Content uploaded by Lucia Garcia-Lorenzo
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lucia Garcia-Lorenzo on Feb 08, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
22
Qualitative Research in Information
Systems: Time to be Subjective?
L. Garcia
Department
of
Social Psychology
London School
of
Economics
and
Political Science
London WC2A 2AE, England
Tel: 44 171 955 7695
Fax: 44 171
9557565
E-mail: l.garcia@lse.ac.
uk
F.
Quek
Department
of
Information Systems
London School
of
Economics
and
Political Science
London WC2A 2AE, England
Tel: 44 171
9557403
Fax: 44 171 955 7565
E-mail: f.k.quek@lse.ac.
uk
Abstract
The starting point
of
a researcher's methodological choice within informa-
tion systems is not
so
much a problem
of
how many methods we employ
or
if
those are
of
a quantitative
or
a qualitative nature, but the ability to
identify the philosophical and theoretical assumptions which leads to the
choice
of
the appropriate methodology. In practice, despite the recognition
of
the virtues and the role
of
qualitative methods in information systems
research, explicit institutional barriers and implicit functionalistic assump-
tions within the field have prevented much progress in their application.
There is the danger in not recognizing the resulting side-effect where
researchers use qualitative methods in a quantitative manner and pass it
A. S. Lee et al. (eds.), Information Systems and Qualitative Research
© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1997
Qualitative Research in Information Systems
off
as qualitative research. Using qualitative methods implies allowing
and acknowledging the subjectivity
of
the research process, which should
be looked upon as a strength rather than as a weakness.
1 INTRODUCTION
445
This paper is the result
of
a seemingly impossible (ad)venture. It is a shared reflection
about the use
of
one research paradigm within a field traditionally recognized for the
use
of
another.
It
has been a common work based on two different cultural, academic
and research backgrounds. As such, it has proven difficult and been plagued with
obstacles, but at the same time, it has been full
of
relevant and highly illuminating
discussions.
Although sometimes we have fallen into the trap
of
a "paradigm incommensurab-
ility"
(Kuhn 1970), i.e., the impossibility
of
translating different paradigms into each
other and assessing results
of
different paradigms (not only between the two authors,
but also between the two topics covered in this conference: qualitative research and
infonnation systems), we have followed the tendency to regard at least some debate
and discussion between various proponents
of
paradigms as possible (Reed 1985).
We
have worked in a metaphorical way
..
transferring ideas and associations from one
system
or
level
of
discourse to another. In this way, each system can be perceived
anew from the point
of
view
of
the other. In the process, certain aspects have been
illuminated whereas others have been shadowed.
We
cover three main points in the paper. First, we stress the need for further
critical awareness: reviewing what we are importing into the information systems field
and why. Borrowing methods is not a simple task and, without critical awareness,
runs the danger
of
the methods becoming stereotyped
or
distorted. Second, we con-
sider that the direction promoted from the previous conference in 1990
on
qualitative
research about the quest for methodological pluralism and more alternative ap-
proaches, as well as the debate on quantitative versus qualitative methods, is some-
how out
of
focus. The problem
of
applying research methods within information
systems is not so much a problem
of
how many methods we employ or
if
those are
of
a quantitative or a qualitative nature, but rather to achieve a coherence over the whole
research process. The starting point is to identify our philosophical and theoretical
assumptions which will lead
us
to the choice
of
the appropriate methodology. Third,
to comment that using qualitative methods implies allowing and acknowledging the
subjectivity
of
the research process. The lack
of
this allowance leads researchers to
use qualitative methods in a quantitative way. Methods developed mainly in a
herrneneutic-dialectical school
of
meta-science are thus used from a logical-empirical
perspective, and therefore the proposed paradigm shift is not fully achieved. From this
standpoint, it is not appropriate to talk about coherence or rigour in the research
process.
446 Part Six Developments in Qualitative Methods
2 CRITICAL AWARENESS
In the field
of
psychology, we learn how a particular philosophical commitment
becomes taken for granted within the history
of
the discipline (Oppenheimer 1954;
Danzinger 1979). Issues which should be opened to clarification and public debate
are transformed into certainties, producing a cleavage between theory, method and
their corresponding philosophical foundations. The consequence is the absence
of
a
debate about philosophical foundations underlying the choice
of
methods and theory,
to such an extent that few within the discipline are concerned with unearthing the
assumptions guiding one alternative
or
another.
This absence
of
reflection is what Markova (1982) calls "the unjustified general-
izations across different SUbjects." By overlooking the problems, conceptual frame-
works
or
methods
of
research in different sciences -which are essentially different,
crude generalizations -flourish unchallenged.
If
generalizations on such fundamental
issues are possible, why not import successful models? The appropriateness
of
importing models is not even considered given the general lack
of
awareness regard-
ing their presuppositions.
As Nissen, Klein and Hirschheim (1991) pointed out, "no field can avoid assump-
tions on the nature
of
its research approaches." However, in the domain
of
science,
the importance
of
acknowledging the presuppositions on which every domain
of
human existence is based has great significance. Innocence with respect to our
existing assumptions in scientific research is clearly associated with potential dangers
(Markova 1982). The dangers are diverse but
of
the same kind.
If
a scientist is not
aware
of
the foundations
of
the work, then the scientist is deprived
of
an occasion to
reflect upon his or her actions, and tends to maintain the existing practice without the
possibility
of
considering alternatives.
This seems to be the case regarding information systems. As a field, information
systems is a relatively new one without a research tradition that it can claim to be its
own. Its research frameworks and techniques are very much borrowed or imported
from other disciplines (Bikson 1991). Th5! reliance on a number
of
different areas
for the development
of
a theoretical framework
or
research methods and the need to
legitimize them has imported assumptions from those disciplines without a reflection
upon the emergence
of
those assumptions
or
"upon the context within which attempts
are made to operationalize them" (Preston 1991). There is no doubt that borrowing
theoretical
or
methodological models from another discipline can lead to important
innovations; however, there is the danger that, in doing so, the model becomes
stereotyped
or
distorted.
As Guerreiro-Ramos (1981) suggests, there is an important distinction between the
"displacement" and the "misplacement"
of
a model from its original discipline. The
concept
of
system, for instance, was successfully displaced from its origins in cyber-
netics to study organizations. According to Guerreiro-Ramos, the misplacement
of
a model occurs when it is used inappropriately outside its discourse
of
origin, usually
when there is no effort to understand the wider context where the model has been
Qualitative Research in Information Systems
447
developed and therefore people only select that suit their concrete interests or way
of
thinking at a particular point in time. Thus, the misplacement occurs when the debates
carried out about the different meanings and uses
of
the model during its historical
evolution are not taken into account.
The past decade has seen the information systems field starting to undergo this
kind
of
self-examination, raising philosophical issues associated with doing research
in information systems and debating which philosophical traditions should guide work
and which could serve as a legitimate basis for grounding research methods (Klein,
Hirschheim and Nissen 1991; Preston 1991). There have been calls for a
multidisciplinary approach and methodological pluralism, as well as rigor and rele-
vance in research (Nissen, Klein and Hirschheim 1991).
Developing pluralism in information systems research has received increasing
support.
