The debate between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ research approaches continues in the IS field, but with little prospect of resolution. The debate is typically characterized by tendentious arguments as advocates from each approach offer a somewhat one-sided condemnation of the counterpart from the inimical research tradition. This paper begins by relating two fictitious tales which serve to highlight the futility of research conducted at the extremity of each research approach. The dichotomies which characterize these rival factions are also summarized. The debate is then framed in terms of the polarization problem whereby IS researchers are divided geographically and paradigmatically into ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ camps. A variety of different strategies have been proposed for resolving the debate and these are discussed in detail. They are grouped into four categories, referred to as supremacism, isolationism, integration, and pluralism. Finally, the paper contends that the debate cannot be resolved, and offers the metaphor of magnetic polarity as a means of reflecting this. The paper concludes by arguing that it would be more appropriate to recast the debate at a macro level in order to accommodate different research agenda and recognize the strengths within each tradition.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonP. (1988). Relative to what-that is the question: a reply to Siegel. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 133–37.
2.
BenbasatI., GoldsteinD., and MeadM. (1987). The case research strategy in studies of information systems. MIS Quarterly, 11(3), 369–86.
3.
BurrellG., and MorganG. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organisation Analysis (Heinemann, London).
4.
ButlerT., and FitzgeraldB. (1977). A case study of user participation in the IS development process, Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference in Information Systems, Atlanta, George, December, 1997, pp. 411–26.
5.
DaftR., and LewinA. (1990). Can organization studies begin to break out of the normal science straitjacket? an editorial essay. Organizational Science, 1(1) 1–9.
6.
DeutscherI. (1966). Words and deeds: social science and social policy. Social Problems, 13(4), 233–54.
7.
DuttonW. (1988). Letter to the editor. MIS Quarterly, 12(4), 521.
8.
FirestoneW. (1990). Accommodation: towards a paradigm-praxis dialectic, in GubaE. (ed). The Paradigm Dialog (Sage, California) pp. 105–24.
9.
GableC. (1994). Integrating case study and survey research methods: an example in information system. European Journal of Information Systems, 3(2), 112–26.
10.
GalliersR. (1995). A manifesto for information management research. British Journal of Management, 6, (special edition), 1–8.
11.
GallivanM. (1997). Value in triangulation: a comparison of two methods for combining qualitative and quantitative methods, in LeeA., LiebenauJ., and DeGrossJ. (eds), Information Systems and Qualitative Research (Chapman & Hall, London) pp. 417–43.
12.
GlaserB. (1992). Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis, (Sociology Press, Mill Valley).
13.
GubaE. (1990). (ed.) The Paradigm Dialog, (Sage, California).
14.
GubaE., and LincolnY. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research, in DenzinN., and LincolnY. (eds) (1994) The Handbook of Qualitative Research (Sage Publications, California) pp. 105–17.
15.
HassardJ. (1991). Multiple paradigms and organizational analysis: a case study. Organizational Studies, 12(2), 275–99.
16.
HiltzS., and JohnsonK. (1990). User satisfaction with Computer Mediated Communication Systems. Management Science, 36(6), 739–65.
17.
HirschheimR., and KleinH. (1989). Four paradigms of information systems development. Communications of the ACM, 32(10), 1199–216.
18.
HuntS. (1991). Positivism and paradigm dominance in consumer research: toward critical pluralism and reapproachment. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(6), 32–44.
19.
IivariJ. (1991). A paradigmatic analysis of contemporary schools of IS development. European Journal of Information Systems, 1(1), 249–72.
20.
JacksonN, and CarterP. (1991). In defence of paradigm incommensurability. Organizational Studies.12(1), 109–27.
21.
JickT. (1983). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action, in Van MaanenJ. (ed) Qualitative Methodology, (Sage, California) pp. 135–48.
22.
KaplanB., and DuchonD. (1988). Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in IS research: a case study. MIS Quarterly, 12(4), 571–87.
23.
KavanaghD. (1994). Hunt versus Anderson: round 16. European Journal of Marketing, 28(3), 26–41.
24.
KeenP. (1991). Keynote address: relevance and rigor in information systems research, in NissenH., KleinH., and HirschheimR. (eds), Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions (Elsevier Publishers, North Holland) pp. 27–49.
