The Ontological, Epistemological and Methodological Debates in

Information Systems Research: A Partial Review

Ibrahim Osman Adam 1

University for Development Studies
School of Business and Law, Wa, Ghana
ioadam@uds.edu.gh

Essays from my PhD, 2014.

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the ontological, epistemological and methodological debates
in information systems (IS) research based on the philosophical assumptions in management and
organisational research. IS as a discipline has had a lot of debates about having its own research
tradition. A discipline need to have some fundamental and philosophical assumptions that informs
the work of researchers in the discipline. The IS literature demonstrates the existence of
philosophical assumptions in IS research though IS has come a long way from periods of pre-
paradigmatism. Today, IS literature portrays the existence of four paradigms though some have
been relatively older and more dominant than others. The four paradigms are the positivist,
interpretivist, critical theory and the critical realism paradigms. Positivism has been very overly
dominant from the early years of IS inception to the early 1990s when even interpretivism and
critical theory were proposed as alternative paradigms in IS research. Critical realism is also
gaining a lot of popularity in IS research though its application in the IS literature cannot be said
to be a match to positivism. The ontological, epistemological and methodological assumptions of
each of the four paradigms are discussed. A discussion of the research topic ‘Migrating processes
from a traditional to a virtual environment: An application of process virtualisation theory to the
Controller and Accountants General Department payroll services in Ghana’ is provided by
justifying the ontological, epistemological and methodological stance of the paper to clearly
elucidate its philosophical assumptions. This expatiates some the assumptions discussed under the
paradigms in the paper.

Key words: paradigm, ontology, epistemology, methodology, Information systems research

1
The author is a lecturer at the University for Development Studies and a doctoral student in the department of Operations and Management
Information Systems at the University of Ghana Business School

1|Page

Electroniccopy
Electronic copy available
available at:
at:https://ssrn.com/abstract=2411620
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2411620
 1. Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to review and discuss the ontological, epistemological and
methodological debates in information systems research based on the philosophical assumptions
in management and organisational research in general and information systems research in
particular. Information systems (IS) is an interdisciplinary field (Becker and Niehaves 2007). This
nature of IS lends it to the use of pluralistic perspectives from many disciplines unlike in the natural
sciences where the use of empirical research is fundamental, more suited and useful in conducting
of research. Thus, IS research can be viewed to involve an array of diverse research methods,
paradigms and approaches (Benbasat and Weber 1996) and this has led to the use of perspectives
from either the social or natural sciences or a hybrid of perspectives from both the social and
natural sciences. Within the (multi) interdisciplinary nature of the IS discipline, the assumptions
made by different researchers vary considerably and this may inform how a concept is understood.
This therefore makes the epistemological assumptions (Becker and Niehaves 2007) as well as the
ontological and methodological assumptions necessary in a research. These assumptions inform
and define what particular research paradigm is being used for a particular research. The word
‘paradigm’ was first used by (Kuhn 1970) to refer to the set of practices that define a scientific
discipline at any particular period of time. He defined a scientific paradigm as ‘universally
recognized scientific achievements that, for a time, provide model problems and solutions for a
community of practitioners’. Kuhn (1970) did not consider the use of the word paradigm
appropriate for the social sciences and this idea was further pushed by Dogan (2001) in his study
of paradigms for the social sciences. Despite the fact that the idea of a paradigm was not initially
propounded for use in the social science, the meaning and use of a paradigm in IS and other social
sciences still finds it basis in the Kuhnian paradigms.
Drawing on the idea of Kuhn (1970), researchers have described paradigms in various ways.
Burrell and Morgan (1979) used the term as a ‘commonality of perspectives which binds the work
of a group of theorists together’. To many, when most cardinal set of assumptions are adopted by
a research community and allows its members to share similar perceptions and engage in
commonly shared practices in a discourse, then it is a “paradigm.” Largely, it encompasses
assumptions about knowledge and how these knowledge is acquired in both social and physical
realms (Hirschheim and Klein 1989). In the social sciences, Handa (1987) coined the idea of
‘social paradigm’ to be specific to the context of the social sciences whilst trying to identify the
basic components of a social paradigm. In doing this he addressed the issue of changing paradigm,
a term that has popularly been referred to as ‘paradigm shift’ to highlight the social circumstances
that causes such a shift and the effects on research. In his view, this shift changes the way the
researcher perceives reality. To Guba and Lincoln (1994), a paradigm is simply ‘basic beliefs’
about the initial principles of the issue under investigation and presents a ‘world view’ that spells
out the nature of the world and the researcher’s place in it and the extent of relationships of the
world.
To discuss these paradigmatic positions in IS, this paper is organised as follows. The following
section discusses the different paradigmatic position in IS research and a discussion of what the
ontological, epistemological and methodical positions of a paradigm is in IS research. The next
section discusses extensively each paradigm and what their ontological, epistemological and
methodical positions entail. This means a discussion of positivism, interpretivism, critical theory
and critical realism are discussed with their assumptions. This is followed by a discussion of the
research topic: ‘Migrating processes from a traditional to a virtual environment: An application of

2|Page

Electroniccopy
Electronic copy available
available at:
at:https://ssrn.com/abstract=2411620
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2411620
process virtualisation theory to the Controller and Accountants General Department payroll
services in Ghana’ by justifying the ontological, epistemological and methodological stance of the
paper to clearly demonstrate the understanding of these philosophical assumptions. The last section
summarises the review findings.
2. Paradigms in IS research
There are a lot of variations in the classification of paradigms. Of the many classifications which
have attempted to group paradigms in social sciences, the one developed by Burrell and Morgan
(1979) has attracted the most attention (Morgan 1990). They defined four paradigms which
consists of functionalist, interpretive, radical humanist and radical structuralist but their framework
has been questioned, however, with (Deetz 1996) arguing that the dimensions of their framework
“obscure important differences in current research orientations and lead to poorly formed conflicts
and discussions.” Guba and Lincoln (1994) suggested four underlying paradigms for research:
positivism, post-positivism, critical theory, and constructivism. In their most recent work,
however, they acknowledge that there are major issues confronting their own classification scheme
(Lincoln, Lynham et al. 2011). Orlikowski and Baroudi (1991), following Chua (1986), suggest
three categories, based on the underlying research epistemology: positivist, interpretive and
critical. This three-fold classification is the one that is adopted here but an extension is made to
include another paradigm in IS research. The fourth paradigm is the critical realism. However it
needs to be said that, while these three research epistemologies are philosophically distinct, in the
practice of social research these distinctions are not always so clear cut as they seem. There is
considerable disagreement as to whether these research "paradigms" or underlying epistemologies
are necessarily opposed or can be accommodated within one study.
Orlikowski and Baroudi (1991) and Goles and Hirschheim (2000) indicate that positivism
dominates IS research while other paradigms are relatively small in number. However, this is not
a conclusion that paradigmatic discussion and application in IS research is restricted. All the four
paradigms considered in this paper have been used in IS research. They are therefore alternative
paradigms in IS research despite the dominance of positivism and interpretivism (Fitzgerald and
Howcroft 1998, Mingers 2001). Thus, the four paradigmatic discussions in this review is
conducted not only for their prevalence in IS research, but because they effectively form the poles
from which IS research is developed and derived. Sometimes, different names are used to describe
apparently similar paradigms; in part this is as a result of similar approaches being developed in
parallel across different branches of the social sciences (Wong, Ghazali et al. 2011).

