The Historical Research Method and Information Systems Research

Abstract

In this paper, we review the premises and practice of the historical method in order to understand how it can be applied to studying information systems (IS) related phenomena. We first examine the philosophical and methodological foundations of the method. For this purpose, we introduce a four-tiered research framework, which consists of (1) the paradigmatic or meta-theoretic assumptions that guide historical research, (2) pragmatism as an overarching approach or a way of doing historical research, (3) the historical method as the guiding principles for producing history, and (4) a review of some central techniques IS historians have applied in historical research. For point four, we review how McKenney et al. (1997) and Porra et al. (2005, 2006) applied Mason et al.'s (1997ab) seven steps of doing IS history. Finally, we compare the historical method with other methods applied in the IS field today: We compare the historical method with the longitudinal case study, case study, field study, and ethnography.

Theorizing Information Systems as Evolving Technology

“…With regard to historical studies, which have been previously called for but so far little delivered by IS scholars (see Mason, McKenney, & Copeland, 1997;Bannister, 2002;Porra, Hirschheim, & Parks, 2014), the idea of telling the larger IS story as an evolution of IS types and threading together the individual technologies that have marked the development of information systems over decades is an exciting one to my mind. As I already suggest above, case studies of organizing visions may be particularly useful as one approach (Swanson, 2013).…”

The Potential for Citizen Science in Information Systems Research

“…It is also nearly impossible to draw clear contrasts between research traditions, particularly in the social sciences, because they can be quite similar in their philosophical paradigms, research methods, and analytical techniques (Porra, Hirschheim, & Parks, 2014). Rather, we feel one can best distinguish via examples.…”

“…At times, major scientific discoveries have been the product of those closely affiliated with the church, in other times by citizens in non-scientific roles undertaking scientific endeavors, and in yet other times by those directly affiliated with academic institutions (Miller-Rushing, Primach, & Bonney, 2012;Silvertown, 2009;Chargaff, 1978;Crombie, 1967). In this section, we focus on understanding a portion of scientific history, particularly as it relates to the intersection between citizens and scientific activity, because this intersection can be one of our best tools in explaining citizen science as a contemporary phenomenon (Porra et al, 2014;Hirschheim & Klein, 2012).…”

Editorial: The History and Philosophy Department

“…Following a series of historical studies that included a book chapter (Hirschheim & Klein, 2011), two special issues on history in the Journal of the Association for Information Systems and the Journal of Information Technology, with several of these papers (Hirschheim & Klein, 2012;Porra, Hirschheim, & Parks, 2014) receiving best paper awards, the AIS history task force mapped out a detailed strategy to accomplish the goals of the IS history initiative. After the AIS established the IS history initiative, Zhang (2015Zhang ( , 2016 conducted extensive work that included organizing numerous panels on IS history held at ICIS, ECIS, AMCIS, and PACIS conferences, setting up of the technological infrastructure, managing the conference tracks on IS history, creating a Mendeley group on IS History, and interviewing (with the help of other scholars) pioneers in the field such as Gordon Davis, Bill King, Eph McLean.…”