25.
KleinH., HirschheimR., and NissenH. (1991). A pluralist perspective of the IS research arena, in NissenH., KleinH., and HirschheimR. (eds), Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions, (Elsevier Publishers, North Holland) pp. 1–20.
26.
LandryM., and BanvilleC. (1992). A disciplined methodological pluralism for MIS research. Accounting, Managemnt and Information Technologies, 2(2), 77–98.
27.
LeeA. (1989). A scientific methodology for MIS case studies. MIS Quarterly, 13(1), 33–50.
28.
LeeA. (1991). Integrating positivist and interpretivist approaches to organizational research. Organizational Science, 2(4), November, 342–65.
29.
LeeA., LiebenauJ., and DeGrossJ. (eds) (1997). Information Systems and Qualitative Research, (Chapman & Hall, London).
30.
McGrathJ. (1984). Groups: Interaction and Performance, (Prentice-Hall, New Jersey).
31.
McGuireW. (1973). The yin and yang of progress in social psychology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26(3), 446–56.
32.
MeadM. (1928). Coming of Age in Samoa (William Morrow, New York).
33.
MoreyN., and LuthansF. (1984). An emic perspective and ethnoscience methods for organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 9(1), 27–36.
MumfordE. (1991). Opening address: information systems research-leaking craft or visionary vehicle?, in NissenH., KleinH., and HirschheimR. (eds), Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions (Elsevier Publishers, North Holland) pp. 21–26.
36.
MumfordE., HirschheimR., FitzgeraldG., and Wood-HarperA. (eds) (1985). Research Methods in Information Systems, (Elsevier Publishers, North Holland).
37.
MurfinR. (ed) (1996). Case Studies in Contemporary Criticism (Macmillan Press, London).
38.
NewmanM. (1989). Some fallacies in information systems development. International Journal of Information Management, 9(4), 127–43.
39.
NissenH. (1985). Acquiring knowledge of information systems research in a methodological quagmire, in MumfordB., HirschheimR., FitzgeraldG., and Wood-HarperA. (eds), Research Methods in Information Systems (Elsevier Publishers, North Holland) pp. 39–51.
40.
NissenH., KleinH., and HirschheimR. (eds) (1991). Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions (Elsevier Publishers, North Holland.
41.
OrlikowskiW., and BaroudiJ. (1991). Studying information technology in organizations: research approaches and assumptions. Information Systems Research, 2(1), 1–28.
42.
PattonM. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research (2nd ed) (Sage Publications, London).
43.
PfefferJ. (1993). Barriers to the advance of organizational science: paradigm development as an independent variable. Academy of Management Review, 18(4), 599–620.
44.
ReedM. (1985). Redirections in Organisational Analysis, (Tavistock, London).
45.
RobeyD., and MarkusL. (1998). Beyond rigor and relevance: producing consumable research about information systems. Information Resources Management Journal, 11(1), 7–15.
SmithJ., and HeshusiusL. (1986). Closing down the conversation: the end of the quantitative-qualitative debate among educational inquirers. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–12.
48.
TalbottS. (1995). The Future does not Compute, (O'Reilly & Associates, Sebastopol, CA, USA).
49.
TrauthB., and O'ConnorB. (1991). A study of the interaction between information, technology and society. in NissenH., KleinH., and HirschheimR. (eds), Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions (Elsevier Publishers, North Holland) pp. 131–44.
50.
Van HornR. (1973). Empirical studies of management information systems. DataBase, 4(4), 172–80.
51.
WalshamG. (1995). The emergence of interpretivism in IS research. Information Systems Research, 6(4), December, 376–94.
52.
WhiterK. (1985). Perceptions and deceptions: issues for IS research, in MumfordE., HirschheimR., FitzgeraldG., and Wood-HarperA. (eds), Research Methods in Information Systems (Elsevier Publishers, North Holland) pp. 237–42.
53.
WilmottH. (1993). Breaking the paradigm mentality. Organizational Studies, 14(5), 681–719.
54.
WynekoopJ. (1992). Strategies for implementation research: combining research methods, in DeGrossJ., BostromR., and RobeyD. (eds), Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on InformationSystems, Dallas, Texas, pp. 185–93.