There have been a lot of discussion about the nature of the IS discipline (Lee 2001, Baskerville
and Myers 2002, Avison and Fitzgerald 2003). Whilst some think the IS field is in a state of
confusion and there is the need for some agreements of what the fundamental concepts are
(Orlikowski and Iacono 2001, Benbasat and Zmud 2003), others argue that diversity is good for
the field (Walsham 2012). Conventionally, IS is seen as having many reference disciplines and
does not have its own research tradition (Avison and Elliot 2006). According to (Baskerville and
Myers 2002), this view of IS is outdated and IS now have its own tradition. If this is really outdated
the IS as a discipline must have some fundamental and philosophical assumptions about research
in the field. Orlikowski and Baroudi (1991) argue, following Chua (1986) and Webster and
Starbuck (1988), that an indicator of a research tradition in a discipline is the extent to which there
exists a set of philosophical assumptions that informs the work of the researchers in a discipline.
In the early years of IS as discipline, (Culnan and Swanson 1986, Culnan 1987) conducted a

3|Page

Electroniccopy
Electronic copy available
available at:
at:https://ssrn.com/abstract=2411620
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2411620
bibliographic citation analysis of information systems research literature from 1972 to 1982),
established distinct research areas in the information systems research which portrayed IS as
preparadigmatic and that IS was making progress in establishing philosophical assumptions to
guide research. However, Orlikowski and Baroudi (1991) from their study of IS literature from
1983-1988 argued there is a consistent philosophical world view that underlie IS research though
this portrayed evidence of dominant perspectives in IS research. They concluded that though there
is a set of philosophical assumptions regarding the nature of the phenomena studied by IS
researchers and what constitutes valid knowledge about those phenomena being, it was restrictive
to limit IS research to one set of philosophical assumptions. They argued that there are other
philosophical assumptions that can inform studies of the relationships between information
technology, people, and organizations and this led to the presentation of two additional research
philosophies for consideration-the interpretive and the critical theory paradigms. I now turn to
discuss the three fundamentals of the framework of research namely, ontology, epistemology and
methodology. Each of these is discussed below.

2.1.Ontology
Ontology systematically describes how diverse communities have looked at reality in different
eras (Kroeze 2011). According to De Villiers (2005) ontology is the science of the essence of being
which is closely related to one’s view of reality. All research begin with a clear understanding of
the ontology. After this, the epistemological and methodological positions follow. Blaikie (2000)
states that ontology refers to ‘claims and assumptions that are made about the nature of social
reality, claims about what exists, what it looks like, what units make it up and how these units
interact with each other. In short, ontological assumptions are concerned with what we believe
constitutes social reality’. It is the study of being. It is concerned with 'what is', with the nature of
existence, with the structure of reality as such (Crotty 1998). According to Grix (2002) and
following an analysis by Hay (2002) it is only when a question like ‘what is the nature of the social
and political reality to be investigated?, has been asked and answered that one can discuss what
we know about the social reality that is believed to exist. Whether IS research wishes to obtain
objective or subjective knowledge about the issue under investigation or otherwise, the bottom line
is that it must be about things which exist and how it exist. Objectivity or subjectivity of knowledge
is reliant on reality. The reality of what exist is ontology. It is about asking about what constitutes
reality and how can we understand its existence? Ontology is the science, or the analysis of ‘what
is’ and ‘how it is’ (Foerster 1996). Ontology is all about the nature of the world around us.
Particularly, it is about the small part of reality which the researcher chooses to address. In
positivism therefore, a particular ontological position is chosen and this is realism. This view holds
that the world is comprised of objectively given objects and structures independent of the
researcher (Hirschheim 1985).

2.2. Epistemology
According to Blaikie (2000) epistemology is ‘the possible ways of gaining knowledge of social
reality, whatever it is understood to be. In short, claims about how what is assumed to exist can be
known’. Epistemology centres on the knowledge-gathering process and involves developing new
theories that are better than competing theories. To him the knowledge discovery process is not
static but is constantly changing and it is important in dealing with theories or concepts to
understand the assumptions on which they are based and where they originated from (Grix 2002).
Epistemology refers to the theory of knowledge, in particular how we acquire knowledge. It is best

4|Page

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2411620

understood as the science of analysing the way human beings comprehend knowledge about what
is perceived to exist (Burrell and Morgan 1994, Niehaves 2005). Epistemological assumptions
about a research issue under investigation concern the criteria by which valid knowledge about
that phenomenon may be constructed (Chua 1986). It is the theory about the reality and is
concerned with how we come to know what we know. There is a connection between a theory of
reality (epistemology) and reality itself (ontology). Specifically, epistemology concerns itself with
such issues as the degree of certainty that can be claimed for the conclusions that are tempted to
be drawn from an analyses. In essence, epistemology is about the source, and sourcing of
knowledge. One’s epistemological position therefore, would be one’s answer to the question:
where is it best to look in order to acquire knowledge, and why? Therefore, the theory of
knowledge and view of reality underpin our theoretical perspective and more importantly our
methodology of research in IS.
2.3.Methodology
The methodological aspect of the theory of knowledge (epistemology) explains how a researcher
forms perceptions about a phenomenon being investigated. The methodology is about the modes
of acquiring knowledge about the phenomena. One way of achieving this is through induction.
Induction is understood as the extension from individual cases to universal cases. An inductive
conclusion means the transfer from (observed, empirical) individual cases to a universal law. On
the other hand, knowledge can be acquired through a deductive method. Deduction is the
derivation of a statement from other statements with the help of logical conclusions. It is the
derivation of the individual from the universal (Becker and Niehaves 2007)
Simply put, methodology relates to the choice of analytical strategy and research design which
underpins substantive research. Typically, it is the analysis of how research should proceed. It is
important not to confuse methodology with methods and/or research techniques; rather, the
methodology should guide the aspects of the research. In the context of epistemological analysis,
ontology reveals its relevance through analysing objects to which the process of acquiring
knowledge refers. For epistemology in IS research, this means: What is the object of our research?
(Monod 2003). Epistemology centres on the claims or assumptions made about the ways in which
it is possible to gain knowledge of reality. So, if the ontologist asks the question ‘what exists to be
known?’ the epistemologist asks ‘what are the conditions of acquiring knowledge of that which
exists?
According to Guba and Lincoln (1994) a paradigm can be identified or summarised by the
responses to three fundamental questions. These questions are so interrelated so much to the extent
that the answer given to one, in any order, determines and constraints how the others may be
answered. These questions which I refer to as the pillars of any research study determines the
nature of research. If the questions are answered by the researcher then it makes his ontological,
epistemological and methodological positions clear for the conduct of the research and if answered
by an outsider , it makes things explicitly clear in terms of the what is being studied and justifies
to a large extent the approaches that are adopted for the study. The first question is the ontological
question. The question that is posed here is; how things really are or how do they really work in
the real world. Real existence and real action are the targets here. Becker and Niehaves (2007)
refers to this as by as asking the question: what is the object of cognition? The second question is
‘what is the nature of the relationship between the knower or would-be knower what can be
known’(Guba and Lincoln 1994). This question is affected by the answer that is given to the
ontology question. The relationship that is derived or established under this question is largely

