Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The teaching of qualitative research methods in information systems: an explorative study utilizing learning theory

  • Research Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Information Systems

Abstract

Empirical evidence suggests that the Information Systems field continues to be dominated by the positivist paradigm and the use of quantitative methods. This is so despite the diversity of research methods available, the emergence of an interpretivist tradition, and some isolated examples of methodological pluralism. While there have been significant contributions in guiding qualitative research methods teaching, little research has been undertaken that considers the training actually provided, and the possible impacts this may have on the quality and quantity of qualitative research articles in our journals. This explorative study aims to provide some insight into what training is provided, the issues confronted, and possible impediments to publishing qualitative research. Data were collected from interviews with a panel of international colleagues who have a range of experience in teaching and applying qualitative methods. Grounded Theory is used to identify emergent and interconnected themes. Experiential and social learning lenses are used to reflect on the results, providing some initial understanding of the complexities of teaching and undertaking qualitative research. Theoretical as well as practical contributions are made regarding the means by which qualitative research may be introduced, developed and extended within the IS academy, and further theorisation of social and experiential learning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The Information Systems Journal is one of the so-called ‘basket’ of IS journals recognized by the AIS Senior Scholars as being of high quality (http://home.aisnet.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=346).

  2. Each year, since 2007, the Senior IS Scholars identify five articles that represent the best work published in the IS journals in the previous year. Information & Organization has had an article selected as being among ‘the best of the best’ in each of the four years thus far: Wagner et al (2006); Boh (2007); Leonardi & Barley (2008); Jonsson et al (2009).

  3. As advocated in Galliers (1991) and Galliers et al (2007).

References

  • Adam MS and Urquhart C (2009) No man is an island: social and human capital in IT capacity building in the Maldives. Information & Organization 19 (1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvesson M, Hardy C and Harley B (2008) Reflecting on reflexivity: reflexive textual practices in organization and management theory. Journal of Management Studies 45 (3), 480–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argyris C and Schön D (1974) Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashby WR (1956) An Introduction to Cybernetics: Part Two. Methuen, London.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Avison D, Baskerville R and Myers M (2001) Controlling action research projects. Information Technology & People 14 (1), 28–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avison D and Elliot S (2005) Scoping the discipline of information systems. In Research in Information Systems: A Handbook for Research Supervisors and their Students (AVISON DE and PRIES-HEJE J, Eds), Elsevier, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura A (1977) Social Learning Theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barley SR (1990) Images of imaging: notes on doing longitudinal field work. Organization Science 1, 220–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baskerville R and Myers MD (Eds.) (2004) Special issue on action research in information systems: making IS research relevant to practice. MIS Quarterly 28 (3), 329–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bercovitz J and Feldman M (2008) Academic entrepreneurs: organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science 19 (1), 69–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger PL and Luckman T (1966) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Doubleday, Garden City, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boh WF (2007) Mechanisms for sharing knowledge in project-based organizations. Information and Organization 17 (1), 27–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown CV (1997) Examining the emergence of hybrid IS governance solutions: evidence from a single case site. Information Systems Research 8 (1), 69–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown J and Duguid P (1991) Organizational learning and toward a unified view of working, learning and innovation. Organization Science 2 (1), 40–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callingham M (2004) Market Intelligence: How and Why Organizations Use Market Research. Kogan Page, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen WS and Hirschheim R (2004) A paradigmatic and methodological examination of information systems research from 1891 to 2001. Information Systems Journal 14, 197–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crossan M, Lane HW and White RE (1999) An organizational learning framework: from intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review 24 (3), 522–538.

    Google Scholar 

  • Easterby-Smith M, Thorpe R and Lowe A (1991) Management Research: An Introduction. Sage, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt KM (1989) Building theories from case studies. Academy of Management Review 14, 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • ESRC (2009) ESRC Postgraduate Training & Development Guidelines 2009 for the Accreditation of Doctoral Training Centres and Doctoral Training Units. Economic & Social Research Council, Swindon.

