Pragmatism vs interpretivism in qualitative information systems research

European Journal of Information Systems

Volumn 21, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 135-146

  Goldkuhl, Göran ^a,b  

^a LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

information systems; interpretivism; paradigm; pragmatism; qualitative research

Indexed keywords

INFORMATION SYSTEMS;

CRITICAL RESEARCHES; DESIGN RESEARCH; INTERPRETIVISM; PARADIGM; PRAGMATISM; QUALITATIVE INFORMATION; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; SYSTEMS RESEARCH;

INFORMATION USE;

EID: 84858211672     PISSN: 0960085X     EISSN: 14769344     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1057/ejis.2011.54     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. ARENS E (1994) The Logic of Pragmatic Thinking. From Peirce to Habermas. Humanities Press, Atlantic Highlands.
2. ARGYRIS C, PUTNAM R and MCLAIN SD (1985) Action Science. Concepts, Methods and Skills for Research and Intervention. Jossey Bass, San Francisco, CA.
3. BASKERVILLE R (1999) Investigating information systems with action research. Communication of AIS 2, 1-32.
4. BASKERVILLE R and MYERS M (2004) Special issue on action research in information systems: Making IS research relevant to practice - foreword. MIS Quarterly 28(3), 329-335.
5. BASKERVILLE R and PRIES-HEJE J (1999) Grounded action research: A method for understanding IT in practice. Accounting, Management & Information Technology 9, 1-23.
6. BENBASAT I, GOLDSTEIN D and MEAD M (1987) The case research strategy in studies of information systems. MIS Quarterly 11(3), 369-386.
7. BLUMER H (1969) Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
8. BOLAND RJ (1985) Phenomenology: A preferred approach to research on information systems. In Research Methods in Information Systems (MUMFORD E, HIRSCHHEIM R, FITZGERALD G, WOOD-HARPER T, Eds), North- Holland, Amsterdam.
9. BOLAND RJ (1991) Information systems use as a hermeneutic process. In Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions (NISSEN H-E, KLEIN H, HIRSCHHEIM R, Eds), North-Holland, Amsterdam.
10. BRAA K and VIDGEN R (1999) Interpretation, intervention, and reduction in the organizational laboratory: A framework for in-context information system research. Accounting, Management & Information Technology 9, 25-47.
11. BUTLER T (1998) Towards a hermeneutic method for interpretive research in information systems. Journal of Information Technology 13, 285-300.
12. CHUA WF (1986) Radical development in accounting thought. The Accounting Review 61(4), 601-632.
13. COLE R, PURAO S, ROSSI M and SEIN M (2005) Being proactive: Where action research meets design research. Proceedings of the Twenty-sixth International Conference on Information Systems, pp 325-336, Association for Information Systems, Atlanta.
14. CRONEN V (2001) Practical theory, practical art, and the pragmaticsystemic account of inquiry. Communication Theory 11(1), 14-35.
15. DAVISON RM, MARTINSONS MG and KOCK N (2004) Principles of canonical action research. Information Systems Journal 14, 65-86.
16. DEWEY J (Ed.) (1931) The development of American pragmatism. In Philosophy and Civilization. Minton, Balch & Co, New York.
17. DEWEY J (1938) Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. Henry Holt, New York.
18. FISHMAN DB (1999) The Case for Pragmatic Psychology. New York University Press, New York.
19. FITZGERALD B and HOWCROFT D (1998) Towards resolution of the IS research debate: From polarization to polarity. Journal of Information Technology 13, 313-326.
20. GASSON S (1998) A social action model of situated information systems design. In Proceedings of IFIP WG8.2 & WG8.6 Joint Working Conference on Information Systems: Current Issues and Future Changes (KEIL M, MCLEAN ER, LARSEN TJ and LEVINE L), ACM, New York.
21. GOLDKUHL G (2004) Meanings of pragmatism: Ways to conduct information systems research. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Action in Language, Organisations and Information Systems (ALOIS). Linköping University, Linköping.