5|Page

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2411620

dependent on the answer to the first question. The third question is about how the researcher will
embark on his/her journey to finding out what is known.
There is some directional relationship between ontology, epistemology, methodology as well as
the sources and methods used in the research process, methods and sources. In view of this inherent
relationships it is important to understand how a particular view of the world affects the whole
research process. The interrelationship between what a researcher believes to be in existence and
can be researched (the ontological position), what can be known about it (the epistemological
position) and how to go about acquiring the knowledge (the methodological approach) makes it
easy to understand the impact of the ontological position can have on what and how a research
phenomenon is studied. The ontology must not be confused with the epistemology though the two
are closely related. The methodological approach chosen by a researcher is underpinned by the
specific ontological and epistemological assumptions. Because of this confusion, researchers have
trouble keeping ontology and epistemology apart conceptually. Realism which is an ontological
notion which assert that realities exist outside the mind is often taken to imply objectivism. In
some cases realism is identified with objectivism (Crotty 1998). Guba and Lincoln (1994) indicate
a link between the two when they posit that if reality is assumed, the posture of the researcher must
be objective in order to be able to discover how things really are and how things really work. The
methodology is the choice of approach and research methods that are adopted by the researcher in
a given research. The term ‘methodology’ pertains to the science and study of methods and the
assumptions about the ways in which knowledge is produced. Methodology is logically linked to,
and very often confused with, the research methods employed in a project. These are different.
The research methods are the ‘techniques or procedures used to collate and analyse data’ (Blaikie
2000).
The epistemology and ontology of a research are the foundations of philosophical knowledge. All
research knowledge must be able to be justified in terms of an epistemological and ontological
framework. Both the epistemological and ontological assumptions can be classified into two major
categories: objectivity and subjectivity. With objective epistemology there exist what Khin, Ying
et al. (2011) calls theory-neutral language. This means that the researcher is are able to present
research findings and interpretations in an objective manner. It also enables the researcher to
differentiate between what is true or false as a matter of fact. This is possible because there are
rules to assess the validity of claims about knowledge that are made. Subjectivist epistemology on
the other hand holds that all the knowledge-claims are affected by the researcher’s biases. In this
case, the researcher cannot proclaim that their research findings are the truth. This is because there
is no standard evaluative criteria (Khin, Ying et al. 2011).

3. The philosophical assumptions of IS research paradigms

In this section, positivism, interpretivism, critical theory and critical realism are discussed to
clearly bring out their ontological, epistemological and methodical assumptions in IS research.

3.1.The Positivist Philosophy of IS Research

The positivist relies on the existence of a priori fixed relationships within what is being
investigated. The bottom line is fundamentally to test a theory in such a manner that the
predictability of the theory can be enhanced in relation to the phenomenon that is being studied.
Largely, research is classified as belonging to this paradigm if there is evidence of formal

6|Page

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2411620

propositions, variables under investigation can be measured quantitatively and a hypothesis can be
tested (Orlikowski and Baroudi 1991). The positivist research paradigm uses universal laws to
predict human activity, and the physical and technological world (Guo and Sheffield 2006). Here,
the perspective of the researcher is comparable to that of standing aloof and apart from participants
and subject matter so that decisions can be made objectively (Holsapple and Joshi 2004).
Ontologically, Guba and Lincoln (1994), suggest that positivism involves a reality that is assumed
to exist but guided by some natural laws or mechanisms. These laws exist in the form of cause and
effect. Hesse (1980) describe this paradigm posture about reality as deterministic.
Epistemologically, they describe the paradigm as being dualist and objectivist to mean that the
researcher and the phenomena or object being investigated are independent and do not influence
each other. The values and biases of the researcher are not allowed to influence the outcome of the
research. Methodologically, the propositions that are stated in the research are subjected to
empirical test to ensure that they are confirmed. In positivist research ,new knowledge is generated
deductively from existing knowledge by testing the constructs of empirical data (Wong, Ghazali
et al. 2011). According to Khin, Ying et al. (2011) the positivists are usually preoccupied with
several characteristics such as causality replication, generalizability and defining concepts in
terms of practicalities.

To elaborate more on the positivist paradigm, Chua (1986) sums up the ontological position of the
positivist as a belief of reality in an objective world. To understand a research phenomenon is
therefore a matter of modelling and measurement and determining the appropriate set of constructs
and instruments to capture adequately what the phenomena is about. Largely, the researcher plays
a passive and neutral role in the investigation. Epistemologically, the positivist perspective is
concerned with the testability of theories. It does not matter whether the theory needs to be verified
or falsified (Orlikowski and Baroudi 1991). This belief, is what is known as the hypothetic-
deductive account of scientific explanation. Typically, it involves a search for universal laws or
principles from which lower-level hypotheses may be deduced. Positivist researchers work in a
deductive manner to discover unilateral, causal relationships, which are the basis of generalized
knowledge. This relationships can then be used predict patterns of behaviour across situations
(Putnam 1983).
In summary, the major research implications of the positivist approach are the observer is
independent of what is being observed. The choice of what to study, and how to study it, can be
determined by objective criteria rather than by human beliefs and interests (value freedom). The
aim of social science should be to identify causal explanations and fundamental laws that explain
regularities in human social behaviour (causality). Science proceeds through a process of
hypothesising fundamental laws and then deducing what kinds of observations will demonstrate
the truth or falsity of these hypotheses. Here, concepts need to be operationalised in a way which
enables facts to be measured quantitatively. This way research problems as a whole are better
understood because they are reduced into the simplest possible elements to ensure generalisations
can take place by selecting samples of sufficient sizes. The aim of generalisations is to lead to
prediction, explanation and understanding (Remenyi 1998, Collis and Hussey 2009, Easterby-
Smith, Thorpe et al. 2012, Creswell 2013).

7|Page

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2411620

 3.2. The Interpretivist Philosophy of IS Research

Interpretivism as a philosophical system focuses on reality as a human construction which can

only be understood subjectively. Although it is possible and even probable that there is an
independent, concrete reality out there, humans can only know it through the filtering lenses of
their sensory organs (Kroeze 2011). Interpretive research has emerged as an important strand in
information systems research. Interpretive research is useful in supporting IS researchers to
understand human behaviour in social and organizational contexts, though its potential to produce
deep insights into IS phenomena is very high. Over the years the interest in interpretive research
has increased. Despite this increase IS researchers have questioned how interpretive research
should be conducted (Klein and Myers 1999). Interpretivist assume that as people interact with the
world they create subjective meaning through their interactions. An attempt to understand the
subject meaning of this interactive process is what is of primacy to the IS researcher. Interpretive
studies reject the possibility of objectivity of factual accounts of situations. This means that the
interpretivist research paradigm is concerned with attaching a socially constructed meaning to
reality. This meaning is assigned by an individual or a group of individuals. Interpretive research
assume that people can create and associate their own subjective and inter subjective meanings as
they interact with the phenomenon they are researching on. Interpretive researchers attempt to
understand phenomena through accessing the meanings that participants assign to them
(Orlikowski and Baroudi 1991). Interpretive researchers begins with the assumption that access to
reality is only through social constructions such as language, consciousness and shared meanings.
Interpretive research generally attempt to understand phenomena through the meanings that people
assign to them(Myers 1997). Therefore interpretive methods of research in IS are ‘directed at
producing an understanding of the context of the information system and the influences and impact
both information systems and the impact will have on each other (Walsham 1993). Interpretivism
views reality and our knowledge of it as social products which are incapable of being understood
independent of the researcher. The world is not seen as a fixed constitution of objects, but rather
as ‘an emergent social process’ which are affected and influenced by our subjective experience
(Burrell and Morgan 1979, Burrell and Morgan 1994). Interpretivist assume that as people interact
with the world they create subjective meaning through their interactions. An attempt to understand
the subject meaning of this interactive process is what is of primacy to the IS researcher.
Interpretive studies reject the possibility of objectivity of factual accounts of situations
(Orlikowski and Baroudi 1991). This means that the interpretivist research paradigm is concerned
with attaching a socially constructed meaning to reality. This meaning is assigned by an individual
or a group of individuals.

