Advertisement

Towards dissolution of the IS research debate: from polarization to polarity

  • Brian Fitzgerald
  • Debra Howcroft

Abstract

The debate between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ research approaches continues in the IS field, but with little prospect of resolution. The debate is typically characterized by tendentious arguments as advocates from each approach offer a somewhat one-sided condemnation of the counterpart from the inimical research tradition. This paper begins by relating two fictitious tales which serve to highlight the futility of research conducted at the extremity of each research approach. The dichotomies which characterize these rival factions are also summarized. The debate is then framed in terms of the polarization problem whereby IS researchers are divided geographically and paradigmatically into ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ camps. A variety of different strategies have been proposed for resolving the debate and these are discussed in detail. They are grouped into four categories, referred to as supremacism, isolationism, integration, and pluralism. Finally, the paper contends that the debate cannot be resolved, and offers the metaphor of magnetic polarity as a means of reflecting this. The paper concludes by arguing that it would be more appropriate to recast the debate at a macro level in order to accommodate different research agenda and recognize the strengths within each tradition.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, P. (1988) Relative to what-that is the question: a reply to Siegel. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 133–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D. and Mead, M. (1987) The case research strategy in studies of information systems. MIS Quarterly, 11(3), 369–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979) Sociological Paradigms and Organisation Analysis (Heinemann, London).Google Scholar
  4. Butler, T. and Fitzgerald, B. (1977) A case study of user participation in the IS development process, Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference in Information Systems, Atlanta, George, December, 1997, pp. 411–26.Google Scholar
  5. Daft, R. and Lewin, A. (1990) Can organization studies begin to break out of the normal science straitjacket? an editorial essay. Organizational Science, 1(1) 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Deutscher, I. (1966) Words and deeds: social science and social policy. Social Problems, 13(4), 233–54.Google Scholar
  7. Dutton, W. (1988) Letter to the editor. MIS Quarterly, 12(4), 521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Firestone, W. (1990) Accommodation: towards a paradigm-praxis dialectic, in Guba, E. (ed). The Paradigm Dialog (Sage, California) pp. 105–24.Google Scholar
  9. Gable, C. (1994) Integrating case study and survey research methods: an example in information system. European Journal of Information Systems, 3(2), 112–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Galliers, R. (1995) A manifesto for information management research. British Journal of Management, 6, (special edition), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gallivan, M. (1997) Value in triangulation: a comparison of two methods for combining qualitative and quantitative methods, in Lee, A., Liebenau, J. and DeGross, J. (eds) Information Systems and Qualitative Research (Chapman & Hall, London) pp. 417–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Glaser, B. (1992) Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis, (Sociology Press, Mill Valley).Google Scholar
  13. Guba, E. (1990) (ed.) The Paradigm Dialog, (Sage, California).Google Scholar
  14. Guba, E. and Lincoln, Y. (1994) Competing paradigms in qualitative research, in Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (eds) (1994) The Handbook of Qualitative Research (Sage Publications, California) pp. 105–17.Google Scholar
  15. Hassard, J. (1991) Multiple paradigms and organizational analysis: a case study. Organizational Studies, 12(2), 275–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hiltz, S. and Johnson, K. (1990) User satisfaction with Computer Mediated Communication Systems. Management Science, 36(6), 739–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hirschheim, R. and Klein, H. (1989) Four paradigms of information systems development. Communications of the ACM, 32(10), 1199–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hunt, S. (1991) Positivism and paradigm dominance in consumer research: toward critical pluralism and reapproachment. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(6), 32–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Iivari, J. (1991) A paradigmatic analysis of contemporary schools of IS development. European Journal of Information Systems, 1(1), 249–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jackson, N and Carter, P. (1991) In defence of paradigm incommensurability. Organizational Studies. 12(1), 109–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jick, T. (1983) Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action, in Van Maanen, J. (ed) Qualitative Methodology (Sage, California) pp. 135–48.Google Scholar
  22. Kaplan, B. and Duchon, D. (1988) Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in IS research: a case study. MIS Quarterly, 12(4), 571–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kavanagh, D. (1994) Hunt versus Anderson: round 16. European Journal of Marketing, 28(3), 26–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Keen, P. (1991) Keynote address: relevance and rigor in information systems research, in Nissen, H., Klein, H. and Hirschheim, R. (eds) Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions (Elsevier Publishers, North Holland) pp. 27–49.Google Scholar
