Orlikowski, Sambamurthy, Malhotra, Gosain, El Sawy…
…names start to emerge from the forest of literature time and time again, signposts pointing a way forward.
Research, for good … or evil…
In contemplating what is good research, there are many meaning s of the word ‘good’ to be addressed, and amongst them is the sense of “possessing or displaying moral virtue” (Oxford Dictionaries 2013). This immediately brings the concept of research ethics to the fore, and opens up considerations extending beyond the issues of ontology and epistemology critical for academic credibility.
That the research must be trustworthy and soundly argued is essential for ethical ‘goodness’ as well as for academic ‘goodness’. It would be unethical to release untrustworthy data or unsound conclusions, because decisions based on that research would be unsound and accordingly have negative consequences for society. Funding untrustworthy research would in itself imply the ethically-inappropriate squandering of funds entrusted to the researcher.
However, the research must also be conducted with regard to its impact on persons such as research participants (Myers 2011, pp.45-46) A series of protocols and practices have arisen to counterbalance the unequal power balance between researcher and research participant (Neuman 2011, p.144): these include voluntary informed consent; publication permission; data privacy; anonymity and confidentiality; ethical codes; and legal frameworks (Myers 2011, pp.48-51; Neuman 2011, pp.145-161). But with conflicting needs and interests in play , the application of these practices may not be easy (Marshall & Rossman 2011, pp.47-49), and sometimes the participants themselves may demonstrate little concern for their own interests (Neuman 2011, p.143) . Furthermore, the lives of the researchers themselves must also be balanced with other factors.
But is it enough for research to be trustworthy and conducted ethically. Is it sufficient to ‘do no harm’? Or should it achieve ‘good’ as well? Taken to the limit, this notion clearly leads in the direction of the critical genres of qualitative research, such as feminist research methods, critical ethnography, and action research (Marshall & Rossman 2011).
What is clear from this brief discussion is that the concept of ‘good’ as used herein extends beyond the academic context. It is tied to the impact of the research on the social context in which the researcher resides, where that social context includes research participants (both individual and organisational), funding bodies, and society as a whole
REFERENCES:
Marshall, C & Rossman, GB 2011, Designing Qualitative Research, 5th edn, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Myers, MD 2011, Qualitative Research in Business & Management, Sage, London, UK.
Neuman, WL 2011, Social Research Methods, 7th edn, Pearson, Boston, MA.
Oxford Dictionaries 2013, Oxford University Press, viewed 6 March 2013, http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/good
Is this Isomophism ?
Armstrong and Hardgrave (2007, p.455) make a case that there is a real-world problem encountered in many organisations whereby software developers have difficulty in moving to new software development forms. The particular example explored in their paper is the shift to object-oriented development (OO) by developers from a traditional development background.
The authors note that previous research “has not answered the question of why software developers have difficulty making the transition” (Armstrong & Hardgrave, 2007, p.455). But they conclude that “individual’s had higher scores on the OO concepts they perceived as novel or carryover rather than those they perceive as changed” (Armstrong & Hardgrave 2007, p.487). Whilst this conclusion provides a more refined understanding of the circumstances under which “mindshift learning is more difficult” (Armstrong & Hardgrave 2007, p.487), it hardly amounts to an explanation that is unique to the software development domain.
In short, this study takes a series of strands from learning, cognition theory and so on (Armstrong & Hardgrove 2007, pp.455-457) to generate a theoretical model dubbed “mindshift learning theory” (MLT), and then applies it to a particular case. Whilst this provides further support for the learning and cognition models drawn on and further suggests that the MLT model may be a useful framework, it does little to enhance understanding of information systems development.
REFERENCES:
Armstrong, DJ & Hardgrave, BC 2007, ‘Understanding Mindshift Learning: The Transition to Object-Oriented Development’, MIS Quarterly,
September, vol.31, no 3, pp.453-474.
Fit for Purpose
In considering what is “good” research—in the sense of research of good quality—quality frameworks provide a lens that may offer a useful perspective. The tenet that quality implies “fit[ness] for [a] purpose” (Juran 1995, p.455) suggests that it is critical to understand the purpose of the research. It further suggests that different types of research may have different measures of “fitness”—or a different balance of qualities—depending on their purpose.
Three key purposes for social research have been identified (Neuman 2011, p.38), namely exploration, description and explanation. Exploration introduces the basic facts, generates new idea and new data collection and analysis. For this purpose, reliability or credibility of the data is crucial. Description details a more accurate understanding, develops new categories and sequences of activities, and documents causal mechanisms and background or context. For this purpose validity or dependability are required “to insure an accurate reflection of reality (or at least, participants’ constructions of reality” (Cho & Trent 2006, quoted in Marshall & Rossman 2011, p.41). Explanation tests theory, elaborates or extends on theory; and seeks to establish and rank general explanations. For this purpose, the research must in particular be generalizable or transferable so as to be comparable across cases.
Whilst these qualities may be abstracted together as ‘trustworthiness’ (Marshall & Rossman 2011, p.39) this marks a jump from considering the qualities that may be attributes of particular studies to considering a more generalised ‘theory of research’. Whilst important for understanding, comparing and refining different research methods, this generalised level does not give the detailed guidance required to design and assess particular pieces of research.
REFERENCES:
Juran, JM 1995, A History of Managing for Quality, SQC Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI.
Marshall, C & Rossman, GB 2011, Designing Qualitative Research, 5th edn, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Neuman, WL 2011, Social Research Methods, 7th edn, Pearson, Boston, MA.
BUSN8018 – Lecture 1 – further note
Oddly enough, in the same edition of MIS Quarterly a paper explored a model of multi-level analysis of system use (Burton-Jones & Gallivant 2007).
REFERENCES:
——————-
Burton-Jones & Gallivant 2007, ‘Towards a Deeper Understanding of System Usage in Organizations: A Multilevel Perspective’, MIS Quarterly, December, vol.31, no.4, pp.657-679.
Related articles
- BUSN8018 – Lecture 1 – find something ‘stinky’ (ann5255676.wordpress.com)
BUSN8018 – Lecture 1 – find something ‘stinky’
From the first sentence the focus of the discussion by Limayem, Hirt and Cheung (2007) is on the “user” of an Information Sysem (IS). The purpose of the paper is specified to be to “explore the role of habit in the context of continued IS usage” (Limayem, Hirt & Cheung 2007, p.706). Habit is defined in this context as “the extent to which people tend to perform behaviours … automatically because of learning” (Limayem, Hirt & Cheung 2007, p.709), and is clearly separated from intention. Throughout the discussion the focus is on the individual system user, their experience, and the impact it has on their continuation intentions.
Yet in a corporate or organisational context, typically decisions are made on the continuation of use of information systems by individuals other than the people who use the systems regularly—and who therefore may have developed habits of use. Here, the word “user” has been inadequately defined to separate these two different levels of usage. Whilst an individual may combine the two in their personal life—as was the focus of the experimental study (Limayem, Hirt & Cheung 2007, p.721)—this is not the case in all situations. It is unfortunate, therefore, that the authors acknowledge the existence of multiple levels in an organisational context (Limayem, Hirt & Cheung 2007, p.731), yet fail to separate these in their experimental design.
REFERENCES
============
Limayem, Hirt & Cheung 2007, ‘How Habit Limits the Predictive Power of Intention:
The Case of Information Systems Continuance’, MIS Quarterly, December, vol.31,
no.4, pp.705-737. Continue reading
ann5255676 