Systems development approach: transcending methodology

Goulielmos, Markos

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575.2004.00175.x

Cited by 36 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other examples where one may speculate about the use of the paradigm include Goulielmos (2004) as well as Baskerville and Pries-Heje (2004).…”

Section: Articlementioning

confidence: 98%

“…References on axial coding Quote(s) Goulielmos (2004) Strauss and Corbin (1990) 'Axial coding helped to develop links among categories. With the identification of core categories, analysis shifted from a process of initial exploration to a process of elaborating key concepts and their properties' (p. 366) Kirsch (2004) Strauss and 'Open coding was followed by axial coding , which is a process of linking similar concepts into categories' (p. 381) Lindgren et al Strauss and Corbin (1990) 'The transcribed material was analyzed by using the open and axial coding techniques )' (p. 445) Lim et al (2005) Orlikowski (1993) 'Through the procedure of open and axial coding, we identified common patterns of interest across subjects from the unprocessed raw data.…”

Section: Articlementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

On Emergence and Forcing in Information Systems Grounded Theory Studies: The Case of Strauss and Corbin

Seidel

Urquhart

2013

Journal of Information Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Grounded theory method (GTM), which has been increasingly used in the information systems (IS) field, is a contested method. GTM has even been viewed as a family of methods by Antony Bryant and Kathy Charmaz in the respected 'Handbook of Grounded Theory'. One debate that is of particular relevance is about the metaphor of 'emergence' and the most basic rule of GTM -that researchers should not force preconceived conceptualizations on data. This debate has its origins in a dispute between the two co-founders of grounded theory, Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss. Glaser criticized Strauss for the introduction of the stage of axial coding and the use of one single coding paradigm. In his view, the paradigm is too rigid, forces data, hinders emergence, and leads to conceptual description instead of grounded theory. It is perhaps surprising then, that this debate has so far been conducted without any empirical evidence in support of the proposition that the Strauss and Corbin version of grounded theory might result in forcing. In this article, we analyse IS studies in top journals where Straussian grounded theory procedures -which have found most adherents in the IS discipline -are utilized. We provide detailed insights into the use and the impact of axial coding and the coding paradigm. We find that the researchers' use of Straussian coding procedures in the IS field is on a level that is conscious and deliberative. We relate our findings to the broader debate about the contested nature of GTM, and find that axial coding and the coding paradigm are an exemplar that shows that GTM is an evolving method that is subject to idiosyncratic interpretations and flexible deployment. Our findings, we argue, are in line with the more recent development of constructivist grounded theory that holds that grounded theories are not discovered, they are constructed, based on conscious decisions and interpretive acts. We also put forward three propositions, and five guidelines, intended to assist IS researchers in constructing grounded theories using Straussian coding procedures, while adhering to the primacy of avoiding preconceptions.

show abstract

“…Other examples where one may speculate about the use of the paradigm include Goulielmos (2004) as well as Baskerville and Pries-Heje (2004).…”

Section: Articlementioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Articlementioning

confidence: 99%

On Emergence and Forcing in Information Systems Grounded Theory Studies: The Case of Strauss and Corbin

Seidel

Urquhart

2013

Journal of Information Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Historically, it is often the case that even if the methodology is executed correctly, the resultant information system can fail because of a misapplied method . After all, there are a number of activities as a part of the ISD process that emerge outside of the scope of methodology and have significant impact (Goulielmos, 2004). To overcome this limitation, it is important that the developers remain engaged in the true, messy process of ISD and not let them invest too heavily in the tools or method itself.…”

Section: Limitations Of Sommentioning

confidence: 99%

Why situational method engineering is useful to information systems development

Baker

2011

Information Systems Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effective methods and methodologies for building information systems (IS) remain crucial to building successful IS. This paper investigates the use of situational method engineering for IS development (ISD) projects in a professional bureaucracy. This specialist organization methodology (SOM) is built starting with the philosophy of ISD moving through to flexible, amethodical implementation methods, a proposed instance of situational method engineering that is targeted towards professional bureaucracies. An in-depth philosophical discussion of the ontological, epistemological, research methodological and ethical underpinnings of SOM are outlined, in addition to its limitations, to develop the building blocks of a methodology to implement within a professional bureaucracy organization ISD scenario. Amethodical ISD will be introduced as the appropriate way to implement this developed methodology to build a successful IS. The contribution of this paper is to detail how to develop a philosophically consistent methodology for a specific organizational environment (in this case, using the specific organizational example of a professional bureaucracy) that, when combined with developers and tools, can create a method to be applied to build an IS that has a greater possibility of successful organizational adoption than an IS built using a method devised using more common IS method engineering approaches.

show abstract

“…No SDM can meet the contingencies of every project (Avison & Fitzgerald, 2003). Such contingencies can be stakeholders' contextual preferences and skills on method use, previous skills and IS development (ISD) approach held by the professional developers, industry standards on particular domains, and historical reasons in the organization where the system is being developed (Fitzgerald, 1997;Fitzgerald et al, 2003;Goulielmos, 2004). Proponents of situation-specific method engineering (Kumar & Welke, 1992;Brinkkemper et al, 1996;Tolvanen, 1998) recognize this pragmatism and propose systematic ways of utilizing and improving SDMs in context with method engineering tools.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

From ideals towards practice: paradigmatic mismatches and drifts in method deployment

Päivärinta

Sein

Peltola³

2010

Information Systems Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is considerable debate in the information systems literature on how systems development methods (SDMs) are used in practice. On one side are those who take the position that these methods are not used at all. The other side posits that SDMs are used but not in the manner intended by the method developers. In practice, SDMs are adapted and modified to meet project exigencies, which results in unique methods-in-use in each project. We subscribe to the latter view and extend the argument by proposing that SDM modifications happen due to mismatches between the paradigmatic values inherent in the SDM, the method users and the organizational context. Further, planned modifications themselves result in shifts of paradigmatic values inherent in the SDM. To examine our contention, we conduct a case study in which we trace an SDM from its development to its deployment and use in an organization. We show where the mismatches occurred and provide explanations for the mismatches. Our results indicate that paradigm differences explain most of the mismatches, and different factors contribute to the paradigm drifts simultaneously, even towards diverging orientations. We conclude that the true value of an SDM, in addition to its tool and technique use, is a basis for examining and self-reflecting about paradigmatic values. This is an essential part of learning to develop systems.

show abstract

Systems development approach: transcending methodology

Cited by 36 publications

References 34 publications

On Emergence and Forcing in Information Systems Grounded Theory Studies: The Case of Strauss and Corbin

On Emergence and Forcing in Information Systems Grounded Theory Studies: The Case of Strauss and Corbin

Why situational method engineering is useful to information systems development

From ideals towards practice: paradigmatic mismatches and drifts in method deployment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About