The struggle towards an understanding of theory in information systems - Information Systems Foundations: Constructing and Criticising - page 4

the effective design, delivery, use and impact of information technology in
organisations and society (Avison and Fitzgerald, 1995, p. xi).
Information systems is not another management field, like organisational behaviour
(contrary to the view of Webster and Watson, 2002), neither is it about technology
alone, like computer science. A characteristic that distinguishes information systems
from these fields is that it concerns the use of artefacts in human-machine systems. Lee
(2001, p iii) uses these words:
research in the information systems field examines more than just the techno-
logical system, or just the social system, or even the two side by side; in addi-
tion, it investigates the phenomena that emerge when the two interact.
Thus, we have a discipline that is at the intersection of knowledge of the properties of
physical objects (machines) and knowledge of human behaviour. Information systems
can be seen to have commonalities with other design disciplines such as architecture or
engineering, which also concern both people and artefacts, or with other applied discip-
lines such as medicine, where the products of scientific knowledge (drugs, treatments)
are used with people. Necessary knowledge for information systems encompasses the
knowledge types found in the natural sciences (e.g. the properties of a communications
medium), the social sciences (e.g. change management), mathematics (e.g. representational
languages) and technology (e.g. design of an artefact).
Dictionary definitions show that the word 'theory' can take on many meanings, including:
'the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art', 'a belief, policy,
or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action', 'a plausible or scientifically
acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena', 'a
hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation' (Merriam-Webster, 2004).
In the remainder of the paper a number of different views of theory are given, choosing
perspectives that are relevant to different facets of information systems work. Thus,
perspectives are taken from the philosophy of science, encompassing both the natural
and social sciences, and from theory of technology. Interpretivism and positivism are
dealt with separately as they are so often referred to in information systems research,
though usually in discussions of research methods rather than in terms of formulating
theory. Positivism is presented first, basically to clarify some areas that are often confused
and to argue that it is not a defensible position.
The aim in presenting these different views is to show how they can all (except positivism)
be drawn upon to propose a 'theory of theories' in information systems that addresses
the field's unique nature.
The lingering death of positivism
Positivism is a term used frequently in discussions of research in information systems,
but rarely is it treated in depth or in terms of its historical development. Many philo-
sophers of science regard positivism as defunct: 'Logical positivism, then, is dead, or as
dead as a philosophical movement ever becomes' (Passmore, 1967). Why then is the term
still used so uncritically in information systems? Positivism is discussed here in some
detail to show the shortcomings detected by philosophers of science and to pave the
way for less narrow views on theory from the philosophy of science.
Some sense of the historical development of positivist schools of thought is beneficial
(see Godfrey-Smith, 2003; Magee, 1997). Comte (1864) is generally credited with the
coining of the term 'positivism', using the word to contrast actual with imaginary, cer-