The reality of information systems research - Information Systems Foundations: Constructing and Criticising - page 30

in establishing the cognitive results attained and transmitting them to other conscious
subjects. Ingarden (1965, pp. 329-30; 1968, pp. 146-53) identified five differences:
1. Sentences that appear in a scientific work are almost exclusively true judgments .
Such sentences may be true or false, but they lay claim to truthfulness; for example,
a paper may report 'The management style of company A was undemocratic', which
is a result perceived as true by the author of the paper, and yet a second researcher
may report a different result.
2. The structure of a scientific work naturally consists of purely intentional sentence
correlates (almost exclusively states of affairs) and represented objectivities. This
means that intentions are directed through the represented or portrayed objectivities
on to objects independent of the scientific work (e.g. the real world).
3. Scientific works may, at the stratum of phonetic formations and the stratum of units
of meaning, contain aesthetic value qualities. This is not essential and may be re-
garded as a dispensable luxury. The central purpose of a scientific work is cognitive
exchange, and everything else must be subordinated to this central purpose. Ideally
the portrayed objectivities are transparent to the reader and ontically independent
objects are seen in the light of the meaning intention of the scientific work. For
example, information technology is rich in accepted metaphor. The use of terms
such as 'viruses', 'windows' and 'mice' in information technology literature assists
in cognitive exchange.
4. Scientific works can contain, as a special stratum, manifolds of schematicised aspects
held in readiness, provided the sentences refer to objects that can appear in mani-
folds of aspects. If they exist, their role is to assist in the transmission of cognitive
results. The presence of decorative moments is dispensable and may be a hindrance.
5. The possible manifestation of metaphysical qualities is essential only when a given
metaphysical quality is itself a subject of the cognitive result that is achieved and
transmitted, or at least contributes to its transmission. In this case, they are not
contributing to the aesthetic value of the scientific work in the way that they con-
tribute to a literary work. Scientific literature tends to stick to facts.
From this discussion we can conclude three important things:
1. the journals and their articles are real (part of reality);
2. the articles contain true judgments of the authors; and
3. independent objects mentioned in articles are also real but must be understood
from the perspective of the author and the intentions revealed in the work.
The approach taken by Ingarden is applicable to scientific works, including works in
the field of information systems. This leaves the question of what is an appropriate ref-
erence ontology to provide a framework for linking the results of the analysis of the
information systems literature - the real artefacts - with the perceptions and intentional
acts of information systems researchers using these artefacts.
Providing for perspectives: identifying an appropriate reference ontology
We have established that journals and their contents are real and have an existence
separate from readers and authors, and Ingarden has written extensively on the nature
of written works of the type in which we are interested. We note that many see inform-
ation systems as being a diverse community with many different perspectives and dis-
agreements about categorisation. An appropriate comprehensive reference ontology that
is consistent with these traits is needed to provide a framework within which the results
of the study of information systems research literature can be presented.