Commentaries on methodological practice

  • Michael D. Myers
  • Allen S. Lee
  • Robert D. Galliers
  • Joe Nandhakumar
  • Harry Scarbrough
  • Matt Germonprez
  • Rajeev Sharma

Abstract

In their research essay, Davison and Martinsons (2011) criticise the ‘methodological monism’ and narrowness of information systems (IS) research. They suggest that the use of a rather parsimonious set of research methods, notably those that follow the positivist tradition, demonstrates a significant degree of methodological exclusiveness. They claim that this exclusivity is counterproductive to good IS research and unethical. They make four key arguments in support of their position. They conclude by saying that the methodological monism of IS research is responsible for the ‘impoverished contribution of IS research to organisational realities’. They say this situation represents ‘a malaise that lies at the heart of the IS discipline’ and contributes to the lack of relevance of IS research. They make some recommendations as to how this malaise might be overcome.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Benbasat, I. and Zmud, R.W. (2003). The Identity Crisis within the IS Discipline: Defining and communicating the discipline’s core properties, MIS Quarterly 27(2): 183–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chen, W. and Hirschheim, R. (2004). A Paradigmatic and Methodological Examination of Information Systems Research from 1991 to 2001, Information Systems Journal 14(3): 197–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Davison, R.M. and Martinsons, M.G. (2011). Methodological Practice and Policy for Organisationally and Socially Relevant IS Research: an inclusive-exclusive perspective, Journal of Information Technology 26(4): 288–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gill, G. and Bhattacherjee, A. (2009). Whom Are We Informing? Issues and Recommendations for MIS Research from an Informing Sciences Perspective, MIS Quarterly 33(2): 217–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Liu, F. and Myers, M.D. (2011). An Analysis of the AIS Basket of Top Journals, Journal of Systems and Information Technology 13(1): 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Myers, M.D. and Baskerville, R.L. (2009). Commentary on Gill and Bhattacherjee: Is there an informing crisis? MIS Quarterly 33(4): 663–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Orlikowski, W.J. and Baroudi, J.J. (1991). Studying Information Technology in Organizations: Research approaches and assumptions, Information Systems Research 2(1): 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

  1. Gearing, F.O. (1988). The Face of the Fox, Salem, WI: Sheffield Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. Kanter, R.M. (1977). Men and Women of the Corporation, New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  3. Lee, A.S. (1991). Integrating Positivist and Interpretive Approaches to Organizational Research, Organization Science 2(4): 342–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Rein, M. and Schon, D.A. (1977). Problem Setting in Policy Research, in Carol H. Weiss (ed.) Using Social Research in Public Policy Making, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, pp. 235–251.Google Scholar
  5. Sen, A. (2000). Social Exclusion: Concept, applications, and scrutiny. Social Development Papers No. 1, Office of Environment and Social Development, Asian Development Bank.Google Scholar

