More perspectives & research approaches is always better?

(Orlikowski and Baroudi 1991) is an article that attempts a different approach at looking at the way technology, people & organizations. This article makes the argument that in terms of MIS system research there is an epidemic of conformity among the journals. There is a lack of a multiple paradigm outlook that should be taken. Authors provide no detail about the range and topics of the 155 research articles studied and this makes it difficult for us to resolve and understand the use of different philosophies. Although this paper refers to IS research articles in the late 1980s and the desire is to have successful implementation of IS, after thirty years later the rate of Information system failure is still higher.

 

 
The author recognizes the interdependence that exists between positivistic, interpretive and critical philosophies but does not discuss the contradictions that exist within individual research studies. Information systems are social because people construct them thus have intended and unintended outcomes. Researchers using different philosophies are going to produce inconsistent research and this coupled with technological determination makes studying IS in organizations a challenge and not an exact science. The authors thoughts are a departure from the positivist way IS research has been traditionally completed and there is a challenge to the established and our preconceived notions of IS research in a way, which is logical and pragmatic.

In assessment of positivist research philosophy, the authors said that: "Because the positivist research perspective tends to disregard the historical context of phenomena, positivist research studies are rooted in the status quo." To illustrate, they gave examples of research studies on users' satisfaction with information systems and noted that such studies took history and context of such companies for granted. However, the fact that she used 155 research papers between January 1983 and May 1988 in the four information systems outlets without any explanations for such choices contradicts with what she approved: The claim that positivism is the dominant epistemology in this period of time may not be true in other period.

Author's conclusion - such as researchers should remain open to the possibility of other assumptions and interests - is common knowledge which provides no informing value. As authors said:  "we will do no more than raise some issues for consideration", their conclusions are more like advices rather than informing research result.

However, I feel that the article is bogged down with critical analysis of current assumptions and not offering enough new valid methods. As authors suggest new ways of viewing IS research, I feel they are avoiding with a religious zealous of what they feel is repetition and conformity, that they also avoids many of the function building blocks of a good IS research paper. In that the authors feel they have to start fresh when refereeing to their own views when in fact they can use the vast quantity of valid and relevant information to develop better theories and outlooks.

REFERENCE

Orlikowski, W. J. and Baroudi, J. J. (1991) Studying information technology in organizations: Research approaches and assumptions, translated by.