In interpretive paradigm the assumptions about the nature of the phenomena under investigation
(ontology) is core in understanding what is being investigated. Burrell and Morgan (1979),
classifies the first of this assumptions of being of ontological nature. These assumptions concern
the very essence of the phenomena or the reality being investigated. The issue of whether this
phenomena or reality is the individual’s construction is primary to the interpretivist researcher.
The ontology of the researcher here is that reality’s form and content is dependent on the
researcher’s construction(Guba and Lincoln 1994). The ontological position therefore is that of
subjective reality. Burrell and Morgan (1979) stresses that how the researcher starts to understand
the world and the research issue under investigation and communicates this as knowledge to others
spells out the epistemological assumptions and in the interpretivist paradigm this knowledge has

8|Page

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2411620

to be personally experienced or constructed by the researcher. Interpretivist assume that scientific
knowledge should be obtained not through hypothetic-deductive reasoning but through the
understanding of human and social interaction by which the subjective meaning of the reality is
constructed (Walsham 1995). The researcher and the issue being researched are assumed to be
linked interactively with the values of the researcher influencing the research(Guba and Lincoln
1994). Interpretivist, argue that to understand the meaning embedded in human and social
interaction, researchers need to engage in the social setting investigated and learn how the
interaction takes place from the participants’ perspective. Field studies that engage researchers in
the real social setting would be more appropriate for generating interpretive knowledge
(Orlikowski & Baroudi, 1991). The assumptions about how to generate the interpretive knowledge
constitute the methodology. Whichever paradigmatic position one adopts, the issue of ontology
lies prior to and determines the subsequent epistemological and methodological assumptions
(Chua 1986).Interpretivist research is seen through evidence from a free will perspective, the
researchers’ engagement in the specific social and cultural setting investigated and an analysis
based on participants’ viewpoints (Orlikowski & Baroudi, 1991;Walsham, 1995).
According to Klein and Myers (1999) there are some fundamental principles which are derived
from certain philosophical writings that are considered classical contributions to interpretivism
According to them these principles are helpful in summarising the important insights in
interpretivism. They classified these into seven principles which are discussed below:
The first is the fundamental principle of the hermeneutic circle. This principle proposes that all the
understanding about a research phenomenon is derived by moving between understanding the
interdependent meaning of parts and the whole that they form. This principle of understanding the
research phenomenon in IS is fundamental to all the other principles that are discussed below. The
next is the principle of contextualization which requires a critical reflection of the social and
historical background of the research setting. This is to ensure that the intended audience can have
a picture of how the research phenomenon which is being investigated emerged. In interpretive
researcher the ontological position is that the social world (that is, social relations, organizations,
division of labour) are not ‘given’ but the social world is produced and reinforced by humans
through their action and interaction(Orlikowski and Baroudi 1991). This is the principle of
interaction between the researchers and the Subjects and it requires critical reflection on how the
research materials were socially constructed through the interaction between the researchers and
participants. The fourth principle is the principle of abstraction and generalization which involves
relating the details revealed by data interpretation to general concepts that describe the nature of
the IS phenomenon being researched. In interpretive research there is the possibility of a
contradiction between the theoretical preconception which have informed and are guiding the
research and what the actual findings will be. This principles draws the attention of the researcher
to be sensitive to such contradiction if they happen to occur. There is also the need to be sensitive
to any possible differences in interpretations among the research participants. This usually happen
in multiple narrative. This is the principle multiple interpretations. The last is the principle of
suspicion which requires sensitivity to possible “biases” and systematic “distortions” in the
narratives collected from the participants.

3.3. The Critical theory Philosophy of IS Research

Orlikowski and Baroudi (1991) classify IS research as critical where a critical stance is taken
toward normal and usual assumptions about organizations and information systems with an aim to

9|Page

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2411620

critique the status quo “through the exposure of what are believed to be deep-seated, structural
contradictions within social systems”. According to (Myers and Klein 2011), there are three major
critical research streams that are most visible in the IS research literature. These are associated
with the critical social theories of Habermas, Foucault, and Bourdieu. The work of each of the
three theorists is significantly different. Bourdieu’s work has involved ethnographic field- work
(Bourdieu 1977, Bourdieu 1989), whereas Foucault’s work involved the use of historical records
and archival research (Foucault 1970, Foucault 1997). The work of Habermas is mostly of a
conceptual nature (Habermas and McCarthy 1979, Habermas 1987). By focusing on these three
streams, Myers and Klein (2011)believe that they have captured some of the most important
contributions to critical theory that have so far appeared in the IS research literature.
Critical researchers assume that social reality is historically constituted and that it is produced and
reproduced by people. Although people can consciously act to change their social and economic
circumstances, critical researchers recognize that their ability to do so is constrained by various
forms of social, cultural and political domination. The main task of critical research is seen as
being one of social critique, whereby the restrictive and alienating conditions of the status quo are
brought to light. Critical research focuses on the oppositions, conflicts and contradictions in
contemporary society, and seeks to be emancipatory i.e. it should help to eliminate the causes of
alienation and domination (Myers 1997). According to Richardson and Robinson (2007) the
existence and use of the critical theory in IS research fills the gap in the IS literature that has mostly
ignored the development of the critical approach in the field (Orlikowski and Baroudi 1991) while
questioning some assumptions and drawing attention to misconceptions in critical IS research, thus
contributing to an understanding of its nature and importance. Richardson and Robinson (2007)
insistence on the use of the critical theory in IS research supports similar works by (Chen and
Hirschheim 2004).
Whilst the positivist and the interpretivist paradigms has been distinguished by its objective and
subjective view of reality, the critical theory’s primary objective is the improvement of the human
condition. It does this by moving away from the traditional hypothetical deductive methods and
takes into account the human construction of social forms of life and the possibility of their
recreation (Ngwenyama 1991). Critical research has been portrayed as a third alternative to the
positivism and interpretivism paradigms (Chua 1986, Orlikowski and Baroudi 1991). In as much
this can be argued and portrayed as a third paradigmatic position, it is distinct and stands as a
separate paradigm. It is mostly referred to as the critical theory.

