Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The use of ethnography and grounded theory in the development of a management information system

  • Research Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Information Systems

Abstract

This work presents new evidence on how ethnography and the grounded theory approach can be integrated within a participatory information system development process. We conducted an ethnography in a hospital unit, collecting data from observations, interviews, and documents. The discussion about emergent themes with the actors in their natural context and the development of a grounded model allowed us to identify widespread discomfort felt by personnel and to code it as process conflict, that is a particular type of conflict caused by inefficiencies in the organization of work activities. The grounded model was the starting point for conducting a series of focus groups during which the organizational actors were allowed to face process conflict while defining the requirements of a new management information system. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of our study for IS researchers and practitioners.

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
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson RJ (1994) Representations and requirements: the value of ethnography in system design. Human-Computer Interaction 9 (2), 151–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson P and Hammersley M (2007) Ethnography: Principles in Practice 3rd edn, Routledge, New York, NY (USA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Avgerou C and Madon S (2004) Framing IS studies: understanding the social context of IS innovation. In The Social Study of Information and Communication Technology (AVGEROU C, CIBORRA C, LAND F, Eds), pp 103–118, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bales RF (1999) Interaction Process Analysis: A Method for the Study of Small Groups. Addison-Wesley, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baskerville RL and Land F (2004) Socially self-destructing systems. In The Social Study of Information and Communication Technology (AVGEROU C, CIBORRA C, LAND F, Eds), pp 263–285, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Behfar KJ, Peterson RS, Mannix EA and Trochim MK (2008) The critical role of conflict resolution in teams: a close look at the links between conflict type, conflict management strategies, and team outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology 93 (1), 170–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bender M, Mitwalli A and Van Kuiken S (2005) What's holding back online medical data. McKinsey Quarterly 4, [WWWdocument] http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/article_abstract.aspx?ar=1699&L2=12.

  • Bertolotti F, Macrì DM and Mattarelli E (2008) An ethnography on process conflict in a hospital unit: insights for information systems design. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, 8–13 August, Anaheim, CA (USA).

  • Bertolotti F, Mattarelli E and Tagliaventi MR (2006) The influence of organizational identification and identity-congruent behaviors on knowledge sharing. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, 11–16 August, Atlanta, GA (USA).

  • Beynon-Davies P (1997) Ethnography and information system development: ethnography of, for and within IS development. Information and Software Technology 39 (8), 531–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blomberg J, Burrel M and Guest G (2003) An ethnographic approach to design. In The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook (JACKO JA and SEARS A, Eds), pp 965–986, Lawrence Erlbraum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen W and Hirschheim R (2004) A paradigmatic and methodological examination of information systems research from 1991 to 2001. Information Systems Journal 14, 197–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbin J and Strauss AL (2008) Basics of Qualitative Research, 3e. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crabtree A, Nichols DM, O’Brien J, Rouncefield M and Twidale MB (2000) Ethnomethodologically informed ethnography and information system design. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 51 (7), 666–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crabtree A, Rodden T, Tolmie P and Button G (2009) Ethnography considered harmful. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing System, 4–9 April, Boston, MA, USA, pp. 879–888, ACM, New York, USA.

  • Crozier M and Friedberg E (1994) L’Acteur et le Système: Les Contraintes de l’Action Collective. Editions de Seuil, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doherty N and King M (1998) The consideration of organizational issues during the system development process: an empirical analysis. Behavior and Information Technology 17 (1), 41–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doolin B (2002) Enterprise discourse, professional identity and the organizational control of hospitals. Organization Studies 23 (3), 369–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dourish P and Bellotti V (1992) Awareness and coordination in shared work spaces. In Proceedings of the 1992 ACM Conference on Computer-supported Cooperative Work, 1–4 November, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, pp. 107–114, ACM, New York, USA.

