Making Contributions From Interpretive Case Studies: Examining Processes of Construction and Use

In this paper, we examine how contributions are established in interpretive case studies. By focusing on the introductory sections of articles, previous research in the organizational literature has recently shed light on how theorists construct opportunities for making contributions. Our theoretical approach is broader in scope, examining both the construction and use of contributions in all sections of an article. We use this approach to explore how a well-ited IS interpretive case study makes contributions. With respect to constructing contributions, our findings confirm previous strategies suggested by earlier research, and uncover the use of plural strategies. Our analysis of the use of contributions is more unexpected. For example, key theoretical and conceptual contributions that were central to the case study were rarely drawn on and incorporated by later texts. Rather, multiple audiences took up the softer, and simpler, conceptual contributions. Furthermore, our findings categorize a number of different types of referencing used by later texts in incorporating and using contributions, namely mistaken referencing, ambiguous referencing, incorporating into a new term, and related work referencing. We conclude by providing some suggestions as to how IS researchers can make better contributions from interpretive case studies

[1]  Claudio U. Ciborra,et al.  Sharing knowledge across boundaries , 2001, J. Inf. Technol..

[2]  Mark A. Mone,et al.  The Uniqueness Value and its Consequences for Organization Studies , 1993 .

[3]  Marie-Claude Boudreau,et al.  Accounting for the Contradictory Organizational Consequences of Information Technology: Theoretical Directions and Methodological Implications , 1999, Inf. Syst. Res..

[4]  Peter J. Frost,et al.  Publishing in the Organizational Sciences , 1985 .

[5]  Karl E. Weick,et al.  Editing Innovation into: Administrative Science Quarterly , 1995 .

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

[7]  Rob Kling,et al.  Learning About Information Technologies and Social Change: The Contribution of Social Informatics , 2000, Inf. Soc..

[8]  Rob Kling,et al.  The Dynamics of Computerization in a Social Science Research Team: A Case Study of Infrastructure, Strategies, and Skills , 1991 .

[9]  S. Holloway,et al.  Cyberkids? Exploring Children’s Identities and Social Networks in On-line and Off-line Worlds , 2002 .

[10]  Carole L. Palmer,et al.  Elaborate Isolation: Metastructures of Knowledge About Women , 2001, Inf. Soc..

[11]  Jack Selzer,et al.  Understanding scientific prose , 1993 .

[12]  George Bakehouse,et al.  Empirical Research in Information Systems , 2000 .

[13]  Jennifer Preece,et al.  Toward Virtual Community Knowledge Evolution , 2002, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[14]  W. G. Astley,et al.  Administrative Science as Socially Constructed Truth. , 1985 .

[15]  Peter R. Monge,et al.  Introduction to the Special Issue: Communication Processes for Virtual Organizations , 1999 .

[16]  Lisa Bud-Frierman.  Information Acumen: The Understanding and Use of Knowledge in Modern Business , 1994 .

[17]  Karen Ruhleder,et al.  Steps Toward an Ecology of Infrastructure: Design and Access for Large Information Spaces , 1996, Inf. Syst. Res..

[18]  Loizos Heracleous,et al.  Organizational Change as Discourse: Communicative Actions and Deep Structures in the Context of Information Technology Implementation , 2001 .

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

[20]  K. Baker,et al.  Evolution of a Multisite Network Information System: The LTER Information Management Paradigm , 2000 .

[21]  Salvatore T. March,et al.  Design and natural science research on information technology , 1995, Decis. Support Syst..

[22]  D. Whetten.  What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution , 1989 .

[23]  Elke Duncker,et al.  How LINCs Were Made: Alignment and Exclusion in American Medical Informatics , 2000, Inf. Soc..

[24]  Karen Locke,et al.  Constructing Opportunities for Contribution: Structuring Intertextual Coherence and “Problematizing” in Organizational Studies , 1997 .

[25]  S. Woolgar,et al.  The Manufacture of Knowledge: an Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science , 1982 .

[26]  Rob Kling,et al.  a Bit More to It: Scholarly Communication Forums as Socio-technical Interaction Networks , 2003, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[27]  Angus Whyte,et al.  Transparency and teledemocracy: issues from an ‘e-consultation’ , 2001, J. Inf. Sci..

[28]  Richard T. Watson,et al.  Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review , 2002, MIS Q..

[29]  K. Knorr-Cetina.  The Manufacture of Knowledge: an Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science , 1985 .

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

[31]  Hokey Min,et al.  Electronic commerce usage in business‐to‐business purchasing , 1999 .

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

[33]  John Mingers,et al.  The Use of Soft Systems Methodology in Practice , 1992 .

[34]  Ann Peterson Bishop,et al.  Digital libraries: situating use in changing information infrastructure , 2000 .

[35]  BoudreauMarie-Claude,et al.  Accounting for the Contradictory Organizational Consequences of Information Technology , 1999 .

[36]  Rob Kling,et al.  The Web of Computing: Computer Technology as Social Organization , 1982, Adv. Comput..

[37]  S. Kraemer.  Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Gregory Bateson , 1993, British Journal of Psychiatry.

[38]  Christine L. Borgman,et al.  Challenges in Building Digital Libraries for the 21st Century , 2002, ICADL.

[39]  Elin K. Jacob,et al.  The everyday world of work: two approaches to the investigation of classification in context , 2001, J. Documentation.

[40]  B. Latour.  Science in Action , 1987 .

[41]  J. M. Beyer,et al.  The Review Process and the Fates of Manuscripts Submitted to AMJ , 1995 .

[42]  Thomas H. Davenport,et al.  Rigor vs. relevance revisited: response to Benbasat and Zmud , 1999 .

[43]  Tonyia J. Tidline,et al.  Public Libraries and Networked Information Services in Low-Income Communities , 1999 .

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

[45]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Studying Information Technology in Organizations: Research Approaches and Assumptions , 1991, Inf. Syst. Res..

[46]  John C. McCarthy.  The paradox of understanding work for design , 2000, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..