|
The Austrian economist, Joseph Schrumpeter once asserted
that
any ‘discipline’ must have
four components: empirical data (observations and facts),
theories/paradigms, ethics and history. As a research field, IS has been
strong on the first two of these, but weak on both of the others. In
particular, the absence of a solid body of historical research is a
serious gap in the pantheon of IS research.
While there have been a
number of good, popular books looking at the development of IS in
organisations over an extended period (say ten years or longer), with a
few notable exceptions, academic research has largely eschewed research
into the past. In paying such scant attention to history, the IS academy
is overlooking a potentially rich source of new insights which can throw
light on and inform our understanding of nature of the relationship
between information systems and organisations. Indeed it can be argued
that only when we fully understand the history of an organisation and the
evolution of its information systems, can we fully understand issues
relating to its current systems.
The case for further research into the history of IS at
organisational level has been forcefully made by Mason et al in a
1997 paper in MISQ. Starting with a review of Mason et al’s
arguments, this paper looks at these ideas in the context of evolving
thinking about interpretative research generally. Ideas from both of
these sources are synthesised with concepts from field of historiography.
From this synthesis, a putative historiographical method for IS research
is outlined and illustrated with a practical example of its application.
Download FULL
PAPER
Return
to Contents |
Frank Bannister
|
