Evaluating the behaviour of information systems developers: The relevance and utility of paradigms

Behaviour and Information Technology

Volumn 26, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 221-236

  Hussain, Zahid ^a   Taylor, W Andrew ^a  

^a BRADFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Behaviour; Information systems development; Interpretative research; Paradigms; Systems developers

Indexed keywords

SOFTWARE ENGINEERING; SYSTEM PROGRAM DOCUMENTATION; SYSTEMS ANALYSIS;

INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT; INTERPRETATIVE RESEARCH; SYSTEMS DEVELOPERS;

INFORMATION SYSTEMS;

EID: 34249110752     PISSN: 0144929X     EISSN: 13623001     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01449290600877413     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. ARGYRIS, C., 1990, Overcoming Organizational Defences: Facilitating Organizational Learning (London: Allyn and Bacon).
2. BUNRASAT, I. and ZMUD, R.W., 1999, Empirical research in information systems: the practice of relevance. MIS Quarterly, 23, 3-16.
3. BOLAND, R.J. and GREENBERG, R.H., 1992, Method and metaphor in organizational analysis, Accotmting, Management and Information Technology, 2, 117-141.
4. BRYMAN, A., 2001, Social Research Methods (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
5. BURRELL, G. and MORGAN, G., 1979, Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis (London: Heinemann).
6. CHIASSON, M.W. and DAVIDSON, E., 2004, Pushing the contextual envelope: developing and diffusing IS theory for health information systems research. Information and Organization, 14, 155-188.
7. CONSTANTINIDES, P. and BARRETT, M., 2006, Negotiating ICT development and use: The case of a telemedicine system in the health region of Crete. Information and Organization, 16, 27-55.
8. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, 1997, The New NHS Modern and Dependable, CM 3807 (London: The Stationery Office).
9. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, 1998, The New NHS: A National Framework for Assessing Performance: Consultation Document (London: Department of Health, NHS Executive).
10. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, 2001, Shifting the Balance of Power, Report number: 24613 (London: Department of Health).
11. FLOWERS, S., 1996, Software Failure, Management Failure (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons).
12. GALLIVAN, M.J., 1996, Contradictions among stakeholder assessments of a radical change initiative: a cognitive frames analysis. In Information Technology and Changes in Organizational Work, W.J. Orlikowski, G. Walsham, M.R. Jones and J.I. DeGross (Eds.), pp. 107-130 (London: Chapman & Hall).
13. GASSON, S. and HOLLAND, N., 1996, The nature and processes of IT-related change. In Information Technology and Changes in Organizational Work, WJ. Orlikowski, G. Walsham, M.R. Jones and J.I. DeGross (Eds.), pp. 213-234 (London: Chapman & Hall).
14. GOLDEN-BIDDLE, K. and LOCKI;, K., 1993, Appealing work: an investigation of how ethnographic texts convince. Organization Science, 4, 595-616.
15. GOLES, T. and HIRSCHHEIM, R., 2000, The paradigm is dead, the paradigm is dead...long live the paradigm: the legacy of Burrell and Morgan. Omega, 28, 249-268.
16. HIRSCHHEIM, R. and KLEIN, H.K., 1989, Four paradigms of information systems development. Communications of the ACM, 32, 1199- 1216.
17. HIRSCHHEIM, R., KLEIN, H.K. and LYYTINEN, K., 1995, Information Systems Development and Data Modelling: Conceptual and Philosophical Foundations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
18. HOWCROFT, D. and WILSON, M., 2003, Paradoxes of participatory practices: the Janus role of the systems developer. Information and Organization, 13, 1-24.
19. KAPLAN, B. and MAXWELL, J.A., 1994, Qualitative research methods for evaluating computer information systems. In Evaluating Health Care Information Systems: Methods and Applications, J.G. Anderson, C.E. Aydin and S.J. Jay (Eds.), pp. 45-68 (Thousand Oaks: Sage).
20. KLEIN, H.K. and MYERS, M.D., 1999, A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23, 67-93.
21. MADDOCK, S., 2002, Making modernisation work: New narratives, change strategies and people management in the public sector. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 15, 13-43.
22. MARKUS, M.L. and BJORN-ANDKRSEN, N., 1987, Power over users: its exercise by system professionals. Communications of the ACM, 30, 498-504.
23. MASON, J., 2002, Qualitative Researching (London: Sage).
24. ORLIKOWSKI, W.J. and GASH, D.C., 1994, Technological frames: making sense of information technology in organizations. A CM Trans, on Information Systems, 12, 174-207.
25. SAUER, C, 1999, Deciding the future of IS failures not the choice you might think. In Rethinking Management Information Systems: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, W. Currie and R. Qalliers (Eds.), pp. 279-309 (Oxford: OUP).
26. SCHULTZE, U., 1999, Investigating the contradictions in knowledge management. Information Systems: Current Issues and Future Changes, T.L. Larsen, L. Levine and J.I. DeGross (Eds.), pp. 155-174 (London: Chapman and Hall).
27. SILVERMAN, D., 1993, Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analyzing Qualitative Data (London: Sage).
28. TOWNLEY, B., 2002, The role of competing rationalities in institutional change. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 163-179.
29. VAAST, E. and WALSHAM, G., 2005, Representations and actions: the transformation of work practices with IT use. Information and Organization, 16, 65-89.
30. WALSHAM, G., 1993, Interpreting Information Systems in Organisations (Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd).
31. WESTRUP, C., 1996, Transforming organizations through systems analysis: deploying new techniques for organizational analysis in IS development. In Information Technology and Changes in Organizational Work, W.J. Orlikowski, G. Walsham, M.R. Jones and J.I. DeGross (Eds.), pp. 157- 176 (London: Chapman and Hall).
32. WILMOTT, H., 1993, Breaking the paradigm mentality. Organization Studies, 14, 681-719.