Frequent and continuing change in the IS discipline has been well recognised and described frequently. For example, the major role of institutions that teach IS has been described as preparing graduates for an environment that changes continuously (Al-Imamy and Farhat 2005). Moreover, Kanellis and Paul (2005) remind the reader of a number of well-known IS researchers who have stressed that flexibility is a success variable for IS.
It follows then that the theoretical framework proposed to characterise IS in Australia will need to adjust to such change, or be modified on a continuing basis. An example of possible changes associated with each component of the framework is provided in Table 3.2, to illustrate the continuing pressures on the framework.
It is argued that the framework needs to be able to accommodate future developments in IS within one or more of the components listed in Table 3.2 without adaptation, if it is to be of value. A static framework will quickly become superseded, given the rate of change in the discipline. Therefore, a further way of validating the utility of the framework is to test whether it is dynamic enough to accommodate a new development in IS.
A number of topics have become influential in IS research or teaching in recent years, including design science and pragmatism. The design science paradigm places focus on the design, building and application of new artefacts for computing and communication (Hevner et al. 2004; Ramesh and Rao 2005), and has been linked to pragmatism. As an example of a new development in IS, the relatively recent interest in pragmatism in IS is examined below, after a review of the literature on this topic. The framework was then assessed to see whether it was possible to accommodate pragmatism in it without adaptation of the framework. If accommodation is possible, the process undertaken will be regarded as further demonstration of the robustness of the framework. If the framework needs adaptation in order to accommodate the example of change to the nature of IS, this finding will be regarded as a demonstration that the framework needs additional refinement.
|
Level 1 component |
Level 2 component |
Example of change |
|---|---|---|
|
Mechanisms of control |
Introduction of new publication outlets for IS; change to the administrative placement of IS schools in Australian universities with changing enrolments |
|
|
Core body of knowledge |
||
|
Research and teaching methods and standards |
Introduction of new methods of IS research or teaching, or standards, such as standardised use of Vista for teaching or the introduction of e-print repositories in universities |
|
|
Unique symbol set |
Reaching agreement on a unique symbol set for the IS community |
|
|
Key research and teaching IS topics |
Introduction of new IS topics for research or teaching, such as pragmatism and design science for research, or information technology (IT) control frameworks for teaching |
|
|
Laws, rules and evidenced guidelines |
Development of new theory and its publication |
|
|
Impact of local contingencies |
Local contingencies impacting on the degree of professionalism, such as recent IS staffing retrenchments in universities reducing the degree of specialisation in collaborative research teams |
|
|
Degree of professionalism |
Linked through an inverse relationship; see above |
Classical pragmatism is a philosophy developed and popularised by the American philosophers Peirce, James and Dewey about the beginning of the twentieth century (Sundin and Johannisson 2005). Although the word ‘pragmatic’ is used by laypeople to indicate a concern with the practical outcomes of actions, the philosophy of pragmatism holds that theory needs to contribute to practice or experience, while utility can be used to test truth. The earlier classical pragmatism is distinguished from the more recent neo-pragmatism because the former places emphasis on the experience, while the latter focuses more on the role of language than the experience (Rorty 1999; Sundin and Johannisson 2005).
The term pragmatism has been used numerous times in the IS and related literature, where it is used most often in the lay sense (as a notable example by three Australian authors; see Darke et al. 1998). Particularly since 2003, however, in this same literature, pragmatism has also been used to mean ‘a deep seated chosen philosophical stance rather than an approach to one-off events’ (Martin 2004:28). Pragmatism is used often in conjunction with reference to action research and/or critical realism (as an example see Hjorland 2005). Mingers (2002:296) saw pragmatism as a ‘view about the purpose of science…[as] it is essentially a practical activity aimed at producing useful knowledge rather than understanding the true nature of the world’. Put another way, in pragmatism, practical and political consequences were sought from research, not a contribution to ‘foundational knowledge’ (Brannick and Coghlan 2006:15).
That there is a connection between action research, critical realism and pragmatism is obvious, given that all three aim to bring about some change to a situation. Baskerville and Myers (2004) saw a more fundamental link between action research and pragmatism. They suggest that pragmatism is the philosophy that underpins most action research, as the following four pragmatist premises also underlie action research.
Establish the purpose of any action.
Practical action needs to be taken in response to the problem.
Practical action must inform theory.
The reasoning and the action need to be situated socially.
As there has been strong interest in action research (Baskerville and Myers 2004) and critical realism (Wikgren 2005) in recent years, it is not surprising that reference to pragmatism as a philosophy relevant to IS and its reference disciplines has also been noted recently. Is it possible, however, to incorporate this latter recent development into the framework for IS without modifying it?
From the review above, it can be seen that pragmatism falls within the core body of knowledge component of the framework. Depending on how it is used, pragmatism can be classified within two of the sub-components of this core. Pragmatism can be regarded as a research and teaching method and standard, in a similar way that action research and critical realism are regarded as methods for undertaking research. When viewed as a topic on which research can be undertaken, however, pragmatism can also be considered a key research and teaching IS topic, just as action research is the topic of many research papers, including those invited by Baskerville and Myers (2004).
It can be seen that no changes need to be made to the framework to accommodate the recent interest in pragmatism. Although this finding suggests that the framework is robust, further testing will be needed by examining whether other new IS developments can be placed in the framework without its modification.