04-16-2011, 06:55 PM
[COLOR="red"]full assignment in attachment
[/COLOR]
AIS SIG Prag Inaugural meeting, Dec 14, 2008, Paris 1
WHAT KIND OF PRAGMATISM IN INFORMATION
SYSTEMS RESEARCH?
Göran Goldkuhl
Department of Business Informatics, Jönkö
Abstract
This paper investigates what pragmatism can mean to information systems research. It makes a
division into three types of pragmatism: Functional, referential and methodological pragmatism.
These three kinds of pragmatisms are explained through their different knowledge – action
relations. Functional pragmatism is described as “knowledge for action”. Referential pragmatism
is described as “knowledge about action”. Methodological pragmatism is described as
“knowledge through action”. The paper identifies briefly how different trends in information
systems research are related to these three kinds of pragmatism; as e.g. method development,
design research, use of action theories, action research.
Introduction
There are different research paradigms operating in information systems (IS) research. One well-known
differentiation is made by Orlikowski & Baroudi (1991). They describe three different “research epistemologies” in
IS research: Positivist, interpretive and critical approaches. They follow an earlier division made by Chua (1986)1.
This division of IS research approaches has been acknowledged by several other scholars; e.g. Myers & Avison
(2002) in their introduction to an anthology of qualitative IS research. Several scholars have written about
interpretive research and made this in contrast to positivist research; e.g. Klein & Myers (2004) and Walsham
(1995). The main competing research paradigms in IS seem to be positivism and interpretivism.
This paradigm discussion is not unique for IS. In organisation sciences there are corresponding debates. The above
mentioned paper by Chua (1986) is written within accounting. Wicks & Freeman (1998) have also recognized this
debate between positivism and interpretivism. They claim however that pragmatism should be seen as an
independent and viable alternative to positivism and interpretivism. This discussion of pragmatism as a third
research paradigm has been brought into IS research by Goles & Hirschheim (2000). The importance of a pragmatic
approach in IS research has been acknowledged by several scholars; e.g. Baskerville & Myers (2004) and Goldkuhl
(2004). This identification of positivism, interpretivism and pragmatism as three competing paradigms has also been
done in psychology (Fishman, 1999).
There does however not seem to exist a clear and joint picture of what pragmatism should mean in IS research. The
contribution of this short paper is to make a conceptualisation of different approaches to pragmatic IS research.
Three different kinds of pragmatisms are recognized and described:
• Functional pragmatism
• Referential pragmatism
• Methodological pragmatism
1 Chua (1986) uses the terms interpretive and critical research. She does not however use the term ‘positivist’.
Instead she talks about ‘mainstream research’.
[/COLOR]
AIS SIG Prag Inaugural meeting, Dec 14, 2008, Paris 1
WHAT KIND OF PRAGMATISM IN INFORMATION
SYSTEMS RESEARCH?
Göran Goldkuhl
Department of Business Informatics, Jönkö
Abstract
This paper investigates what pragmatism can mean to information systems research. It makes a
division into three types of pragmatism: Functional, referential and methodological pragmatism.
These three kinds of pragmatisms are explained through their different knowledge – action
relations. Functional pragmatism is described as “knowledge for action”. Referential pragmatism
is described as “knowledge about action”. Methodological pragmatism is described as
“knowledge through action”. The paper identifies briefly how different trends in information
systems research are related to these three kinds of pragmatism; as e.g. method development,
design research, use of action theories, action research.
Introduction
There are different research paradigms operating in information systems (IS) research. One well-known
differentiation is made by Orlikowski & Baroudi (1991). They describe three different “research epistemologies” in
IS research: Positivist, interpretive and critical approaches. They follow an earlier division made by Chua (1986)1.
This division of IS research approaches has been acknowledged by several other scholars; e.g. Myers & Avison
(2002) in their introduction to an anthology of qualitative IS research. Several scholars have written about
interpretive research and made this in contrast to positivist research; e.g. Klein & Myers (2004) and Walsham
(1995). The main competing research paradigms in IS seem to be positivism and interpretivism.
This paradigm discussion is not unique for IS. In organisation sciences there are corresponding debates. The above
mentioned paper by Chua (1986) is written within accounting. Wicks & Freeman (1998) have also recognized this
debate between positivism and interpretivism. They claim however that pragmatism should be seen as an
independent and viable alternative to positivism and interpretivism. This discussion of pragmatism as a third
research paradigm has been brought into IS research by Goles & Hirschheim (2000). The importance of a pragmatic
approach in IS research has been acknowledged by several scholars; e.g. Baskerville & Myers (2004) and Goldkuhl
(2004). This identification of positivism, interpretivism and pragmatism as three competing paradigms has also been
done in psychology (Fishman, 1999).
There does however not seem to exist a clear and joint picture of what pragmatism should mean in IS research. The
contribution of this short paper is to make a conceptualisation of different approaches to pragmatic IS research.
Three different kinds of pragmatisms are recognized and described:
• Functional pragmatism
• Referential pragmatism
• Methodological pragmatism
1 Chua (1986) uses the terms interpretive and critical research. She does not however use the term ‘positivist’.
Instead she talks about ‘mainstream research’.