Information Systems Research on the Global Playing Field: Balancing the Universal and the Local

IF 3 4区 管理学 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
F. Niederman, A. Graeml, Guillermo Rodríguez Abitia
{"title":"Information Systems Research on the Global Playing Field: Balancing the Universal and the Local","authors":"F. Niederman, A. Graeml, Guillermo Rodríguez Abitia","doi":"10.1080/1097198X.2022.2065035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There seems to be an assumption in the research community that the purpose of knowledge gathering is to ascertain laws which represent universal unchanging truths [1]. This is not so much stated as built into much of the research zeitgeist. We see this, for example, with the DeLone and McLean (Petter, DeLone, & Mclean, 2013) model of success based originally on discrete technologies, then updated with consideration for ecommerce applications. The model, if thoroughly supported, would provide the set of antecedents for IS application success. Quantitative meta-analysis, if it were applied to the model, would show the relative strength of each antecedent on those that follow leading ultimately to the accumulated model’s impact on success. To the extent that individual studies would vary from these parameters, it would be assumed that (1) they represent some error or variance around the central tendency; or (2) there may have been something wrong with the study in how it was conducted. Two other possibilities that are less explored are that (1) the salience of antecedents may simply change over time, partly because of the fact that (2) technologies vary greatly in their influence on success, even within the same general family of technologies. A revised view of the DeLone-McLean model would not be one universal theory but a collection of representations showing variance as pertains to different categories of technology or purpose. There are many possible reasons for focusing on the search for universal unchanging truths. If and when we find them, there is great value and utility. Euclidean geometry was not refuted by Einsteinian theories; rather it continues to work quite well where it remains applicable. The multitude of such mathematical measures of physical forces attests to their value. To the extent that IS ‘borrows’ its definition of science from the physical sciences, it is likely that the search for unchanging universal truths will be a central goal. In fact, it is likely that many in the field have learned that this is what science is by definition and have not considered the alternative that knowledge, which is not universal, nor unchanging, can also embody great value. At any given time period knowing what rules seem to be applicable, and across which conditions, can have as much value in application as knowing what is universal and unchanging. Ryle (1945) calls for a distinction between knowing-that and knowing-how. Scientific propositions are of the knowing-that kind, a kind that can be expressed in propositions of a justified truth. Sometimes IS research attempts at that. However, many times, IS concerns with the knowing-how type of knowledge, and skills that cannot be expressed the same way, in spite of still being valuable. Vries (2016) reminds us that (physical) scientific knowledge is normally intended to be universal and nomothetical, i.e., its laws are expected to hold for all places and times. Technology knowledge, in contrast, tends to be more specific and ideo-graphical, describing particularities rather than generalities. In our view, IS as a discipline, benefits from both approaches – searching for theory, rules, and principles that apply everywhere and always; but benefits to an even greater extent by surfacing","PeriodicalId":45982,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Information Technology Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Global Information Technology Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1097198X.2022.2065035","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

There seems to be an assumption in the research community that the purpose of knowledge gathering is to ascertain laws which represent universal unchanging truths [1]. This is not so much stated as built into much of the research zeitgeist. We see this, for example, with the DeLone and McLean (Petter, DeLone, & Mclean, 2013) model of success based originally on discrete technologies, then updated with consideration for ecommerce applications. The model, if thoroughly supported, would provide the set of antecedents for IS application success. Quantitative meta-analysis, if it were applied to the model, would show the relative strength of each antecedent on those that follow leading ultimately to the accumulated model’s impact on success. To the extent that individual studies would vary from these parameters, it would be assumed that (1) they represent some error or variance around the central tendency; or (2) there may have been something wrong with the study in how it was conducted. Two other possibilities that are less explored are that (1) the salience of antecedents may simply change over time, partly because of the fact that (2) technologies vary greatly in their influence on success, even within the same general family of technologies. A revised view of the DeLone-McLean model would not be one universal theory but a collection of representations showing variance as pertains to different categories of technology or purpose. There are many possible reasons for focusing on the search for universal unchanging truths. If and when we find them, there is great value and utility. Euclidean geometry was not refuted by Einsteinian theories; rather it continues to work quite well where it remains applicable. The multitude of such mathematical measures of physical forces attests to their value. To the extent that IS ‘borrows’ its definition of science from the physical sciences, it is likely that the search for unchanging universal truths will be a central goal. In fact, it is likely that many in the field have learned that this is what science is by definition and have not considered the alternative that knowledge, which is not universal, nor unchanging, can also embody great value. At any given time period knowing what rules seem to be applicable, and across which conditions, can have as much value in application as knowing what is universal and unchanging. Ryle (1945) calls for a distinction between knowing-that and knowing-how. Scientific propositions are of the knowing-that kind, a kind that can be expressed in propositions of a justified truth. Sometimes IS research attempts at that. However, many times, IS concerns with the knowing-how type of knowledge, and skills that cannot be expressed the same way, in spite of still being valuable. Vries (2016) reminds us that (physical) scientific knowledge is normally intended to be universal and nomothetical, i.e., its laws are expected to hold for all places and times. Technology knowledge, in contrast, tends to be more specific and ideo-graphical, describing particularities rather than generalities. In our view, IS as a discipline, benefits from both approaches – searching for theory, rules, and principles that apply everywhere and always; but benefits to an even greater extent by surfacing
全球竞争环境下的信息系统研究:平衡普遍性与地方性
在研究界似乎有一种假设,即知识收集的目的是确定代表普遍不变真理的规律[1]。与其说这是陈述,不如说这是研究时代精神的一部分。例如,我们在DeLone和McLean (Petter, DeLone, & McLean, 2013)的成功模型中看到了这一点,该模型最初基于离散技术,然后在考虑电子商务应用的情况下更新。如果得到充分支持,该模型将为IS应用程序的成功提供一组先决条件。定量荟萃分析,如果应用于模型,将显示每个先行因素对后续因素的相对强度,最终导致累积模型对成功的影响。在某种程度上,个别研究将与这些参数有所不同,可以假设:(1)它们代表了围绕集中趋势的一些误差或方差;或者(2)这项研究的实施方式可能有问题。另外两种较少被探索的可能性是:(1)先行因素的显著性可能只是随着时间的推移而改变,部分原因是(2)即使在同一技术家族中,技术对成功的影响也存在很大差异。DeLone-McLean模型的修正视图将不是一个通用理论,而是一系列表示,显示与不同类别的技术或目的有关的差异。专注于寻找普遍不变的真理有很多可能的原因。如果我们找到它们,它们就会有很大的价值和效用。欧几里得几何没有被爱因斯坦的理论驳倒;相反,在它仍然适用的地方,它继续工作得很好。大量这样的物理力的数学测量证明了它们的价值。在某种程度上,IS从物理科学中“借用”了科学的定义,很可能寻找不变的普遍真理将是一个中心目标。事实上,这个领域的许多人很可能已经认识到这就是科学的定义,而没有考虑到另一种选择,即知识,它不是普遍的,也不是不变的,也可以体现巨大的价值。在任何给定的时期,知道什么规则似乎是适用的,在什么条件下,可以与知道什么是普遍的和不变的具有同样的应用价值。赖尔(1945)呼吁区分“知道那个”和“知道怎么做”。科学命题属于认识的那一类,可以用证明真理的命题来表达。有时他的研究试图做到这一点。然而,很多时候,它关注的是知识类型的知识和技能,这些知识和技能不能以同样的方式表达,尽管它们仍然有价值。Vries(2016)提醒我们,(物理)科学知识通常被认为是普遍的和同一性的,也就是说,它的规律被期望适用于所有地点和时间。相比之下,技术知识往往更具体和形象化,描述的是特殊性而不是普遍性。在我们看来,信息系统作为一门学科,可以从这两种方法中获益——寻找适用于任何地方、任何时候的理论、规则和原则;但更大程度的好处是浮出水面
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Global Information Technology Management
Journal of Global Information Technology Management INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
10.00%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: The Journal of Global Information Technology Management (JGITM) is a refereed international journal that is supported by Global IT scholars from all over the world. JGITM publishes articles related to all aspects of the application of information technology for international business. The journal also considers a variety of methodological approaches and encourages manuscript submissions from authors all over the world, both from academia and industry. In addition, the journal will also include reviews of MIS books that have bearing on global aspects. Practitioner input will be specifically solicited from time-to-time in the form of invited columns or interviews. Besides quality work, at a minimum each submitted article should have the following three components: an MIS (Management Information Systems) topic, an international orientation (e.g., cross cultural studies or strong international implications), and evidence (e.g., survey data, case studies, secondary data, etc.). Articles in the Journal of Global Information Technology Management include, but are not limited to: -Cross-cultural IS studies -Frameworks/models for global information systems (GIS) -Development, evaluation and management of GIS -Information Resource Management -Electronic Commerce -Privacy & Security -Societal impacts of IT in developing countries -IT and Economic Development -IT Diffusion in developing countries -IT in Health Care -IT human resource issues -DSS/EIS/ES in international settings -Organizational and management structures for GIS -Transborder data flow issues -Supply Chain Management -Distributed global databases and networks -Cultural and societal impacts -Comparative studies of nations -Applications and case studies
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信