D, 1998, Anything Goes, Maclay Press: New South Wales.Google Scholar
  12. Tracey T. J. G. and Glidden-Tracey C. E., 1999, Integration Theory, Research Design, Measurement and Analysis, Counselling Psychologist, 27 (3): 299–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Walton, D. 1998, The New Dialectic. Toronto University Press, Toronto.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mike Metcalfe
    • 1
  1. 1.University of South AustraliaAustralia

Personalised recommendations