22. GOLDKUHL G (2007) What does it mean to serve the citizen in e-services? - towards a practical theory founded in socio-instrumental pragmatism. International Journal of Public Information Systems 2007(3), 135-159.
23. GOLDKUHL G (2008a) Practical inquiry as action research and beyond. In Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Information Systems (GOLDEN W, ACTON T, CONBOY K, VAN DER HEIJDEN H and TUUNAINEN VK, Eds), pp 267-278, Galway, Ireland.
24. GOLDKUHL G (2008b) What kind of pragmatism in information systems research? AIS SIG Prag Inaugural Meeting, Paris.
25. GOLDKUHL G and LYYTINEN K (1982) A language action view of information systems. In Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Informations Systems (GINZBERG and ROSS, Eds), Ann Arbor.
26. GOLES T and HIRSCHHEIM R (2000) The paradigm is dead, the paradigm is dead y long live the paradigm: The legacy of Burell and Morgan. Omega 28, 249-268.
27. GREGOR S and JONES D (2007) The anatomy of a design theory. Journal of AIS 8(5), 312-335.
28. HEVNER AR, MARCH ST, PARK J and RAM S (2004) Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly 28(1), 75-15.
29. HIRSCHHEIM R, KLEIN H and LYYTINEN K (1996) Exploring the intellectual structures of information systems development: A social action theoretic analysis. Accounting, Management & Information Technology 6(1/2), 1-64.
30. IIVARI J (2007) A paradigmatic analysis of information systems as a design science. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 19(2), 39-64.
31. IIVARI J and VENABLE J (2009) Action research and design science research - seemingly similar but decisively dissimilar. 17th European Conference on Information Systems, Verona.
32. JOAS H (1993) Pragmatism and Social Theory. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
33. JäRVINEN P (2007) Action research is similar to design science. Quality & Quantity 41, 37-54.
34. KLEIN H and MYERS M (1999) A set of principles for evaluating and conducting interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly 23(1), 67-94.
35. KOCK N (Ed.) (2007) Information Systems Action Research. An Applied View of Emerging Concepts and Methods. Springer, Berlin.
36. KOCK N and LAU F (2001) Information systems action research: Serving two demanding masters. Information Technology & People 14(1), 6-11.
37. KUUTTI K (1996) Activity theory as a potential framework for humancomputer interaction research. In Context and consciousness. Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction (NARDI BA, Ed.), MIT Press, Cambridge.
38. LEE A (1989) Integrating positivist and interpretive approaches to organizational research. Organization Science 2(4), 342-365.
39. LEE A and NICKERSON J (2010) Theory as a case of design: Lessons for design from the philosophy of science. Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
40. LEE AS, LIEBENAU J and DEGROSS JI (Eds) (1997) Information Systems and Qualitative Research. Chapman & Hall, London.
41. LEONARDI PM and BARLEY SR (2008) Materiality and change: Challenges to building better theory about technology and organizing. Information and Organization 18, 159-176.
42. LOVEJOY AO (1908) The thirteen pragmatisms. The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods 5(1-2), 5-39.
43. MADILL A, JORDAN A and SHIRLEY C (2000) Objectivity and reliability in qualitative analysis: Realist, contextualist and radical constructionist epistemologies. British Journal of Psychology 91, 1-20.
44. MARSHALL P, KELDER J-A and PERRY A (2005) Social constructionism with a twist of pragmatism: A suitable cocktail for information systems research. 16th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Sydney.
45. MARTENSSON P and LEE A (2004) Dialogical action research at Omega corporation. MIS Quarterly 28(3), 507-536.
46. MATHIASSEN L (2002) Collaborative practice research. Information Technology & People 15(4), 321-345.
47. MEAD GH (1934) Mind, Self and Society. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
48. MEAD GH (1938) Philosophy of the Act. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
