信息系统研究中的混合方法:认识论和方法论的挑战

Amandine Pascal, B. Aldebert, Audrey Rouzies
{"title":"信息系统研究中的混合方法:认识论和方法论的挑战","authors":"Amandine Pascal, B. Aldebert, Audrey Rouzies","doi":"10.9876/SIM.V23I3.831","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Mixed methods are increasingly popular in social sciences thanks to their ability to generate new research results that differ from traditional methodologies. As such, because they offer a wide range of methodological choices, these methods are fruitful for the Information Systems domain (Mingers, 2001; Venkatesh et al., 2013). However, we do not have any knowledge of how they are actually mobilized. The aim of this article is to better understand the use of mixed methods by IS researchers. More specifically, based on a comparative literature review, we identify trends in how these methods are used and in their epistemological anchor. To do so, a bibliographic analysis of seven IS journals has been conducted over the period 2008-2016. This analysis allows us to bring a critical lens on the use of mixed methods in IS and thus completes the two bibliographical studies developed by Mingers (2001) and Venkatesh et al. (2013). By anchoring its reflection in epistemology, this analysis differs from previous ones, making it original and powerful. It allows us to propose recommendations for authors wishing to implement this type of method.","PeriodicalId":220138,"journal":{"name":"French Journal of Management Information Systems","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mixed methods in information systems research: epistemological and methodological challenges\",\"authors\":\"Amandine Pascal, B. Aldebert, Audrey Rouzies\",\"doi\":\"10.9876/SIM.V23I3.831\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Mixed methods are increasingly popular in social sciences thanks to their ability to generate new research results that differ from traditional methodologies. As such, because they offer a wide range of methodological choices, these methods are fruitful for the Information Systems domain (Mingers, 2001; Venkatesh et al., 2013). However, we do not have any knowledge of how they are actually mobilized. The aim of this article is to better understand the use of mixed methods by IS researchers. More specifically, based on a comparative literature review, we identify trends in how these methods are used and in their epistemological anchor. To do so, a bibliographic analysis of seven IS journals has been conducted over the period 2008-2016. This analysis allows us to bring a critical lens on the use of mixed methods in IS and thus completes the two bibliographical studies developed by Mingers (2001) and Venkatesh et al. (2013). By anchoring its reflection in epistemology, this analysis differs from previous ones, making it original and powerful. It allows us to propose recommendations for authors wishing to implement this type of method.\",\"PeriodicalId\":220138,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"French Journal of Management Information Systems\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-07-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"French Journal of Management Information Systems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.9876/SIM.V23I3.831\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"French Journal of Management Information Systems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.9876/SIM.V23I3.831","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

混合方法在社会科学中越来越受欢迎,因为它们能够产生不同于传统方法的新研究结果。因此,因为它们提供了广泛的方法选择,这些方法对于信息系统领域是富有成效的(Mingers, 2001;Venkatesh et al., 2013)。然而,我们不知道他们实际上是如何动员起来的。本文的目的是为了更好地理解is研究人员对混合方法的使用。更具体地说,在比较文献综述的基础上,我们确定了这些方法的使用趋势及其认识论基础。为此,对2008-2016年期间的7种IS期刊进行了书目分析。这一分析使我们能够对IS中混合方法的使用进行批判,从而完成Mingers(2001)和Venkatesh et al.(2013)开发的两项书目研究。通过将其反思锚定在认识论上,这种分析不同于以往的分析,使其具有原创性和强大的力量。它允许我们为希望实现这种类型方法的作者提出建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Mixed methods in information systems research: epistemological and methodological challenges
Mixed methods are increasingly popular in social sciences thanks to their ability to generate new research results that differ from traditional methodologies. As such, because they offer a wide range of methodological choices, these methods are fruitful for the Information Systems domain (Mingers, 2001; Venkatesh et al., 2013). However, we do not have any knowledge of how they are actually mobilized. The aim of this article is to better understand the use of mixed methods by IS researchers. More specifically, based on a comparative literature review, we identify trends in how these methods are used and in their epistemological anchor. To do so, a bibliographic analysis of seven IS journals has been conducted over the period 2008-2016. This analysis allows us to bring a critical lens on the use of mixed methods in IS and thus completes the two bibliographical studies developed by Mingers (2001) and Venkatesh et al. (2013). By anchoring its reflection in epistemology, this analysis differs from previous ones, making it original and powerful. It allows us to propose recommendations for authors wishing to implement this type of method.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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