A Systemic Methodological Framework for IS Research

10th Americas Conference on Information Systems, AMCIS 2004

Volumn , Issue , 2004, Pages 4374-4383

  Perez, M ^a   Mendoza, L ^a   Griman, A ^a   Rojas, T ^a  

^a UNIVERSIDAD SIMÓN BOLÍVAR   (Venezuela)

Author keywords

Action Research; Framework; Research; Systemic

Indexed keywords

ACTION RESEARCH; FRAMEWORK; INFORMATION SYSTEM RESEARCH; KNOWLEDGE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS; METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORKS; ORGANIZATIONAL SYSTEM; RESEARCH ACTIVITIES; SIMPLE++; SYSTEMATISATION; SYSTEMIC;

INFORMATION SYSTEMS;

EID: 85139033051     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (19)

1. Abu-Samaha, Ala (2003). Sof Evaluation: A Systemic Approach for Postimplementation Review. Critial Reflexions on Information Systems: A Systemic Approach. IDEA Group Publishig. 136-157.
2. Beer, S. (1970). Decisions and Control. Whiley and Sons
3. Baskerville, R. (1993) Semantic Database Prototypes, Journal of Information Systems, (3) 2, pp. 119-144
4. Baskerville, R. and Wood-Harper, A. (1996). A Critical Perspective on Action Research as a Method for Information Systems Research, Journal of Information Technology, (11) 3, pp. 235-246
5. Baskerville, R. (1999). Investigating Information Systems with Action Research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. Octubre, 1999. 2, 19, 1-32.
6. Checkland, P. (1993). Pensamiento de Sistemas, Práctica de Sistemas. Grupo Noriega Editores
7. Checkland, M. and Scholes, J. (1994). La Metodología de los Sistemas Suaves de Acción. Wiley
8. Checkland, M. and Holwell, S. (1998). Information, Systems and Information Systems Making sense of the field. Wiley.
9. Kitchenham, B. (1996a). Evaluating Software Engineering Methods and Tools. Part 1: The Evaluation Context and Evaluation Methods. ACM SIGSOFT-Software Engineering Notes. 21, 1, 11-14.
10. Kitchenham, B. (1996b). Evaluating Software Engineering Methods and Tools. Part 2: Selecting an appropriate evaluation method – technical criteria. ACM SIGSOFT-Software Engineering Notes. 21, 2, 11-15.
11. Kitchenham, B. (1996c). Evaluating Software Engineering Methods and Tools. Part 3: Selecting an appropriate evaluation method – practical issues. ACM SIGSOFT-Software Engineering Notes. 21, 4, 9-12
12. Kitchenham, B. and Pickard, L. (1998). Evaluating Software Engineering Methods and Tools. Part 9: Quantitative Case Study Methodology. ACM SIGSOFT-Software Engineering Notes. 23, 1, 24-26
13. Klein, H. and Myers, M. (1999). A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems, MIS Quarterly, (23) 1, pp. 67-94.
14. LISI (2004). Laboratorio de Investigación en Sistemas de Información de la Universidad Simón Bolívar. Caracas, Venezuela. Available On-line: www.lisi.usb.ve
15. Pare, G. and Elam, J. (1997). Using Case Study Research to Build Theories of IT Implementation, in Lee, A. S., J. Liebenau, and J. I. DeGross (Eds.) Information Systems and Qualitative Research, New York: Chapman & Hall, pp. 542-568.
16. Parikh, M. (2002). Knowledge Acquisition Through Case Study Development: A Student Perspective. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. (8), 360-379.
17. Susman, G. and Evered, R. (1978). An Assessment of the Scientific Merit of Action Research. Administrative Science Quarterly, (23) 4, 582-603
18. Tellis, W. (1997). Introduction to Case Study, The Qualitative Report, (3) 2. Available On-Line: http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR3-2/tellis1.html
19. Trauth, E. (ed.) (2001). Qualitative Research in IS, Hersey, PA: Idea Group Publishing