  • Feigl H (1958) The ‘mental’ and the ‘physical’. In Concepts, Theories and the Mind-body Problem (FEIGL H, SCRIVEN M and MAXWELL G, Eds), University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabriel Y (2010) Organization studies: a space for ideas, identities and agonies. Organization Studies 31 (6), 757–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galliers RD (1985) In search of a paradigm for information system research. In Research Methods in Information Systems (MUMFORD E, HIRSCHHEIM R, FITZGERALD G and WOOD-HARPER AT, Eds), pp 85–94 (Proceedings: IFIP WG 8.2 Colloquium, Manchester, 1–3 September, 1984) North Holland, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galliers RD (1991) Choosing appropriate information systems research approaches: a revised taxonomy. In Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions (NISSEN H-E, KLEIN HK and HIRSCHHEIM R, Eds), pp 327–345, North Holland, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galliers RD (2003) Change as crisis or growth? Toward a trans-disciplinary view of information systems as a field of study – a response to Benbasat and Zmud's call for returning to the IT artifact. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 4 (6), 337–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galliers RD and Land FF (1987) Choosing an appropriate information systems research methodology. Communications of the ACM 30 (11), 900–902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galliers RD, Markus ML and Newell S (Eds) (2007) Exploring Information Systems Research Approaches: Readings and Reflections. Routledge, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galliers RD and Meadows M (2003) A discipline divided? Globalization and parochialism in information systems research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 11, 108–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galliers RD and Whitley EA (2007) Vive les differences? Developing a profile of European Information Systems research as a basis for international comparisons. European Journal of Information Systems 16 (1), 20–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gherardi S, Nicolini D and Odella F (1998) Toward a social understanding of how people learn in organizations. Management Learning 29 (3), 273–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser BG and Strauss AL (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine, Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon W (1999) Good Thinking: A Guide to Qualitative Research. Admap Publications, Henley-on-Thames.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschheim R and Klein H (1989) Four paradigms of information systems development. Communications of the ACM 32 (10), 1199–1216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonsson K, Holmström J and Lyytinen K (2009) Turn to the material: remote diagnostics systems and new forms of boundary-spanning. Information and Organization 19 (4), 233–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King JL and Lyytinen K (2007) Information Systems: The State of the Field. Wiley, Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein HK and Myers MD (1999) A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly 23, 67–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolb D (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave J and Wenger E (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lee AS (1989) A scientific methodology for MIS case studies. MIS Quarterly 13 (1), 33–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee AS (1991) Integrating positivist and interpretive approaches to organizational research. Organization Science 2 (4), 342–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonardi PM and Barley SR (2008) Materiality and change: challenges to building better theory about technology and organizing. Information and Organization 18 (3), 159–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levina N and Vaast E (2008) Innovating or doing as told? Status differences and overlapping boundaries in offshore collaboration. MIS Quarterly 32 (2), 307–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lippert SK and Forman H (2005) Utilization of information technology: examining cognitive and experiential factors of post-adoption behaviour. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 52 (3), 363–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mingers J (2001) Combining IS research methods: towards a pluralist methodology. Information Systems Research 12, 240–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mumford E, Hirschheim R, Fitzgerald G and Wood-Harper AT (Eds) (1985) Research Methods in Information Systems (Proceedings: IFIP WG 8.2 Colloquium, Manchester, 1–3 September 1984), North Holland, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers MD (Ed.) (1998) Special issue on interpretative research in information systems. Journal of Information Technology 13 (4), 231–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers MD (2008) Qualitative Research in Business and Management. Sage, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers MD and Avison D (Eds) (2002) Qualitative Research in Information Systems. A Reader. Sage, London.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Newell S and Edelman L (2008) Developing a dynamic project learning and cross-project learning capability: synthesizing two perspectives. Information Systems Journal 18, 567–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noble CH and Mokwa MP (1999) Implementing marketing strategies: developing and testing a managerial theory. Journal of Marketing 63 (4), 57–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski WJ (1993) CASE tools as organizational change: Investigating incremental and radical changes in systems development. MIS Quarterly 17 (3), 309–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski WJ (1996) Improvising organizational transformation over time: a situated change perspective. Information Systems Research 7 (1), 63–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski WJ and Baroudi JJ (1991) Studying information technology in organizations: research approaches and assumptions. Information Systems Research 2 (1), 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi M (1961) Personal Knowledge. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Remus U and Wiener M (2010) A multi-method, holistic strategy for researching critical success factors in IT projects. Information Systems Journal 20 (1), 25–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rindova VP and Kotha S (2001) Continuous ‘morphing’: competing through dynamic capabilities, form, and function. Academy of Management Journal 44 (6), 1263–1280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robey D (1996) Diversity in information systems research: threat, promise and responsibility. Information Systems Research 7, 400–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robey D and Sahay S (1996) Transforming work through information technology: a comparative case study of geographic information systems in county government. Information Systems Research 7, 93–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultze U (2000) A confessional account of an ethnography about knowledge work. MIS Quarterly 24 (1), 3–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trauth EM (2001) Qualitative Research in IS: Issues and Trends. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PA.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Trauth EM and Jessup LM (2000) Understanding computer-mediated discussions: positivist and interpretive analyses of group support system use. MIS Quarterly 24 (1), 43–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UK HE Europe Unit (2010) Bologna Seminar: Doctoral Studies in the European Higher Education Area, 17–18 June 2010, Warsaw, [WWW document] http://www.europeunit.ac.uk/sites/europe_unit2/resources/WarsawBolSem_UKBriefing_June2010.pdf.