It
is expected that the use
of
multiple methods to correspond with the
complexity
of
research investigations will allow the apprehension
of
the different
aspects involved in the constitution
of
the object under investigation. The concern is
about the adoption
of
more and newer methodologies in order to better explore the
object
of
study and how rigorous the use
of
those methodologies. The concern with
more methods or more methodological rigor in a discipline is not ill-placed but it can
disguise an absence
of
theoretical elaboration (Elejabarrieta 1990). As Baskerville
(1996) points out, it is like "leaning against the lamppost for support rather than for
illumination." While adopting new methodologies may contribute to the general
development
of
the field, they are still used as a "comfort factor" to reassure the
participants that proper practices are being followed to cope with the complexity
associated with the field.
In a sense, this "need"
of
using more and "better accurate" methods in order to
develop the field mirrors the Enlightenment notion
of
human betterment developed
in social sciences, that with improved knowledge about our world (or about the object
of
study) and increased abilities to make rational decisions (on which is the best
method), we will be able to design a world fit to live in.
3 STARTING POINT OF METHODOLOGICAL CHOICE
Historically, information systems research inherited the natural sciences paradigm
(Mumford 1991) and, as a consequence, there are a number
of
underlying problems
associated with information systems research (Cooper 1988). The major criticism in
the past was that research tends to be dominated by scientific approaches (Nissen
1985; Mumford 1991). The models borrowed from natural sciences, suited
to
science
laboratories, were transferred directly to information systems (Galliers and Land
1987) in an attemptto gain recognition and legitimization as a research area (Back-
house, Liebenau and Land 1991). However, they have proven to be "almost always
doomed to fail" (Galliers and Land 1987).
448 Part Six Developments in Qualitative Methods
This background was borne out
of
the fact that information systems
as
a field has
its origins in business schools in North America, where there has always been a
tradition
of
functionalist and positivist approach (Orlikowski 1991). Promotion and
tenure, which concerns a researcher's career, has a formula which is entrenched in
doing the right type
of
research and publishing in the right type
of
journals. Academic
respectability implies an approach to treat research as a science, with much
of
the
effort placed on laboratory-based experimentation
or
on field surveys (Vogel and
Wetherbe 1984). This seems to be "part
of
the American system
of
academic sta-
tuses" (Kling 1991, pp 738), and as a consequence, has contributed to the deeply
rooted positivistic tradition in information systems research. Another example
of
this
kind
of
institutional constraint is the doctoral program that follows the American
model. There is certainly a divide between America and Europe in terms
of
the
emphasis on traditional research methods in the doctoral curriculum. Much debates
have surfaced about the virtues and shortcomings
of
this model.
However, the 1984 conference on qualitative research -precursor to the 1990
conference in Copenhagen -questioned the traditional approaches to research and
criticized the so-called scientific method not only for its emphasis on quantification
but also for the commitment among some researchers to a narrow paradigm that
"assumes away much
of
the richness and complexity
of
information systems"(Weill
and Olson 1989). As a result, we are beginning to see research that covers other areas
of
the information systems spectrum, from purely technical perspectives
of
systems
design and implementation, to social perspectives
of
the structural and social conse-
quences
of
information systems at the individual, organizational, and societal levels.
The growing recognition and popularity
of
the information systems field as
multidisciplinary within the social sciences and the humanities (Olaisen 1991) has
opened the doors for the softer approaches (or qualitative approaches) and the use
of
methodologies imported from those fields. Currently, the field is still at the the-
ory-building stage (Madon 1994), and the objective seems to be a search for increased
understanding
of
the information systems phenomena in order to strengthen its
theoretical base.
It can be said that there is an attempt to change paradigms, to perceive information
systems not as a field that covers only the technical and measurable aspects but also
the context within which the information system is being developed. Researchers in
the field have started to rely on other disciplines from the social sciences to throw
light on the problems faced by those designing and implementing information systems
in a variety
of
organizational contexts (Backhouse, Liebenau and Land 1991). This
involves being able to interpret
or
decipher the social phenomenon's basic character-
istics. The social sciences may help in this endeavor since they have developed ways
of
seeing (or creatively discovering) some
of
those characteristics
in
a meaningful
manner (Alvesson 1995).
However, its uptake in mainstream information systems research is scarce,
or
somehow misguided. So far, research in information systems is synonymous with the
study
of
advanced quantitative procedures, with the emphasis on the development
of
Qualitative Research in Information Systems 449
a methodology scholar expertly versed in the knowledge and use
of
such procedures
(Olaisen 1991). Alternative approaches such as action research, critical research,
interpretivism and semiotics are rare.
The main criticism against traditional methods in favor
of
methodological plural-
ism and alternative approaches is that the research problems are looked at using the
scientific paradigm as a base (Klein and Lyytinen 1985). Methodological bias in
research has been reported in the information systems literature, between 50% and
90%
of
published material uses only three methods (laboratory experimentation,
surveys and case studies) (Cash and Nunamaker 1989, 1990, 1991; Orlikowski and
Baroudi 1990; Vogel and Wetherbe 1984). This led Klein, Hirschheim and Nissen to
comment that "the most commonly held attitude in the information systems research
community is not methodological pluralism, but the belief in the supremacy
of
a
particular set
of
methodological postulates favoring certain methods and discriminat-
ing against others."
Morgan and Smircich (1980) propose that we look at other research modes for
established frameworks
of
observation that can offer a unique range
of
insights
unobtainable by existing methods, such
as
one that constitutes a specific hermeneutic
mode located at the subjective end
of
the spectrum. However as Mumford (1991)
quite rightly pointed out, we should avoid creating a situation whereby researchers
either take the quantification route for its own sake, or undertake qualitative research
simply to avoid handling numerical data.
This often opens up the debate on quantitative methods versus qualitative methods.
Such debates have been at the center
of
much controversy in both the social and the
natural sciences. Most
of
the
ti.me
the discussion equates qualitative methodologies
with positivistic postulates and qualitative methods as the monopoly
of
those who
criticize those methods. In our view, this is an inadequate way
of
discussing the
issue. The relationship between qualitative and quantitative is not a static one. Fre-
quently, quantity and quality feed back into one another. The chasm between quantita-
tive and qualitative techniques seems to be associated with a tradition
of
conducting
research where the imperative
of
measurement displaced a concern with theory.
The
content
of
theoretical presuppositions can remain unclear under the formulation
of
hypothesis that, through sophisticated statistical methods, acquire the value
of
scien-
tific findings. There is no doubt that those practices should
be
criticized, but the
critique should not be out
of
focus.
Quantitative techniques have been extremely useful in identifying specific phenom-
ena. Moreover there will always be research that relies on a heavy emphasis on use
of
statistical analysis, with the consequent need for exact measurement
of
the factors
being studied. The question is not whether quantitative techniques can offer the
researchers what qualitative techniques cannot and vice versa, but rather on the
theoretical and philosophical assumptions that guide the research and therefore
determine which methodology one uses. We argue that it is necessary to qualify the
use
of
specific techniques in both the underlying assumptions guiding the research
and in the theoretical framework.
450 Part Six Developments in Qualitative Methods
4 THE OBJECT OF STUDY
As within many other fields, the origins
of
the methodological debate in information
systems can
be
found in the difficulties encountered in identifying the object
of
study
(Kuutti 1996). Nissen, Klein and Hirschheim point out that the discussion should be
centered around two basic issues: "i) the nature
of
what is investigated (ontology)
and ii) the nature
of
human knowledge and understanding that can possibly be ac-
quired through different types
of
research and the appropriateness
of
the methods
of
investigation (epistemology)." These two issues may
be
distinct but in our view they
are nevertheless interrelated.