In the proceeding paragraphs the paper discusses five thematic areas which set out the criteria for
what constitutes critical IS research. The ontological, epistemological and methodological
assumptions that distinguishes the critical theory from others are discussed next using a framework
developed by Guba and Lincoln (1994). Primarily, the critical theory aims at improving the human
condition. Its focuses on general theoretical problems, as well as specific investigations of concrete
problems of social organizations with the intent of breaking with traditional hypothetical deductive
methods (Ngwenyama 1991). It distinguishes its approach from the positivist and interpretivist
ones in its evaluative nature of the phenomenon being investigated by attempting to cause a change
of the reality being studied. Therefore, whilst the other two approaches will predict or explain the
reality being investigated, the critical perspective is concerned with critiquing the status quo and
revealing any mishaps (Orlikowski and Baroudi 1991). It is concerned with finding alternatives to
existing social conditions which more adequately address human desires. (Ngwenyama 1991).
Whilst the positivist and the interpretivist lays claim to being objective and subjective respectively,

10 | P a g e

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2411620

the critical social theory spans the objective-subjective spectrum of social reality by emphasising
open participation in the creation of a social world with meaning appropriate to the subjects under
study (Ngwenyama 1991).

In line with the above discussions of what constitutes the critical theory there are some key
thematic features which distinguishes this paradigm from the others (Howcroft and Trauth 2005).
The first is emancipation. This is fundamental in the critical paradigm. It involves the commitment
to set people free from power relations which have been created by social and organisational life
(Fournier and Grey 2000). Emancipation is often seen as the main objective of critical research
whilst revealing conflicts and contradictions in the research phenomenon (Myers and Avison
2002).
The second involves a critique of the traditional way of doing things. This is intended to disrupt
or question the status quo. Whereas positivist and interpretivism may seek to justify phenomena
as objective or subjective, critical research challenges that which is established, and encourages
dissent (Howcroft and Trauth 2005). This critique of tradition (Mingers 2000) seeks to critique
existing patterns of the issues under investigation. In its attempt to question the status quo, critical
research deconstructs the assumptions that are usually taking as given and interprets the issue
under investigation by considering a wider social, political, historical, economic and ideological
context (Doolin 1998). Another aspect of the critical theory is what Fournier and Grey (2000)
describe as non-performative intent. They posit that the provision of tools to achieve efficiency
should be rejected. This is because achieving efficiency this way neglects social relations and all
that is associated with it. For example, the adoption and use of a technology tool or an information
system does not necessarily mean that the technology or system will be used but its use is largely
dependent on the context and the social relations at play. The critical theory is further explained
by its critique of technological determinism which assumes that technological development is
autonomous and that societal development is determined by the technology (Bijker 1995). In IS,
critical researchers are interested in conceptualising technology development, adoption and use
within the context of broader social and economic changes (Howcroft and Trauth 2005). Finally,
whereas IS studies have traditionally been positivist, critical research engages in criticising
objectivity (Mingers 2000). To achieve this, it questions value-free knowledge and seeks to
understand how it is shaped by structures of power and interests. Like interpretive research, critical
research engages in mediations and negotiations (Fournier and Grey 2000).

The reality of what exist is ontology. It is about asking what constitutes reality. Ontology is the
science, or the analysis of ‘what is’ and ‘how it is’ (Foerster 1996). Ontology in the critical theory
assumes that reality is historically based and is shaped by the social, political, cultural, economic,
ethnic and gender issues. In short, the reality that exist here, is a historical one (Guba and Lincoln
1994). (Chua 1986). Here social reality is construed as a construction by humans which also have
objective properties that tend to dominate human experience (Orlikowski and Baroudi 1991). It is
this dominance that give social reality its objective view under this theory. The ontological position
therefore under this theory is an objective one since there is no contest about the existence of
physical and social reality.
The epistemological belief of the critical perspective is that the basis of knowledge is social and
historical practices (Chua 1986). Here, the researcher and the research issues being investigated
are assumed to be interactively linked and the research issue is influenced by the values of the
researcher (Guba and Lincoln 1994). The epistemological position is therefore a subjective one.

11 | P a g e

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2411620

In acquiring knowledge about a phenomena, critical researchers do not aim to only give an
interpretation of how the participants perceive, understand, and act towards the phenomena
because in critical research, interpretation of the phenomena alone is not enough. The bottom line
is that the basic and fundamental conditions need to be understood and criticised. It is not enough
to just ask participants of their opinion. This is because they may not be able to fully understand
the circumstances that shape and constrain them. This is why it is important in the critical theory
to analyse the issues under investigation with the participants involvement (Orlikowski and
Baroudi 1991).

The methodological aspect of the theory of knowledge (epistemology) explains how a how
researcher forms perceptions about a phenomenon being investigated (Becker and Niehaves 2007).
Guba and Lincoln (1994) describe the methodology of the critical theory as a dialogic one. This
means that there is a constant dialogue between the researcher and the research subjects or
participants. It is this constant dialogue that leads to the transformation or change in the lives of
people, organisations or the society. There is little agreement on methodologies suitable for critical
studies (Avgerou 2005, McGrath 2005). Some even say that the critical theory does not have its
own research methodology (Ngwenyama 1991) but interpretive methodologies can be adapted to
the methodology that is needed here. It is important to note however that the methodology that is
used here must be practice oriented and focusing on change and support inquiry into the
organizational processes and its social context. The methods also needs to be sensitive to
individual as well as organizational needs and offer free and open participation (Ngwenyama
1991). The methodological position of the critical theory is dialogic because it requires a
conversational process between the researcher and the research participants (Guba and Lincoln
1994). In the literature no clear distinction is made between “qualitative” and “interpretive”
research. However, the word interpretive and its use suggest some relationship with qualitative.
However, it must be noted that qualitative research may not necessarily be interpretive. This is
because this largely depends upon the underlying philosophical assumptions of the
researcher(Myers 1997).

3.4. The Critical realism Philosophy of IS Research

The paradigms initially identified by Burrell and Morgan (1979) in the context of their study of
organizational and social research, is also manifest in the domain of information systems research
(Hirschheim and Klein 1989). Whilst the positivist and the interpretivist paradigms has been
distinguished by its objective and subjective view of reality, a third paradigm called the critical
theory’s concentrates on the improvement of the human condition. This third paradigm moves
away from the traditional hypothetical deductive methods and takes into account the human
construction of social forms of life and the possibility of their recreation (Ngwenyama 1991).
Critical realism also emerged as a paradigm in the 1970s when Bhaskar made the first big steps in
popularising the theory which has now become one of the major strands of social scientific method
and is beginning to rival positivism and interpretivism. This section discusses what constitutes
critical realism in IS research. The ontological, epistemological and methodological assumptions
that distinguishes this paradigm from others are discussed next.

Critical realism was founded by Roy Bhaskar and his writings remain the core of its philosophy
(Archer and Bhaskar 1998). Bhaskar (1998) originally termed his philosophy “Transcendental

12 | P a g e

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2411620

Realism” to explain the existence of reality in itself. He argues that reality is knowable, but
nonetheless asserts that there are “structures” and “mechanisms” which exist beyond empirical
reality and which are not knowable. The term Critical Realism (CR) is a creation from the phrases
‘transcendental realism’ and ‘critical naturalism’. He explains transcendental realism as an attempt
to establish order for scientific investigation to take place. Here, the object of investigation must
have real, manipulable, internal mechanisms that can be actualised to produce particular outcomes.
This is what is done when experiments are conducted. Critical naturalism on the other hand
prescribes social scientific method which seeks to identify the mechanisms producing social
events. To understand clearly what constitutes critical realism a set of principles that underpin this
theory needs some discussion. First, critical realism presupposes a three-layer stratification
(Bhaskar 1998). Specifically it takes the ontological position that social structures, natural objects
and even conceptual entities( e.g. a language) which can all be referred to collectively as
structures are real and exist independently of the researchers perception of them (Fleetwood 1995).
This is the first layer and is also referred to as the real layer. Under critical realism, this base layer
of reality is associated with mechanisms that generate actions or outcomes. These events or
outcomes together constitute the second layer which is referred to as the actual layer. However,
the actual events and outcomes in this layer may not be observed. The final layer is called the
empirical. This layer contains the subset of the actual that is observed.

