Evaluating the behaviour of information systems developers: the relevance and utility of paradigms

The primary objective of this research was to investigate the behaviour of information systems (IS) developers during the IS development (ISD) process using the four-paradigm framework of Hirschheim et al. (1995), who introduced this approach to uncover the relationships between developers' assumptions and concomitant behaviours. The central issue is whether this four-paradigm framework can be operationalised to categorise the behaviours of IS developers. Using case studies of three UK National Health Service organisations in the North of England, we focus on the behavioural rather than the cognitive (assumptions) aspect of the four-paradigm approach. We employ a multi-method research design based on document analysis, structured interviews and participant observation in both formal and informal project settings. Our findings suggest that the four-paradigm approach is capable of classifying developer behaviour. We identify the existence of multiple paradigms in the ISD process and explore the effects of a dominant paradigm on developers' behaviours.

[1]  Michael J. Gallivan,et al.  Contradictions among Stakeholder Assessments of a Radical Change Initiative: A Cognitive Frames Analysis , 1996 .

[2]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Technological frames: making sense of information technology in organizations , 1994, TOIS.

[3]  S. Maddock,et al.  Making modernisation work: new narratives, change strategies and people management in the public sector , 2002 .

[4]  Mike Chiasson,et al.  Pushing the contextual envelope: developing and diffusing IS theory for health information systems research , 2004, Inf. Organ..

[5]  R. Hirschheim,et al.  The paradigm is dead, the paradigm is dead ... long live the paradigm: the legacy of Burrell and Morgan , 2000 .

[6]  E. L. Cox,et al.  Investigating The Contradictions In Knowledge Management , 1998 .

[7]  M Reed.  Shifting balance of power. , 1995, Minnesota medicine.

[8]  Rudy Hirschheim,et al.  Four paradigms of information systems development , 1989, CACM.

[9]  D. Morgan,et al.  Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis. , 1983 .

[10]  Chris Westrup,et al.  Transforming Organizations Through Systems Analysis: Deploying New Techniques for Organizational Analysis in IS Development , 1996 .

[11]  Bonnie Kaplan,et al.  Qualitative Research Methods for Evaluating Computer Information Systems , 2005 .

[12]  A. Bryman.  Social Research Methods , 2001 .

[13]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Information systems development and data modelling: conceptual and philosophical foundations , 1995 .

[14]  Michael D. Myers,et al.  A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems , 1999, MIS Q..

[15]  Stephen Flowers,et al.  Software failure, management failure : amazing stories and cautionary tales , 1996 .

[16]  H. Willmott.  Breaking the Paradigm Mentality , 1993 .

[17]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Empirical Research in Information Systems: The Practice of Relevance , 1999, MIS Q..

[18]  Chris Argyris,et al.  Overcoming organizational defenses : facilitating organizational learning , 1990 .

[19]  Susan Gasson,et al.  The Nature and Processes of IT-Related Change , 1996 .

[20]  Michael I. Barrett,et al.  Negotiating ICT development and use: The case of a telemedicine system in the healthcare region of Crete , 2006, Inf. Organ..

[21]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Information Systems Development and Data Modeling: Philosophical Foundations , 1995 .

[22]  Geoff Walsham,et al.  Interpreting Information Systems in Organizations , 1993 .

[23]  Richard J. Boland,et al.  Method and metaphor in organizational analysis , 1992 .

[24]  Niels Bjørn-Andersen,et al.  International Conference on Information Systems ( ICIS ) 1986 POWER OVER USERS : ITS EXERCISE BY SYSTEM PROFESSIONALS , 2017 .

[25]  Debra Howcroft,et al.  Paradoxes of participatory practices: the Janus role of the systems developer , 2003, Inf. Organ..

[26]  Barbara Townley,et al.  The Role of Competing Rationalities in Institutional Change , 2002 .

[27]  Karen Locke,et al.  Appealing Work: An Investigation of How Ethnographic Texts Convince , 1993 .

[28]  Debra Howcroft,et al.  Interpreting Information Systems in Organisations , 1995, Inf. Syst. J..

[29]  Geoff Walsham,et al.  Representations and actions: the transformation of work practices with IT use , 2005, Inf. Organ..