Learning from First-generation Qualitative Approaches in the IS Discipline: An Evolutionary View and Some Implications for Authors and Evaluators (Part 1/2)

Suprateek Sarker, Xiao Xiao, Tanya Beaulieu, Allen S. Lee

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Qualitative research in the information systems (IS) discipline has come a long way, from being dismissed as “exploratory research” or “preresearch,” not worthy of being featured in “scientific” and authoritative journals in the discipline, to a state where such research is seen as legitimate and even welcome scholarship within much of the mainstream IS research community. Despite these very positive developments in line with the value of pluralism that our discipline has embraced, and the gradual inclusion of qualitative work in high-profile mainstream outlets, recent editorials have expressed concerns regarding the research community’s lack of awareness about the diverse nature of qualitative research and the apparent confusion regarding how these diverse approaches are different. Such confusion has led to a mismatch between the methodology-related expectations of evaluators and the methodological description provided by the authors (Conboy et al. 2012; Sarker et al. 2013a). To help make sense of the situation, in this editorial, we offer a critical commentary on the arena of qualitative research in the IS discipline. In viewing the adoption of qualitative research in the IS discipline as an evolutionary process, by highlighting key differences among various types of qualitative inquiry, and by drawing attention to lessons learned from the first-generation of qualitative approaches adopted in the IS discipline, we offer a number of implications for both authors and evaluators of qualitative manuscripts.
Qualitative research in the information systems (IS) discipline has come a long way, from being dismissed as “exploratory research” or “preresearch,” not worthy of being featured in “scientific” and authoritative journals in the discipline, to a state where such research is seen as legitimate and even welcome scholarship within much of the mainstream IS research community. Despite these very positive developments in line with the value of pluralism that our discipline has embraced, and the gradual inclusion of qualitative work in high-profile mainstream outlets, recent editorials have expressed concerns regarding the research community’s lack of awareness about the diverse nature of qualitative research and the apparent confusion regarding how these diverse approaches are different. Such confusion has led to a mismatch between the methodology-related expectations of evaluators and the methodological description provided by the authors (Conboy et al. 2012; Sarker et al. 2013a). To help make sense of the situation, in this editorial, we offer a critical commentary on the arena of qualitative research in the IS discipline. In viewing the adoption of qualitative research in the IS discipline as an evolutionary process, by highlighting key differences among various types of qualitative inquiry, and by drawing attention to lessons learned from the first-generation of qualitative approaches adopted in the IS discipline, we offer a number of implications for both authors and evaluators of qualitative manuscripts.
LanguageEnglish
JournalJournal of the Association of Information Systems (JAIS)
Volume19
Issue number8
Pages752-774
Number of pages23
ISSN1558-3457
DOIs
StatePublished - 2018

Keywords

  • Case study research
  • Interpretivism
  • IS discipline
  • Methodology evolution
  • Positivism
  • Qualitative research
  • Research genres

Cite this

@article{f5fa79dfb02e4363bdde54e44b9c6a52,
title = "Learning from First-generation Qualitative Approaches in the IS Discipline: An Evolutionary View and Some Implications for Authors and Evaluators (Part 1/2)",
abstract = "Qualitative research in the information systems (IS) discipline has come a long way, from being dismissed as “exploratory research” or “preresearch,” not worthy of being featured in “scientific” and authoritative journals in the discipline, to a state where such research is seen as legitimate and even welcome scholarship within much of the mainstream IS research community. Despite these very positive developments in line with the value of pluralism that our discipline has embraced, and the gradual inclusion of qualitative work in high-profile mainstream outlets, recent editorials have expressed concerns regarding the research community’s lack of awareness about the diverse nature of qualitative research and the apparent confusion regarding how these diverse approaches are different. Such confusion has led to a mismatch between the methodology-related expectations of evaluators and the methodological description provided by the authors (Conboy et al. 2012; Sarker et al. 2013a). To help make sense of the situation, in this editorial, we offer a critical commentary on the arena of qualitative research in the IS discipline. In viewing the adoption of qualitative research in the IS discipline as an evolutionary process, by highlighting key differences among various types of qualitative inquiry, and by drawing attention to lessons learned from the first-generation of qualitative approaches adopted in the IS discipline, we offer a number of implications for both authors and evaluators of qualitative manuscripts.",
keywords = "Case study research, Interpretivism, IS discipline, Methodology evolution, Positivism, Qualitative research, Research genres, Case study research, Interpretivism, IS discipline, Methodology evolution, Positivism, Qualitative research, Research genres",
author = "Suprateek Sarker and Xiao Xiao and Tanya Beaulieu and Lee, {Allen S.}",
year = "2018",
doi = "10.17705/1jais.00508",
language = "English",
volume = "19",
pages = "752--774",
journal = "Journal of the Association of Information Systems (JAIS)",
issn = "1558-3457",
publisher = "Association for Information Systems",
number = "8",

