close
Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in
Menu
Find a journal Publish with us Track your research
Search
Saved research
Cart
  1. Home
  2. Information Systems Research
  3. Chapter

Conducting and Evaluating Critical Interpretive Research: Examining Criteria as a Key Component in Building a Research Tradition

  • Chapter
  • pp 275–292
  • Cite this chapter
Save chapter
View saved research
Information Systems Research
Conducting and Evaluating Critical Interpretive Research: Examining Criteria as a Key Component in Building a Research Tradition
  • Marlei Pozzebon7 

Part of the book series: IFIP International Federation for Information Processing ((IFIPAICT,volume 143))

  • 11k Accesses

  • 45 Citations

Abstract

The collection, analysis, and interpretation of empirical materials are always conducted within some broader understanding of what constitutes legitimate inquiry and valid knowledge. In the Information Systems field, there are wellknown and widely accepted methodological principles consistent with the conventions of positivism. However, the same is not yet true of interpretive research. The emergence of interpretivism in IS research was advocated by Walsham (1995) and corroborated by a series of special issues in outstanding IS journals. An example of the effort to advance the legitimacy of studies grounded in an interpretive position is the set of principles suggested by Klein and Myers (1999), which applies mostly to hermeneutics.However, because not all interpretive studies are built on a hermeneutical philosophical base, they recommended that other researchers, representing other forms of interpretivism, suggest additional principles. This paper follows in this vein, advocating the timely emergence of a critical interpretive perspective in IS research and pressing the argument that an extended version of Golden-Biddle and Locke’s (1993) criteria is not only appropriate but comprehensive as initial guidelines for conducting and evaluating critical interpretive research. Critical interpretive research, research criteria, intensive research, qualitative research

Download to read the full chapter text

Chapter PDF

Similar content being viewed by others

A Critical Realist Pathway to Relevant and Ethical Research

Chapter © 2018

Understanding the Research Approach and the Data

Chapter © 2019

Critical Realism and ICT4D Research

Chapter © 2017

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, books and news in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.
  • Critical Psychology
  • Empiricism
  • Historiography and Method
  • Hermeneutics
  • Qualitative Psychology
  • Research Ethics
  • Qualitative Methodologies in International Business

