哲学家的角落

IF 2.8 4区 管理学 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
Michael J. Cuellar
{"title":"哲学家的角落","authors":"Michael J. Cuellar","doi":"10.1145/3400043.3400050","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems has sponsored a series of articles on the thought of Paul Feyerabend (Treiblmaier, 2018, 2019; Gregor, 2018; Burton-Jones, 2018; Myers, 2018). Treiblmaier and the respondents discuss the actual meaning and implication of Feyerabend's ideas for information systems. In the series, the authors argue we already employ diverse methodologies. However, it is also apparent that a truncated view of philosophy as only concerned with epistemology and all methods as commensurable is employed. This paper argues we do not have a real diversity in the IS field and we should commit to the practice of a disciplined metatheoretic pluralism. Our methodology must not only be rigorously executed but also correctly interpreted in accord with our metatheoretic assumptions. We need to be open to all types of metatheory as well as methods and research topics. The paper provides four suggestions for how to implement disciplined metatheoretic pluralism: 1) Educate doctoral students into the various philosophical paradigms; 2) Require authors to state their metatheoretic assumptions and review for conformance to them; 3) Open publication venues to all authors, methodologies, metatheoretic commitments, and ideas; 4) Change the evaluation mechanism to reduce the pressure to conform to normal science.","PeriodicalId":46842,"journal":{"name":"Data Base for Advances in Information Systems","volume":"30 1","pages":"101 - 112"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Philosopher's Corner\",\"authors\":\"Michael J. Cuellar\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3400043.3400050\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems has sponsored a series of articles on the thought of Paul Feyerabend (Treiblmaier, 2018, 2019; Gregor, 2018; Burton-Jones, 2018; Myers, 2018). Treiblmaier and the respondents discuss the actual meaning and implication of Feyerabend's ideas for information systems. In the series, the authors argue we already employ diverse methodologies. However, it is also apparent that a truncated view of philosophy as only concerned with epistemology and all methods as commensurable is employed. This paper argues we do not have a real diversity in the IS field and we should commit to the practice of a disciplined metatheoretic pluralism. Our methodology must not only be rigorously executed but also correctly interpreted in accord with our metatheoretic assumptions. We need to be open to all types of metatheory as well as methods and research topics. The paper provides four suggestions for how to implement disciplined metatheoretic pluralism: 1) Educate doctoral students into the various philosophical paradigms; 2) Require authors to state their metatheoretic assumptions and review for conformance to them; 3) Open publication venues to all authors, methodologies, metatheoretic commitments, and ideas; 4) Change the evaluation mechanism to reduce the pressure to conform to normal science.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46842,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Data Base for Advances in Information Systems\",\"volume\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"101 - 112\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-05-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Data Base for Advances in Information Systems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3400043.3400050\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Data Base for Advances in Information Systems","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3400043.3400050","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: 0

摘要

信息系统进展数据库赞助了一系列关于Paul Feyerabend思想的文章(Treiblmaier, 2018, 2019;格雷戈尔,2018;Burton-Jones, 2018;迈尔斯,2018)。Treiblmaier和受访者讨论了Feyerabend的信息系统思想的实际意义和含义。在这个系列中,作者认为我们已经采用了多种方法。然而,同样明显的是,一种截断的哲学观点只涉及认识论和所有可通约性的方法。本文认为,我们在信息系统领域没有真正的多样性,我们应该致力于有纪律的元理论多元主义的实践。我们的方法论不仅要严格执行,而且要根据我们的元理论假设进行正确的解释。我们需要对所有类型的元理论以及方法和研究课题持开放态度。本文就如何实施有纪律的元理论多元主义提出了四点建议:1)对博士生进行各种哲学范式的教育;2)要求作者陈述他们的元理论假设,并审查是否符合这些假设;3)向所有作者、方法、元理论承诺和思想开放出版场所;(4)改变评价机制,减少符合常规科学的压力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Philosopher's Corner
The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems has sponsored a series of articles on the thought of Paul Feyerabend (Treiblmaier, 2018, 2019; Gregor, 2018; Burton-Jones, 2018; Myers, 2018). Treiblmaier and the respondents discuss the actual meaning and implication of Feyerabend's ideas for information systems. In the series, the authors argue we already employ diverse methodologies. However, it is also apparent that a truncated view of philosophy as only concerned with epistemology and all methods as commensurable is employed. This paper argues we do not have a real diversity in the IS field and we should commit to the practice of a disciplined metatheoretic pluralism. Our methodology must not only be rigorously executed but also correctly interpreted in accord with our metatheoretic assumptions. We need to be open to all types of metatheory as well as methods and research topics. The paper provides four suggestions for how to implement disciplined metatheoretic pluralism: 1) Educate doctoral students into the various philosophical paradigms; 2) Require authors to state their metatheoretic assumptions and review for conformance to them; 3) Open publication venues to all authors, methodologies, metatheoretic commitments, and ideas; 4) Change the evaluation mechanism to reduce the pressure to conform to normal science.
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
Data Base for Advances in Information Systems
Data Base for Advances in Information Systems INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
7.10%
发文量
18
×
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