References

  1. Argyris, C. and Schön, D. (1974). Theory in Practice: Increasing professional effectiveness, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  2. Ashby, W.R. (1956). An Introduction to Cybernetics: Part two, London: Methuen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  4. Baskerville, R. and Myers, M.D. (eds.) (2004). Special Issue on Action Research in Information Systems: Making IS research relevant to practice, MIS Quarterly 28(3): 329–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beer, S. (1979). The Heart of Enterprise, London and New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Benbasat, I. and Zmud, R.W. (2003). The Identity Crisis within the IS Discipline: Defining and communicating the discipline’s core properties, MIS Quarterly 27(2): 183–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen, W.S. and Hirschheim, R. (2004). A Paradigmatic and Methodological Examination of Information Systems Research from 1991 to 2001, Information Systems Journal 14: 197–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Galliers, R.D. (1985). In Search of a Paradigm for Information System Research, in E. Mumford, R. Hirschheim, G. Fitzgerald and A.T. Wood-Harper (eds.) Research Methods in Information Systems, in Proceedings: IFIP WG 8.2 Colloquium (Manchester, 1–3 September 1984), Amsterdam: North Holland, 85–94.Google Scholar
  9. Galliers, R.D. (2003). Change as Crisis or Growth? Toward a Trans-Disciplinary View of Information Systems as a Field of Study — A response to Benbasat and Zmud’s call for returning to the IT artifact, Journal of the Association for Information Systems 4(6): 337–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Galliers, R.D. and Currie, W.L. (eds.) (2011). The Oxford Handbook of Information Systems: Critical perspectives and new directions, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Galliers, R.D. and Huang, J. (2011). The Teaching of Qualitative Research Methods in Information Systems: An explorative study utilising learning theory, European Journal of Information Systems 20, in press.Google Scholar
  12. Galliers, R.D. and Land, F.F. (1987). Choosing an Appropriate Information Systems Research Methodology, Communications of the ACM 30(11): 900–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Galliers, R.D., Markus, M.L. and Newell, S. (eds.) (2007). Exploring Information Systems Research Approaches: Readings and reflections, Abingdon & London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Hirschheim, R. and Klein, H. (1989). Four Paradigms of Information Systems Development, Communications of the ACM 32(10): 1199–1216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the source of learning and development, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  16. Lacity, M.C., Khan, S.A. and Willcocks, L.P. (2009). A Review of the IT Outsourcing Literature: Insights for practice, Journal of Strategic Information Systems 18(3): 130–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lee, A.S. (1991). Integrating Positivist and Interpretivist Approaches to Organizational Research, Organization Science 2(4): 342–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Leidner, D.E. (2010). Globalization, Culture, and Information: Towards global knowledge transparency, Journal of Strategic Information Systems 19(2): 69–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lyytinen, K., Baskerville, R., Iivari, J. and Te’eni, D. (2007). Why the Old World Cannot Publish? Overcoming Challenges in Publishing High-Impact IS Research, European Journal of Information Systems 16(4): 317–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mingers, J. (2001). Combining IS Research Methods: Towards a pluralist methodology, Information Systems Research 12(3): 240–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mumford, E. (1998). Problems, Knowledge, Solutions: Solving complex problems, Journal of Strategic Information Systems 7(4): 255–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mumford, E., Hirschheim, R., Fitzgerald, G. and Wood-Harper, A.T. (eds.) (1985). Research Methods in Information Systems, in Proceedings: IFIP WG 8.2 Colloquium (Manchester, 1–3 September 1984), Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  23. Myers, M.D. (ed.) (1998). Special Issue on Interpretative Research in Information Systems, Journal of Information Technology 13(4): 231–326.Google Scholar
  24. Newell, S. and Edelman, L. (2008). Developing a Dynamic Project Learning and Cross-Project Learning Capability: Synthesizing two perspectives, Information Systems Journal 18: 567–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Orlikowski, W.J. and Baroudi, J.J. (1991). Studying Information Technology in Organizations: Research approaches and assumptions, Information Systems Research 2(1): 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Remus, U. and Wiener, M. (2010). A Multi-Method, Holistic Strategy for Researching Critical Success Factors in IT Projects, Information Systems Journal 20(1): 25–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Trauth, E.M. and Jessup, L.M. (2000). Understanding Computer-Mediated Discussions: Positivist and interpretive analyses of group support system use, MIS Quarterly 24(1): 43–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Walsham, G. (1995a). The Emergence of Interpretivism in IS Research, Information Systems Research 4: 376–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Walsham, G. (1995b). Interpretive Case Studies in IS Research: Nature and method, European Journal of Information Systems 4(1): 74–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wastell, D. and White, S. (2010). Facts, Myths and Thought-Styles …and a Rallying Cry for Civic Engagement, Journal of Strategic Information Systems 18(4): 307–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

  1. Baskerville, R.L. and Myers, M.D. (2009). Fashion Waves in Information Systems Research and Practice, MIS Quarterly 33(4): 647–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boland, R. and Collopy, F. (2004). Managing as Designing, Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Culnan, M.J. (1986). The Intellectual Development of Management Information Systems, 1972–1982: A co-citation analysis, Management Science 32(2): 156–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Faraj, S., Jarvenpaa, S.L. and Majchrzak, A. (2011). Knowledge Collaboration in Online Communities, Organization Science, Articles in advance orsc. 1100.0614 v1101.Google Scholar
  5. Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J. and Ram, S. (2004). Design Science in Information Systems Research, MIS Quarterly 28(1): 75–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Knights, D. and Scarbrough, H. (2010). In Search of Relevance: Perspectives on the Contribution of Academic — Practitioner networks, Organization Studies 31(9–10): 1287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lyytinen, K. and King, J.L. (2004). Nothing at the Center?: Academic legitimacy in the information systems field, Journal of the Association for Information Systems 5(6): 220–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Orlikowski, W. and Barley, S.R. (2001). Technology and Institutions: What can research on information technology and research on organizations learn from each other? MIS Quarterly 25(2): 145–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Orlikowski, W.J. and Baroudi, J.J. (1991). Studying Information Technology in Organizations: Research approaches and assumptions, Information Systems Research 2(1): 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Orlikowski, W.J. and Scott, S.V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization, The Academy of Management Annals 2: 433–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Swanson, E.B. and Ramiller, N.C. (1997). The Organizing Vision in Information Systems Innovation, Organization Science 8(5): 458–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Zammuto, R.F., Griffith, T.L., Majchrzak, A., Dougherty, D.J. and Faraj, S. (2007). Information Technology and the Changing Fabric of Organization, Organization Science 18: 749–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