References

  • Alvarez, R. “Confessions of an Information Worker: A Critical Analysis of Information Requirements Discourse,” Information and Organization (12), 2002, pp. 85–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez, R. “It Was a Great System.Face-Work and the Discursive Construction of Technology During Information Systems Development,” Information Technology & People (14:4), 2001, pp. 385–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvesson, M., and Deetz, S. Doing Critical Management Research, London: Sage Publications, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvesson, M., and Skoldberg, K. Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research, London: Sage Publications, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benbasat, I., and Zmud, R. W. “Empirical Research in Information Systems: The Practice of Relevance,” MIS Quarterly (23:1), 1999, pp. 3–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clegg, S., and Hardy, C. “Some Dare Call Into Power,” in S. Clegg, C. Hardy, and W. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of Organization Studies, London: Sage Publications, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, E. J. “Technology Frames and Framing: A Socio-Cognitive Investigation of Requirements Determination,” MIS Quarterly (26:4), 2002, pp. 329–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K., and Lincoln, Y. S. Handbook of Qualitative Research, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deetz, S. “Describing Differences in Approaches to Organization Science: Rethinking Burrell and Morgan and Their Legacy,” Organization Science (7:2), 1996, pp. 191–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doolin, B. “Information Technology as Disciplinary Technology: Being Critical in Interpretive Research on Information Systems,” Journal of Information Technology (13), 1998, pp. 301–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairclough, N. Critical Discourse Analysis—The Critical Study of Language, London: Longman, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallivan, M. J. “Organizational Adoption and Assimilation of Complex Technological Innovations: Development and Application of a New Framework,” The Data Base for Advances in Information Systems (32:3), 2001, pp. 51–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, L., and Quek, F. “Qualitative Research in Information Systems: Time to Be Subjective?” in A. S. Lee, J. Liebenau, and J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Information Systems and Qualitative Research, London: Chapman & Hall, 1997, pp. 444–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garratt, D., and Hodkinson, P. “Can There Be Criteria for Selecting Research Criteria?A Hermeneutical Analysis of an Inescapable Dilemma,” Qualitative Inquiry (4:4), 1998, pp. 515–539.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gephart, R. “Paradigms and Research Methods,” Research Methods Forum (4), 1999, pp. 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golden-Biddle, K., and Locke, K. “Appealing Work: An Investigation of How Ethnographic Texts Convince,” Organization Science (4), 1993, pp. 595–616.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gopal, A., and Prasad, P. “Understanding GDSS in Symbolic Context: Shifting the Focus from Technology to Interaction,” MIS Quarterly (24:3), 2000, pp. 509–546.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, D., Keenoy, T., and Oswick, C. “Organizational Discourse—Key Contributions and Chal-lenges,” International Studies of Management and Organization (31:3), 2001, pp. 5–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanseth, O., Ciborra, C. U., and Braa, K. “The Control Devolution: ERP and the Side Effects of Globalization,” The Data Base for Advances in Information Systems (32:4), 2001, pp. 34–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardy, C. “Researching Organizational Discourse,” International Studies in Management and Organization (31:3), 2001, pp. 25–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardy, C., Phillips, N., and Clegg, S. “Reflexivity in Organization and Management Theory: A Study of the Production of the Research’ subject’,” Human Relations (54:5), 2001, pp. 531–560.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henfridson, O., and Holmstrom, H. “Developing E-Commerce in Internetworked Organizations: A Case of Customer Involvement Throughout the Computer Gaming Value Chain,” The Data Base for Advances in Information Systems (33:4), 2002, pp. 38–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heracleous, L., and Barrett, M. “Organizational Change as Discourse: Communicative Actions and Deep Structures in the Context of Information Technology Implementation,” Academy of Management Journal (44:4), 2001, pp. 755–778.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, R. “Reflexivity,” Human Relations (52:4), 1999, pp. 463–485.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, H. K. “Knowledge and Research in IS Research: from Beginnings to the Future,” in O. Ngwenyama, L. Introna, M. D. Myers, and J. I. DeGross (Eds.), New Information Technologies in Organizational Processes: Field Studies and Theoretical Reflections on the Future of Work, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999, pp. 13–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, H. K., and Myers, M. D. “A Classification Scheme for Interpretive Research in Information Systems,” in E. M. Trauth (Ed.), Qualitative Research in IS: Issues and Trends Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing, 2001, pp. 218–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, H. K., and Myers, M. D. “A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems,” MIS Quarterly (23:1), 1999, pp. 67–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, A. “A Scientific Methodology for MIS Case Studies,” MIS Quarterly, 1989, pp. 33–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. S., and Guba, E. G. Naturalistic Inquiry, New York: Sage Publications, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyytinen, K. “Empirical Research in Information Systems: On the Relevance of Practice in Thinking,” MIS Quarterly (23:1), 1999, pp. 25–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markus, M. L., and Lee, A. S. “Special Issue on Intensive Research in Information Systems: Using Qualitative, Interpretive, and Case Methods to Study Information Technology,” MIS Quarterly (23:1), 1999, pp. 35–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, M. D. “Investigating Information Systems with Ethnographic Research,” Communications of AIS (2:23), 1999, pp. 2–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, M. D. “Qualitative Research in Information Systems,” MIS Quarterly (21:2), 1997, pp. 241–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nandhakumar, J., and Jones, M. “Too Close for Comfort?Distance and Engagement in Interpretive Information Systems Research,” Information Systems Journal, 7, 1997, pp. 109–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W. J., and Baroudi, J. J. “Studying Information Technology in Organizations: Research Approaches and Assumptions,” Information Systems Research (2:1), 1991, pp. 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, N., and Hardy, C. Discourse Analysis—Investigating Processes of Social Construction, London: Sage Publications, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pozzebon, M. The Implementation of Configurable Technologies: Negotiations between Global Principles and Local Contexts, Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, McGill University, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultze, U. “A Confessional Account of an Ethnography about Knowledge Work,” MIS Quarterly (24:1), 2000, pp. 3–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silverman, D. “The Logic of Qualitative Research,” in J. Hassard, and M. Parker (Eds.), Context and Method in Qualitative Research, London: Sage Publications, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spradley, J. P. The Ethnographic Interview, New York: Holt Reinhart & Winston, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steffy, B. D., and Grimes, A. J. “A Critical Theory of Organization,” Academy of Management Review (11:2), 1986, pp. 322–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tesch, R. Qualitative Research: Analysis, Types and Software Tools, London; Falmer, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  • Titscher, S., Meyer, M., Wodak, R., and Vetter, E. Methods of Text and Discourse Analysis, London: Sage Publications, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trauth, E. M., and Jessup, L. M. “Understanding Computer-mediated Discussions: Positivist and Interpretive Analyses of Group Support System Use,” MIS Quarterly (24:1), 2000, pp. 43–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Maanen, J. “The Fact of Fiction in Organizational Ethnography,” Administrative Science Quarterly (24), 1979, pp. 539–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Maanen, J. Tales of the Field, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsham, G. Interpreting Information Systems in Organizations, Chichester, England: John Wiley and Sons, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsham, G. “Interpretive Case Studies in IS Research: Nature and Method,” European Journal of Information Systems (4), 1995, pp. 74–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsham, G., and Sahay, S. “GIS for District-level Administration in India: Problems and Opportunities,” MIS Quarterly (23:1), 1999, pp. 39–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsham, G., and Waema, T. “Information Systems Strategy and Implementation: A Case Study of a Building Society,” ACM Transactions on Information Systems (12:2), 1994, pp. 150–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, L. A., and Kroger, R. O. Doing Discourse Analysis—Methods for Studying Action in Talk and Text, London: Sage Publications, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. Case Study Research, Design and Methods, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. HEC, Montreal, Canada

