Paradigm lost … paradigm gained: a hermeneutical rejoinder to Banville and Landry’s ‘Can the Field of MIS be Disciplined?’

Hassan, Nik Rushdi

doi:10.1057/ejis.2013.29

Cited by 18 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 73 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the contrary, along with numerous scholars (e.g. Myers andKlein, 2011, andHassan, 2014 in the IS field), we consider that pluralism is essential in these disciplines. Indeed, "pluralism is not problematic; quite the opposite, it speaks to the very vitality of the field of organizational studies" (Amis and Silk, 2008, p. 475).…”

Section: The Multiplicity Of Epistemological Framework As a Richnessmentioning

confidence: 88%

Finding one’s way around various methodological guidelines for doing rigorous case studies: A comparison of four epistemological frameworks

Avenier¹,

Thomas²

2015

Systèmes d'Information &Amp; Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The expanding popularity of qualitative research, and more particularly case study research, in the field of Information Systems, Organization and Management research, seems to have been accompanied by an increasing divergence in the forms that this research takes, and by recurrent criticisms concerning its rigor. This paper develops a heuristic framework for guiding the design of a rigorous case study depending on the research's goal and epistemological framework, as well as for guiding its evaluation. It also highlights the fundamental reasons-namely the epistemological ones-for differences in the guidelines offered in the literature for conducting high quality case studies. In agreement with numerous authors, we argue for contingent evaluation criteria. We supplement these authors' works in two ways: (1) we consider various epistemological frameworks that do not appear in the classifications that they use, especially including critical realism and pragmatic constructivism; (2) we propose a set of contingent criteria to be used as a heuristic device for critically and knowledgeably building rigorous case studies within different epistemological traditions.

show abstract

Section: The Multiplicity Of Epistemological Framework As a Richnessmentioning

confidence: 88%

Finding one’s way around various methodological guidelines for doing rigorous case studies: A comparison of four epistemological frameworks

Avenier¹,

Thomas²

2015

Systèmes d'Information &Amp; Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Looking at IS literature, one finds, a wealth of philosophical texts notwithstanding, little discussion of falsification. For example, Hassan's (2014) analysis of the relevance of Kuhn's work for IS theory cites 30-plus IS publications (p. 600) and classifies them into eight categories, but no form of falsificationism can be found among these. The recent EJIS special issue on philosophy and the future of the discipline addresses other topics, especially values in IS research and their evaluation / critical reflection on them (Cheikh-Ammar, 2018;Chiasson et al, 2018;Ngwenyama & Klein, 2018;Rowe, 2018).…”

Section: Expansion and Contestation Of Knowledge In Is Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…While Klein and Lyytinen (1985) and Lyytinen and King (2004) present Popper's falsifiability criterion as a possible (but imperfect) means by which IS research could identify core theories, those authors choose to focus on the IS field's research identity, so falsification does not receive primary focus. Reflecting on IS as a research discipline without dedicated emphasis on falsification, Banville and Landry (1989), Hassan (2014), and have all addressed knowledge-contestation in their evaluation of IS research through the lens of Kuhnian paradigms and revolutions, but they come to different conclusions. Banville and Landry find these concepts poorly applicable to IS, while the latter two papers present them as useful and adequate.…”

Section: Expansion and Contestation Of Knowledge In Is Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Building on shaky foundations? Lack of falsification and knowledge contestation in IS theories, methods, and practices

Salovaara

Upreti

Nykänen

et al. 2019

European Journal of Information Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Among the defining characteristics of a healthy research discipline is ability to correct its knowledge if more recent evidence creates grounds for this. Studies that reveal errors in earlier theories demonstrate, in line with Karl Popper's thinking, an approach called falsificationism. They complement approaches aimed at developing and expanding knowledge by generalising empirical observations or postulating new contributions and testing them. The paper presents analysis that applies this categorisation to abstracts of research papers (N = 5,202) in the eight leading IS journals. Machine-learning-based classification determined that only 7.0% of the papers manifested any clear form of knowledge-contestation, such as falsification, in the approach or findings presented. In light of this, we call on IS researchers to increase the falsification and knowledgecontestation in their research, to nurture more valid theories, methods, and practices, thereby achieving greater societal impact. We present two suitable IS research designs accordingly: knowledge-contesting comparisons and knowledge-contesting replications. We also discuss how these designs, exemplifying opportunities to increase the number of knowledge-contesting studies in the field, can be applied in both positivist and interpretivist research epistemology.

show abstract

“…What has happened since these discussions have taken place is the establishment of so-called paradigms acting as proxy templates for IS research methods and the ensuing skirmishes between those who prefer one over the other (Mingers, 2004). Not only have these efforts and overemphasis on methods and methodologies misappropriated the Kuhnian concept of the "paradigm" and what it stands for in research (Hassan, 2014;Hassan & Mingers, in print), they have restricted epistemology to methods and deflected the attention of IS researchers away from their core concernsthe object of their study. The received view of paradigms in IS creates artificial epistemological boundaries between research groups as if these divisions exhaustively describe the nature of the research or the complexity of the real world.…”

Section: 2mentioning

confidence: 99%

Philosophy and information systems: where are we and where should we go?

Hassan

Mingers

Stahl

2018

European Journal of Information Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Paradigm lost … paradigm gained: a hermeneutical rejoinder to Banville and Landry’s ‘Can the Field of MIS be Disciplined?’

Cited by 18 publications

References 73 publications

Finding one’s way around various methodological guidelines for doing rigorous case studies: A comparison of four epistemological frameworks

Finding one’s way around various methodological guidelines for doing rigorous case studies: A comparison of four epistemological frameworks

Building on shaky foundations? Lack of falsification and knowledge contestation in IS theories, methods, and practices

Philosophy and information systems: where are we and where should we go?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About