3. Approaches for researching information systems
3.1 Research approaches and model
A fundamental issue in information research work has to do with the conceptual worldview in which its context and approach are anchored. Different research paradigms and the conceptual worldviews they create determine the research (Kuhn, 1996; Rosenberg, 1995, 10–25; Russo and Stolterman, 2000). In social science research, theoretical and methodological issues are especially difficult to manage. In principle, research relates to empirical and factual knowledge on one hand, and to concepts and conceptual knowledge on the other (Sayer, 1992, 45–
84; Lukka, 2003; Hyötyläinen, 2005). The relationship between these, especially the role of theory in research, is viewed differently in different research paradigms.
The relationship between theory and practice is also different in different ap- proaches.
From the point of view of the implementation of information systems, the follow- ing research and development approaches and conceptual worlds can be dis- cerned: positivism, interpretivism, pragmatism, and action research as well as the constructive and realist approaches (Smith, 2006). Our objective is to use the analysis of these approaches to lay a foundation for a constructive research and development model. For that, three research approaches will be more profoundly considered. These are the constructive approach and the realist approach. Action research approach will be considered in connection with the constructive model.
The critical realist approach will be handled, because it lays some theoretical and conceptual ground for the constructive approach and method. The tradition of pragmatism will be also handled because its roots are close to the constructive approach. Instead, the traditions of positivism and interpretivism (hermeneutics and phenomenology) are well known, so they are only handled briefly. Besides, the role of research approaches in the development of information systems will be treated. Table 1 shows a summary of these research approaches.
Table 1. The comparison of research approaches and models (see Hyötyläinen, 2005, 121; Hyötyläinen, 2007; cf. Lindhult, 2002, 62–64).
Positivism Interpretativism Pragmatism Constructive
approach Realist approach Scientific
roots Natural science concepts
Hermeneutics,
phenomenology Pragmatism traditions
Reflection theories Action research Constructive theories
Realist approaches Knowledge concepts Research
approach Empirical
approach Understanding
approach Interaction model of knowledge and practice
Systemic and constructive approach
Approach concerned with foundation of knowledge and truth View on
research Cool outside
observation Research as social
activity Reflective and operational actor model
Process consulting and research-assisted development
Knowledge generation as social activity Object
viewpoint Empirical
facts Mental
models of actors Successful tests and practical change processes
Analytical and solution
concepts and models Distinction between thought and real objects Main objec-
tives of research
Hypotheses Formulation of
theory Generation of beliefs that are sufficiently certain
Experimentation with new solutions and new knowledge
Development mechanisms Approach to
information gathering
“Catching” of
facts Observation tied to theory and understanding process
Development of concepts and development activities
Change tests and
development activities Review of literature and practice
Research
method Observation Observation Participation and experience gathering Observation
Participation methods
Constructive methods Observation
Development methods for concepts Method of
analysis Testing Reconstruction of
situations Analysis of knowledge
and information Analysis of information
and knowledge Theoretical and practical analysis
3. Approaches for researching information systems
Positivism Interpretativism Pragmatism Constructive
approach Realist approach Knowledge
concept Generalisa-
tions Context-dependent
knowledge Function of knowledge in practice,
empirical knowledge theory
Combination of research
and development data Emphasis on context- dependency of knowledge and practi- cal adequacy Theoretical
model Construction of theory Causal models
Finalistic interpreta-
tion models Practical
theory (praxis) Models for interpretation
and understanding Theory-dependent conceptualisation of knowledge
The research approaches are described in the table through ten dimensions. The first dimension considers the scientific roots of each approach. The second di- mension describes the research approach on which these various research tradi- tions are based. The third dimension shows the view these approaches take on research activity, or how they define the intent of research. The fourth dimension is about the objective of each approach. The fifth dimension deals with the main object and objective of study, that is, different approaches relate to knowledge and the creation of knowledge. The sixth dimension describes the principal methods of gathering information and knowledge of each approach; in other words, what is understood under information acquisition and how to go about it. The seventh dimension is about the research methods of each approach, or how these meth- ods are used to acquire data about objects. The eighth dimension describes the methods or modes of analysis. The ninth dimension examines the concepts of knowledge of the approaches, meaning where the research is expected to lead.
The tenth dimension describes the theoretical models of the approaches, in other words, what is perceived to be the ideal theory pursued.
3.1.1 The premises of positivism
Positivism holds a strong position in management and social scientific research, as well as in researching information systems (Popper, 1992; Rosenberg, 1995;
Checkland and Holwell, 1998; Mingers, 2004a). Its model is the concept of re- search as applied in the natural sciences, where different hypotheses are formed and tested in various ways (Weber, 2004). Hypotheses that pass the tests are approved. They stay valid until called into question by counter-evidence. Positiv- ism represents the empirical approach. Information studies are seen as based on immediate empirical observations, which accumulate, expand, and become more specific over time. Observations and observation concepts that form their basis are seen as independent of theories and theoretical concepts. Observations are seen as a foundation on which succeeding theories take root (cf. Glaser and Strauss, 1967).