Information systems research has been said to
be
about the study
of
improving the
effectiveness
of
information systems design, implementation and use in organizations,
and to assess their impact
on
individuals, organizations and society at large (Keen
1987; Baskerville and Wood-Harper 1996; Galliers and Land 1987). As a highly
applied field, it covers a broad spectrum, from practice-biased disciplines such as
engineering and management, to soft disciplines such as psychology and sociology
(Galliers and Land, 1987; Banville and Landry 1989; Achterberg, Van Es and Heng
1991; Baskerville and Wood-Harper 1996).
We
can hardly talk about the field as a paradigm in the commonly accepted sense
of
the concept: that is to say, a theoretically well-structured, broad and extensive
research orientation, with a common view
of
the world, a methodological approach,
definition
of
the research object and common theoretical ancestors and sources
of
inspiration (Kuhn 1970). Instead, the research field is characterized by a multitude
of
views and perspectives. According to an IFIP
WG~.2
survey carried out in 1986
(quoted in Nissen, Klein and Hirschheim 1991), there are as many as thirty-two
reference disciplines involved in information systems.
This broad spectrum creates problems when it comes to a homogeneous
or
even
coherent definition
of
what information systems as a discipline should
be
studying.
Is the object
of
research in information systems
of
a technological
or
a social nature?
Is it the organization, an information system
or
a social system? As Kuutti asks,
"If
an organization is too broad and vague, an information system too narrow, and a
social system too hazy and one-sided, then what is it that we are actually going to
analyze and change?"
We
believe that there is a need to bridge the analytical split between human and
non-human, organizational life and the information system implemented or developed
within the organization. The critical issue to be remembered in doing information
systems research in organizations is that the world is composed
of
hybrids rather than
discrete elements, either social
or
non-social (Grint, Case and Willcocks 1996). There
is no condition where humans exist but in networks with humans and non-humans.
It is the network
of
ideas, machines and people developed through an accommodation
to each other that should
be
the focus
of
our inquiries (Latour 1988). In epistemologi-
cal terms, to focus on those hybrids instead
of
discrete elements, run counter to the
analytic position set up under the rules
of
the enlightenment and posit formidable
Qualitative Research in Information Systems 451
problems
of
analysis. Our understandings are posed mainly between people and/or
things but not on the agglomerations.
Consequently, the tradition in research, has been that one specific effect
of
one
variable can be readily assessed. Therefore, it has been assumed that because we can
assess the capacity
of
the technology, it is possible by the same means to assess its
effects upon the organization or the human beings using it. The avoidance
of
studying
single variables can actually help to obtain a more accurate understanding
of
the
effects
of
technology
if
the focus is on the total situation instead: the mix
of
vari-
ables, including new technology, that comes together and interacts to produce certain
consequences (Mumford 1987). Furthermore, even though
it
may be possible to
measure and grasp the objective side
of
technology, it is still necessary to remain
subjective on the human element.
If
the analysis is to be focused on the result
of
interactions between the network
of
human and non-human within the context
of
organization (Grint, Case and Willcocks 1996), we will need to take into account not
only the objective, visible and measurable factors but also the changing environment
in organizations and their dynamic and symbolic features, as well
as
the subjective or
symbolic processes inherent in the process
of
doing information systems research
(Zuboff 1996).
5 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN INFORMATION SYSTEMS
There is a push for more qualitative research, as witnessed by the success
of
the
Orlikowski's (1993) employment
of
grounded theory and the forthcoming special
edition
of
MIS Quarterly on intensive research. What exactly is qualitative research?
Does the use
of
recognized qualitative methods qualify as qualitative research?
According to Van Maanen (1979, p. 520),
The label qualitative methods has no precise meaning in any
of
the social
sciences.
It
is at best an umbrella term covering an array
of
interpretative
techniques which seek to describe, decode, translate and otherwise come
to terms with the meaning, not the frequency,
of
certain more
or
less
naturally occurring phenomena in the social world.
Qualitative research has been defined in many ways and means different things to
different people. Essentially, it is both a certain commitment to some versions
of
the
naturalistic or interpretative approaches
to
its subject matter, and an ongoing critique
of
the politics and methods
of
positivism. Qualitative implies an emphasis on the
processes and meanings that are not examined
or
measured in terms
of
quantity,
amount, intensity or frequency.
Spielberg (1972) argues that using quantitative
or
qualitative methods
of
analysis
implies a different perspective on human interaction and behaviour. The quantitative
approach implies that there is an objective truth existing in the outside world which
can be revealed through the use
of
the scientific method
of
measuring relationships
between different variables systematically and statistically. The concern in this
452 Part Six Developments in Qualitative Methods
methodology is essentially that the measurements are reliable, valid and generalizable
in their predictions
of
cause and effect. On the other hand, qualitative techniques
emerging from phenomenology and interpretative paradigms emphasise a constructive
approach where there is no clear-cut objectivity
or
reality. Social life is perceived as
emerging from the shared creativity
of
individuals (Filstead 1978). The use
of
qualita-
tive research stresses this socially constructed nature
of
reality, the intimate relation-
ship between the researcher and what is being explored and the situational constraints
which shape the process. Whereas in the positivistic approach, theory is deduced by
testing hypothesis, in the phenomenological approach, theory is generated from the
data collected, thus, it is grounded in the data (Glaser and Strauss 1967).
Qualitative research is also multi-method in focus, usually the choice
of
which
methods to use
or
tools to employ is not decided in advance. The choice
of
research
practices depends upon the questions that are asked, and the questions depend on their
context (Nelson, Treichler and Grossberg 1992). Therefore, as a contrast with quanti-
tative methods
of
research, the use
of
a qualitative framework is unlikely to impose
restrictive a priori classifications in the collection
of
the data. Research is less driven
by the testing
of
a specific hypotheses and categorical frameworks and more con-
cerned with emergent themes and idiographic discussions. As a result, qualitative
researchers are more likely to be aware
of
(and feel the need to explain) the
epistemological stance they are taking, whereas few researchers working on the
positivist tradition feel the need to
do
so. In the latter case, the research process
becomes normative; it
is
usually the way research "is done."
However, the upshot in qualitative research is that qualitative researchers might
find themselves explaining the paradigm they are using in terms
of
a paradigm they
are not using, thus explaining the use
of
an interpretative approach in terms
of
a
quantitative one using positivist terms such as reliability, generalizability and validity.
The
use
of
alternative approaches such as more qualitative methods
in
information
systems research is therefore beset with the question
of
not achieving a complete shift
in paradigms.
Toraskar (1991), for instance, utilized a field study approach via in-depth personal
interviews to evaluate a class
of
decision support systems from an organizational and
user oriented perspective. In his research, he had adopted grounded theory (Glaser
and Strauss 1967) approach to the data analysis, where he claimed to be well suited
for analyzing the vast amount
of
qualitative data generated through field-study. In his
conclusion, he said that "the research strategy and the methods used here cannot be
expected to offer the same degree
of
precision and reliability
of
results as the tradi-
tional causal-mechanistic methods" and that there is a "need for greater precision in
research."