Epistemologically the perception of the real research phenomenon by the researcher is always
perfect. This because it depends on the interpretations what (s) he sees. From the perspective of
the critical realist therefore, the understanding of the organizational effects/outcomes associated
with introducing new structures such as a new payroll information systems and how they occur
can be viewed as understanding the generative mechanisms associated with those structures
(Mutch 2010). These generative mechanisms are determined through a retroduction. Retroduction
is a process of working backward from the empirical events that have been observed by the
researcher to the underlying generative mechanisms that could logically have created those events
or outcomes(Danermark 2002). Through a back and forth process, the researcher is able to improve
his/her understanding of those mechanisms.

The second central principle of critical realism is to clearly show the distinction between agency
and structure (Carter and New 2004). The first distinction is that the two are temporally separate.
Whilst structures are assumed to pre-exist actions and creating the conditions for those actions but
new or elaborated structures may or may not emerge from those actions. However, any structure
that emerges necessarily post-date the associated actions(Archer 1995, Archer and Bhaskar 1998).
This temporal separation implies that causality can be explained at any time. The second
distinction is that both structure and agency have very different properties and powers (Carter and
New 2004). Some of these different properties are unlike action, structures are to some extent
lasting and accommodating. Structures are powerful in motivating or discouraging and enabling
or constraining action. Though this may not be deterministic causality, but if those structures had
not existed, or had been different, the process of change would not have happened in the same
way. . Finally, in addition to the different layers and the temporal separation of structure and action,
structures themselves can be stratified. The structures may consist of various components, but
rather than being a simple aggregation of parts, they combine into big one (DeLanda 2006), whose
causalities emerge from the interactions between individuals parts (Elder-Vass 2005).

13 | P a g e

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2411620

To sum up, the ontology of critical realism in IS research consists of the existence of an
independent reality. The ontology is also said to be stratified. This means that it is made up of
structures, mechanisms, events and experiences (Archer and Bhaskar 1998, Sayer 2000,
Danermark 2002, Bhaskar 2008, Wynn and Williams 2012). With respect to independent reality,
critical realism holds the belief that the world and components that make up reality exist
independent of human knowledge or the ability to perceive them (Wynn and Williams 2012). As
opposed to interpretivism, the existence of reality does not depend on any subjective beliefs. This
points to the idea that in critical realism, reality is not easily taken as given or measured but rather
people only experience a portion of the reality. This is what Bhaskar (1975)describe as the
transitive and intransitive dimensions of critical realism. The intransitive dimension is independent
of humans and their ability to perceive them. The transitive dimension on the other hand comprise
of the human knowledge about the reality through their causal and effects which has been
generated through reasoning and scientific research and are constantly subject to revision and
reinterpretation. Therefore, critical realism posits that the beliefs, theories and concepts about the
entities that make up reality exist as real, but are distinct from the entities themselves. Finally,
critical realism adopts an open system view of reality which is beyond individual’s ability to
control directly (Bhaskar 1998). This is supported by (Wynn and Williams 2012), that in IS, socio-
technical systems in organisational settings, cannot be sufficiently guarded in the real world as can
be done with laboratory experiments. This is because each event is not only reliant on the causality
available within a social structure, but also on the adapting and contextual conditions on one hand
and the evolving properties of components within the structure.
The epistemological assumptions in critical realism is made up of mediated knowledge, an
explanation rather than prediction, explanation by mechanisms, unobservability of mechanisms,
and multiple possible mechanisms (Bhaskar 1975, Collier 1994, Sayer 2000). By mediated
knowledge, critical realism regards knowledge as having both transitive and intransitive
dimensions (Bhaskar 1975). The part of the world that the researcher tries to explain which are
independent of his/her senses and experiences is referred to as the intransitive dimension. The
transitive dimension involves observations and theories about the independent world that are
derived from scientific inquiry (Collier 1994). The entities of the intransitive dimension may be
constant in the natural world but the knowledge objects of the transitive dimension does change
(Bhaskar, 1975). Critical realism is of the view that the knowledge of the intransitive entities that
makes up independent reality is formed in the transitive dimension but is mediated by the social
structures to which a one belongs (Wynn and Williams, 2012). The knowledge that is contained in
these structures is formed in a combination with existing social interactions and beliefs. Therefore,
all knowledge in critical realism is value aware and theoretically informed and are derived from
multiple value-aware perceptions of a single independent reality (Healy and Perry, 2000). In IS,
the critical IS researcher’s goal is to identify the mechanisms that emerge from the components of
a physical and social structure that produce the events of interest (Sayer, 1992).
The methodology of the critical realist IS researcher involves either a subjective or an objective
approach, but these two major philosophical assumptions are defined by several core assumptions
concerning what is and becomes ontology (reality), epistemology (knowledge) and methodology.
Whatever the orientation of the researcher is, (s) he will realise that these assumptions affect each
other. This means that the view of ontology affects the epistemological persuasion which, in turn,
effects their view of human nature, consequently, choice of methodology logically follows the
assumptions the researcher has already made (Holden and Lynch, 2004).

14 | P a g e

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2411620

Whichever paradigm a researcher chooses, the paradigm defines the methodological approach
taken in the research. The methodology then influences the research methods that is chosen.
Though it is assumed that quantitative methodologies are associated with positivism and
qualitative methodologies with interpretivism (Johari, 2006). Bhaskar (1975) in his proposition of
the critical paradigm did not recommend a specific research methodology. Despite this, several
critical realist researchers have branded the case study method as the best approach to study
research phenomenon using the critical realism in general and to study the interaction of structure,
events, actions, and context to identify and explicate causal mechanisms (Ackroyd 2010). With
the case study method it means that the researcher may use a mixed methodology of quantitative
methodology and quantitative methodology. The critical research paradigm have been used in IS
research in developing context-specific causal explanations of socio-technical phenomena by
explaining the specific mechanisms which generate them.

4. A justification of the ontological, epistemological and methodology of IS research

In choosing the topic of IS research to elucidate the discussion in this paper, I draw on Guba and
Lincoln (1994) framework three factor framework. This framework consist of three questions the
responses to which summarises and spells out the basic beliefs that define a paradigm. The
components of this framework has been explained somewhere in this paper but for the purposes
of justifying the ontological, epistemological and methodological stance of the topic: ‘Migrating
processes from a traditional to virtual environment: An application of process virtualisation theory
to the Controller and Accountants General Department payroll services in Ghana’ some of the
issues are repeated in this section. The three fundamental questions which they referred to as the
ontological question, the epistemological question and the methodical question are much
interconnected such that the answer to one constrain the other.
The topic above concerns a research phenomenon which is about the process virtualisation of a
government department’s function. This phenomena is important to investigate because many
organisational processes that have traditionally been conducted through physical mechanisms can
now be conducted electronically. For example, the traditional process through which the Controller
and Accountant General Department (CAGD) of the government of Ghana processes staff payroll.
The CAGD provides public financial management services to the government of Ghana and the
general public. Its role in paying public sector workers is under scrutiny here. The department has
been paying public sector workers for well over fifty years and there has never been a period in
the department payroll services where the aspect of payroll discussed here has been computerised.
Specifically, the department distributes staff payslips as part of its payroll management system.
Payslips of government staff under the CAGD are literally distributed to staff through a traditional
physical means. Staff who are not at the head office have to wait several days before their payslips
gets to them after they have been paid their monthly salaries. This traditional, physical process can
be augmented and in some cases replaced by a virtual process by which people can print their
payslips online. This will require the existence of some IT artifact herein defined as the application
of IT to support some task within a structure and context. This IT artifact consist of the hardware
and software aspects of the IT artifact within a social technical context(Benbasat and Zmud 2003).

