[AISWorld] Conducting pragmatic research in information systems - Cfp Sysiac special issue

[Göran Goldkuhl]

Conducting pragmatic research in information systems

Call for papers to a Special Issue in Systems, Signs & Actions

Theme

There have been many calls in the information systems (IS) community for a stronger pragmatic focus. This can be seen in a growing interest for research approaches and methods in IS that emphasise contribution to practice and collaboration between the practice and academia. Action research, which aims for knowledge development through collaboration and intervention in real settings, is achieving more and more academic credibility (Baskerville & Myers, 2004; Davison et al, 2004). This can also be said about design research that aims for the generation of new and useful artefacts (Hevner et al, 2004; Gregor & Jones, 2007). Research through evaluation has had a long and venerable place in IS research (Ward et, 1996; Serafeimidis & Smithson, 2003). Several approaches and frameworks that combine or integrate elements from the above-mentioned approaches have also emerged, e.g. practice research (Goldkuhl, 2011), collaborative practice research (Mathiassen, 2002), practical science (Gregor, 2008), engaged scholarship (Mathiassen & Nielsen, 2008), action design research (Sein et al, 2011) and technical action research (Wieringa & Morali, 2012). Underlying these different approaches is a quest for practical relevance of the conducted research (Benbasat & Zmud, 1999; Van de Ven, 2007; Wieringa, 2010). It is not enough to only “mirror” the world through descriptions and explanations but a pragmatic orientation recognizes intervention and design as a way of knowing and a means for building knowledge about social and institutional phenomena (Aakhus, 2007). There is a need for knowledge of other epistemic kinds that contributes more clearly to the improvement of IS practices.

This enhanced practice and action orientation follows a growing awareness within IS scholars towards pragmatism as a research foundation (e.g. Goles & Hirschheim, 2000; Ågerfalk, 2010; Goldkuhl, 2012). It is not the case that IS scholars suddenly become pragmatists in their research orientation. It is rather the case that there is move from an implicit pragmatism to an explicit one (Goldkuhl, 2012). For a long time IS scholars have addressed practical problems with an interest for improvement. That interest has led to the extensive development of methods, models and constructive frameworks for not only the design of IT artefacts, but also related to several other IS/IT phenomena e.g. innovation management, business process management, project management, IT service management, just to mention a few. These methods actually reveal an on-going search for knowledge of other epistemic kinds for advancing understanding of information technology, information systems, and practice.

Possible topics

Proposed topics to address; other related topics are welcome as well:

·       Design science/research
·       Action research and other intervention strategies
·       Action design research
·       Interpretive case studies with intervention purposes
·       Evaluation research
·       Practice research
·       Pragmatic inquiry
·       Engaged scholarship in IS
·       Practice relevance and usefulness of IS research
·       Researcher-practitioner collaboration
·       The use of pragmatist epistemology in IS research
·       The use of theories/frameworks/models as instruments for inquiry and intervention

Special Issue Editors

Brian Donnellan, National University of Ireland Maynooth, Ireland (Brian.Donnellan at nuim.ie)
Göran Goldkuhl, Linköping University (goran.goldkuhl at liu.se<mailto:goran.goldkuhl at liu.se>)

Systems, Signs & Actions

Systems, Signs & Actions (www.sysiac.org) is an open access journal in information systems especially devoted to the study of information technology, action, communication and workpractices. We have published several papers on pragmatic research approaches in IS. Two special issues on related issues have been published:
·       Theory and inquiry of practice research; vol 5 (1), 2011
·       Collaboration and validation in practice research and design research; vol 6 (1), 2012

Schedule

Submissions are expected not later than May 10, 2014. Send submission directly to goran.goldkuhl at liu.se. This Special Issue is planned to be published in spring 2015.

References


Aakhus M (2007) Communication as Design. Communication Monographs, Vol 74 (1), pp 112–117
Ågerfalk P J (2010) Getting Pragmatic, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol 19 (3), pp 251–256
Baskerville R, Myers M (2004) Special issue on action research in information systems: making IS research relevant to practice – foreword, MIS Quarterly, Vol 28 (3), p 329-335
Benbasat I, Zmud R W (1999) Empirical research in information system research: The practice of relevance, MIS Quarterly, Vol 23 (1), p 3-16
Davison R M, Martinsons M G, Kock N (2004) Principles of canonical action research, Information Systems Journal, Vol 14, p 65–86
Goles T, Hirschheim R (2000) The paradigm is dead, the paradigm is dead … long live the paradigm: the legacy of Burell and Morgan, Omega, Vol 28, p 249-268
Goldkuhl G (2011) The research practice of practice research: theorizing and situational inquiry, Systems, Signs & Actions, Vol 5 (1), p 7-29
Goldkuhl G (2012) Pragmatism vs. interpretivism in qualitative information systems research, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol 21 (2), p 135-146
Gregor S (2008) Building theory in a practical science, in Hart D, Gregor S (Eds, 2008) Information Systems Foundations: The role of design science, ANU E Press, Canberra
Gregor S, Jones D (2007) The Anatomy of a Design Theory, Journal of AIS, Vol 8 (5), p 312-335
Hevner A R, March S T, Park J, Ram S (2004) Design science in information systems research, MIS Quarterly, Vol 28 (1), p 75-115
Mathiassen L (2002) Collaborative practice research, Information Technology & People, Vol 15 (4), p 321-345
Mathiassen L, Nielsen P A (2008) Engaged Scholarship in IS Research. The Scandinavian Case, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, Vol 20 (2), p 3–20
Sein M, Henfridsson O, Purao S, Rossi M, Lindgren R (2011) Action design research, MIS Quarterly, Vol 35 (1), p 37-56
Serafeimidis V, Smithson S (2003) Information systems evaluation as an organizational institution – experience from a case study, Information Systems Journal, Vol 13, pp 251–274
Van de Ven A (2007) Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Ward J, Taylor P, Bond P (1996) Evaluation and realisation of IS/IT benefits: an empirical study of current practice, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol 4, pp 214-225
Wieringa R (2010) Relevance and problem choice in design science, in Winter R, Zhao J L, Aier S (Eds. 2010) Proceedings DESRIST 2010, LNCS 6105, Springer, Berlin
Wieringa R, Morali A (2012) Technical action research as a validation method in information systems design science, Proceedings DESRIST 2012, LNCS 7286, Springer, Berlin

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aisnet.org/pipermail/aisworld_lists.aisnet.org/attachments/20140127/8d207eae/attachment.html>