It
begs the question why he acknowledges the above as limitations
of
qualitative research, running contrary to what it is all about (see Glaser and Strauss
1967 and Strauss and Corbin 1990).
Calloway and Ariav (1991) also use grounded theory to interpret data gathered
from studying the relationships
of
developers with their tools. They utilize exploratory
studies, which are often used to generate hypotheses that can be subjected to quantita-
Qualitative Research in Information Systems 453
tive methods, and their objective was to fashion a precise methodology that could
be
used elsewhere. Again, the opportunity is missed to use qualitative methods the way
they were intended to be used.
Another example is case studies research, which has become popular and accept-
able, due in part to the work
of
authors like Yin (1994), which simply treats it as
anotherfunctionalist research approach (cf. Burrell and Morgan 1979; Lee 1989 and
Galliers 1991). This is particularly evident in Lee's utilization
of
case studies to show
how controlled observations and deductions, replicability, and generalizability can be
achieved to test hypotheses. His objective was to satisfy the standards
of
the natural
science model
of
scientific research.
In the examples given above, the objectives
of
the authors are admirable.
But
is
not this a case
of
using qualitative methods in a quantitative fashion?
The
authors
tried to explain the use
of
an interpretative approach in terms
of
a quantitative one,
yielding to a tendency to apply directly in qualitative research the methods developed
to assess reliability and validity in quantitative research (Flick 1992).
We
acknowledge that the problem
of
validity has become increasingly important
in research processes dealing with qualitative methods.
The
discussion
of
credibility
and
of
generalizing data increases along with the use
of
qualitative methods.
One
concern
of
quantitative research is that the measures used will produce the same
results when applied to the same subjects by different researchers:
"The
same 'yard-
stick' applied to the same individual or object in the same way should yield the same
value from moment to moment, provided that the thing measured has itself not
changed in the meantime" (Guildford and Fruchter 1978, p. 407), for the characteris-
tics
of
the researcher to influence the way in which subjects respond to the instru-
ments in a research process would endanger the reliability
of
the research. Qualitative
research,
on
the other hand, seeks to describe and understand how people make sense
of
their world and, as such, does not require researchers to strive for this kind
of
objectivity or to distance themselves from research participants. Indeed, to
do
so
would make qualitative research impossible, as the researcher's subjectivity is an
essential part
of
the research process.
This does
not
mean that in interpreting qualitative data the issue
of
possible re-
searcher bias should
be
ignored.
We
consider it
just
as important as in quantitative
research that the interpretations are not a simple product
of
the researcher's biases and
prejudices. A first step to revise and improve this is the recognition
of
the researcher's
self consciousness
of
being an actor in the research process. This leads us to the issue
of
validity. In quantitative research, a valid instrument is one which actually measures
what it claims to measure. Similarly, in qualitative research, a study is said to
be
valid
if
it truly examines the topic which it claims to have examined. It could
be
said then
that, in essence, the concept
of
validity is the same in both research approaches.
Where the approaches differ is in the quantitative research's notion
of
validity, which
is centered on the methods, i.e., the validity
of
the items in a questionnaire as opposed
to the focus
on
the validity
of
interpretations. Thus, whether a researcher's conclu-
sion that X is the main theme to emerge from the analysis is valid.
454 Part Six Developments
in
Qualitative Methods
There is a considerable debate
of
what constitutes good interpretation in qualitative
research (for a detailed account
of
the different positions, see Hammersley 1992). Our
position is that, as long as we try to base our claims
of
social processes on data
of
any
kind, we must have a logic for assessing and communicating the interactive process
through which we, as researchers, have acquired the research experience and informa-
tion.
If,
as we claim, we want to include in our analysis and to expand our understand-
ing
of
the "detailed means through which human beings engage in meaningful action
and create a world
of
their own
or
one which is shared with others" (Morgan 1983,
p. 397), we need to recognize that "insufficient attention has yet to be devoted to
evolving criteria for assessing the general quality and rigour
of
interpretative re-
search" (Morgan 1983, p. 399).
In information systems, case studies have been evaluated in order to assess their
rigour and validity (Yin 1994; Benbasat, Goldstein and Mead 1987; Walsham 1993,
1995). For example, while Lee's work provided the principles and guidelines for case
studies by analyzing them from the philosophical perspective
of
positivism, Klein and
Myers (1995) undertook a similar endeavour from the philosophical perspective
of
hermeneutics for the interpretive field research, in which they propose a systematic
list
of
principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive research.
Qualitative researchers propose the triangulation
of
methods as one way to achieve
this rigour. However, the use
of
multiple methods
or
triangulation reflects an attempt
to secure an in-depth understanding
of
the phenomena in question. Triangulation is
not a tool
or
strategy
of
validation but rather an alternative to validation. The combi-
nation
of
multiple perspectives, methods, empirical materials and observations in a
study is, therefore, best understood as a strategy that can add rigour, breath and depth
to any investigation (Flick 1992).
Researchers may choose to use different kinds
of
materials as their data, either
quantifiable
or
of
a qualitative nature, but that does not change the fact that the
researchers are observers
of
a world in which they also participate. The research is
mediated by a concrete framework
of
symbols and cultural meanings given by aspects
of
the life story that the researcher brings to the observational setting. In this sense,
all research methods are "essentially qualitative and are for that matter essentially
objective; the use
of
quantitative data or mathematical procedures does not eliminate
the intersubjective element that underlies social research" (Vidich and Lyman 1994).
Thus, the researcher always remains at the center
of
the research process.
The question about relying on and emphasizing on quantification was posed to the
Information Systems Doctoral Mailing List discussion (MISDOC-L 1996) by one
of
the authors
of
this paper to get a feel
of
how doctoral students perceived and are
affected by any
of
the research traditions. Surprisingly, there was no argument about
the use
of
both quantitative and qualitative methods. Indeed it was encouraging to
hear comments such as "regardless
of
whether quantitative
or
qualitative methods are
used for a research project, I think the qualitative grounded theory approach is a
critical research tool. In social science, even a large effect size is still small in abso-
Qualitative Research in Information Systems 455
lute [terms]. One should use [the] qualitative approach to understand the context and
complexity
of
the social phenomena in question" (a respondent).
Even the advocation for qualitative research to be used only to supplement quanti-
tative methods is a non-issue. However, there was still a major problem in employing
qualitative methods in research. Despite a recognition for its role, the problem stems
from the fact that, in practice, quantitative research pays
off
more.
"I
cannot help
focusing more on quantitative data consciously" (a respondent). In this respondent's
case, he has used both quantitative and qualitative methods for his dissertation, but
found that researchers and practitioners are more impressed that he surveyed 20,000
households than anything he found in in-depth interviews:
"I
think it [qualitative
methods] provides more 'human-touch' to the study. Even when I analyze question-
naire data, I keep thinking about the people I interviewed. Their voice, their life
stories, etc., remind me that I am studying real people and the responses
on
question-
naires are not
just
numbers, but it represents thoughts, opinions, and feelings
of
real
people."
With the recognition
of
qualitative methods in the information systems field, there
are now new research methods (Mumford et al. 1985) to help access the symbolically
structured object domain
of
inquiry that were not developed in the natural sciences.
In this light, qualitative research has now gained in-roads into the information systems
research arena. Nonetheless, despite recognizing the limitations
of
traditional scien-
tific methods and the negativity associated with this scientific tradition, the irony is
that it still dominates all research done in the field (Klein and Lyytinen 1985).