I now apply (Guba and Lincoln 1994) framework to the topic by asking the following questions:
first, under the ontological question I ask, what is the form and nature of the reality in the

15 | P a g e

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2411620

virtualisation process of CAGD? Further, how are things really in the CAGD and how do things
really work in the CAGD? The answer to these questions are that the nature of reality is that of
changing the manual age-old way of processing and distributing payslips to a modern and
computerised one which would be available online. This means the reality of the manual system
of processing and delivery is assumed to be apprehensible. This reality of the manual processing
and delivery which has been plastic(artificial) has been shaped by a conglomerate of social,
political, cultural and economic factors for a long time and this has crystallised the whole
process(processing and delivery) of managing payslips into some structures which are now
inappropriately being recognised in the CAGD as normal or natural. In fact, the structures at the
CAGD which have developed for well over 50 years are real and can even be regarded as historical
reality. Guba and Lincoln (1994) refers to this as ‘historical realism’

The second question asks the epistemological question; what is the nature of the relationship
between the researcher and what can be known. The answer here is constrained by the answer to
the ontological question above. This means that not any relationship can be assumed. In the case
of the CAGD, the researcher and the CAGD manual processes of managing payroll are
interactively linked. With this linkage the values of the researches influences the inquiry into the
whole manual payroll process. Guba and Lincoln (1994) call this ‘transactional and subjectivist’.
This also means that whatever finding that will be derived from this research will be value
mediated because of the researchers influence.

The last question is the methodological one. The transactional nature of this research topic will
require a dialogue between the researcher and some subjects (that is the staff of CAGD and some
workers who are on CAGD payroll). This is important to change the ignorance as well as the
apprehensions of the staff of CAGD who manages the manual payroll system and the employees
who receive their payslips physically to accept how the structures may be changed. To answer the
methodological question of how the researcher will go about finding whatever (s)he believes can
be known, (Guba and Lincoln 1994) describes it as a dialogic and dialectical one.

The answers to these questions in the above analysis points to the critical theory paradigm and this
is the stance the paper would have adopted to investigate this issue.

5. Conclusion
This paper attempted to review the paradigmatic positions in IS by reviewing the IS literature for
debates around four paradigms in use in the IS literature and research. The review of the paradigms
have centred on their individual ontological, epistemological and methodological positions. This
paper has contributed to the discourse in the debates on the philosophical assumptions in IS
research by highlighting that despite the dominance of the positivist and interpretivist
paradigms(Orlikowski and Baroudi 1991) in IS research, the critical theory and the critical realist
theory are also very important in IS research. The paper has therefore raised the awareness that
there is no fundamental philosophical reason why IS research needs to be confined to these two
paradigms(Niehaves 2005, Niehaves and Stahl 2006).It is not written in stone that these paradigms
would be the only paradigms in use in IS research. The interdisciplinary nature of IS implies that
some other philosophical assumptions or a blend of paradigms could be used to explain IS
phenomena in the future. Though this may be a possibility it is outside the scope of this paper to

16 | P a g e

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2411620

discuss the future direction of IS philosophical assumption. The task now as demonstrated in this
paper is to identify and describe IS research paradigms in detail. According to (Niehaves 2005)
such a detail discussion in the long run can lead to a sort of repository of acceptable paradigms
which researchers could refer to. This is not to restrict the approaches researchers can take and rely
on in IS research.

17 | P a g e

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2411620

 References
Ackroyd, S. (2010). Critical realism, organization theory, methodology, and the emerging science of
reconfiguration. Elements of a Philosophy of Management and Organization, Springer: 47-77.

Archer, M. S. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach, Cambridge university press.

Archer, M. S. and R. Bhaskar (1998). Critical realism: Essential readings, Routledge.

Avgerou, C. (2005). "Doing critical research in information systems: some further thoughts." Information
systems journal 15(2): 103-109.

Avison, D. and S. Elliot (2006). "Scoping the discipline of information systems." Information Systems: The
State of the Field: 3-18.

Avison, D. and G. Fitzgerald (2003). Information systems development: methodologies, techniques and
tools, McGraw Hill.

Baskerville, R. L. and M. D. Myers (2002). "Information systems as a reference discipline." Mis Quarterly:
1-14.

Becker, J. and B. Niehaves (2007). "Epistemological perspectives on IS research: a framework for

analysing and systematizing epistemological assumptions." Information systems journal 17(2): 197-214.

Benbasat, I. and R. Weber (1996). "Research commentary: Rethinking “diversity” in information systems
research." Information systems research 7(4): 389-399.

Benbasat, I. and R. W. Zmud (2003). "The identity crisis within the IS discipline: Defining and
communicating the discipline's core properties." Mis Quarterly: 183-194.

Bhaskar, R. (1975). "Feyerabend and bachelard: two philosophies of science." New Left Review 94(3).

Bhaskar, R. (1998). Possibility of naturalism, Psychology Press.

Bhaskar, R. (2008). A realist theory of science, Taylor & Francis US.

Blaikie, N. (2000). Designing social research: the logic of anticipation/Norman Blaikie. Malden, MA, Polity
Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice" translated by R. Nice, Cambridge.

18 | P a g e

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2411620

Bourdieu, P. (1989). "Social space and symbolic power." Sociological theory 7(1): 14-25.

Burrell, G. and G. Morgan (1979). Social paradigms and organizational analysis-elements of the sociology
of corporate life, London: Heinemann Educational.

Burrell, G. and G. Morgan (1994). Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis, Heinemann.

Carter, B. and C. New (2004). Making realism work: Realist social theory and empirical research,
Routledge.

Chen, W. and R. Hirschheim (2004). "A paradigmatic and methodological examination of information
systems research from 1991 to 2001." Information systems journal 14(3): 197-235.

Chua, W. F. (1986). "Radical developments in accounting thought." Accounting Review 61(4): 601-632.

Collier, A. (1994). "Critical Realism: An Introduction to Roy Bhaskar\'s Philosophy."

Collis, J. and R. Hussey (2009). Business research: A practical guide for undergraduate and postgraduate
students, Palgrave Macmillan.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, Sage
Publications, Incorporated.

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process,
Sage.

Culnan, M. J. (1987). "Mapping the intellectual structure of MIS, 1980-1985: a co-citation analysis." Mis
Quarterly: 341-353.

Culnan, M. J. and E. B. Swanson (1986). "Research in management information systems, 1980-1984:

Points of work and reference." Mis Quarterly: 289-302.

Danermark, B. (2002). Explaining society: Critical realism in the social sciences, Psychology Press.

