The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Paradigmatic Analysis Contrasting Information Systems Development Approaches and Methodologies
Abstract
This paper analyses the fundamental philosophical assumptions of five “contrasting” information systems development (ISD) approaches: the interactionist approach, the speech act-based approach, the soft systems methodology approach, the trade unionist approach, and the professional work practice approach. These five approaches are selected for analysis because they illustrate alternative philosophical assumptions from the dominant “orthodoxy” identified in the research literature. The paper also proposes a distinction between “approach” and “methodology.” The analysis of the five approaches is organized around four basic questions: What is the assumed nature of an information system (ontology)? What is human knowledge and how can it be obtained (epistemology)? What are the preferred research methods for continuing the improvement of each approach (research methodology)? and what are the implied values of information system research (ethics)? Each of these questions is explored from the internal perspective of the particular ISD approach. The paper addresses these questions through a conceptual structure which is based on a paradigmatic framework for analyzing ISD approaches.
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
Searle, J. R. (1969) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139173438 · Cited by 11,718
Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1997) · Reis · doi:10.2307/40183951 · Cited by 11,113
The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations
Orlikowski, W. J. (1992) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.3.3.398 · Cited by 4,957
Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts
Searle, J. R. (1979) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511609213 · Cited by 3,502
MIS problems and failures: A socio- technical perspective
Bostrom, R. P., & Heinen, J. S. (1977) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/248710 · Cited by 1,329
The Intellectual and Social Organization Of the Sciences
Whitley, R. (2000) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780199240531.001.0001 · Cited by 1,076
A disaster for everyone to see: An interpretive analysis of a failed is project
Myers, M. D. (1994) · Accounting, Management and Information Technologies · doi:10.1016/0959-8022(94)90022-1 · Cited by 203
Cited by
A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research
Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., & Chatterjee, S. (2007) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.2753/mis0742-1222240302 · Cited by 7,832
Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review
Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/4132319 · Cited by 7,449
The Nature of Theory in Information Systems1
Gregor, S. (2006) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148742 · Cited by 3,306
Combining IS Research Methods: Towards a Pluralist Methodology
Mingers, J. (2001) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.12.3.240.9709 · Cited by 1,380
Analyzing the past to prepare for the future
(2002) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.5555/2017160.2017162 · Cited by 179
Porra, J., Lacity, M., & Parks, M. S. (2020) · Information Systems Frontiers · doi:10.1007/s10796-019-09969-z · Cited by 56
Metadata
- Authors
- Iivari, J., Hirschheim, R., & Klein, H. K.
- Venue
- Information Systems Research
- Published
- 1998-06
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 164-193
- ISSN
- 1047-7047 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5536
- OpenAlex
- W2128311268
- Cited by
- 334
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 35.90
- 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
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.