Galliers and Land pointed out that 85%
of
published IS research undertaken by
leading US institutions is
of
the traditional kind.
Such institutional barriers to research practices have been recognized in the past
(Orlikowski 1991). The use
of
the tools for research unfortunately still end up being
a political choice translatable to economics dollars and cents. On a positive note, we
know it will be a slow and even long process, but at least the wheels have been set in
motion, as evidenced by the theme
of
this conference and the works
of
Myers, Klein
and others.
6 RESEARCHER'S SUBJECTNITY
AS
A STRENGTH
Using qualitative methods in the research process is a reflexive activity, constantly
informing the researcher's actions. The tools
of
interpretation are learned through
experience (see the debate between Boland and Jonsson in Nissen, Klein and Hirsch-
heim). A researcher's SUbjectivity enables penetration
of
the fronts individuals and
groups represent which, in tum, permits deeper understanding
of
actors' perspectives
and ways
of
living.
It
is a myth that the researcher can claim value neutrality in social
research. Even the way we represent the research data is a political choice (Said
1989).
456 Part Six Developments
in
Qualitative Methods
Qualitative methods allow for that subjectivity in the research process and that is
clearly their advantage. Within the qualitative research tradition, there is an accep-
tance
of
the inherent subjectivity
of
the research endeavour (Bryman 1988). There are
the participant's perspectives
on
and the interpretations
of
the situation which are
of
value in understanding behaviour, therefore a search
of
objectivity in this type
of
research will be somehow misguided. In other words, verification cannot be consid-
ered to
be
of
decisive significance in assessing the value
of
the research (Alves son
1995). But
if
researchers in information systems still insist in the objectivity
of
the
research process, then according to Mumford (1987), "research must
be
objective, but
it can never be value-free."
This opens the debate between the objective knowledge
or
subjective knowledge
in the research process. The claim for objectivity is an old and debatable issue in the
social sciences. It is more than a technical question.
It
relates to the very nature
of
the
relationship between the elements
of
the research process, namely the object, the
researcher, the subjects (actors) and the results. In information systems, this ontologi-
cal distinction between objectivism and subjectivism pervades its development
methods. When combined with epistemological issues, this distinction leads again to
a seemingly implacable dualism
of
scienticism and interpretativism.
However, the object
of
investigation is a subjective domain comprising the subjects
of
social life. The researcher is not usually separated from the object
of
inquiry but
rather exposed to the very same conditions which gave rise to the problem under
inquiry (Thompson 1990). There is a relation
of
potential exchange between the
outcome
of
the social inquiry and the reality from which the outcome emerges.
Human beings know and undergo the effects
of
knowledge they develop about
themselves. Objectivity in social sciences assumes a meaning only in relation to a
subjective domain which confirms and supports the claim
of
an objective reality.
As Latour (quoted in Vidgen and McMaster 1996) argues,
The separation
of
an objective and given natural world from a socially-
constructed social world ... contains a paradox in so far as it exposes sepa-
ration
of
natural and social worlds while relying upon their inseparability
for success .... [As such, we do not need to] attach our explanations to the
two pure forms know as the object
or
subject/society, because these are,
on the contrary, partial and purified results
of
the central practice that is
our sole concern.
Acknowledging
the
inherent subjectivity
of
the research process implies a reconcilia-
tion
of
subject and object, which takes place through a dialectical logic. The knowl-
edge
of
the world and the knowledge
of
one-self are co-constitutive
of
each other
rather than as separate categories. The empirical datum and the human mind co-deter-
mine each other in such a way that both are transformed through the very activity that
their encounter engenders. "It is neither subjective, nor 'objective knowledge'.
It
is
knowledge based on interaction between the knowing subject and the object
of
its
knowledge" (Markova 1982, p. 112).
Qualitative Research in Information Systems 457
7 RESEARCH AS A CULTURAL EXPERIENCE
Because
of
the stress on using qualitative methods in natural settings, Kirk and Miller
(1986) suggest that qualitative researchers are engaged in interacting with people in
their own language and in their own terms. There is a shift in the description
of
the
people involved in the study as participants and not as subjects. The agreements
between the researcher and the participants in the study about the meaning in particu-
lar situations or events being studied has led in some cases to more participative
research situations. There
is
not only a recognition
of
the autonomy
of
the participant
in the research but also a recognition
of
the role the researcher plays in the study. This
is one
of
the main thrusts
of
action research (Antill 1985; Wood-Harper 1985;
Baskerville and Wood-Harper 1996). Rather than being an involved bystander observ-
ing the organizational action, the researcher has an impact on the behaviour and
expectations
of
those around (Cassell and Symon 1994).
Westrup (1996, p. 167) refers to system developers as constituting the organiza-
tions they seek to develop information systems for and that what will be fruitful is
investigation
of
the practices
of
the developers themselves. Likewise, systems
analysts are not simply engaged in analyzing an organization (using traditional or
refined tools) but use analysis as a resource to construct a representation
of
the
organization that requires the use
of
an information system.
Indeed, it would be absurd
to
assume the researchers themselves operate free
of
a
cultural context
of
any kind; rather it is too obvious that we, too, belong to various
thought worlds. Paradigms reflect fashions in the professional time-collective, but the
space-collective also leaves its mark. "It is an illusion that we can escape our thought
world and immerse ourselves, naked
of
prejudice into another one" (Czarniawska-
Joerges 1991, p. 295). The best we can try to do is to expand our thought world by
understanding the possibility
of
other worlds or "sub-universes
of
meaning" (Berger
and Luckmann 1966).
For instance, Madon says that research into the organizational context
of
informa-
tion systems reveals a substantial difference between developing and industrialised
countries. In her investigation into the adoption
of
information systems and technol-
ogy transfer in India, she found that it
is
not a matter
of
replicating the institutions and
approaches
of
the developed countries, but
of
adapting them to the priorities and
contextual characteristics
of
the developing country in question, in terms
of
its lack
of
resources, infrastructure, and the constraints imposed by the social and political
context (Felts 1987; Bell and Sheppard 1988; Madon 1994). Hammersley and Atkin-
son (1983) also support this view:
Weare
part
of
the social world we study .... This is not a matter
of
method-
ological commitment, it is an existential fact. There is no way in which we
can
escape the social world in order to study it; nor fortunately, is that
necessary.
We
cannot avoid relying on "common-sense" knowledge nor,
often, can we avoid baving an effect on the social phenomena we study.
458 Part Six Developments in Qualitative Methods
Research, therefore, should
be
regarded as the activity where the researcher's
subjectivity has an unavoidable impact (Alvesson 1995). The observations
of
the
researcher are always guided by world images that determine which data are salient
and which are not. Thus, there are no ready-made data waiting for the researcher to
be
collected, but rather a prestructured selection
of
the data
to
be
gathered which will
influence their later interpretation and understanding. The development
of
knowledge
in a discipline cannot be regarded only as based
on
epistemological
or
methodological
concerns but also based
on
the researcher's views and opinions.
An
act
of
attention
to one object rather than another can reveal a dimension
of
the researcher's commit-
ment to concrete values, as well as his
or
her own value-laden interests. Data as such
is the result
of
and is principally determined by interpretation and theory.
