Benchmarking the process of “interpretative” research in information systems

There has been growing interest in the use of a variety of interpretative approaches to researching in the field of information systems. This type of research typically applies social theory to help develop an in‐depth interpretation of some of the features and characteristics of phenomena, which relate in some way to the application of information technology, its development or related policy‐making issues. While there are attempts at developing the “rigour” or “validity” of the process of interpretation, there are no holistic criteria or benchmarks by which this type of research can be evaluated. This paper uses an evaluation framework (NIMSAD), taken from the action research domain, in order to help benchmark interpretative research processes. This framework is used as a way of providing a benchmark dimension to the evaluation of the process of interpretative research in information systems.

[1]  Geoff Walsham,et al.  The Emergence of Interpretivism in IS Research , 1995, Inf. Syst. Res..

[2]  Peter Checkland,et al.  Systems Thinking, Systems Practice , 1981 .

[3]  David L. Altheide,et al.  Criteria for assessing interpretive validity in qualitative research. , 1994 .

[4]  Peter Checkland,et al.  Soft Systems Methodology in Action , 1990 .

[5]  Richard Baskerville,et al.  Deep structure or emergence theory: contrasting theoretical foundations for information systems development , 1998, Inf. Syst. J..

[6]  Joe Nandhakumar,et al.  Too close for comfort? Distance and engagement in interpretive information systems research , 1997, Inf. Syst. J..

[7]  Brian P. Bloomfield,et al.  Machines and manoeuvres: Responsibility accounting and the construction of hospital information systems , 1992 .

[8]  A. Strauss.  Basics Of Qualitative Research , 1992 .

[9]  B. Latour.  We Have Never Been Modern , 1991 .

[10]  Sue Holwell,et al.  Information, Systems and Information Systems: Making Sense of the Field , 1998 .

[11]  Enid Mumford,et al.  Review: Understanding and Evaluating Methodologies , 1995 .

[12]  C. Geertz.  The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays , 1975 .

[13]  H Roberts,et al.  Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity , 1994 .

[14]  J. V. Maanen.  Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography , 1989 .

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

[16]  B. Latour.  Social Theory and the Study of Computerized Work Sites , 1996 .

[17]  Geoff Walsham,et al.  Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method , 1995 .

[18]  Christopher J. Atkinson,et al.  The ‘Soft Information Systems and Technologies Methodology’ (SISTeM): an actor network contingency approach to integrated development , 2000, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[19]  Lucas D. Introna.  Management, information and power: A narrative of the involved manager , 1997 .

[20]  A. Giddens.  The Constitution of Society , 1985 .

[21]  D. Schoen,et al.  The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action , 1985 .

[22]  G. Walsham.  Actor-network theory and IS research: current status and future prospects , 1997 .

[23]  M. Hammersley.  What's Wrong With Ethnography? , 1991 .

[24]  B. Latour.  Aramis, or the Love of Technology , 1993 .

[25]  Chris Argyris,et al.  Inner Contradictions of Rigorous Research. , 1984 .

[26]  B. Latour.  Technology is Society Made Durable , 1990 .

[27]  Laurence Brooks,et al.  Structuration theory and new technology: analysing organizationally situated computer‐aided design (CAD) , 1997, Inf. Syst. J..

[28]  Donald A. Schön.  The reflective practitioner : how professionals think in action , 1986 .

[29]  Ulrike Schultze,et al.  From Work to Activity: Technology and the Narrative of Progress , 1996 .

[30]  A. Giddens.  The consequences of modernity , 1990 .

[31]  Geoff Walsham,et al.  Shifting boundaries and new technologies: a case study in the UK banking sector , 1998, ICIS '98.