Information Systems Research and Development by Activity Analysis and Development: Dead Horse or the Next Wave?

Abstract

We argue that the currently dominant methods in Information Systems are not satisfactory for emancipatory research and development whose starting point is work. Activity theory was proposed as such an emancipatory research-cumdevelopment approach in IS a decade ago. However, the potential identified in the theory has not fully materialized. As our own contribution toward making activity theory more operational in IS, we present an elaborated framework, ActAD, and review our experience in applying it to descriptive research, practical analysis, and constructive research. We claim that in order to fully unleash the potential of activity theory, activity-based methods should be developed further for IS requirements analysis projects and IS implementation projects, as well as for facilitating software development. The most appropriate way of developing such applied methods is through collaborative action Ever since the Manchester conference on Information Systems research methods in 1984, the international research community has recognized that a diversity of research approaches or philosophies exists within IS. According to Orlikowski and Baroudi (1991), three broad categories are commonly identified: positivist, interpretive, and critical. In this paper, we take the last mentioned, emancipatory or developmental standpoint (i.e., we are not only interested in understanding information systems within organizations, but also in developing "better" information systems). What, then, does better mean? What criteria should good information systems meet?Different theorists in different times have named different factors as the most important, distinctive aspects of information systems. The very term information system implies that information is what it all comes down to. Those who share this view delve into information flows and entity-relationship models, regardless of the technology and purpose of information processing. Others underline technology, usually equating it with computers, and particularly equating information systems with software systems. Those with cybernetic backgrounds emphasize the term system, searching only for systemic entities and ignoring how bits and pieces of information and communication technology (ICT) are used in organizations. Researchers applying Habermas stress the communication aspects of information systems, viewing them as language games. In the very title of IFIP WG 8.2, social and organizational aspects of information systems are emphasized, with the view that the term information system refers to the organizational processes and resources of information management. Finally, the human or individual actors of information systems are pointed out as the starting point much too seldom.In our mind, all these aspects-information, technology, system, communication, organization and the individual-are important factors, but still only elements. None of these viewpoints sufficiently explains the purpose for which information systems exist.Our starting point is that purposeful work is the pro...

Analyzing Collaborative Patient Care Solutions Using Activity Theory

“…It is for this reason that AT has been criticized as being "not a dead horse, but maybe a sleeping one" [12]. However, AT has contributed to the transformation of HCI and established itself as a major factor in the research of HCI [19].…”

ActCPG framework to learn about information user requirements of a clinical practice guideline

“…Quek and Shah [15] reviewed five AT-based methods for IS research: the ActAD method [16][17][18], the Activity Checklist [19], the AODM method [20,21], the Jonassen & RohrerMurphy framework [22], and the Martins & Daltrini framework [23,24]. The ActAD method has its origin in the Engeström [11] research.…”

Information Systems Practice for Development in Africa: Results from Indehela

“…The main emphasis was on the group level. Activity theory (Engestrom 1987;Korpela et al 2004) emerged as the analytical tool on that level, since it provided a practicable theory on the structure of a group activity like ISD (Korpela 1994; see Figure 4). The core chain of activities around ISD from university education and software development to the use of ICT in everyday practice was included.…”

“…A framework of elements and their relations was used as a checklist during interviews and as a lens in analyzing the case projects (Korpela et al 2004).…”