Commentaries on methodological practice
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.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Gearing, F.O. (1988). The Face of the Fox, Salem, WI: Sheffield Publishing.Google Scholar
- Kanter, R.M. (1977). Men and Women of the Corporation, New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Argyris, C. and Schön, D. (1974). Theory in Practice: Increasing professional effectiveness, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
- Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
- Beer, S. (1979). The Heart of Enterprise, London and New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Galliers, R.D., Markus, M.L. and Newell, S. (eds.) (2007). Exploring Information Systems Research Approaches: Readings and reflections, Abingdon & London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the source of learning and development, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
- 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
- Myers, M.D. (ed.) (1998). Special Issue on Interpretative Research in Information Systems, Journal of Information Technology 13(4): 231–326.Google Scholar
- 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).
- Niehaves, B. (2007). On Epistemological Pluralism in Design Science, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 19(2): 93–104.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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