As
such, research activity should consist
of
abandoning the taken-for-grantedness
of
the research context in order to problematize the practices
of
the actors performing
in
such a context.
It
soon becomes clear that this is not a one-way process, as the
researcher's practices become problematized in tum. And
if
the researcher takes a
neutral stance by "play(ing) naive we can get acceptance in strange worlds but proba-
bly
wouldn't
understand them (playing naive requires a non-problematic stance
towards what is happening taken for granted what it is)" (Czarniawska-Joerges 1991).
If
we want the understanding,
we
must ask by posing questions, we problematize by
problematizing, otherwise
we
will reveal ourselves as not really belonging.
Even writing the reports
or
descriptions becomes an interpretative endeavour as
researchers' ideas rarely
if
ever occur in a systematic, structured way. As Geertz
(1988) says, the descriptions filtered through the researcher are second
or
third order
fictions. Clifford and Marcus (1986) argue that the various blindness, evasions, and
fictions that were created in order to produce ethnographic insights essentially require
new vocabularies and new modes for describing the social and cultural worlds being
studied. Stated simply, there is no object
of
study
"out
there" to
be
accurately repre-
sented by observers; rather, the observer creates fictions in the process
of
investiga-
tion (Riley 1991).
Methodologies inevitably embed the creator's philosophical paradigms. According
to Polanyi (1964), the researcher has the perogative to reserve judgement on finding
a good problem, and
of
the surmises to pursue it, as well as the recognition
of
a
discovery that solves it. This is inspite
of
following the rules
of
a scientific inquiry:
In each such decision the researcher may rely on the support
of
a rule; but
he is then selecting a rule that applies to the case, much as the golfer
chooses a suitable club for his next stroke. His choosing will depend on
his background and training -and his world view.
In summary, the research process should not be thought
of
as following an explicit
bureaucratic procedure and a clear account
of
the methods employed, but rather one
that is based more on being aware
of
theory and meta-theory, continuously reflecting
on the current position and future developments when reading and conducting empiri-
cal work, open to ideas and suggestions. The data is as much an artificial construction
as it is a reflection
of
empirical reality (Alvesson 1995).
Qualitative Research in Information Systems 459
Using qualitative methods implies that more attention should be paid not only to
multiple narratives that give voice to and allow the construction
of
multiple worlds,
but also to the role
of
the researcher,
of
his understanding, insights, experiences,
interpretations, etc. A good researcher will
be
one who can bring such subjectivity
to the fore, backed with quality arguments rather than
just
a display
of
statistical
exactness, precision
or
confidence.
Multiple narratives will not give us
anyone
representation but they may "give us
more interesting ways
to
think about the organization, ethics, and aesthetics
of
work
than the search for such true systems has" (Boland and Schultze 1996, p. 332).
However, as we have seen
so
far, the narrative in information systems is one
of
a
progress toward clarity, simplicity
and
purity. Boland and Schultze blame the aura
that surrounds information technology, as
if
it has some magical power to make clear
what is blurred and purify what is contaminated. As a result, despite the efforts
to
date
in using qUalitative methods, information systems still tend to
be
fixated by data and
a quest for quantification.
8 CONCLUSION
We
would like to reiterate that methodological questions do not relate simply to
technical procedures and are not a matter
of
either applying a quantitative
or
qualita-
tive method. Although the debate is centred around the presumed opposition
of
qualitative versus quantitative methodologies, it seems that such an opposition is
entirely false and does not touch upon the fundamental issues. Methodology relates
and actually depends upon theoretical issues which in turn are bound
to
philosophical
conceptions. It is the close connection between the three that guides research options.
Therefore, we have tried
to
challenge the assumption that
just
an increased adoption
of
methodologies would help address the problems inherent in information systems
research.
In the final analysis, there is probably no such thing as a single, simple and clear
road regarding research methods in information systems. As Westrup (1996, p. 170)
stated, "adopting a [new approach] to systems development may lead to several
advantages though it is unlikely to afford the luxury
of
yet a better technique
of
systems development." A better approach would
be
to use them as suggested frame-
works,
or
guidelines, rather than as dogma (Baskerville 1996). As for doing qualita-
tive research in information systems, that will
be
the day when we start using qUalita-
tive methods in a qualitative way, the day when
we
dare to
be
subjective.
9 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like
to
thank Professor Jonathan Liebenau for his encouragement
and guidance on our work, and also
to
the different blind reviewers for their excellent
and detailed critique
of
our
paper.
We
hope that
we
have done justice to them all.
460
Part Six Developments in Qualitative Methods
10
REFERENCES
Acterberg, J. S.; van Es,
G.
A.; and Heng,
M.
S. H. (1991). "Information Systems
Research in the Postmodem Period." In H-E. Nissen, H. K. Klein, and
R.
Hirsch-
heim (Editors), The Information Systems Research Arena
of
the 90s, Challenges,
Perceptions
and
Alternative Approaches. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Alvesson, M. (1995). Management
of
Knowledge-Intensive Companies. Berlin:
De
Gruyter.
Antill, L. (1985). "Selection
of
a Research Method." In E. Mumford,
R.
Hirschheim,
G. Fitzgerald, and A. T. Wood-Harper (Editors), Research Methods
in
Information
Systems. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Backhouse, J.; Liebenau, J.; and Land, F. (1991).
"On
the Discipline
of
Information
Systems." Journal
of
Information Systems, Volume 1, pp. 19-27.
Banville, C., and Landry, M. (1989).
"Can
the Field
of
MIS
be
Disciplined?"
Communications
of
the
ACM"
Volume 32, pp. 48-61.
Baskerville,
R.
(1996).
''The
Second-Order Security Dilemma." In W. J. Orlikowski,
G. Walsham, M.
R.
Jones,
and
J. I. DeGross (Editors), Information Technology
and
Changes in Organizational Work. London: Chapman and Hall.
Baskerville,
R.
L.,
and
Wood-Harper, A. T. (1996).
"A
Critical Perspective
on
Action Research as a
Method
for Information Systems Research." Journal
of
Information Technology, Volume 11.
Bell, S., and Sheppard,
I.
(1988). Application
ofa
Systems Development Methodol-
ogy
in Less Developed Countries. Norwich, England: University
of
East Anglia.
Benbasat, I.; Goldstein, D.
K.;
and
Mead,
M.
(1987).
"The
Case
Research Strategy
in Studies
of
Information Systems." MIS Quarterly, Volume 11, Number 3, Septem-
ber, pp. 369-386.
Berger, P., and Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction
of
Reality. London:
Penguin.
Bikson, T. (1991). "Relevance versus Rigor in Information Systems Research:
An
Issue
of
Quality." Panel Discussion chaired by J. A. Turner.
In
H-E. Nissen, H.
K.
Klein, and
R.
Hirschheim (Editors), Information Systems Research: Contempo-
rary Approaches
and
Emergent Traditions. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Boland,
R.
J, and Schultze, U. (1996). "From Work to Activiy: Technology and the
Narrative
of
Progress."
In
W. J. Orlikowski, G. Walsham,
M.
R.
Jones, and
J.I.
DeGross (Editors), Information Technology
and
Changes in Organizational Work.
London: Chapman
and
Hall.
Bryman, A. (1988). Quantity
and
Quality in Social Research. London: Unwin
Hyman.