  1. Chomsky, N. (1967). The Responsibility of Intellectuals, The New York Review of Books 8(3), [www document] http://www.nybooks.com/articles/12172 (accessed 21 August 2011).
  2. Davison, R. and Martinsons, M. (2011). Methodological Practice and policy for Organisationally and Socially Relevant IS Research: An inclusive-exclusive perspective, Journal of Information Technology 26(4): 288–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Hovorka, D., Germonprez, M. and Larsen, K. (2008). Explanation in Information Systems, Information Systems Journal 18(1): 23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Lee, A. (1991). Integrating Positivist and Interpretivist Approaches to Organizational Research, Organization Science 2(4): 342–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Mingers, J. (2001). Combining IS Research Methods: Towards a pluralist methodology, Information Systems Research 12(3): 240–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Niehaves, B. (2007). On Epistemological Pluralism in Design Science, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 19(2): 93–104.Google Scholar
  7. Orlikowski, W. and Scott, S. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization, The Academy of Management Annals 2(1): 433–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

  1. Burton-Jones, A. and Lee, A.S. (2011). The Hermeneutics of Measurement: Principles and implications for quantitative and qualitative research, Working Paper, Sauder School of Business, UBC.Google Scholar
  2. Campbell, D.T. and Fiske, D.W. (1959). Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix, Psychological Bulletin 56(2): 81–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Davison, R.M. and Martinsons, M.G. (2011). Methodological Practice and Policy for Organisationally and Socially Relevant IS Research: An inclusive-exclusive perspective, Journal of Information Technology 26(4): 288–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gregor, S. (2006). The Nature of Theory in Information Systems, MIS Quarterly 30(3): 611–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Lee, A.S. and Dennis, A.R. (forthcoming). A Hermeneutic Interpretation of a Controlled Laboratory Experiment: A case study of decision making with a group support system, Information Systems Journal.Google Scholar
  6. Nan, N. (2011). Capturing Bottom-Up Information Technology Use Processes: A complex adaptive systems model, MIS Quarterly 35(2): 505–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Orlikowski, W.J. (1996). Improvising Organizational Transformation over Time: A situated change perspective, Information Systems Research 7(1): 63–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Sharma, R., Yetton, P.W. and Crawford, J. (2009). Estimating the Effect of Common Method Variance: The method-method pair technique with an illustration from TAM research, MIS Quarterly 33(3): 473–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Straub, D. (2009). Why Top Journals Accept Your Paper, MIS Quarterly 33(3): iii–x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Straub, D.W. and Ang, S. (2008). Editor’s Comments: Readability and the relevance versus rigor debate, MIS Quarterly 32(4): iii–xiv.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Venkatesh, V., Brown, S.A. and Bala, H. (forthcoming). Bridging the Qualitative-quantitative Divide: Guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems, MIS Quarterly.Google Scholar
  12. Weber, R. (2004). Editor’s Comments: The rhetoric of positivism versus interpretivism: A personal view, MIS Quarterly 28(1): iii–xii.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Whetten, D.A. (1989). What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution? Academy of Management Review 14(4): 490–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Journal of Information Technology (JIT) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael D. Myers
    • 1
  • Allen S. Lee
    • 2
  • Robert D. Galliers
    • 3
  • Joe Nandhakumar
    • 4
  • Harry Scarbrough
    • 4
  • Matt Germonprez
    • 5
  • Rajeev Sharma
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of Information Systems and Operations ManagementUniversity of Auckland Business SchoolAucklandNew Zealand
  2. 2.School of BusinessVirginia Commonwealth UniversityUSA
  3. 3.Bentley UniversityWalthamUSA
  4. 4.Warwick Business SchoolUniversity of WarwickCoventryUK
  5. 5.College of BusinessUniversity of Wisconsin — Eau ClaireEau ClaireUSA
  6. 6.School of Information Systems and TechnologyUniversity of WollongongWollongongAustralia

Personalised recommendations