IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ininma/v31y2011i6p593-598.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Contemporary discourses in Information Systems Research: Methodological inclusiveness in a sample of Information Systems Journals

Author

Listed:
  • Paucar-Caceres, Alberto
  • Wright, Gillian

Abstract

We propose a framework to reflect on the development of four information systems (IS) paradigms, arguing that this field has followed a similar path to that of Management Sciences (MS). The framework comprises four IS paradigms/discourses: (1) positivist/normative; (2) soft/interpretive; (3) critical/pluralistic; and (4) constructivist/2nd order cybernetics. The paper characterizes these approaches to IS by using four key terms: System; Organisation; Management and Information, exploring the way these concepts are perceived through the lens of the four paradigms. The paper reports on the nature of current IS trends, from an initial survey of six top IS journals identifying articles adhering to the interpretive, critical and constructivist paradigms published between 1999 and 2009. Results indicate that IS is moving towards research practice in which interpretive, critical and constructivist discourses are utilised. Implications of the proposed framework and publication trends, together with some points for further research, are offered.

Suggested Citation

  • Paucar-Caceres, Alberto & Wright, Gillian, 2011. "Contemporary discourses in Information Systems Research: Methodological inclusiveness in a sample of Information Systems Journals," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 593-598.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ininma:v:31:y:2011:i:6:p:593-598
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2011.04.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026840121100048X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2011.04.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Goles, Tim & Hirschheim, Rudy, 2000. "The paradigm is dead, the paradigm is dead...long live the paradigm: the legacy of Burrell and Morgan," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 249-268, June.
    2. Ulrich, Werner, 1987. "Critical heuristics of social systems design," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 276-283, September.
    3. M C Jackson, 1999. "Towards coherent pluralism in management science," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 50(1), pages 12-22, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mohamed Basta & James Lapalme & Marc Paquet, 2021. "A Systems Thinking Analysis of the Supply Chain Social Responsibility Literature," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(4), pages 537-554, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Meinard, Y. & Tsoukiàs, A., 2019. "On the rationality of decision aiding processes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 273(3), pages 1074-1084.
    2. Meinard, Y. & Cailloux, O., 2020. "On justifying the norms underlying decision support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 285(3), pages 1002-1010.
    3. A Paucar-Caceres & A Espinosa, 2011. "Management science methodologies in environmental management and sustainability: discourses and applications," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(9), pages 1601-1620, September.
    4. J Mingers, 2006. "A critique of statistical modelling in management science from a critical realist perspective: its role within multimethodology," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(2), pages 202-219, February.
    5. Paucar-Caceres, Alberto, 2010. "Mapping the changes in management science: A review of 'soft' OR/MS articles published in Omega (1973-2008)," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 38(1-2), pages 46-56, February.
    6. W Ulrich, 2003. "Beyond methodology choice: critical systems thinking as critically systemic discourse," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 54(4), pages 325-342, April.
    7. J-R Córdoba & G Midgley, 2006. "Broadening the boundaries: an application of critical systems thinking to IS planning in Colombia," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(9), pages 1064-1080, September.
    8. Hart, Diane & Paucar-Caceres, Alberto, 2017. "A utilisation focussed and viable systems approach for evaluating technology supported learning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 259(2), pages 626-641.
    9. I Georgiou, 2003. "The idea of emergent property," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 54(3), pages 239-247, March.
    10. Astorquiza Bustos, Bilver Adrián & Castillo Caicedo, Maribel & Gómez Mejía, Alina, 2018. "Measuring the Job Stress of the Employed Population. The Case of Labor Market in Cali-Colombia || Midiendo el estrés laboral de la población empleada. El caso del mercado laboral en Cali-Colombia," Revista de Métodos Cuantitativos para la Economía y la Empresa = Journal of Quantitative Methods for Economics and Business Administration, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Quantitative Methods for Economics and Business Administration, vol. 25(1), pages 272-294, Junio.
    11. Rajneesh Chowdhury, 2023. "Methodological Flexibility in Systems Thinking: Musings from the Standpoint of a Systems Consultant," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 59-86, February.
    12. Ormerod, R.J., 2014. "Critical rationalism in practice: Strategies to manage subjectivity in OR investigations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 235(3), pages 784-797.
    13. Valentina Dinica, 2014. "Competing societal and ecological demands for groundwater: boundary judgments and convergence mechanisms in the Netherlands," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 555-573, June.
    14. Syed Arshad Raza & Atiq W. Siddiqui & Craig Standing, 2019. "Exploring Systemic Problems in IS Adoption Using Critical Systems Heuristics," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 125-153, April.
    15. W Ulrich, 2004. "Reply to the comments of Ormerod: the history of ideas of CST," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 55(11), pages 1238-1241, November.
    16. Mark G. Edwards, 2014. "Misunderstanding Metatheorizing," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(6), pages 720-744, November.
    17. W Ulrich, 2007. "Philosophy for professionals: towards critical pragmatism," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(8), pages 1109-1113, August.
    18. Anselm Schneider, 2015. "Reflexivity in Sustainability Accounting and Management: Transcending the Economic Focus of Corporate Sustainability," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 127(3), pages 525-536, March.
    19. Ormerod, Richard J. & Ulrich, Werner, 2013. "Operational research and ethics: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 291-307.
    20. R Ormerod, 2006. "The history and ideas of pragmatism," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(8), pages 892-909, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ininma:v:31:y:2011:i:6:p:593-598. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/international-journal-of-information-management .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.