    Marlei Pozzebon

Authors
  1. Marlei Pozzebon
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Yale University, USA

    Bonnie Kaplan

  2. Florida International University, USA

    Duane P. Truex III

  3. Georgia State University, USA

    Duane P. Truex III

  4. University of Manchester, UK

    David Wastell & A. Trevor Wood-Harper & 

  5. University of South Australia, Australia

    A. Trevor Wood-Harper

  6. University of Minnesota, USA

    Janice I. DeGross

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2004 Springer Science + Business Media, Inc.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Pozzebon, M. (2004). Conducting and Evaluating Critical Interpretive Research: Examining Criteria as a Key Component in Building a Research Tradition. In: Kaplan, B., Truex, D.P., Wastell, D., Wood-Harper, A.T., DeGross, J.I. (eds) Information Systems Research. IFIP International Federation for Information Processing, vol 143. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-8095-6_16

Download citation

  • .RIS
  • .ENW
  • .BIB
  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-8095-6_16

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-8094-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-8095-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Keywords

  • Critical interpretive research
  • research criteria
  • intensive research
  • qualitative research

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation

  • Find a journal
  • Publish with us
  • Track your research

Footer Navigation

Discover content

  • Journals A-Z
  • Books A-Z
  • Subjects A-Z

Publish with us

  • Journal finder
  • Publish your research
  • Language editing
  • Open access publishing

Products and services

  • Our products
  • Librarians
  • Societies
  • Partners and advertisers

Our brands

  • Springer
  • Nature Portfolio
  • BMC
  • Palgrave Macmillan
  • Apress
  • Discover

Corporate Navigation

  • Your US state privacy rights
  • Accessibility statement
  • Terms and conditions
  • Privacy policy
  • Help and support
  • Legal notice
  • Cancel contracts here

104.23.243.58

Not affiliated

Springer Nature

© 2026 Springer Nature