An Information Systems Quandary: Why Is There a Dearth of Interpretive Research in a Positivist Dominated Discipline?

Abstract

This study explores the struggle between the positivist and interpretivist paradigms within the Information Systems (IS) discipline. More specifically, this dissertation takes an in-depth look into why there is a minimum amount of interpretive research in IS to determine why and how projects fail. This study is based in the seminal work of Orlikowski and Baroudi (1991) and Chen and Hirschheim (2004) who early addressed IS research dominated by the positivist paradigm concluding that only 3.8% of all IS research was interpretive. The current study's conclusions revealed that the positivist research methods have failed to provide insight into why and how IS projects fail, and that the research was only about the numbers (i.e., 1s and 0s) and not about the people! The findings revealed interesting facets of this study that were not anticipated in two major findings: the dearth of interpretive research found in failed IS projects, and that only a minimum amount of interest is visible within IS and PM management in transforming themselves in the twenty-first century relevant interpretive approaches. The outcomes of the study offer guidance to the Information Science Discipline and Project Management organizations about the transformative experience and factors that aid in twenty-first century global competition. The results also suggest a direction to help IS organizations and PM to become more purposeful in guiding and leading into the future. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone [phone]. Web page: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]