The positivistic thinking is in the background in the building and application of information systems that have primarily been characterised by a functionalistic approach. The subject has been the information systems’ hard side, which has meant a focus on the technical planning of systems (Checkland and Holwell, 1998). The dominant thinking has been based on the concept of an organisational goal-seeking system. The most important organisational function has been thought to be decision-making and its connection to objectives and goals. The information system’s goal has been seen to be the support of this decision-making (Hirshheim et al., 1995, 102–115; cf. March and Simon, 1958; Cyert and March, 1992). This approach has affected the manner in which research regarding the implementation of an information system has been conceptualised. The basis has been a positivistic approach, where the testing of the hypotheses is the dominant conceptual model and the development of causal analysis (Lee, 1999; Bento and Bento, 2004).
3.1.2 Interpretivism and changed problem formulation
Interpretivism represents the view that research work is social activity and as such socially constructed (Lee, 1999; see Berger and Luckman, 1966). Research may be an individual or group activity, aimed at constructing theories. This implies that theories are viewed as mere theories. Theories are not somewhere “there” in reality waiting to be found. The truth is rather that we invent them.
Next to the positivistic explanation model was added “understanding” – the un- derstanding approach. In the understanding approach, the researcher recreates, or reconstructs, the mental atmosphere, thoughts, sensations and motivations of the actors under study (actors may be individuals, groups, organisations or similar agents) (Fay, 2003). Thus understanding is linked with a finalistic interpretation (Heidegger, 2002; Turner, 2003, see criticism of interpretitism, Smith, 2006, 195–
198).
In studies associated with information system application, the interpretative and hermeneutic research approach has started to gain a foothold. During the last decade or so, there have been many studies based on the spirit of interpretivism (Boland, 1985; Klein and Lyytinen, 1985; Hirchheim et al., 1995, 144–154; Lee, 1999). Separately there has been a so-called “soft system” method developed, which approaches, in a new way, the planning and use of information system (Checkland and Scholes, 1990). The starting point is an “understanding” and activ- ity theoretical research analysis framework (Lyytinen, 1987; Kuutti, 1994; Check- land and Holwell, 1998; Torvinen, 1999; Rose, 2002).
3.1.3 The tradition of pragmatism
In the pragmatic philosophical tradition and concept of knowledge, the relationship between research and practice is reformulated in a new way (Rescher, 2000;
James, 2004; Schmitt, 2004, 3–11). It is assumed that there is a continuous inter-
3. Approaches for researching information systems
active relationship between research and practical information gathering. The main message here is the function of research and information acquisition. Mere understanding of matters, disconnected from practice, is not sufficient (von Wright, 1998; Wicks and Freeman, 1998; Kilpinen, 2000; cf. Gimmler, 2004). The question is rather how knowledge helps to deal with different situations. The criteria for knowledge are germane action and utilisation of presented information in success- ful actions.
In the area of conceptual modelling of information systems, pragmatic empha- sis has increased in recent times (Ågerfalk and Eriksson, 2004). Traditionally, according to the descriptive perspective of information systems, the concept mod- el implemented in the information system claims to present reality and the busi- ness context as such. This means that the business actors use a computerised model instead of looking directly at the world (Lyytinen, 1987). According to the pragmatic view, people act and communicate within world, as social actors. The question is how action-oriented conceptual modelling can be done and how that will change the idea of the development of information systems. One opportunity is the pragmatic aspect of language and computer use, based on action-oriented conceptual modelling. This means that the system becomes a vehicle used for performing communicative business actions in the dynamic business context, which the system also affects (Ågerfalk and Eriksson, 2004).
3.1.4 The constructive approach and solution models
Constructive approaches were formulated out of the traditions of action research and pragmatism (Hutchel and Molet, 1986; Kasanen et al., 1993; Alasoini, 1999;
Lukka, 2000, 2003; Heckscher et al., 2003; Burnes, 2004; van Aken, 2004, 2005;
Hyötyläinen, 2005, 2007; Oyegoke, 2011). The constructive approach relies on a model of a stepwise development cycle applied to the needs of the research and development process. A similar model is applied in action research (Bruce and Wyman, 1998, 20–24).
