Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
assumptions. And a survey of the literature on information modeling reveals that the ontological as-
sumptions made by information modelers are often confused and conflicting (Artz, 2006).
earlier work
Earlier attempts have been made to provide some metaphysical grounding for information modeling.
The most notable attempts, to date, include William Kent's
Data and Reality
, and
Information Systems
Development and Data Modeling: Conceptual and Philosophical Foundations
by Hirschheim, Klein
and Lyytinen.
Data and Reality
is a truly astonishing work that is an arcane classic among a far too
limited set of readers but is likely destined to become one of the first classics of information systems.
That is to say that a century from now readers will still be referring to the concepts in this topic whereas
little else of what we say today will be remembered. Kent (1978) touches on most of the key points in
this paper. He asserts:
There are a few basic concepts we have to deal with here:
•
Oneness
•
Sameness. When do we say two things are the same or the same thing? How does change affect
identity?
•
What is it? In what categories do we perceive the thing to be? What categories do we acknowledge?
How well defined are they? (pg. 3-4)
The first two bullets refer to the Concept of Identity and the third bullet refers to the Problem of Uni-
versals. The problem with Kent's topic, despite is enormous insight for the time, is the fact that important
questions are raised with insuficient conceptual structure surrounding them. Thus, the topic is likely to
leave one more confused than enlightened. If one were to read the topic, go off and study metaphysics
for a while, then come back and read the topic again, it would make a great deal more sense. Yet few
people do that and
Data and Reality
is unfortunately relegated to a cult classic.
Hirschheim, Klein & Lyytinen (1995) take a different approach, attempting to ground information
systems in social philosophy. They criticize prevailing views of information systems because of the
prevailing assumption that information systems are “technical systems with social consequences.” In
opposition to this view they assert that, “In recent years, however, there has been a growing interest in
viewing IS as social systems that are technically implemented. They serve as the agent for significant
social interactions.” Reconceptualizing the phenomenon of information systems they assert, “Hence
items of information are meanings that are intended to influence people in some way.” (pg. 14)
This is to say that information systems are not benign representations of reality. They are instead
constructed realities and those constructions serve some purpose. The intentional nature of information
systems development is brought into clear focus when they say “Intentions in systems development are
expressed by
objectives
.” (pg. 17) This notion that information systems are constructed for a purpose is
discussed in more detail in Artz (2007). The teleological approach to information systems development
relies on the identification of systems development objectives. Despite their strength in social philosophy
and teleology, Hirschhiem, et. al. are a little weak in the metaphysics. They nod toward the Problem of
Universals with a brief mention of nominalism (pg. 21) but focus on the social aspects of information
systems and their potential for social change.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search