‘Paradigm wars’
• Paradigms reflect assumptions about knowledge
and how it can be obtained
– what is valid research?
– which research methods are appropriate?
• Positivist: reality is objectively given and can be
described by measurable properties independent
of the researcher
– Formal propositions, hypothesis testing, generalising
• Interpretivist: we can access reality through
social constructions such as language, shared
meanings
– Rich descriptions of IS in context
• Critical: social reality is historically constructed,
thus the aim of research is emancipation
Case studies
• A research approach? (Yin)
– “investigates a contemporary phenomenon
within its real-life context,especially when
the boundaries between the phenomenon
and context are not clearly evident” (Yin
1994:13)
• A method for data collection? (Galliers)
• A unit of study & analysis? (Stake)
Research themes
Literature
Insights
Theoretical
foundations
Literature-based
scrutiny
Knowledge
Theory
Series of
Conceptual
frameworks
Reflect
Plan
Analyse
Collect
data
Plan
• Plan the data collection:
–
–
–
–
What cases?
In what organisations?
Access?
Standard forms, interview protocol, equipment,
recording data
• Plan the analysis
– What method of analysis
– Forms, structure, software to help
Access
• To the case (organisation)
– Case selection
– Observation & document analysis
• To the people
– Participant selection
– Access to their views & actions (interview &
observation techniques)
• “what it is to be rather than see a member of the
organisation”
– Participant’s opinions and stories, not analysis
– Verify your understanding
Collect data
• Use the plan as a guide
• Things will change in the field
• Close interrelationship between collecting
data and analysing it
Analyse
• Coding: concepts in the conceptual
framework provide initial codes
• ‘any other’ code to include unexpected
outcomes
• Ties the data analysis to the research themes
Reflect
• Deliberate and conscious thought about your
research
– What do these findings mean?
– Implications for the conceptual framework?
• Reflection either validates or revises and
extends the conceptual framework
• Keeps the researcher honest:
– Look for disconfirming evidence
– Look for alternative explanations
– Review your research methods
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
IS World at http://www.qual.auckland.ac.nz/
D. Silverman, “Qualitative research: meanings or practice?,” Information Systems Journal, vol. 8, pp. 3-20,
1998.
W. J. Orlikowsky and J. J. Baroudi, “Studying information technology in organizations: research approaches
and assumptions,” Information Systems Research, vol. 2, pp. 1-28, 1991.
K. M. Eisenhardt, “Building theories from case study research,” Academy of Management Review, vol. 14,
pp. 532-550, 1989.
A. S. Lee, “Integrating positivist and interpretive approaches to organizational research,” Organization
Science, vol. 2, pp. 342-365, 1991.
R. E. Stake, “Case studies,” in Handbook of Qualitative Research, N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, Eds.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994, pp. 236-247.
A. S. Lee, “A scientific methodology for MIS case studies,” MIS Quarterly, vol. 13, pp. 32-50, 1989.
H. K. Klein and M. D. Myers, “A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in
information systems,” MIS Quarterly Special Issue on Intensive Research,, 1998.
G. Walsham, “Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method,” European Journal of Information
Systems, vol. 4, pp. 74-81, 1995.
R. K. Yin, Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills, CA.: Sage, 1984.
E. G. Guba and Y. S. Lincoln, “Competing paradigms in qualitative research,” in Handbook of qualitative
research, N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, Eds. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1994.