Burrell, G.,
and
Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological Paradigms
and
Organizational
Analysis. London: Heinemann.
Calloway, L. J., and Ariav, G. (1991). "Developing and Using a Qualitative Method-
ology to Study Relationships among Designers and Tools." In H-E. Nissen, H.
K.
Qualitative Research in Information Systems 461
Klein and
R.
Hirschheim (Editors), Information Systems Research: Contemporary
Approaches
and
Emergent Traditions. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Cash, J., and Nunamaker, J. (1989). The Information Systems Research Challenge,
Vol
I:
Qualitative Research Methods. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Cash, J., and Nunamaker, J. (1990). The Information Systems Research Challenge,
Vol
II:
Qualitative Research Methods. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Cash, J., and Nunamaker, J. (1991). The Information Systems Research Challenge,
Vol III: Qualitative Research Methods. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Cassell, C., and Symon, G. (1994). Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research.
London: Sage.
Clifford, J., and Marcus, G. E. (1986). Writing Culture: The Poetics
and
Politics
of
Ethnography. Berkeley: University
of
California Press.
Cooper,
R.
(1988). "Review
of
Management Information Systems Research: A
Management Support Emphasis." Information Processing and Management,
Volume 24, Number
1,
pp. 73-102.
Czarniawska-Joerges, B. (1991). "Culture is a Medium
of
Life." In P. J. Frost, L. F.
Moore, M.
R.
Louis, C. C. Lundberg and J. Martin (Editors), Reframing Organiza-
tional Culture. London: Sage.
Danzinger, K (1979).
"The
Positivistic Repudiation
of
Wundt." Journal
of
the
History
of
the Behavioral Sciences, Volume 15, pp. 205-230.
Elejabarrieta, F. (1990). "La Rigurosidad metodologica y
la
precariedad teorica
en
Psicologia Social." Quaderns de Psicologia, Volume 10, pp. 143-160.
Felts,
R.
A. (1987). The Development
of
Information Systems in the Third World.
M.Sc. Dissertation, London School
of
Economics.
Filstead. W. J. (1978). "QUalitative Methods: A Needed Perspective
in
Evaluation
Research." In T. D. Cook and C. S. Reichardt (Editors), Qualitative and Quantita-
tive Methods in Evaluation Research. Beverley Hills, California: Sage.
Flick, U. (1992). "Triangulation Revisited: Strategy
of
Validation
or
Alternative?"
Journal
of
the Theory
of
Social Behavior, Volume 22, pp. 175-198.
Galliers, R. D. (1991). "Choosing Appropriate Information Systems Research Ap-
proaches: A Revised Taxonomy." In H-E. Nissen, H. K Klein and
R.
Hirschheim
(Editors), Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches
and
Emer-
gent Traditions. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Galliers,
R.
D., and Land, F. L. (1987). "Choosing Appropriate Information Systems
Research Methodologies." Communications
of
the ACM, Volume 30, Number 11,
pp. 900-902.
Geertz, C. (1988). Works and Lives: The Anthropologist as Author. Stanford,
California: California University Press.
Glaser, B., and Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery
of
Grounded Theory: Strate-
gies
for
Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine.
Grint,
K;
Case, P.; and Willcocks, L. (1996). "Business Process Reengineering
Reappraised: The Politics and Technology
of
Forgetting." In W. J. Orlikowski,
462
Part
Six
Developments in Qualitative Methods
G.
Walsham, M. R Jones, and J .I. DeGross (Editors), In/ormation Technology
and
Changes in Organizational Work. London: Chapman
and
Hall.
Guerreiro-Ramos, A. (1981). The New Science o/Organization. Toronto: Univer-
sity
of
Toronto Press.
Guilford, J. P.,
and
Fruchter, B. (1978). Fundamental Statistics in Psychology
and
Education. London: McGraw-Hill.
Hammersly, M. (1992). What is Wrong with Ethnography? Methodological Explo-
rations. London: Routledge.
Hammersly, M., and Atkinson, P. (1983). Ethnography Principles in Practice.
London: Routledge.
Keen, P. G. W. (1987).
"MIS
Research: Current Status, Trends and Needs." In R
A. Buckingham, R A. Hirschheim, F. F.
Land
and C. J. Tully (Editors), Informa-
tion Systems Education: Recommendations
and
Implementation. Cambridge,
England: University Press.
Kirk, J., and Miller, M. L. (1986). Reliability
and
Validity in Qualitative Research.
Qualitative Research Methods Series, Volume
1.
Beverley Hills, California: Sage.
Klein, H. K.; Hirschheim,
R;
and Nissen, H-E. (1991).
"A
Pluralist Perspective
of
the Information Systems Research Arena."
In
H-E. Nissen, H.
K.
Klein and R
Hirschheim (Editors), In/ormation Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches
and
Emergent Traditions. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Klein, H. K., and Lyytinen,
K.
(1985).
"The
Poverty
of
Scientism in Information
Systems."
In
E. Mumford, R Hirschheim, G. Fitzgerald
and
A. T.Wood-Harper
(Editors), Research Methods in Information Systems. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Klein, H. K., and Myers,
M.
D. (1995).
"The
Quality
of
Interpretive Research in
Information Systems." Department
of
Management Science and Information
Systems, University
of
Auckland, Working Paper No. 89, May.
Kling, R (1991). "Social Analyses
of
Computing: Theoretical Perspectives in
Recent Empirical Research." Computing Surveys, Volume 12, Number
1,
pp. 61-
110.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure o/Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University
of
Chicago Press.
Kuutti,
K.
(1996). "Debates in IS and CSCW Research: Anticpating System Design
for Post-Fordist Work." In W. J. Orlikowski, G. Walsham, M. R. Jones, and J. I.
DeGross (Editors), Information Technology and Changes in Organizational Work.
London: Chapman
and
Hall.
Latour. B. (1988).
"The
Prince for Machines as Well as for Machinations." In B.
Elliot (Editor), Technology
and
Social Processes. Edemburg: Edemburg Univer-
sity Press.
Lee, A. (1989).
"A
Scientific Methodology for MIS Case Studies." MIS Quarterly,
Volume 13, Number 1, pp. 33-50.
Madon, S. (1994). Designing Information Systems
for
Development Planning.
Henley-on-Thames, England: Alfred Waller Ltd.
Qualitative Research in Information Systems 463
Markova, I. (1982). Paradigms, Thought and Language. Chichester, England: John
Wiley and Sons.
MISDOC-L (1995). IS Doctoral Mailing List. http://web.bu.edu:80ISMGMISI
misdoc-l.
Morgan, G. (Editor) (1983). Beyond Method. Beverley Hills, California: Sage.
Morgan, G., and Smircich. L. (1980). "The Case for Qualititative Research." Acad-
emy
of
Management Review, Volume 5, Number 4, pp. 491-500.
Mumford, E. (1987). "Managerial Expert Systems and Organizational Change:
Some Critical Research Issues."
In
R J. Boland and R A. Hirschheim (Editors),
Critical Issues in Information Systems Research. Chichester, England: John
Wiley & Sons, pp. 135-156.
Mumford, E. (1991). "Information Systems Research-Leaking Craft
or
Visionary
Vehicle?"
In
H.
E. Nissen, H. K Klein, and R Hirschheim (Editors), Information
Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches
and
Emergent Traditions. Amster-
dam: North-Holland.
