The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Principles for Conducting Critical Realist Case Study Research in Information Systems1
Abstract
Critical realism is emerging as a viable philosophical paradigm for conducting social science research, and has been proposed as an alternative to the more prevalent paradigms of positivism and interpretivism. Few papers, however, have offered clear guidance for applying this philosophy to actual research methodologies. Under critical realism, a causal explanation for a given phenomenon is inferred by explicitly identifying the means by which structural entities and contextual conditions interact to generate a given set of events. Consistent with this view of causality, we propose a set of methodological principles for conducting and evaluating critical realism-based explanatory case study research within the information systems field. The principles are derived directly from the ontological and epistemological assumptions of critical realism. We demonstrate the utility of each of the principles through examples drawn from existing critical realist case studies. The article concludes by discussing the implications of critical realism based research for IS research and practice.
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
Building Theories from Case Study Research
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258557 · Cited by 17,455
Design Science in Information Systems Research1
Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148625 · Cited by 10,707
Design science in information systems research
(2004) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.5555/2017212.2017217 · Cited by 8,254
Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data
Langley, A. (1999) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1999.2553248 · Cited by 7,008
A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems1
Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249410 · Cited by 5,263
Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change
Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3556620 · Cited by 4,020
The Nature of Theory in Information Systems1
Gregor, S. (2006) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148742 · Cited by 3,306
Walsham, G. (2006) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000589 · Cited by 2,217
Bentley University, U., Markus, M. L., Silver, M., & Fordham University (2008) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00176 · Cited by 927
Qualitative Research in Business & Management
Myers, M. D. (2009) · doi:10.4135/9781036208417 · Cited by 325
Cited by
Bygstad, B., Munkvold, B. E., & Volkoff, O. (2016) · Journal of Information Technology · doi:10.1057/jit.2015.13 · Cited by 257
Toward AI Governance: Identifying Best Practices and Potential Barriers and Outcomes
Papagiannidis, E., Enholm, I. M., Dremel, C., Mikalef, P., & Krogstie, J. (2023) · Information Systems Frontiers · doi:10.1007/s10796-022-10251-y · Cited by 191
Tempini, N. (2015) · The Information Society · doi:10.1080/01972243.2015.998108 · Cited by 66
Looking through a policy window with tinted glasses: Setting the agenda for U.S. AI policy
Schiff, D. S. (2023) · Review of Policy Research · doi:10.1111/ropr.12535 · Cited by 55
Metadata
- Authors
- Wynn, D., & Williams, C. K.
- Venue
- MIS Quarterly
- Publisher
- MIS Quarterly
- Published
- 2012-09-01
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 787-809
- ISSN
- 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
- 2162-9730
- OpenAlex
- W3148461778
- Cited by
- 410
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 49.70
- 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.
