Research and Reality: Co-Exist or Co-Inhabit?

Conclusions Our ongoing empirical research compares leading technological organisations in four sectors of the UK economy; these are Banking (Citicorp), Construction (Kvaerner — Trafalgar House), Health (Frenchay NHS Healthcare Trust) and Transportation (LEX). This comparison identifies their stages of IS development, their relative timescales and costs (measured in terms of IS investment per employee per annum) and their information quality (indicated by the average number of defects suffered by each employee each day). A goal is to improve information quality control by back-tracking the causes of defects and evaluating their effects by forward-tracking, where possible. The underlying focus is to help organisations manage their information better. No attempt has been made to suggest “come listen I have found the holy grail”. The approach adopted focuses on the belief that it is possible to work within the bounds of theory and practise simultaneously, if successful, both areas will benefit. The authors have previously worked in practise for many years and fully appreciate the freedom and opportunity that action research offers as opposed to working within the bounds of a prescribed methodology. The freedom to experiment, adapt, adopt and develop theories with the added bonus that the results may make a difference in the real world (W2). Finally, our observational field research forces us to wade through mud, blood, grease and boardrooms wearing hard-hats, surgical greens, blue boiler-suits and city slickers so that we may try to understand the practical realities of information mismanagement. As one eminent IS Professor told us “...somebody has to do this work; I am glad it is not me!”. To answer the question in the title: Within the IS discipline there is scope for both coexistence and co-inhabitance, the authors believe the best results will be gained by a fully committed marriage between research and reality.