“Discussion‐less” discussion databases

Journal of Systems and Information Technology - 2009
NandaSurendra1, James W.Denton1
1College of Business and Economics, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA

Tóm tắt

PurposeThis paper has two purposes. The first purpose is to study how groups and members of an organization use collaborative technology in accomplishing their everyday work. The second purpose is to study how interpretive researchers can use an ethnographic research approach, called the strip resolution process (SRP), to make explicit the process by which they achieve their interpretation, rather than provide just their interpretation leaving the process as a black box.Design/methodology/approachInterpretive case study using interviews, observation, participant‐observation, and study of documents.FindingsFor IS researchers, a key finding is that the SRP facilitates both an understanding of research phenomena from the members’ perspective and a means of explaining how that understanding was achieved. For IS practitioners, a key finding is that organizational work practices and reward structures should be “co‐designed” with the collaborative technology's functionalities to accomplish organizational objectives.Research limitations/implicationsThis study used ethnographically informed approaches, including the SRP, to collect and interpret data. However, the duration spent at the organizational site, 25 days spread over eight months, would not qualify this study as an ethnography based on the recommended duration of 12 months of sustained fieldwork.Practical implicationsThis study's findings have two implications for IS practice. The first implication is that practitioners planning to deploy collaborative technology in an organization should not focus primarily, or even mainly, on the technology's functionalities. Instead, they should pay most attention to the organization's work practices and reward structures. Work practices and reward structures should be “co‐designed” with the technology's functionalities to accomplish organizational objectives. The second implication is that the SRP could help close the “understanding gap” between IS practitioners and system stakeholders. Hence, a practitioner can use the SRP as a supplement to any systems development methodology for analyzing system requirements.Originality/valueThe value of this paper for IS interpretive researchers is that it explains and illustrates how an ethnographic research approach called the SRP can be used by a researcher to understand research phenomena from the members’ perspective, test and validate his interpretation, and reveal how he reached his interpretation and not just provide his interpretation leaving the process of achieving it a black box. The value of this paper for IS practitioners is that it emphasizes the importance of “co‐designing” work practices and reward structures with a collaborative system's functionalities and provides them specific questions to ask, and reflect upon, before designing and deploying a collaborative system. In addition, practitioners can use the SRP as a tool to supplement any systems development methodology to help reduce the understanding gap between themselves and the system stakeholders.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Agar, M. (1986), Speaking of Ethnography, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.

Argyris, C. and Schön, D. (1974), Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness, Jossey‐Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA.

Argyris, C. and Schön, D. (1991), “Participatory action research and action science”, in Whyte, W.F. (Ed.), Participatory Action Research, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 85‐94.

Börjesson, A. and Mathiassen, L. (2005), “Improving software organizations: agility challenges and implications”, Information Technology and People, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 359‐82.

Brown, S.D. and Lightfoot, G.M. (1998), “Insistent emplacement: Heidegger on the technologies of informing”, Information Technology and People, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 290‐304.

Casson, R. (1983), “Schemata in cultural anthropology”, Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 12, pp. 429‐62.

Checkland, P.B. (1998), Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, John Wiley and Sons Ltd, Chichester.

Cockburn, A. (2002), Agile Software Development, Addison‐Wesley, New York, NY.

Crabtree, A., Nichols, D.M., O’Brien, J., Rouncefield, M. and Twidale, M.B. (2000), “Ethnomethodologically informed ethnography and information system design”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Vol. 51 No. 7, pp. 666‐82.

Garfinkel, H. (1967), Studies in Ethnomethodology, Prentice‐Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

George, J.F., Marett, K. and Giordano, G. (2008), “Deception: toward an individualistic view of group support systems”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 9 No. 10, pp. 653‐76.

James, J.A. and Smith, R. (1999), “A systematic approach to tracking the process and outcomes of action learning in research and consultancy”, in Proceedings of the 10th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Wellington, p. 423.

Kim, R.M. and Kaplan, S.M. (2006), “Interpreting socio‐technical co‐evolution: applying complex adaptive systems to IS engagement”, Information Technology and People, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 35‐54.

Kirk, J. and Miller, M.L. (1986), Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.

Klein, H.K. and Myers, M.D. (1999), “A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 67‐94.

Lee, A.S. (1991), “Integrating positivist and interpretive approaches to organizational research”, Organization Science, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 342‐65.

Myers, M.D. (1999), “Investigating information systems with ethnographic research”, Communication of the AIS, Vol. 2 No. 23, pp. 1‐19.

Myers, M.D. and Young, L.W. (1997), “Hidden agendas, power and managerial assumptions in information systems development: An ethnographic study”, Information Technology and People, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 224‐40.

Orlikowski, W. (1989), “Division among the ranks: the social implications of CASE tools for system developers”, in Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Information Systems, Boston, MA.

Orlikowski, W. (1996), “Organizational change around groupware technology”, in Ciborra, C.U. (Ed.), Groupware and Teamwork: Invisible Aid or Technical Hindrance? John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.

Russo, N.L. and Stolterman, E. (2000), “Exploring the assumptions underlying information systems methodologies: their impact on past, present and future ISM research”, Information Technology and People, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 313‐27.

Schein, E.H. (1983), “The role of the founder in creating organizational culture”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 13‐28.

Trauth, E. and Jessup, L. (2000), “Understanding computer‐mediated discussions: positivist and interpretive analyses of group support system use”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 43‐79.

Van Maanen, J. (1988), Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Walsham, G. (1995), “Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 74‐81.

Walsham, G. (2006), “Doing interpretive research”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 15, pp. 320‐30.

Weick, K.E. and Sutcliffe, K.M. (2006), “Mindfulness and the quality of organizational attention”, Organization Science, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 514‐24.

Winograd, T. and Flores, F. (1986), Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design, Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, NJ.

Wolcott, H.F. (1999), Ethnography: A Way of Seeing, Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Wynn, E. (1996), “Groupware in a regional health insurer”, in Ciborra, C.U. (Ed.), Groupware and Teamwork: Invisible Aid or Technical Hindrance? John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.

Yin, R. (2003), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Journal of Systems and Information Technology

Thông tin tác giả