49. METCALFE M (2008) Pragmatic inquiry. Journal of the Operational Research Society 59, 1091-1099.
50. MINGERS J (2001) Combining IS research methods: Towards a pluralist methodology. Information Systems Research 12(3), 240-259.
51. MUMFORD E, HIRSCHHEIM R, FITZGERALD G andWOOD-HARPER T (Eds) (1985) Research Methods in Information Systems. North-Holland, Amsterdam.
52. MYERS M and AVISON D (Eds) (2002a) Qualitative Research in Information Systems: A Reader. Sage, London.
53. MYERS M and AVISON D (Eds) (2002b) An introduction to qualitative research in information systems. In Qualitative Research in Information Systems: A Reader. Sage, London.
54. MYERS M and WALSHAM G (1998) Exemplifying interpretive research in information systems: An overview. Journal of Information Technology 13, 233-234.
55. NISSEN H-E, KLEIN H and HIRSCHHEIM R (Eds) (1991) Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions. North- Holland, Amsterdam.
56. ORLIKOWSKI WJ (1992) The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science 3(3), 398-429.
57. ORLIKOWSKI WJ (2000) Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science 11(4), 404-428.
58. ORLIKOWSKI WJ (2008) Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies 28(9), 1435-1448.
59. ORLIKOWSKI WJ and BAROUDI JJ (1991) Studying information technology in organizations: Research approaches and assumptions. Information Systems Research 2(1), 1-28.
60. PEIRCE CS (1878) How to make our ideas clear. Popular Science Monthly.
61. PLEASANTS N (2003) A philosophy for the social sciences: Realism, pragmatism, or neither? Foundations of Science 8, 69-87.
62. RESCHER N (2000) Realistic Pragmatism. An Introduction to Pragmatic Philosophy. SUNY Press, Albany, NY.
63. RORTY R (1980) Pragmatism, relativism and irrationalism. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 53(6), 719-738.
64. SCHUTZ A (1970) On Phenomenology and Social Relations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
65. SEIN M, HENFRIDSSON O, PURAO S, ROSSI M and LINDGREN R (2011) Action design research. MIS Quarterly 35(1), 37-56.
66. SHUSTERMAN R (2004) Pragmatism and East-Asian thought. Metaphilosophy 35(1/2), 13-43.
67. SILVERMAN D (1970) The Theory of Organizations. Heineman, London.
68. STEVENSON C (2005) Practical inquiry/theory in nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing 50(2), 196-203.
69. SUSMAN GI and EVERED RD (1978) An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Administrative Science Quarterly 23(4), 582-603.
70. THAYER HS (1981) Meaning and Action. A Critical History of Pragmatism. Hackett Publishing, Indianapolis, IN.
71. TORBERT W (1999) The distinctive questions developmental action inquiry asks. Management Learning 30(2), 189-206.
72. TRAUTH EM (Ed.) (2001) Qualitative Research in IS: Issues and Trends. Idea Group, Hershey, PA.
73. TRAUTH EM (Ed.) (2001b) The choice of qualitative research methods in IS. In Qualitative Research in IS: Issues and Trends. Idea Group, Hershey, PA.
74. VAN DE VEN A (2007) Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
75. WALLS JG, WIDMEYER GR and EL SAWY OA (1992) Building an information systems design theory for vigilant EIS. Information Systems Research 3(1), 36-59.
76. WALSHAM G (1993) Interpreting Information System in Organizations. John Wiley, Chichester.
77. WALSHAM G (1995) Interpretive case studies in IS research: Nature and method. European Journal of Information Systems 4, 74-81.
78. WALSHAM G (2006) Doing interpretive research. European Journal of Information Systems 15, 320-330.
79. WEBER M (1978) Economy and Society. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
80. WEBER R (2004) The rhetoric of positivism vs. interpretivism: A personal view. MIS Quarterly 28(1), iii-xii.
81. WICKS AC and FREEMAN RE (1998) Organization studies and the new pragmatism: Positivism, anti-positivism, and the search for ethics. Organization Science 9(2), 123-140.
82. WINOGRAD T and FLORES F (1986) Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design. Ablex, Norwood, MA.