Reinterpreting the Kuhnian paradigm in information systems

The goal of this paper is to raise the level of discourse surrounding paradigms by drawing out a number of observations on how paradigms are interpreted in the IS field, and to reclaim the transformative potential of the Kuhnian paradigm concept in encouraging novel, interesting and relevant research and theorizing. After positioning the contribution of the Kuhnian paradigm and its significance in the philosophy of science, we describe the negative impacts of a research community’s preoccupation with the epistemological sense of paradigm, which ignited within the organizational sciences decades of unnecessary “paradigm wars” and a misplaced focus on methodology. We show how this epistemological rendering of paradigm, which is adopted by the IS field, differs from the opinions of well-known critics of Kuhn and how this view obscures the Kuhnian paradigm’s potential for innovative research. To provide valuable insights into these issues, we introduce Masterman’s interpretation of Kuhn’s model, which Kuhn himself endorses, and unpack the paradigm concept into its metaphysical, sociological and artefactual components. Using Masterman’s interpretation to highlight the primary meaning of Kuhn's paradigm concept as model problem-solution and exemplar, we describe how this multifaceted transformative view of paradigm benefits the IS field

Making Sense of Disruption: A Kuhnian Analysis

Disruption has become a term of fashion. While overused, disruption refers to an important phenomenon; the ways in which certain new technologies bring about profound changes to markets and society, thereby devaluing established business practices. In this essay we demonstrate that the dominant theory, Christensen’s theory of disruptive innovation, fails to account for the richness of this phenomenon. We propose to consider disruption akin to a Kuhnian revolution. By drawing direct parallels between paradigmatic shifts in scientific fields and industry disruption, we come to understand disruption as a shift in understanding that fundamentally alters what counts as customer value or product quality and as a result puts the industry on a new trajectory. By drawing on a music industry example, we illustrate that it is only with hindsight that a causal deterministic story of disruption emerges as brought about by invention of a particular technology

Towards Linking Four Emerging Paradigms in Economic Theory—Regulationist, Institutionalist, Post-modernist, and Post-development

This paper is an epistemological attempt to synthesise four emerging paradigms in economic theory. These paradigms are the regulationist, the institutionalist, the post-modernist, and the post-development. Arguably, these are paradigms rather than models of behaviour because they each presents an analytical framework for examining different economic phenomena. We shall attempt to show that the four paradigms are useful, complementary, and can be symbiotically linked into a broader paradigm especially to examine the phenomenon of low growth in the region. If we use a modified Kuhnian (1970) model for paradigmatic shifts in a discipline, we can argue that there are three dominating, competing, normal paradigms in economic theory: neoclassical, Marxist, and development theory. In Kuhnian fashion, these three dominant paradigms are pressured by several crises of inability to explain phenomena. Many of these explanational crises are about Less Industrialised Countries (LICs), but increasingly these crises are also about the inability to explain change in the Industrialised Countries (ICs) and the Newly Industrialising Countries (NICs). One, these three paradigms have to explain the differential growth rates of economies. They have to explain the low growth of LICs relative to both the old NICs (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and Hong Kong) and the new NICs (Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, and China). The collapse of the Soviet model also has to be explained. Two, these paradigms have to explain the coexistence of significant levels of poverty with affluence in the LIs, and NICs, and now emergent poverty in the ICs. Three, these paradigms also increasingly have to explain why in a country growth and distribution is biased in favour of particular ethnic and social groups, excluding others, fuelling ethnic and social conflicts within countries and across countries globally. Four, these paradigms have to establish whether the IC market-determined patterns of consumption demand can be satisfied globally.

The interdisciplinarity revolution

Contemporary interdisciplinary research is often described as bringing some important changes in the structure and aims of the scientific enterprise. Sometimes, it is even characterized as a sort of Kuhnian scientific revolution. In this paper, the analogy between interdisciplinarity and scientific revolutions will be analysed. It will be suggested that the way in which interdisciplinarity is promoted looks similar to how new paradigms were described and defended in some episodes of revolutionary scientific change. However, contrary to what happens during some scientific revolutions, the rhetoric with which interdisciplinarity is promoted does not seem to be accompanied by a strong agreement about what interdisciplinarity actually is. In the end, contemporary interdisciplinarity could be defined as being in a ‘pre-paradigmatic’ phase, with the very talk promoting interdisciplinarity being a possible obstacle to its maturity.; La investigación contemporánea sobre la interdisciplinariedad es descrita a menudo como si implicara cambios importantes en la estructura y fines de la empresa científica. A veces es incluso caracterizada como una forma de revolución científica kuhniana. En este artículo se analizará la analogía entre la interdisciplinariedad y las revoluciones científicas. Se sugerirá que el modo en que se promueve la interdisciplinariedad es similar al modo en que se describe y defiende un nuevo paradigma en algunos episodios de cambio científico revolucionario. Sin embargo, al contrario de lo que sucede durante las revoluciones científicas, la retórica con la que se promueve la interdisciplinariedad no parece venir acompañada por un fuerte acuerdo acerca de lo que es realmente dicha interdisciplinariedad. En definitiva, la interdisciplinariedad contemporánea se encuentra en una fase pre-paradigmática, siendo un posible obstáculo para su madurez el discurso mismo que promueve la interdisciplinariedad

Straw men and old saws -- An evidence-based response to Sy and Tinker\u27s critique

In a recent Accounting History article, Sy and Tinker (S&T) [2005] critique accounting history for its support of archivalism and empiricism in light of irrefutable arguments against these antiquarian epistemes. While tempted to lambaste S&T\u27s article as unfettered social activism rather than evidence-based historical inquiry, we focus instead on the more substantive questions S&T raise. We initially summarize their essential arguments, although some of the statements they make are contradictory in nature. We then discuss fundamental issues and genuine challenges to accounting history posed by the post-Kuhnian critique that S&T and others represent, as well as the nature and purpose of historical enquiry. We reviewed the accounting history journal articles published between 2001 and 2005 and use our findings to evaluate the broad assertions that S&T make about accounting history. We conclude that S&T\u27s critique is unwarranted and unjust, especially when the subject matter of the most recent accounting history articles is considered

Towards Linking Four Emerging Paradigms in Economic Theory—Regulationist, Institutionalist, Post-modernist, and Post-development

This paper is an epistemological attempt to synthesise four emerging paradigms in economic theory. These paradigms are the regulationist, the institutionalist, the post-modernist, and the post-development. Arguably, these are paradigms rather than models of behaviour because they each presents an analytical framework for examining different economic phenomena. We shall attempt to show that the four paradigms are useful, complementary, and can be symbiotically linked into a broader paradigm especially to examine the phenomenon of low growth in the region. If we use a modified Kuhnian (1970) model for paradigmatic shifts in a discipline, we can argue that there are three dominating, competing, normal paradigms in economic theory: neoclassical, Marxist, and development theory. In Kuhnian fashion, these three dominant paradigms are pressured by several crises of inability to explain phenomena. Many of these explanational crises are about Less Industrialised Countries (LICs), but increasingly these crises are also about the inability to explain change in the Industrialised Countries (ICs) and the Newly Industrialising Countries (NICs). One, these three paradigms have to explain the differential growth rates of economies. They have to explain the low growth of LICs relative to both the old NICs (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and Hong Kong) and the new NICs (Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, and China). The collapse of the Soviet model also has to be explained. Two, these paradigms have to explain the coexistence of significant levels of poverty with affluence in the LIs, and NICs, and now emergent poverty in the ICs. Three, these paradigms also increasingly have to explain why in a country growth and distribution is biased in favour of particular ethnic and social groups, excluding others, fuelling ethnic and social conflicts within countries and across countries globally. Four, these paradigms have to establish whether the IC market-determined patterns of consumption demand can be satisfied globall

Useful Products in Information Systems Theorizing: A Discursive Formation Perspective

Although there is a growing understanding of theory building in the information systems (IS) field, what constitutes IS theory remains the subject of intense debate. Following Weick recommendation to focus on the products of theorizing rather than on what theories are, we assemble and analyze 12 products (question, paradigm, law, framework, myth, analogy, metaphor, model, concept, construct, statement, and hypothesis) that are rarely discussed together in any depth in the IS field and combine them into a coherent theorizing framework. Drawing on Foucault thesis of discursive formation we characterize the unique role of each product in IS theorizing and illustrate the usefulness of the framework in relation to both classical IS theorizing in the form of media richness theory as well as next-generation theorizing

The interdisciplinarity revolution

Contemporary interdisciplinary research is often described as bringing some important changes in the structure and aims of the scientific enterprise. Sometimes, it is even characterized as a sort of Kuhnian scientific revolution. In this paper, the analogy between interdisciplinarity and scientific revolutions will be analysed. It will be suggested that the way in which interdisciplinarity is promoted looks similar to how new paradigms were described and defended in some episodes of revolutionary scientific change. However, contrary to what happens during some scientific revolutions, the rhetoric with which interdisciplinarity is promoted does not seem to be accompanied by a strong agreement about what interdisciplinarity actually is. In the end, contemporary interdisciplinarity could be defined as being in a 'pre-paradigmatic' phase, with the very talk promoting interdisciplinarity being a possible obstacle to its maturity

Paradigmatic Tendencies in Cartography: A Synthesis of the Scientific-Empirical, Critical and Post-Representational Perspectives

Maps have been important elements of visual representation in the development of different societies, and for this reason they have mainly been considered from a practical and utilitarian point of view. This means that cartographers or mapmakers have largely focused on the technical aspects of the cartographic products, and cartography has given little attention to both its theoretical component and to its philosophical and epistemological aspects. The current study is dedicated to consider these views. In this study the main trends, thoughts and different directions in cartography during positivism/empiricism, neo-positivism and post-structuralism are reviewed; and cartography is analysed under the modernism and post-modernism periods. Some of the arguments proposed by philosophers such as Ludwig Wittgenstein and Karl Popper are examined as important contributions in our understanding of the development of cartography and mapping. This study also incorporates the idea or concept of paradigm, which has been taken from the field of the epistemology of sciences. The aforementioned opens a space to analyse cartography in terms of a paradigm shift. In the analysis of each trend within contemporary cartography – from the second half of the twentieth century until today – it is necessary to keep in mind the theoretical scheme of a scientific discipline (object of study, research aims, methods and approaches, and results). This helps to determine the body of knowledge in cartography. It is also important to consider the epistemological context in which the tendencies are developed: positivism/empiricism, realism/structuralism and idealism/hermeneutic. In this way, by considering three epistemological levels - essentialist/ontical (scientific), deconstructive (sociological), and ontological (emergent) - some paradigmatic tendencies are postulated. The first level results in tendencies such as cartographic communication, cartographic semiotics, analytical cartography and cartographic visualisation - all of these belong to the scientific-empirical perspective. In the second level, we have critical cartography, belonging to the critical perspective and that confronts the scientific stances. Finally, in the third level the so-called post-representational cartography arises in open opposition to the traditional representational cartography.Im Entwicklungsprozess verschiedener Gesellschaften sind Karten immer wichtige Elemente visueller Darstellung gewesen. Karten wurden meist aus einer praktischen und utilitaristischen Sicht betrachtet. Das heißt, dass sich Kartographen oder Kartenmacher gezielt auf die technischen Aspekte kartographischer Produkte fokussiert haben, und Kartographie sich nur wenig mit den theoretischen Komponenten und philosophischen oder epistemologischen Aspekten auseinandergesetzt hat. Diese Arbeit verfolgt das Ziel, diese Sichten zu analysieren. Diese Studie untersucht die verschiedenen kartographischen Denkrichtungen, die während des Positivismus/Empirismus, des Neo-Positivismus und der Post-Strukturalismusperioden entstanden sind und analysiert Kartographie der Moderne und post-moderner Perioden. Argumente von Philosophen wie Ludwig Wittgenstein und Karl Popper werden untersucht als wichtige Beiträge zu unserem Verständnis der Entwicklung der Kartographie. Diese Arbeit berücksichtigt auch das Konzept des Paradigmas, welches aus dem Gebiet der wissenschaftlichen Epistemologie adaptiert wurde. Dies eröffnet die Möglichkeit, Kartographie hinsichtlich eines Paradigmenwechsels analysieren zu können. Wenn man die Tendenzen der zeitgenössischen Kartographie – von der zweiten Hälfte des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts bis heute – studiert, muss der theoretische Rahmen einer wissenschaftlichen Disziplin (Forschungsobjekt, Forschungsziel, Arbeitsmethodik und Ergebnisse) berücksichtigt werden. Dies erlaubt es, das gesammelte Wissen der Kartographie zu ermitteln. Ebenfalls wichtig ist die Berücksichtigung des epistemologischen Kontexts, in dem diese Tendenzen entstanden: Positivismus/Empirismus, Realismus/Strukturalismus und Idealismus/Hermeneutik. Unter Berücksichtigung dreier epistemologischer Ebenen – Essenzialisten/ontisch (wissenschaftlich), dekonstructiv (soziologisch) und ontologisch (emergent) – werden ausgewählte paradigmatische Tendenzen postuliert. Die erste Ebene ergibt Tendenzen wie die kartographische Kommunikation, die kartographische Semiotik, die analytische Kartographie und die kartographische Visualisierung, die alle zu der wissenschaftlich-empirischen Perspektive gehören. Zur zweiten Ebene gehört die kritische Kartographie, welche der kritischen Perspektive zugeordnet ist und die wissenschaftliche Standpunkte konfrontiert. Die so genannte post-repräsentative Kartographie entsteht aus der dritten Ebene im offenen Widerstand zur traditionellen repräsentativen Kartographie