A Pragmatic Framework1

RESEARCH ESSAY THE ENDS OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS RESEARCH: A PRAGMATIC FRAMEWORK1 Panos Constantinides School of Economic Sciences & Administration, Frederick University, Limassol, CYPRUS {[email protected]} Mike W. Chiasson Department of Management Science, Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster LA1 4YX UNITED KINGDOM {[email protected]} Lucas D. Introna Department of Organization, Work and Technology, Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster LA1 4YX UNITED KINGDOM {[email protected]} In this paper, we argue that any effort to understand the state of the Information Systems field has to view IS research as a series of normative choices and value judgments about the ends of research. To assist a systematic questioning of the various ends of IS research, we propose a pragmatic framework that explores the choices IS researchers make around theories and methodologies, ethical methods of conduct, desirable outcomes, and the long-term impact of the research beyond a single site and topic area. We illustrate our framework by considering and questioning the explicit and implicit choices of topics, design and execution, and the representation of knowledge in experimental research—research often considered to be largely beyond value judgments and power relations. We conclude with the implications of our pragmatic framework by proposing practical questions for all IS researchers to consider in making choices about relevant topics, design and execution, and representation of findings in their research. Keywords: IS research practice, rigor and relevance, pragmatism, ethics Introduction1 divide. It is this latter theory–practice element of the rigor/ relevance debate—which has weighed down on the discipline, Since the 1999 MIS Quarterly special issue on the rigor and and engaged most of the leading figures in the field, for many relevance of IS research (Benbasat and Zmud 1999; Daven- years (indeed long before the MIS Quarterly special issue in port and Markus 1999; Lee 1999; Lyytinen 1999), there has 1999)—that we will take as a starting point for reflecting on been a lot of debate around the state of the IS field (King and the ends of IS research. Lyytinen 2006). The debate can be summarized into key concerns about the interdisciplinary nature of the IS field, and To address the theory–practice problem a variety of solutions emerging opportunities for spanning the theory–practice have been proposed over the years. Robey and Markus (1998) suggest that research can be rigorous and relevant by 1 being made consumable. Benbasat and Zmud (1999) propose Geoff Walsham was the accepting senior editor for this paper. Ola that IS researchers should select topics for research that are Henfridsson served as the associate editor. MIS Quarterly Vol. 36 No. 1 pp. 1-19/March 2012 1 Constantinides et al./A Pragmatic Framework of IS Research relevant to practitioners’ needs while producing implement- focuses on ideal ethical categories such as the social contract, able knowledge that is written in an accessible style and tone. individual rights, and moral justice (Kolhberg 1981). Despite Baskerville (1999) proposes action research as a practice- its considerable merits, however, the focus on ideal ethical based solution to the dilemma. Finally, and more recently, categories has a tendency to exclude and perhaps obscure the Rosemann and Vessey (2008) suggest relevance can be local and situated concerns, values, and dilemmas people may achieved by producing research that is important to practice, face in different and particular contexts (Snell 1996; also see is accessible by practitioners, and can be assessed for Habermas 1994, p. 120). It has been argued that, beyond the relevance through applicability checks. development and use of abstract moral categories to guide ethical research practices, there is a need to consider the The underlying assumption in most of these proposals is that situated and emerging ends of IS research (Hirschheim and the issue of relevance is implicitly one about the production Klein 2003). of knowledge and how to ensure that the work is relevant to the ends of practitioners (e.g., transformation of practice), Habermas’ work on communicative action (1992, 1998) and either directly in the research, or indirectly in the publication discourse ethics (1994) has also been proposed as an of findings. While this assumption may be entirely appro- alternative approach to dealing with the situated and emerging priate in understanding relevance, it should not be taken as a ends of IS research. Specifically, Habermasian ideas toward given, uncritically. Clearly this is just one possible deter- ethical research have been extensively applied to ethics and mination of the relevant ends of IS research, and how it is to IS—from Enid Mumford’s ETHICS framework (e.g., Hirsch- be achieved. However, one could also propose a whole range heim and Klein 1994; Mumford 2006) to discourse ethics of entirely different and relevant ends for IS research with (e.g., Mingers and Walsham 2010; Stahl 2008). On the one different audiences, and processes to achieve those ends. For hand, the ETHICS framework provides explicit ethical example, one could argue that relevance is scholarship and principles in order to inform moral practices, including the scientific rigor that pursues general knowledge and serves the emancipation of human subjects involved in the research. On long term interests of society rather than the development of the other hand, discourse ethics is grounded in a radical knowledge for practitioners whomever they may be. On the approach to democratic participation through communicative other hand, others may suggest that the ends of IS research are acts among those affected by research practice decisions and meant to transform a particular group, with implications proposals. arising from such transformation for other groups. Such approaches to dealing with the situated and emerging Such a critical questioning of the ends of IS research brings ends of IS research place considerable emphasis on ethical into sharper focus the need to consider all possible relevant and applicative knowledge (Hirschheim and Klein 2003). ends—and with it the greater good that researchers, as pro- Ethical and applicative knowledge is conceptualized through ducers of knowledge, are striving to serve. By suggesting phronesis (Aristostle 2006) as an on-going reflective devel- this, we acknowledge that IS researchers will always find opment of prudent knowledge through ongoing action and themselves entangled in a landscape of conflicting ends that reflection that is continuously shaped by and imbued with need to be navigated—and this is exactly what makes the situated values and interests (Hirschheim and Klein 2003, p. question of ends a serious and urgent one. We are also sug- 266). Hirschheim and Klein (2003) argue that, to date, the IS gesting that such complex individual and collective problems field “has focused almost the entirety of its resources on cannot be solved by uncritically accepting only one interpre- theoretical and technical knowledge, ignoring ethical and tation of relevance, at the exclusion and expense of others, applicative knowledge” (p. 268). Similar arguments have also which may be equally important and transformative, or by been made elsewhere acknowledging that “the core IS field… bracketing these questions to be handled later or by someone is underrepresentative of ethics and IS” (Mingers and else. Rather we want to suggest that these questions of con- Walsham 2010, p. 834). flicting ends are intricately tied to all aspects of our research practice and need to be reflected upon, and explicitly dealt This research essay addresses and expands upon these argu- with by every researcher. In other words, we believe there is ments by seeking to illustrate how IS research practice a need for a framework which might guide IS researchers to involves choices about conflicting ends—implicit and explicit consider and address this intricate landscape of conflicting choices about what we value and what we (intentionally or ends in an explicit and justifiable way. unintentionally) pass over as relevant knowledge for IS research. Our key argument is that any efforts to understand One proposed approach for dealing with this landscape of the state of the IS field—especially as reflected through the conflicting ends is to make value judgements more explicit lens of the rigor/relevance debate—needs to appreciate IS through ethical reasoning (Davison et al. 2006), which research as a series of conflicting choices and value judg- 2 MIS Quarterly Vol. 36 No. 1/March 2012 Constantinides et al./A Pragmatic Framework of IS Research ments, individually and collectively made. These choices reason for choosing Peirce’s philosophy is that it crosses shape the research projects and papers we choose to pursue many epistemological divides, having been associated with and write about (and those we pass over) and have significant interpretivism and semiotics (Eco 1979, 1994), positivism consequences for those affected or passed over by this work. (Gruender 1983), realism (Hausman 1993; Sfendoni-Mentzou In other words, it is exactly the way we deal with these con- 1996), and critical social theories (Apel 1982, 1995; Haber- flicting choices in our individual research practice that shapes mas 1992, 1994, 1998). As a result, Peirce’s philosophy is and determines our identity as IS researchers and, conse- capable of supporting

Load more