The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A paradigmatic analysis of contemporary schools of IS development
Abstract
This paper presents the results of the analysis of the fundamental assumptions of seven major schools of thought in IS development – software engineering, database management, management information systems, decision support systems, implementation research, the sociotechnical approach, and the infological approach. The analysis is based on a distinction between the ontology, epistemology, methodology and ethics of the research. Ontology, forming the major constituent, is decomposed into five dimensions based on the major objects of IS research: the view of information/data, the view of the information/data system, the view of human beings, the view of technology, and the view of organizations and society. While the results of the analysis indicate certain variations between schools, especially in their ontological assumptions, all seven schools have quite similar assumptions. These are dominated by the view of information/data as descriptive facts, an information system as a technical artefact with social implications, a view of technology as a matter of human choice, predominantly a structural view of organizations, postivistic epistemology, a means-end-oriented view of IS science, and values of IS research reflecting organizational and economic goals; and most of these also have user-oriented criteria. In the case of the view of human beings and research methods it is not possible to identify any clear, dominant views. These assumptions are largely consistent with each other and provide support for the alleged existence of an identifiable ‘orthodoxy’ in IS research.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1997) · Reis · doi:10.2307/40183951 · Cited by 11,113
Cited by
The Nature of Theory in Information Systems1
Gregor, S. (2006) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148742 · Cited by 3,306
On the ontological expressiveness of information systems analysis and design grammars
Wand, Y., & Weber, R. (1993) · Information Systems Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575.1993.tb00127.x · Cited by 688
A Critical Analysis of Decision Support Systems Research
Arnott, D., & Pervan, G. (2005) · Journal of Information Technology · doi:10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000035 · Cited by 571
A Paradigmatic Analysis Contrasting Information Systems Development Approaches and Methodologies
Iivari, J., Hirschheim, R., & Klein, H. K. (1998) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.9.2.164 · Cited by 334
Self-citationInformation security management standards: Problems and solutions
Siponen, M., & Willison, R. (2009) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2008.12.007 · Cited by 314
Metadata
- Authors
- Iivari, J.
- Venue
- European Journal of Information Systems
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1991-12
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 249-272
- ISSN
- 0960-085X (ISSN-L)
- 1476-9344
- OpenAlex
- W1967426972
- Cited by
- 216
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 14.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A paradigmatic analysis of contemporary schools of IS development. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1057/ejis.1991.47
- The paper
- Iivari, J. (1991). A paradigmatic analysis of contemporary schools of IS development. European Journal of Information Systems. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.1991.47
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.