  25. Klein, H., Hirschheim, R. and Nissen, H. (1991) A pluralist perspective of the IS research arena, in Nissen, H., Klein, H. and Hirschheim, R. (eds) Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions, (Elsevier Publishers, North Holland) pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
  26. Landry, M. and Banville, C. (1992) A disciplined methodological pluralism for MIS research. Accounting, Managemnt and Information Technologies, 2(2), 77–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lee, A. (1989) A scientific methodology for MIS case studies. MIS Quarterly, 13(1), 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lee, A. (1991) Integrating positivist and interpretivist approaches to organizational research. Organizational Science, 2(4), November, 342–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lee, A., Liebenau, J. and DeGross, J. (eds) (1997) Information Systems and Qualitative Research, (Chapman & Hall, London).Google Scholar
  30. McGrath, J. (1984) Groups: Interaction and Performance, (Prentice-Hall, New Jersey).Google Scholar
  31. McGuire, W. (1973) The yin and yang of progress in social psychology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26(3), 446–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mead, M. (1928) Coming of Age in Samoa (William Morrow, New York).Google Scholar
  33. Morey, N. and Luthans, F. (1984) An emic perspective and ethnoscience methods for organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 9(1), 27–36.Google Scholar
  34. Morgan, G. (ed.) (1983) Beyond Method, (Sage Publications, California).Google Scholar
  35. Mumford, E. (1991) Opening address: information systems research-leaking craft or visionary vehicle?, in Nissen, H., Klein, H. and Hirschheim, R. (eds) Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions (Elsevier Publishers, North Holland) pp. 21–26.Google Scholar
  36. Mumford, E., Hirschheim, R., Fitzgerald, G. and Wood-Harper, A. (eds) (1985) Research Methods in Information Systems, (Elsevier Publishers, North Holland).Google Scholar
  37. Murfin, R. (ed) (1996) Case Studies in Contemporary Criticism (Macmillan Press, London).Google Scholar
  38. Newman, M. (1989) Some fallacies in information systems development. International Journal o f Information Management, 9(4), 127–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nissen, H. (1985) Acquiring knowledge of information systems research in a methodological quagmire, in Mumford, B., Hirschheim, R., Fitzgerald, G. and Wood-Harper, A. (eds) Research Methods in Information Systems (Elsevier Publishers, North Holland) pp. 39–51.Google Scholar
  40. Nissen, H., Klein, H. and Hirschheim, R. (eds) (1991) Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions (Elsevier Publishers, North Holland).Google Scholar
  41. Orlikowski, W. and Baroudi, J. (1991) Studying information technology in organizations: research approaches and assumptions. Information Systems Research, 2(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Patton, M. (1990) Qualitative Evaluation and Research (2nd ed) (Sage Publications, London).Google Scholar
  43. Pfeffer, J. (1993) Barriers to the advance of organizational science: paradigm development as an independent variable. Academy of Management Review, 18(4), 599–620.Google Scholar
  44. Reed, M. (1985) Redirections in Organisational Analysis, (Tavistock, London).Google Scholar
  45. Robey, D. and Markus, L. (1998) Beyond rigor and relevance: producing consumable research about information systems. Information Resources Management Journal, 11(1), 57–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schoderbek, P., Kefalas, A. and Scoderbek, C. (1975) Management Systems: Conceptual Considerations (Business Publications, Dallas).Google Scholar
  47. Smith, J. and Heshusius, L. (1986) Closing down the conversation: the end of the quantitative-qualitative debate among educational inquirers. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Talbott, S. (1995) The Future does not Compute, (O’Reilly & Associates, Sebastopol, CA, USA).Google Scholar
  49. Trauth, B. and O’Connor, B. (1991) A study of the interaction between information, technology and society. in Nissen, H., KIein, H. and Hirschheim, R. (eds) Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions (Elsevier Publishers, North Holland) pp. 131–44.Google Scholar
  50. Van Horn, R. (1973) Empirical studies of management information systems. DataBase, 4(4), 172–80.Google Scholar
  51. Walsham, G. (1995) The emergence of interpretivism in IS research. Information Systems Research, 6(4), December, 376–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. White, K. (1985) Perceptions and deceptions: issues for IS research, in Mumford, E., Hirschheim, R., Fitzgerald, G. and Wood-Harper, A. (eds) Research Methods in Information Systems (Elsevier Publishers, North Holland) pp. 237–42.Google Scholar
  53. Wilmott, H. (1993) Breaking the paradigm mentality. Organizational Studies, 14(5), 681–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wynekoop, J. (1992) Strategies for implementation research: combining research methods, in DeGross, J., Bostrom, R. and Robey, D. (eds) Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Information Systems, Dallas, Texas, pp. 185–93.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Journal of Information Technology (JIT) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brian Fitzgerald
    • 1
  • Debra Howcroft
    • 2
  1. 1.University College CorkIreland
  2. 2.IS Research CentreUniversity of SalfordUK

Personalised recommendations