Abstract
Information systems (IS) is a relatively new discipline with many researchers having their foundation studies in other disciplines. The IS discipline is moving towards some sense of its own identity and some agreement on what constitutes suitable foci of research. Coming from other fields of study, however, our researchers bring perspectives on particular modes of enquiry and methodological paradigms as well as perspectives on what is meant by ‘theory’. The argument of this paper is that IS needs to critically examine the types of theorising relevant to its own discipline and recognise the unique nature of the theory that is needed. Perspectives found useful come from the philosophy of science (excluding positivism), interpretivism and Herbert Simon’s depiction of the sciences of the artificial. It is shown how these perspectives can be melded, leading to a typology of interrelated theories that is unique to information systems.
Table of Contents
This paper is, logically, a precursor to an earlier paper that sets out the different interrelated types of theory that can be employed in information systems research, namely: (i) descriptive theory, (ii) theory for understanding, (iii) theory for predicting, (iv) theory for explanation and prediction, and (v) theory for design and action (Gregor, 2002). What that paper failed to do was show clearly why the distinctive nature of the information systems discipline requires a perspective on theorising all of its own. The aim of this current paper is to show clearly how ideas can be combined from some views of theory in supporting disciplinary areas to give a typology of theories that is appropriate for information systems research.
The information systems discipline is relatively new. Many researchers studied originally in disparate areas ranging from physics and chemistry to mathematics, psychology and sociology. It is perhaps natural that researchers will bring with them from these areas different views on the nature of theory, knowledge and epistemology. It is unfortunate, however, if we do not stop to think whether and how ideas from different disciplines apply in the information systems field. The argument in this paper is that information systems, being a field that requires knowledge pertaining to the world of physical systems, the world of human behaviour, and the world of designed artefacts, requires theorising that relates to all these types of knowledge and allows them to be addressed in an integrated manner. While ideas on the nature of theory can be taken from other disciplinary areas, this borrowing should not be done uncritically, but with an eye on the unique nature of information systems.
Information systems can be defined as:
the effective design, delivery, use and impact of information technology in organisations and society (Avison and Fitzgerald, 1995, p. xi).
Information systems is not another management field, like organisational behaviour (contrary to the view of Webster and Watson, 2002), neither is it about technology alone, like computer science. A characteristic that distinguishes information systems from these fields is that it concerns the use of artefacts in human-machine systems. Lee (2001, p iii) uses these words:
research in the information systems field examines more than just the technological system, or just the social system, or even the two side by side; in addition, it investigates the phenomena that emerge when the two interact.
Thus, we have a discipline that is at the intersection of knowledge of the properties of physical objects (machines) and knowledge of human behaviour. Information systems can be seen to have commonalities with other design disciplines such as architecture or engineering, which also concern both people and artefacts, or with other applied disciplines such as medicine, where the products of scientific knowledge (drugs, treatments) are used with people. Necessary knowledge for information systems encompasses the knowledge types found in the natural sciences (e.g. the properties of a communications medium), the social sciences (e.g. change management), mathematics (e.g. representational languages) and technology (e.g. design of an artefact).
Dictionary definitions show that the word ‘theory’ can take on many meanings, including: ‘the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art’, ‘a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action’, ‘a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena’, ‘a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation’ (Merriam-Webster, 2004).
In the remainder of the paper a number of different views of theory are given, choosing perspectives that are relevant to different facets of information systems work. Thus, perspectives are taken from the philosophy of science, encompassing both the natural and social sciences, and from theory of technology. Interpretivism and positivism are dealt with separately as they are so often referred to in information systems research, though usually in discussions of research methods rather than in terms of formulating theory. Positivism is presented first, basically to clarify some areas that are often confused and to argue that it is not a defensible position.
The aim in presenting these different views is to show how they can all (except positivism) be drawn upon to propose a ‘theory of theories’ in information systems that addresses the field’s unique nature.