Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Formulating Research Methods for Information Systems pp 66–93Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
  • The original version of this chapter was revised. The correction to this chapter can be found at 10.1057/9781137509857_11

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Anderson, P. (1988) Relative to what-that is the question: a reply to Siegel. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 133–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D. and Mead, M. (1987) The case research strategy in studies of information systems. MIS Quarterly, 11(3), 369–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979) Sociological Paradigms and Organisation Analysis (Heinemann, London).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutscher, I. (1966) Words and deeds: social science and social policy. Social Problems, 13(4), 233–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, W. (1988) Letter to the editor. MIS Quarterly, 12(4), 521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Firestone, W. (1990) Accommodation: towards a paradigm-praxis dialectic, in Guba, E. (ed). The Paradigm Dialog (Sage, California) pp. 105–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gable, C. (1994) Integrating case study and survey research methods: an example in information system. European Journal of Information Systems, 3(2), 112–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galliers, R. (1995) A manifesto for information management research. British Journal of Management, 6, (special edition), 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. (1992) Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis, (Sociology Press, Mill Valley).

    Google Scholar 

  • Guba, E. (1990) (ed.) The Paradigm Dialog, (Sage, California).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hassard, J. (1991) Multiple paradigms and organizational analysis: a case study. Organizational Studies, 12(2), 275–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hiltz, S. and Johnson, K. (1990) User satisfaction with Computer Mediated Communication Systems. Management Science, 36(6), 739–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschheim, R. and Klein, H. (1989) Four paradigms of information systems development. Communications of the ACM, 32(10), 1199–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. (1991) Positivism and paradigm dominance in consumer research: toward critical pluralism and reapproachment. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(6), 32–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iivari, J. (1991) A paradigmatic analysis of contemporary schools of IS development. European Journal of Information Systems, 1(1), 249–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, N and Carter, P. (1991) In defence of paradigm incommensurability. Organizational Studies. 12(1), 109–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kaplan, B. and Duchon, D. (1988) Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in IS research: a case study. MIS Quarterly, 12(4), 571–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kavanagh, D. (1994) Hunt versus Anderson: round 16. European Journal of Marketing, 28(3), 26–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Landry, M. and Banville, C. (1992) A disciplined methodological pluralism for MIS research. Accounting, Managemnt and Information Technologies, 2(2), 77–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, A. (1989) A scientific methodology for MIS case studies. MIS Quarterly, 13(1), 33–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, A. (1991) Integrating positivist and interpretivist approaches to organizational research. Organizational Science, 2(4), November, 342–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, A., Liebenau, J. and DeGross, J. (eds) (1997) Information Systems and Qualitative Research, (Chapman & Hall, London).

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, J. (1984) Groups: Interaction and Performance, (Prentice-Hall, New Jersey).

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, W. (1973) The yin and yang of progress in social psychology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26(3), 446–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mead, M. (1928) Coming of Age in Samoa (William Morrow, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Morey, N. and Luthans, F. (1984) An emic perspective and ethnoscience methods for organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 9(1), 27–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, G. (ed.) (1983) Beyond Method, (Sage Publications, California).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Mumford, E., Hirschheim, R., Fitzgerald, G. and Wood-Harper, A. (eds) (1985) Research Methods in Information Systems, (Elsevier Publishers, North Holland).

    Google Scholar 

  • Murfin, R. (ed) (1996) Case Studies in Contemporary Criticism (Macmillan Press, London).

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, M. (1989) Some fallacies in information systems development. International Journal o f Information Management, 9(4), 127–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Nissen, H., Klein, H. and Hirschheim, R. (eds) (1991) Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions (Elsevier Publishers, North Holland).

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W. and Baroudi, J. (1991) Studying information technology in organizations: research approaches and assumptions. Information Systems Research, 2(1), 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. (1990) Qualitative Evaluation and Research (2nd ed) (Sage Publications, London).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. (1993) Barriers to the advance of organizational science: paradigm development as an independent variable. Academy of Management Review, 18(4), 599–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, M. (1985) Redirections in Organisational Analysis, (Tavistock, London).

    Google Scholar 

  • Robey, D. and Markus, L. (1998) Beyond rigor and relevance: producing consumable research about information systems. Information Resources Management Journal, 11(1), 57–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoderbek, P., Kefalas, A. and Scoderbek, C. (1975) Management Systems: Conceptual Considerations (Business Publications, Dallas).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talbott, S. (1995) The Future does not Compute, (O’Reilly & Associates, Sebastopol, CA, USA).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Van Horn, R. (1973) Empirical studies of management information systems. DataBase, 4(4), 172–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsham, G. (1995) The emergence of interpretivism in IS research. Information Systems Research, 6(4), December, 376–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Wilmott, H. (1993) Breaking the paradigm mentality. Organizational Studies, 14(5), 681–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University College Cork, Ireland

    Brian Fitzgerald

  2. IS Research Centre, University of Salford, UK

    Debra Howcroft

Authors
  1. Brian Fitzgerald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Debra Howcroft
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. London School of Economics and Political Science, UK

    Leslie P. Willcocks

  2. University of Oxford, UK

    Chris Sauer

  3. University of Missouri, USA

    Mary C. Lacity

Copyright information

© 2015 Journal of Information Technology (JIT)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fitzgerald, B., Howcroft, D. (2015). Towards dissolution of the IS research debate: from polarization to polarity. In: Willcocks, L.P., Sauer, C., Lacity, M.C. (eds) Formulating Research Methods for Information Systems. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137509857_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation