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

Sociological and Communication-Theoretical Perspectives on the Commercialization of the Sciences

Both self-organization and organization are important for the further development of the sciences: the two dynamics condition and enable each other. Commercial and public considerations can interact and "interpenetrate" in historical organization; different codes of communication are then "recombined." However, self-organization in the symbolically generalized codes of communication can be expected to operate at the global level. The Triple Helix model allows for both a neo-institutional appreciation in terms of historical networks of university-industry-government relations and a neo-evolutionary interpretation in terms of three functions: (i) novelty production, (i) wealth generation, and (iii) political control. Using this model, one can appreciate both subdynamics. The mutual information in three dimensions enables us to measure the trade-off between organization and self-organization as a possible synergy. The question of optimization between commercial and public interests in the different sciences can thus be made empirical.Comment: Science & Education (forthcoming

Characterizing HCI Research in China: Streams, Methodologies and Future Directions

This position paper takes the first step to attempt to present the initial characterization of HCI research in China. We discuss the current streams and methodologies of Chinese HCI research based on two well-known HCI theories: Micro/Marco-HCI and the Three Paradigms of HCI. We evaluate the discussion with a survey of Chinese publications at CHI 2019, which shows HCI research in China has less attention to Macro-HCI topics and the third paradigms of HCI (Phenomenologically situated Interaction). We then propose future HCI research directions such as paying more attention to Macro-HCI topics and third paradigm of HCI, combining research methodologies from multiple HCI paradigms, including emergent users who have less access to technology, and addressing the cultural dimensions in order to provide better technical solutions and support

The System Paradigm

The introduction explains the sense in which the concept of a paradigm, whose originator, T.S. Kuhn, was inspired by the history of the national sciences, is applied to the context of the social sciences. Here the new paradigm does not necessarily replace the old; several paradigms may function effectively side by side. The milestones in the development of the system paradigm have been the works of Marx, Mises, Hayek, Polányi, Schumpeter and Eucken. Although these make a heterogeneous list in terms of their philosophies and political positions, they share a 'system approach'. They deal not just with individual details of the economy but with the system as a whole, and not just with the economy but with the political, ideological and social dimensions, paying special heed to the interactions between each sphere. The great task for the system paradigm is to study the post-socialist transition. For this, it is indispensable; its explanatory power cannot be replaced by any other paradigm. On the other hand, those applying the system paradigm (like the exponents of other paradigms) are often gravely mistaken. The predictive force of the system paradigm is limited, which urges modesty upon those who employ it.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/39662/3/wp278.pd

Organizing as Improvisations (Methodological Temptations of Social Constructivism)

Academic communities in social sciences are still dominated byneo-positivist paradigm, but communities of practice developing socialconstructivism have started to redress paradigmatic imbalances.According to the latter man-made organizational reality is processualand saturated with sensemaking (Weick). Social constructivistssucceeded in reconstructing complex organizational disasters andcontributed to organizational innovation and change (for instance inthe wake of ICT challenges). They belong to postmodernist critics ofmodernity's failure to regulate social development and contribute to abetter understanding of organizing (e.g. implementing a new technologyor managing knowledge production) as patchworking and improvising. Inspite of discriminating practices, they survive in academiccommunities.critical theory;managerialism;improvisation;relativism;social constructivism

Darwinism, probability and complexity : market-based organizational transformation and change explained through the theories of evolution

The study of transformation and change is one of the most important areas of social science research. This paper synthesizes and critically reviews the emerging traditions in the study of change dynamics. Three mainstream theories of evolution are introduced to explain change: the Darwinian concept of survival of the fittest, the Probability model and the Complexity approach. The literature review provides a basis for development of research questions that search for a more comprehensive understanding of organizational change. The paper concludes by arguing for the development of a complementary research tradition, which combines an evolutionary and organizational analysis of transformation and change

A semiotic polyocular framework for multidisciplinary research in relation to multifunctional farming and rural development

The concept of multifunctional farming rises out of a problematization of the role of agriculture in society and, in particular, in relation to rural development. Hitherto multifunctional farming has primarily been used as a notion on the relationship between agriculture and society concerning the range of commodity and non-commodity goods that farms provide for society. But the agro-economic achievements together with societal development have led to a point where praxis is questioned and discourse potentially reopened. In an indirect way, the notion of multifunctionality reflects, that aspects not captured by the distinction between commodity and non-commodity need to be reintroduced. This paper offers a new framework (theoretical and methodical) suggesting a poly-ocular multidisciplinary approach and constructivist semiotic understanding of multifunctionality, which supports dialogue and interactions between the approaches, involved. Each research perspective has its own construction of the object of ‘farming’ and the ‘environment’ of farming; and thereby also its own perception of the functions and problems of farming. It therefore comes as no surprise that problems of communication are experienced between different perspectives, or that confusion on shared notions can cause frustrations and difficulties for multidisciplinary studies of multifunctionality. The present framework introduces a notion of multifunctionality, which enables the explicit handling of different perspectives by way of a distinction between the ‘immediate object’, as it appears to the observer, and the ‘dynamical object’, which represents the potentiality of the object in itself. From such semiotic point of view, the notion of multifunctionality becomes genuinely multidisciplinary. Multifunctionality cannot be reduced and included in one perspective, but has to be observed as a second order observation that involves reflexive communication between different perspectives and disciplines

Information systems: a cyborg discipline?

This paper argues for a model of information systems in terms of cyborgs – a boundary-crossing mixture of the technical and the social. The argument for this model is substantiated from the personal experience of the author, presented as examples of being a cyborg researcher within a disciplinary context. Lessons for information systems are drawn

The System Paradigm

The introduction explains the sense in which the concept of a paradigm, whose originator, T.S. Kuhn, was inspired by the history of the national sciences, is applied to the context of the social sciences. Here the new paradigm does not necessarily replace the old; several paradigms may function effectively side by side. The milestones in the development of the system paradigm have been the works of Marx, Mises, Hayek, Polányi, Schumpeter and Eucken. Although these make a heterogeneous list in terms of their philosophies and political positions, they share a 'system approach'. They deal not just with individual details of the economy but with the system as a whole, and not just with the economy but with the political, ideological and social dimensions, paying special heed to the interactions between each sphere. The great task for the system paradigm is to study the post-socialist transition. For this, it is indispensable; its explanatory power cannot be replaced by any other paradigm. On the other hand, those applying the system paradigm (like the exponents of other paradigms) are often gravely mistaken. The predictive force of the system paradigm is limited, which urges modesty upon those who employ it.socialist system, capitalist system, systemic change, comparative economics