Mumford, E.; Hirschheim,
R;
Fitzgerald, G.; and Wood-Harper, A. T. (Editors)
(1985). Research Methods
in
Information Systems. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Nelson,
c.;
Treichler, P. A.; and Grossberg, L. (1992). "Cultural Studies."
In
L.
Grossberg, C. Nelson and P. A. Treichner (Editors), Cultural Studies. New York:
Routledge.
Nissen, HE. (1985). "Acquiring Knowledge
of
Information Systems: Research in a
Methodological Quagmire."
In
E. Mumford, R Hirschheim, G. Fitzgerald and
A.T. Wood-Harper (Editors), Research Methods in Information Systems. Amster-
dam: North-Holland, pp. 39-51.
Nissen, H-E., Klein, H.
K;
and Hirschheim, R (Editors) (1991). Information Sys-
tems Research: Contemporary Approaches
and
Emergent Traditions. Amster-
dam: North-Holland.
Olaisen, J. (1991). "Pluralism
or
Positivistic Trivialism: Important Trends in Con-
temporary Philosophy
of
Science."
In
H-E. Nissen,
H.
K Klein and R Hirschheim
(Editors), Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches
and
Emer-
gent Traditions. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Oppenheimer,
J.
R (1954). "Analogy in Science." American Psychologist, Volume
11, pp. 127-135.
Orlikowski, W. J. (1991). "Relevance versus Rigor in Information Systems Re-
search: An Issue
of
QUality." Panel Discussion chaired by J. A. Turner.
In
H-E.
Nissen, H. K Klein, and R Hirschheim (Editors), Information Systems Research:
Contemporary Approaches
and
Emergent Traditions. Amsterdam: North-Hol-
land.
Orlikowski, W. J. (1993).
"CASE
Tools as Organizational Change: Investigating
Incremental and Radical Changes in Systems Development." MIS Quarterly,
Volume 17, Number 3, pp. 309-450.
464
Part
Six Developments in Qualitative Methods
Orlikowski, W. J., and Baroudi, J. (1990). "Studying Information Technology in
Organizations: Research Approaches and Assumptions." Sloan Management
School, Massachusetts Institute
of
Technology, Working Paper.
Polanyi, M. (1964). Science, Faith
and
Society: A Searching Examination
of
the
Meaning
and
Nature
of
Scientific Inquiry. Chicago: University
of
Chicago Press.
Preston, A. M. (1991). "The 'Problem' in and
of
Management Information Systems."
Journal
of
Accounting, Management and Information Technology, Volume
1,
Number
1,
pp. 43-69.
Reed, M. (1985). Redirections in Organizational Analysis. London: Tavistock.
Riley, P. (1991). "Cornerville as Narration." In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R
Louis, C. C. Lundberg and J. Martin (Editors), Reframing Organizational Culture.
London: Sage.
Said, E. W. (1989). "Representing the Colonized: Anthopology's Interlocutors."
Critical Inquiry, Volume 15, pp. 205-255.
Spielberg, H. (1972). Phenomenology in Psychology
and
Psychiatry: A Historical
Introduction. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press.
Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. (1990). Basics
of
Qualitative Research: Grounded
Theory Procedures
and
Techniques. London: Sage.
Thompson, J. B. (1990). Ideology and
Modem
Culture. Cambridge, England: Polity
Press.
Toraskar,
K.
V. (1991).
"How
Managerial Users Evaluate Their Decision Support:
A Grounded Theory Approach." In H-E. Nissen, H.
K.
Klein and
R.
Hirschheim
(Editors), Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches
and
Emer-
gent
Traditions. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Van Maanen, J. (1979). "Reclaiming Qualitative Methods for Organizational Re-
search: A Preface." Administrative Science Quarterly, Volume 24, pp. 520-26.
Vidgen,
R,
and McMaster, T. (1996). "Black Boxes, Non-human Stakeholders and
the Translation
of
IT
Through Mediation." In W. J. Orlikowski, G. Walsham, M.
R Jones, and J.
I.
DeGross (Editors), Information Technology
and
Changes in
Organizational Work. London: Chapman and Hall.
Vidich, A. J., and Lyman, S. M. (1994). "Qualitative Methods: Their History in
Sociology and Anthropology." In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Editors),
Handbook
of
Qualitative Research. London: Sage.
Vogel, D.
R,
and Wetherbe, J. C. (1984). "MIS research: A Profile
of
Leading
Journals and Universities." DataBase, Volume 16, Number 3.
Walsham, G. (1993). Interpreting Information Systems in Organizations. Chi-
chester, England: Wiley.
Walsham, G. (1995). "Interpretive Case Studies in IS Research: Nature and
Method." European Journal
of
Information Systems, Volume 4, pp. 74-81.
Weill, P., and Olson, M. H. (1989).
"An
Assessment
of
the Contingency Theory
of
Management Information Systems." Journal
of
Management Information Systems,
Volume 6, Number
1,
pp. 59-86.
Qualitative Research in Information Systems 465
Westrup,
C.
(1996). "Transforming Organizations Through Systems Analysis:
Developing New Techniques for Organizational Analysis in IS Development." In
W. J. Orlikowski, G. Walsham, M.
R.
Jones, and
J.I.
DeGross (Editors), Informa-
tion Technology
and
Changes in Organizational Work. London: Chapman and
Hall.
Wood-Harper, A. T. (1985). "Research Methods in Information Systems: Using
Action Research." In
E.
Mumford,
R.
Hirschheirn, G. Fitzgerald and A.
T.
Wood-
Harper (Editors), Research Methods in Information Systems. Amsterdam: North-
Holland.
Yin, R.
K.
(1994). Case Study Research, Design
and
Methods, Second Edition.
Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.
Zuboff, S. (1996).
"The
Emperor's New Information Technology." In W. J.
Orlikowski, G. Walsham, M.
R.
Jones, and J. I. DeGross (Editors), Information
Technology
and
Changes in Organizational Work. London: Chapman and Hall.
11
BIOGRAPHY
Lucia
Garcia
is a Ph.D. candidate in the Social Psychology Department at the
London School
of
Economics (LSE) working on Organizational and Cultural Change.
She also teaches Organizational Psychology and Qualitative Research Methods at the
Methodology Institute at LSE. She has participated in a number
of
research projects
in Latin America and Eastern Europe regarding organizational transformation in those
countries. Currently she is a Research Officer at LSE acting as coordinator for the
WHO Healthy Cities Evaluation Project as well as for the US based SRDI Telecom-
munications Network. Her interests are mainly in organizational transformation from
a social psychological perspective focusing on community building, inter- and intra-
organizational networks and the role
of
telecommunications on the transformation
process as well as in social research methods.
Freddie
Quek
is an Information Systems Manager at Electronic Press Ltd. (UK),
which is the electronic publishing arm
of
the Current Science Group, a medical
publishing company. He received a Masters
of
Science from the London School
of
Economics and is currently pursuing his Ph.D. in Information Systems at the same
institution. He is the Professional Activities Division Editor
of
ISWorld Net, and the
Editorial Director
of
Connect-World Latin America, a publication dedicated to the
discussion
of
liberalization
of
telecommunications in Latin America. His current
research interests include decision support systems, electronic publishing, databases,
the use
of
web-based technologies to support collaborative work and liberalization
of
telecommunications.
