Methodology Does Matter

McGrath in this chapter brings up the importance of research methodology which is inherently tied to the kind of evidence and results advanced by any behavioral and social science enquiry. Therefore, to understand empirical evidence it is crucial to look at the concepts and techniques upon which the evidence is based. The chapter further elucidates the tools with which the researchers go about doing research. It raises issues about potentials and limits of some research strategies, as well as operationalization of those strategies. 

One of the major points raised by the chapter is the use of multiple methods.  Methods are defined as tools by which a science obtains and analyzes information.  Each method should be thought as offering unique potentials not available by other means, but also as posing some inherent limitations. These limitations however could be offset by other methods. That is why the author dubs all research methods bounded opportunities.

The flaws of each method cannot be avoided unless the researcher brings more than one approach to bear on each aspect of the problem. The methods can add strength to one another by addressing each other’s weaknesses.  For instance, inevitable limitations of laboratory experiments are rather evident. Researchers might need to draw upon other strategies to complement the data collected through laboratory experiments. These alternatives include field studies, samples surveys and several others.  In a nutshell, credible empirical knowledge requires consistency or convergence of evidence across studies based on multiple methods.

In order to signify inherent limitations of each method, the chapter states “you cannot pound a nail if you don’t have a hammer. But if you do have a hammer, that hammer will not help you much if you need to cut a board in half.”  This claim sounds well justified, but how we assure that the phenomenon that we are going about is a nail, not a board? The author defines three interwoven domains that constitute the research process. In fact, neither of them would be able to accommodate the stance that a researcher should take when it comes to his/her theory of knowledge.

My paper for this week”Information Systems Epistemology: A Historical Perspective” turns attention to important issues associated with knowledge and its acquisition which could influence the way we think about what constitutes valid research in Information Systems. Basically they are anchored in reach historical traditions and are fundamental to our understanding of nature and society. Although many researchers are blind of this background, the epistemological position that they take could exert enormous influence over their results and conclusions.  Essentially epistemology refers to our conceptualization of knowledge; in particular how we acquire it. Hirschheim investigates into diverse and widely used sort of epistemology, including, but not limited to, Positivism and Post-Positivism.

His main contention is information systems are  a kind of social system rather than purely technical ones, given the nuanced social phenomena involved in the design and the adoption process. As such the epistemology of information system should be heavily borrowed from social sciences.  The scientific paradigm adopted by the natural sciences is appropriate insofar as it lends itself to the contingencies of social sciences. Finally he argues against one correct method of science, and makes a case for the methodological pluralism in Information Systems research.

References:

Hirschheim, R. (1985). "Information Systems Epistemology: An Historical Perspective." Research Methods in Information Systems: 13-35.