  • Urquhart C, Lehmann H and Myers MD (2010) Putting the ‘theory’ back into grounded theory: guidelines for grounded theory studies in information systems. Information Systems Journal 20 (4), 357–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner EL, Scott SV and Galliers RD (2006) The creation of ‘Best Practice’ software: myth, reality and ethics. Information & Organization 16 (3), 251–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsham G (1995a) The emergence of interpretivism in IS research. Information Systems Research 4, 376–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsham G (1995b) Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method. European Journal of Information Systems 4 (1), 74–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick KE (2001) Making Sense of the Organization. Blackwell, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the following for the insights shared with us through participating in the interviews or providing us with relevant background materials: Marie-Claude Boudreau; Patrick Chou; Ola Henfridsson; Rudy Hirschheim; Carol Hsu; Matthew Jones; Kai Lim; M. Lynne Markus; Michael Myers; Mike Newman; Shan-Ling Pan; Dan Robey; Christina Soh, Eileen Trauth and KK Wei. Additional assistance was provided by Aziz Ahmad and Quang Bui. We also gratefully acknowledge the many insights and recommendations provided by the editors and anonymous reviewers of earlier versions of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bentley University, Massachusetts, U.S.A.

    Robert D Galliers

  2. Warwick Business School, The University of Warwick, U.K.

    Jimmy C Huang

Authors
  1. Robert D Galliers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jimmy C Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert D Galliers.

Appendix A

Appendix A

Outline interviews questions

  1. 1

    What is the general coverage and specific emphasis of your course(s), that is, what methods do you focus on? Could you please provide the syllabus for each course?

  2. 2

    What was the rationale behind your choice? (e.g., in relation to a particular method or multiple methods)

  3. 3

    Could you please provide some information on the students you teach? (e.g., numbers of students; the program(s) they are studying; whether they have any ‘previous background in research methods)

  4. 4

    What additional research training is provided for research students (qualitative and quantitative) in your institution? Please provide the relevant syllabi.

  5. 5

    What key challenges do your students encounter when taking your qualitative methods course(s)?

  6. 6

    What key challenges do you encounter when teaching this/these course(s)?

  7. 7

    How do these challenges compare to other, more prescriptive, courses in research methods?

  8. 8

    What are the benefits and disbenefits associated with qualitative research methods courses as compared to quantitative research methods courses in your view? (i.e., from both your, and your students’ perspectives)

  9. 9

    How do you attempt to overcome the tacit nature of much of the knowledge you are trying to impart to students in preparation for them to apply qualitative methods in their research?

  10. 10

    What qualitative research methods training should your research students have ideally? In other words, how would you improve their training in an ideal world?

  11. 11

    Do you think that relatively little qualitative research is published in major journals in our field? If so, why? What are the reasons for this? Is this in any way related to the training we give future generations of academics in our field in your view? If not, why not?

  12. 12

    As a result of their training, what proportion – roughly – of your research students go on to undertake qualitative research, quantitative research or a mixture of both?

  13. 13

    Do you have any other comments to make on this subject?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Galliers, R., Huang, J. The teaching of qualitative research methods in information systems: an explorative study utilizing learning theory. Eur J Inf Syst 21, 119–134 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.44

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.44

Keywords

Search

Navigation