Causality: The elephant in the room in information systems epistemology

19th European Conference on Information Systems, ECIS 2011

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages

  Gregor, Shirley ^a   Hovorka, Dirk S ^b  

^a AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b BOND UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Causal analysis; Causal conditions; Epistemology; Information systems

Indexed keywords

CAUSAL ANALYSIS; CAUSAL CHAINS; CAUSAL CONDITIONS; CAUSAL REASONING; CONDITION ANALYSIS; CONDITION TYPE; EPISTEMOLOGY; QUALITATIVE EVALUATIONS; SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS; TWO-DIMENSION;

RESEARCH;

INFORMATION SYSTEMS;

EID: 84870650359     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (51)

1. Argyris, C. (1996). Actionable Knowledge: Design Causality in the Service of Consequential Theory, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 32(4), 390-406.
2. Avison, D., Gregor, S., and Wilson, D. (2006). Managerial IT unconsciousness, Communications of the ACM 49(7), 88-93.
3. Braa, J., Hanseth, O., Heywood, A., Mohammed, W., et al. (2007). Developing health information systems in developing countries: The flexible standards strategy, MIS Quarterly 31(2), 381-402.
4. Bunge, M. (2008). Causality and Modern Science 4th Edition, London, Transaction Publishes.
5. Ciborra, C. (2002). The Labyrinths of Information, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
6. Codd, E.F. (1970). A Relational Model of Data for Large Shared Data Banks, Communications of the ACM 13(6), 377-387.
7. Codd, E.F. (1982). Relational Database: A Practical Foundation For Productivity (The 1981 Turing Award Lecture), Communications of the ACM 2(25), 109-117.
8. Collins, J., Hall, N., and Paul, L.A. (eds.) Causation and Counterfactuals. MIT, Cambridge, 2004.
9. Concato, J., Shah, N., and Horwitz, R. (2000). Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies and the hierarchy of research designs, New England Journal Medicine 342(25), 1887-1892.
10. Dourish, P. (2001). Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
11. Dourish, P. (2006). Implication for Design, Proceedings ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI Montreal.
12. Fay, B. (1996) General Laws and Explaining Human Behavior, in: Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science, M.M. Martin, L.C. (ed.), MIT Press, Cambridge, 91-110.
13. Fay, B., and Moon, B. (1996) What Would an Adequate Philosophy of Social Science Look Like?, in: Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science, M. Martin and L.C. McIntyre (eds.), MIT Press, Cambridge, 21-35.
14. Garg, A., Adhikari, N., McDonald, H., Rosas-Arellano, P., et al. (2005). Effects of Computerized Clinical Decision Support Systems on Practitioner Performance and Patient Outcomes: A Systematic Review, Journal of the American Medical Association 293(10), 1223-1238.
15. Germonprez, M., Hovorka, D., and Callopy, F. (2007). A Theory Of Tailorable Technology Design, Journal of the Association of Information Systems 8(6), 351-367.
16. Gibson, J.J. (1977). The Theory of Affordances, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
17. Goldkuhl, G. (2004). Design theories for information systems - a need for multigrounding, Journal of Information Technology Theory and Practice 6(2), 59-72.
18. Gregor, S. (2006). The Nature of Theory in Information Systems, MIS Quarterly 30(3), 611-642.
19. Gregor, S. (2009). Building Theory in the Sciences of the Artificial, DESRIST, Philadelphia.
20. Gregor, S., and Jones, D. (2007). The Anatomy of a Design Theory, Journal of the Association of Information Systems 8(5), 312-335.
21. Hemple, C.G. (1966) Criteria of Confirmation and Acceptability, in: Philosophy of Science, M. Curd and J. Cover (eds.), W.W. Norton and Company, New York, London, 445-459.
22. Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., and Ram, S. (2004). Design Science in IS Research, MIS Quarterly 28(1), 75-106.
23. Hirschheim, R. (1985). Information systems epistemology: an historical perspective, Research Methods in Colloquium, Manchester Business School, Amsterdam: North Holland. 13-36.
24. Hirschheim, R., and Klein, H.K. (1989). Four Paradigms for Information Systems Development, Communication Of the Association for Information Systems 32(10), 1199-1216.
25. Hooker, R. (1996) Aristotle: The Four Causes-Physics II.3 http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GREECE/4CAUSES.HTM
26. Hovorka, D.S., and Germonprez, M. (2010) Reflecting, Tinkering, and Tailoring: Implications for Theories of Information Systems Design, in: Reframing the Human in Information Systems Development, H. Isomaki and S. Pekkola (eds.), Springer, Berlin, 135-149.
27. Hovorka, D.S., Germonprez, M., and Larsen, K. (2008). Explanation in Information Systems, Information Systems Journal 18(1), 23-43.
28. Hume, D. (1748). An enquiry concerning human understanding. Reprinted in Introduction to Philosophy Classical and Contemporary Readings, Oxford University Press, New York.
29. Iivari, J. (2007). A Paradigmatic Analysis of Information Systems As a Design Science, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 19(2), 39-64.
30. Kim, J. (2011). Philosophy of Mind, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
31. Kline, R. (2005). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modelling, Guilford Press, New York.
32. Kuechler, B., and Vaishnavi, V. (2008). On Theory Development in Design Science Research: Anatomy of a Research Project, European Journal of Information Systems 17(5), 489-504.
33. Lankton, N., Wilson, E., and Mao, E. (2010). Antecedents and determinants of information technology habits, Information & Management 47(5-6), 300-307.
34. Lee, A. (2001) Challenges to Qualitative Researchers in Information Systems, in: Qualitative Research in IS: Issues and Trends, E. Trauth (ed.), IDEA Group Publishing, London.
35. Lee, A. (2010). Retrospect and prospect: information systems research in the last and next 25 years, Journal of Information Technology 25(4), 336-348.
36. Little, D.E. (1999) Philosophy of the Social Sciences, in: The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy R. Audi (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK 704-706.
37. Markus, M.L., Majchrzak, A., and Gasser, L. (2002). A Design Theory for Systems that Support Emergent Knowledge Processes, MIS Quarterly 26(3), 179-212.
38. Markus, M.L., and Robey, D. (1988). Information Technology and Organization Change: Causal Structure in Theory and Research, Management Science 34(5), 583-598.
39. Mill, J.S. (1882). System of Logic Ratioinative and Inductive: Being a Connected View of the Principles of Evidence and the Method of Scientific Investigation, Harper & Brothers.
40. Mithas, S., and Krishnan, M. (2009). From Association to Causation via a Potential Outcomes Approach, Information Systems Research 20(2), 295-313.
41. Nagel, E. (1961). The Structure of Science, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York.
42. Norman, D. (1988). The Design of Everyday Things, Doubleday Business.
43. Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
44. Pearson, K. (1911). The Grammar of Science (3 ed.) Charles and Black, London.
45. Schopenhauer, A. (1974). On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, Open Court Publishing Co., Chicago
46. Shadish, W., Cook, T., and Campbell, D. (2002). Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference, Houghton Mifflin, Boston
47. Simon, H.A. (1969). Sciences of the Artificial, MIT Press, Cambridge.
48. Sloman, S. (2005). Causal Models: How people Think About the World and Its Alternatives, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
49. Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument, University Press, Cambridge.
50. Winograd, T., and Flores, F. (1986). Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design, Ablex Publishing Corporation., Norwood, NJ.
51. Woodward, J. (2003). Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation, Oxford University Press, New York.