The philosopher's corner: questioning assumptions in the information systems discipline

A healthy characteristic of any research field is a willingness to question its own assumptions. In this essay, I discuss Treiblmaier's proposal to question the epistemological and methodological assumptions of the Information Systems field. Treiblmaier's proposal is thoughtful and provocative and reflects his deep knowledge of the topic and his strong desire for an alternative epistemological and methodological future for our field. Drawing on Feyerabend, Treiblmaier recommends that IS researchers adopt epistemological anarchism, methodological anarchism, and "anything goes" as a guiding principle. I argue against all of these viewpoints. I argue that epistemological anarchism will not foster research progress, methodological anarchism will not lead to major new insights, and "anything goes" as a guiding principle will not benefit the field. Despite disagreeing with Treiblmaier's main recommendations, I highlight several points that I agree are important for the field to address

Making choices: research paradigms and information management: practical applications of philosophy in IM research

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine a variety of research approaches which information managers may find useful to meet the needs of working in the networked, digitized age. Design/methodology/approach – This is achieved by a discussion of the research paradigms inherent within both information theory and social theory. Findings – The findings work towards a final justification for an interpretist approach as the most appropriate context in which to work, in order to meet the emerging trends and current challenges of information technology management. Practical implications – The central theme of this paper is that research which deals primarily with people and information in a world of change, competition, and fluid communications technology should take into account and allow for an understanding of human behaviour. This understanding helps to highlight different contexts, backgrounds, and cultures and therefore provides assistance in making appropriate choices concerning research paradigms and information management, which in turn will ensure thoughtful methodology and justifiable research results. Originality/value – This paper examined questions regarding the choices of research paradigms and the practical application of philosophy to the life of professional information managers

Can Thomas Kuhn's paradigms help us understand software engineering

Peer reviewe

Connecting for Impact - Multidisciplinary Approaches to Innovation in Small to Medium Sized enterprises (SMEs)

This paper reveals the methodology developed and adopted by groups of Multidisciplinary Design Innovation Masters students whilst working on projects with regional Small to Medium Sized Enterprises (SME’s). It exposes an eight-stage approach and shows how the creation of a ‘problem-space tapestry’ acts as a mediator between different disciplinary approaches. The authors used a combination of observation, interview, post project-analysis and auto ethnographic reflection in order to uncover this process and to draw conclusions about the conditions that are necessary to support university based multidisciplinary design-led innovation projects of this type

Action Learning

{Excerpt} Conventional approaches to learning hinge on the presentationof knowledge and skills. Then again, knowledge is revealedthrough methods of questioning amid risk, confusion,and opportunity. Reginald Revans, the originator of actionlearning, recommended that one should keep away from experts with prefabricated answers. Rather, people shouldbecome aware of their lack of knowledge and be preparedto explore their ignorance with suitable questions and helpfrom others: finding the right questions rather than the right answers is important, and it is one’s perception of a problem, one’s evaluation of what is to be gained by solving it, and one’s estimation of the resourcesavailable to solve it that supply the springs of human action. Action learning is an educational process by which a person studies his or her own actions and experience to improveperformance. Put simply, it is about solving problems and getting things done. In action learning, a smallgroup of 5–8 persons (called action learning set) meets regularly for a day or half a day over at least 6 months and works collectively on a problem faced in ongoing practice. The action learning set helps a “presenter”work on a problem through supportive but challenging questioning. It encourages a deeper understanding of theissues involved, a reflective reassessment of the problem, and an exploration of ways forward. (Action learningrequires that actions be agreed at the end of each meeting.) By so doing, it provides a structured way of workingthat provide the discipline we often need to learn from what we do and improve practice as a result