The constructive approach is a research and development model in which the designs of social reality and the research process constantly change, forcing re- searchers to adopt two roles (Habermas, 2003, 15–17; Lukka, 2003; see Engeström, 1987, 321–337). First, researchers should be able to view the organi- sational activity systems under study from a “systemic” perspective, which means that researchers construct and model activity systems as if looking at them from above (cf. Schön, 1983; van Aken, 2004). Second, in the intensive phase of the study, the work of the researchers is focused on the organisational construction and change processes within the object organisation (Hyötyläinen, 1998; Lukka, 2003). Researchers must adopt the perspectives of persons and groups active in the organisational activity systems, in order to build and develop new organisa- tional constructions and change processes from the actors’ “view”, based on their interpretations (Weik, 1995; Ladkin, 2005; Caldwell, 2006). The study of organisa- tional constructions and change processes becomes a collective, multi-voiced
construction and modelling of the past, present, and future of activity systems (Heckscher et al., 2003, 126–127; Hyötyläinen, 2000, 2005). The researchers participate in the planning and implementation processes, as well as in implement- ing new organisational constructions for activity systems (Hutchel and Molet, 1986; Engeström, 1999, Lukka, 2003; see van Aken, 2004, 2005).
The premise of the constructive approach is that information gained from the development process must be compared to concrete action and action objectives.
Emerging knowledge is thus concrete and specific to the operational environment (Lukka, 2000; van Aken, 2004). Consequently, action alternatives and solution models emerge from the “logic” of the situation and from the objectives and solu- tion concepts of the actors. The elements of the situation can be controlled, and it is possible to know what action is needed in the situation to achieve the desired results (cf. pragmatism, Rescher, 2000; James, 2004).
New concepts and unknown technology solutions are not created or adopted in a linear manner within or by an organisation, as new practices are created and developed primarily through trial and error (Ciborra, 1999). New forms (new con- cepts, information systems, and practices) are at first incomplete and uncertain (James, 2004; Doherty et al., 2006, 2010). Neither can a collision with old practic- es and their limitations be avoided when initiating new information forms. Using a constructive model, development processes can be started and the organisation can create and try new organisational and technological solutions. The implemen- tation of the information systems solutions within a company is, however, a sepa- rate task (Hyötyläinen, 1998; Gupta, 2000; Gosain et al., 2005; cf. Nooteboom, 2000). Often, solutions require complementary organisational and operative pro- cess innovations in other systems of the company, and only after creating appro- priate conditions is it possible to establish new action models and information systems within the larger organisation (Gould, 1980; Rogers, 1995; Carter et al., 2001; Amoako-Gyampah and Salam, 2004).
3.1.5 The realist approach and its knowledge concept
The question of the nature of truth and the associated concept of knowledge are closely intertwined. It is also a question of research goals and objectives and how they are conceptualised (Tsoukas and Hatch, 2001; Schmitt, 2004). In that sense, constructive research can be labelled “practical theory” (Stern, 2003): it starts with practice and treats it as a fundamental category (cf. pragmatism, James, 2004;
Gimmler, 2004, 49–53). Constructions made in practice lead to theoretical conclu- sions (Lukka, 2000, 2003). Because of this, the realist approach offers a means of conceptualising the foundation of the concept of knowledge pertaining to the con- structive approach (“a constructive realism”) (Margolis, 2004, 229–230, 234–240;
cf. Mizak, 2004, 159–168).
In the scientific tradition, the so-called critical realist science theory and ap- proach evolved, beginning to influence the research in the field of social and be- havioural sciences in the 1980s, and later on also in information system research
3. Approaches for researching information systems
(Bhaskar, 1997; Sayer, 1992; Archer, 1995; Mingers, 2004a,b; Reed, 2005; Smith, 2006). According to the realist approach, the world exists irrespective of our knowledge of it. Our knowledge of the world is false and dependent on theory. The world is seen as separate and divided, and causality, therefore, appears through multifaceted and multi-level development mechanisms (cf. Manicas, 2006). The world does not consist of mere events, but also of objects and structures that have the power and ability to create events. Generation of knowledge is also a social activity: social relationships, together with conditions in which knowledge is gener- ated, are seen as affecting the content of knowledge (Tsoukas and Hatch, 2001;
Norros, 2004).
In the tradition of critical realism, some studies on new subjects have appeared.
Smith (2006) argues that information systems research conducted within the nor- mal paradigms of positivism and interpretivism suffers of problems theory-practice inconsistencies. Information systems research has long been dominated by the paradigms of posititism and interpretivism (see Lee, 1999). In any case, due to a large interest in the viewpoints of critical realism’, there are not yet functioning methods for practical purposes in the implementation of information systems. In any case, the discussion is ongoing about the possibilities for critical realism to solve some old problems in information systems research (see Mingers, 2004a;
Klein, 2004; Carlsson, 2009).