IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orisre/v9y1998i2p164-193.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Paradigmatic Analysis Contrasting Information Systems Development Approaches and Methodologies

Author

Listed:
  • Juhani Iivari

    (Department of Information Processing Science, University of Oulu, FIN-90570 Oulu, Finland)

  • Rudy Hirschheim

    (College of Business Administration, University of Houston, Houston, Texas 77204-6283)

  • Heinz K. Klein

    (School of Management, State University of New York Binghamton, Binghamton, New York)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Juhani Iivari & Rudy Hirschheim & Heinz K. Klein, 1998. "A Paradigmatic Analysis Contrasting Information Systems Development Approaches and Methodologies," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 9(2), pages 164-193, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:9:y:1998:i:2:p:164-193
    DOI: 10.1287/isre.9.2.164
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.9.2.164
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/isre.9.2.164?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Goles, Tim & Hirschheim, Rudy, 2000. "The paradigm is dead, the paradigm is dead...long live the paradigm: the legacy of Burrell and Morgan," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 249-268, June.
    2. Abeer Al-Khoury & Sahraa Anwer Hussein & Muthana Abdulwhab & Zainab M. Aljuboori & Hossam Haddad & Mostafa A. Ali & Ibtihal A. Abed & Hakeem Hammood Flayyih, 2022. "Intellectual Capital History and Trends: A Bibliometric Analysis Using Scopus Database," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-22, September.
    3. Yixin Qiu & Anandasivam Gopal & Il-Horn Hann, 2017. "Logic Pluralism in Mobile Platform Ecosystems: A Study of Indie App Developers on the iOS App Store," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 225-249, June.
    4. Natalia Levina, 2005. "Collaborating on Multiparty Information Systems Development Projects: A Collective Reflection-in-Action View," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 16(2), pages 109-130, June.
    5. Wilde, Thomas & Hess, Thomas, 2006. "Methodenspektrum der Wirtschaftsinformatik: Überblick und Portfoliobildung," Working Papers 2/2006, University of Munich, Munich School of Management, Institute for Information Systems and New Media.
    6. John Mingers, 2001. "Combining IS Research Methods: Towards a Pluralist Methodology," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 240-259, September.
    7. Jaana Porra & Mary Lacity & Michael S. Parks, 2020. "“Can Computer Based Human-Likeness Endanger Humanness?” – A Philosophical and Ethical Perspective on Digital Assistants Expressing Feelings They Can’t Have”," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 533-547, June.
    8. Dirk Basten & Linda Schneider & Oleg Pankratz, 2017. "Codification, Personalisation, or in Between? Exploring Knowledge Characteristics to Guide Knowledge Management System Design," Journal of Information & Knowledge Management (JIKM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(04), pages 1-46, December.
    9. Heinz K. Klein & Rudy Hirschheim, 2001. "Choosing Between Competing Design Ideals in Information Systems Development," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 75-90, March.
    10. J Mingers, 2003. "A classification of the philosophical assumptions of management science methods," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 54(6), pages 559-570, June.
    11. Rita Di Mascio, 2016. "Firms’ adoption of self-service technology: how managerial beliefs shape co-production decisions," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 6(1), pages 79-97, June.
    12. Philipp Offermann & Sören Blom & Olga Levina & Udo Bub, 2010. "Proposal for Components of Method Design Theories," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 2(5), pages 295-304, October.
    13. Anang Sujoko & Unti Ludigdo & Iqbal Muhammad, 2021. "Management Strategy of Actual Tabloid Banjarmasin, South Kalimantan In Digital Era," Technium Social Sciences Journal, Technium Science, vol. 19(1), pages 235-251, May.
    14. Kazem Haki & Michael Blaschke & Stephan Aier & Robert Winter, 2019. "A Value Co-creation Perspective on Information Systems Analysis and Design," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 61(4), pages 487-502, August.
    15. Mostafa A. Ali & Nazimah Hussin & Hossam Haddad & Reem Al-Araj & Ibtihal A. Abed, 2021. "Intellectual Capital and Innovation Performance: Systematic Literature Review," Risks, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-19, September.
    16. Richard Vidgen & Xiaofeng Wang, 2009. "Coevolving Systems and the Organization of Agile Software Development," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 355-376, September.
    17. Mohan, Kunal & Ahlemann, Frederik, 2013. "Understanding acceptance of information system development and management methodologies by actual users: A review and assessment of existing literature," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 831-839.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:9:y:1998:i:2:p:164-193. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.