}

Learning from First-generation Qualitative Approaches in the IS Discipline : An Evolutionary View and Some Implications for Authors and Evaluators (Part 1/2). / Sarker, Suprateek; Xiao, Xiao; Beaulieu, Tanya; Lee, Allen S.

In: Journal of the Association of Information Systems (JAIS), Vol. 19, No. 8, 2018, p. 752-774.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Learning from First-generation Qualitative Approaches in the IS Discipline

T2 - Journal of the Association of Information Systems (JAIS)

AU - Sarker,Suprateek

AU - Xiao,Xiao

AU - Beaulieu,Tanya

AU - Lee,Allen S.

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - Qualitative research in the information systems (IS) discipline has come a long way, from being dismissed as “exploratory research” or “preresearch,” not worthy of being featured in “scientific” and authoritative journals in the discipline, to a state where such research is seen as legitimate and even welcome scholarship within much of the mainstream IS research community. Despite these very positive developments in line with the value of pluralism that our discipline has embraced, and the gradual inclusion of qualitative work in high-profile mainstream outlets, recent editorials have expressed concerns regarding the research community’s lack of awareness about the diverse nature of qualitative research and the apparent confusion regarding how these diverse approaches are different. Such confusion has led to a mismatch between the methodology-related expectations of evaluators and the methodological description provided by the authors (Conboy et al. 2012; Sarker et al. 2013a). To help make sense of the situation, in this editorial, we offer a critical commentary on the arena of qualitative research in the IS discipline. In viewing the adoption of qualitative research in the IS discipline as an evolutionary process, by highlighting key differences among various types of qualitative inquiry, and by drawing attention to lessons learned from the first-generation of qualitative approaches adopted in the IS discipline, we offer a number of implications for both authors and evaluators of qualitative manuscripts.

AB - Qualitative research in the information systems (IS) discipline has come a long way, from being dismissed as “exploratory research” or “preresearch,” not worthy of being featured in “scientific” and authoritative journals in the discipline, to a state where such research is seen as legitimate and even welcome scholarship within much of the mainstream IS research community. Despite these very positive developments in line with the value of pluralism that our discipline has embraced, and the gradual inclusion of qualitative work in high-profile mainstream outlets, recent editorials have expressed concerns regarding the research community’s lack of awareness about the diverse nature of qualitative research and the apparent confusion regarding how these diverse approaches are different. Such confusion has led to a mismatch between the methodology-related expectations of evaluators and the methodological description provided by the authors (Conboy et al. 2012; Sarker et al. 2013a). To help make sense of the situation, in this editorial, we offer a critical commentary on the arena of qualitative research in the IS discipline. In viewing the adoption of qualitative research in the IS discipline as an evolutionary process, by highlighting key differences among various types of qualitative inquiry, and by drawing attention to lessons learned from the first-generation of qualitative approaches adopted in the IS discipline, we offer a number of implications for both authors and evaluators of qualitative manuscripts.

KW - Case study research

KW - Interpretivism

KW - IS discipline

KW - Methodology evolution

KW - Positivism

KW - Qualitative research

KW - Research genres

KW - Case study research

KW - Interpretivism

KW - IS discipline

KW - Methodology evolution

KW - Positivism

KW - Qualitative research

KW - Research genres

U2 - 10.17705/1jais.00508

DO - 10.17705/1jais.00508

M3 - Journal article

VL - 19

SP - 752

EP - 774

JO - Journal of the Association of Information Systems (JAIS)

JF - Journal of the Association of Information Systems (JAIS)

SN - 1558-3457

IS - 8

ER -