ON METHODS, METHODOLOGIES AND HOW THEY MATTER

The field of Information Systems, it is argued, suffers from identity crisis and faces difficulties in achieving a disciplinary status (Galliers, 2006; Hassan, 2011). The IS research continues to be seen as lacking relevance and impact that negatively affects IS prospects for becoming a discipline. Key charges include the narrow research focus and a rigid application of research methods that constrain investigative possibilities, impede the relevance of IS research and also stifle creativity and the production of relevant knowledge. Given a historical privileging of the positivist research approach and associated methods (survey and experiments in particular) IS research has been slow in adopting other approaches and expanding research methods. While this is gradually happening and IS researchers are seen venturing into non-positivist territories, adopting a broader range of methods (such as ethnographies or action research), the emphasis on research methods and their ‘rigorous’ application remains. After critiquing the narrow focus on methods and drawing attention to limitations of all methods, the paper proposes a broader focus on research methodology that is concerned with the ontological, epistemological, and normative assumptions behind research methods and their inherent limitations. The paper argues for a (re)turn to methodology conceived as a theory of inquiry that is contextually sensitive and evolving within a research project. The return to methodology would involve a continuous interplay between assumptions about the phenomena studied and the practical questions of designing research strategies and selecting and adopting research methods underpinned by the assumptions. The broadening of focus and the questioning of both metatheoretical assumptions and methods might open up researchers’ perspectives and stimulate the discovery of new and innovative ways of conducting research and thereby facilitate progress in the IS field

Understanding the user - why, what and how?

Explains the need, importance, purposes and scope of user studies, discusses procedure for conducting sound user studies together with associated problems of research like selection of problem, formulation of hypothesis, design of study, sampling strategy, data collection methods, scaling techniques, pilot study, processing and analysis of data, testing of hypothesis, interpretation, drawing inferences, communication and dissemination of results and finally concludes by highlighting methodological flaws and gaps in user studies

The learning process model for intercultural partnerships

This paper addresses the issue of how learning can support intercultural effectiveness and is one of the outputs of the eChina-UK Programme. In this paper I synthesise theory and evidence from a number of fields in order to propose a practical model of learning that can be applied to intercultural collaborations. The aim is not to replace existing theories and models of learning but to draw on them in order to present a simple description that might be of value to those planning and managing international partnerships. Although much of what is said here relates specifically to intercultural collaboration I believe that many of the observations remain true of cross-sectoral partnership (which is, anyway, often intercultural as well) and of inter-professional learning too: indeed, there might be an argument for asserting principles of learning that contribute to effectiveness in working across boundaries in any long-term collaboration. The paper is divided into an Introduction and four further sections. Section 2 reviews the various streams of literature which have informed the current study and presents an argument for the particular approach to learning promoted in this paper on the basis of established and complementary research in a number of different disciplines. Section 3 contains a description of the learning model for intercultural collaboration which has been developed as part of our current research at the University of Warwick. The practical application of this model, and the implications for policy in cultural collaboration, are discussed briefly in Section 4. The final section summarises the work and looks forward to further research and development around the issue of learning in intercultural collaboration

Considering Teaching Excellence in Higher Education: 2007-2013: A Literature Review Since the CHERI Report 2007

No abstract available

Integrating knowledge accross disciplines. Experiences from the NeWater project

The starting question for this deliverable was how to create a new adaptive management concept that can integrate insights from various disciplines and connect people from different institutional backgrounds. From literature research and empirical research on the NeWater project we identified challenges for cross-disciplinary knowledge integration, we evaluated interventions for connecting multiple knowledge frames, we analyzed the process of group model building with UML and formulated recommendations. Cross-disciplinary research has arisen from a growing number of complex problems for which knowledge of a single scientific discipline or societal field is insufficient, but presents important challenges: (1) collaboration and integration of knowledge requires in depth discussions that are timeconsuming; (2) the recursive process of problem structuring and restructuring is often at odds with the sequential planning of project activities; (3) participation and mutual learning are crucial but need to be carefully structured and sequenced; and (4) management and leadership faces the difficult challenge of balancing in depth exploration with timely delivery of tangible results. We conclude with the following general recommendations for large cross-disciplinary projects: (1) including a preparatory proposal phase for thorough exploration of opportunities of between researchers and stakeholders (2) flexible funding, planning and operational arrangements to allow for a recursive research process; (3) a project size that allows frequent interaction opportunities between researchers and between researchers and stakeholders to allow for mutual learning and in depth exploration; and (4) enhancing learning opportunities from one project to the next