De Villiers, M. (2005). Three approaches as pillars for interpretive information systems research:
development research, action research and grounded theory. Proceedings of the 2005 annual research
conference of the South African institute of computer scientists and information technologists on IT
research in developing countries, South African Institute for Computer Scientists and Information
Technologists.

19 | P a g e

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2411620

Deetz, S. (1996). "Crossroads—Describing Differences in Approaches to Organization Science: Rethinking
Burrell and Morgan and Their Legacy." Organization science 7(2): 191-207.

DeLanda, M. (2006). A new philosophy of society: Assemblage theory and social complexity, Continuum
International Publishing Group.

Dogan, M. (2001). "Paradigms in the social sciences." International encyclopedia of the social and
behavioral sciences 16: 11023-11027.

Doolin, B. (1998). "Information technology as disciplinary technology: being critical in interpretive

research on information systems." Journal of Information Technology 13(4): 301-311.

Easterby-Smith, M., et al. (2012). Management research, Sage Publications.

Elder-Vass, D. (2005). "Emergence and the realist account of cause." Journal of Critical Realism 4(2): 315-
338.

Fitzgerald, B. and D. Howcroft (1998). "Towards dissolution of the IS research debate: from polarization
to polarity." Journal of Information Technology 13: 313-326.

Fleetwood, D. (1995). Fast and slow border traps in MOS devices. Radiation and its Effects on
Components and Systems, 1995. RADECS 95., Third European Conference on, IEEE.

Foerster, H. v. (1996). "Lethologie. Eine Theorie des Erlernens und Erwissens angesichts von
Unwißbarem, Unbestimmbarem und Unentscheidbarem." Voß, R.(Hrsg..): Die Schule neu erfinden.
Neuwied.

Foucault, M. (1970). The Order of Things... Transl.

Foucault, M. (1997). Ethics: Subjectivity and truth, New Press.

Fournier, V. and C. Grey (2000). "At the critical moment: conditions and prospects for critical
management studies." Human relations 53(1): 7-32.

Goles, T. and R. Hirschheim (2000). "The paradigm is dead, the paradigm is dead… long live the
paradigm: the legacy of Burrell and Morgan." Omega 28(3): 249-268.

Grix, J. (2002). "Introducing students to the generic terminology of social research." Politics 22(3): 175-
186.

20 | P a g e

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2411620

Guba, E. G. and Y. S. Lincoln (1994). "Competing paradigms in qualitative research." Handbook of
qualitative research 2: 163-194.

Guo, Z. and J. Sheffield (2006). A paradigmatic and methodological examination of KM research: 2000 to
2004. System Sciences, 2006. HICSS'06. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference
on, IEEE.

Habermas, J. (1987). The Philosophical Discoiirse of Modernity, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Habermas, J. and T. McCarthy (1979). Communication and the Evolution of Society, Beacon Press
Boston.

Handa, M. (1987). Peace paradigm: Transcending liberal and Marxian paradigms. International
Symposium on Science, Technology and Development, New Delhi, India.

Hay, C. (2002). Political analysis: a critical introduction, Palgrave Basingstoke.

Hesse, M. (1980). "The explanatory function of metaphor." Revolutions and Reconstructions in the
Philosophy of Science: 111-124.

Hirschheim, R. (1985). "Information systems epistemology: An historical perspective." Research

methods in information systems: 13-35.

Hirschheim, R. and H. K. Klein (1989). "Four paradigms of information systems development."

Communications of the ACM 32(10): 1199-1216.

Holsapple, C. W. and K. D. Joshi (2004). "A formal knowledge management ontology: Conduct, activities,
resources, and influences." Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
55(7): 593-612.

Howcroft, D. and E. M. Trauth (2005). Handbook of critical information systems research: Theory and
application, Edward Elgar Publishing.

Khin, E. W. S., et al. (2011). "A Coherent Epistemological Theory in Management Philosophy Research."
Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences 5(10): 874-880.

Klein, H. K. and M. D. Myers (1999). "A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field
studies in information systems." Mis Quarterly: 67-93.

21 | P a g e

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2411620

Kroeze, J. H. (2011). "Interpretivism in Information Systems: A Postmodern Epistemology?".

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). "The structure of scientific revolutions." Chicago/London.

Lee, A. S. (2001). "Editor's comments: research in information systems: what we haven't learned." Mis
Quarterly 25(4): v-xv.

Lincoln, Y. S., et al. (2011). "Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences,
revisited." Denzin HK, Lincoln YS. Handbook of qualitative research. USA: SAGE Publications, Inc: 97.

McGrath, K. (2005). "Doing critical research in information systems: a case of theory and practice not
informing each other*." Information systems journal 15(2): 85-101.

Mingers, J. (2000). "The contribution of critical realism as an underpinning philosophy for OR/MS and
systems." Journal of the Operational Research Society: 1256-1270.

Mingers, J. (2001). "Combining IS research methods: towards a pluralist methodology." Information

systems research 12(3): 240-259.

Monod, E. (2003). A Copernican Revolution in IS: Using Kant's Critique of Pure Reason for Describing
Epistemological Trends in IS. AMCIS, Citeseer.

Morgan, G. (1990). "Paradigm diversity in organizational research." The theory and philosophy of
organizations: Critical issues and new perspectives, London/New York: Routledge: 13-19.

Myers, M. D. (1997). "Qualitative research in information systems." Management Information Systems

Quarterly 21: 241-242.

Myers, M. D. and H. K. Klein (2011). "A set of principles for conducting critical research in information
systems." Mis Quarterly 35(1): 17-36.

Ngwenyama, O. K. (1991). The critical social theory approach to information systems: problems and
challenges, North-Holland, Amsterdam: 267-280.

Niehaves, B. (2005). "Epistemological perspectives on multi-method information systems research."

Niehaves, B. and B. C. Stahl (2006). Criticality, epistemology, and behaviour vs. Design–information
systems research across different sets of paradigms, Leicester, England.

22 | P a g e

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2411620

Orlikowski, J. W. and C. S. Iacono (2001). "Research commentary: Desperately seeking the" it" in it
research—a call to theorizing the it artifact." Information systems research 12(2): 121-134.

Orlikowski, W. J. and J. J. Baroudi (1991). "Studying information technology in organizations: Research

approaches and assumptions." Information systems research 2(1): 1-28.

Putnam, L. L. (1983). "The interpretive perspective: An alternative to functionalism." Communication

and organizations: An interpretive approach: 31-54.

Remenyi, D. (1998). Doing research in business and management: an introduction to process and
method, Sage.

Richardson, H. and B. Robinson (2007). "The mysterious case of the missing paradigm: a review of
critical information systems research 1991–2001." Information systems journal 17(3): 251-270.

Sayer, A. (2000). Realism and social science, Sage.

Walsham, G. (1993). Interpreting information systems in organizations, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Walsham, G. (1995). "The emergence of interpretivism in IS research." Information systems research

6(4): 376-394.

Walsham, G. (2012). "Are we making a better world with ICTs? Reflections on a future agenda for
the IS field." Journal of Information Technology 27(2): 87-93.

Wong, K. M., et al. (2011). "A review of philosophical assumptions in management research." African
Journal of Business Management 5(29): 11546-11550.

Wynn, D. and C. K. Williams (2012). "Principles for conducting critical realist case study research in
information systems." Mis Quarterly 36(3): 787-810.

23 | P a g e

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2411620