  • Fehse K, Krabbendam K and Boer H (2002) The role of politics in the implementation of information systems: a hospital case. International Journal of Healthcare Technology & Management 4 (3, 4), 205–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald L, Ferlie E, Wood M and Hawkins C (2002) Interlocking interactions, the diffusion of innovations in health care. Human Relations 55 (12), 1429–1450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey JH and Fontana A (1993) The group interview in social research. In Successful Focus Groups (MORGAN DL, Ed.), pp 20–35, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fussell S and Krauss R (1992) Coordination of knowledge in communication: effects of speakers’ assumptions about what others know. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 62 (3), 378–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gasson S (2009) Employing a grounded theory approach for MIS research. In Handbook of Research on Contemporary Theoretical Models in Information Systems (DWIVEDI YK, LAL B, WILLIAMS MD, SCHNEBERGERAND SL, WADE M, Eds), pp 34–56, Idea Group, Hershey, PA.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser BG (1978) Theoretical Sensitivity. Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser BG and Strauss AL (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Aldine Publishing Company, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greer LL, Jehn KA and Mannix EA (2008) Conflict transformation: a longitudinal investigation of the relationships between different types of intragroup conflict and the moderating role of conflict resolution. Small Group Research 39 (3), 278–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffith TL, Mannix EA and Neale M (2003) Conflict and virtual teams. In Virtual Teams that Work: Creating Conditions for Virtual Team Effectiveness (GIBSON CB and COHEN SG, Eds), pp 335–352, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinds PJ and Bailey DE (2003) Out of sight, out of sync: understanding conflict in distributed teams. Organization Science 14 (6), 615–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes JA, King V, Rodden T and Andersen H (1994) Moving out from the control room: ethnography in system design. In Proceedings of the 1994 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 22–26 October, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States, pp. 429–439, ACM, New York, USA.

  • Hughes JA, King V, Rodden T and Andersen H (1995) The role of ethnography in interactive system design. Cooperative Systems Engineering Group Technical report CSEG/8/1995. Lancaster University.

  • Hughes JA, Randall D and Shapiro D (1992) From ethnographic record to system design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 1 (3), 1573–7551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iivari J and Hirschheim R (1996) Analyzing information systems development: a comparison and analysis of eight IS development approaches. Information Systems 21 (7), 551–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iivari J, Hirschheim R and Klein HK (1998) A paradigmatic analysis contrasting information systems development approaches and methodologies. Information Systems Research 9 (2), 164–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isomaki H and Pekkola S (2005) Nuances of human-centeredness in information systems development. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, January, Hawaii, pp. 1–10, IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA.

  • Jackson M (1999) Software Requirements and Specifications. Addison-Wesley, Menlo Park, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jehn KA (1997) A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly 42 (3), 530–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jehn KA and Mannix EA (2000) The dynamic nature of conflict: a longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. International Journal of Conflict Management 11 (1), 56–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karasti H (1997) Bridging the analysis of work practice and system redesign in cooperative workshops. In Proceedings of the Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques, 18–20 August, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, pp. 185–195, ACM, New York, USA.

  • Kirsch LJ and Haney MH (2006) Requirements determination for common systems: turning a global vision into a local reality. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 15, 79–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohli R and Kettinger W (2004) Informating the clan: controlling physicians’ cost and outcomes. MIS Quarterly 28 (3), 363–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozar KA and Mahlum JM (1987) A user generated information system: an innovative development approach. MIS Quarterly 11 (2), 163–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorf K (2003) Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamb R and Kling R (2003) Reconceptualizing users as social actors in information systems research. MIS Quarterly 27 (2), 197–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee G and Pai J-C (2003) Effects of organizational context and inter-group behaviour on the success of strategic information system planning: an empirical study. Behaviour & Information Technology 22 (4), 263–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee TW (1998) Using Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke KD 2001 Grounded Theory in Management Research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lofland J and Lofland LH (1995) Analyzing Social Settings. Wadsworth Belmont, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles MB and Huberman A (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mooney J, Ives B, Ross J, Sambamurthy V and Willcocks L (2009) Doing IT research that matters. Panel Presented at the 30th International Conference on Information Systems, 15–18 December, Phoenix, AZ.

  • Morgan DL (1996) Focus groups. Annual Review of Sociology 22, 129–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan DL (1997) Focus Groups as Qualitative Research 2nd edn, Qualitative Research Methods: v. 16, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan DL and Krueger RA (1993) When to use focus groups and why. In Successful Focus Groups (MORGAN DL, Ed.), pp 3–19, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Moriarty D (1992) Strategic information systems planning for health service providers. Health Care Management Review 17 (1), 85–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muller MJ (2003) Participatory design: the third space in HCI. In The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook (JACKO JA and SEARS A, Eds), pp 1051–1068, Lawrence Erlbraum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mumford E (1995) Effective Systems Design and Requirements Analysis: The ETHICS Approach. MacMillan Press, Basingstoke.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Myers M and Young LD (1997) Hidden agendas, power and managerial assumptions in information systems development: an ethnographic study. Information Technology & People 10 (3), 224–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers MD (1999) Investigating information systems with ethnographic research. Communications of the AIS 2 (4).

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski W (2000) Using technology and constituting structures: a practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science 11 (4), 404–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Padilla RV (1993) Using dialogical research methods in group interviews. In Successful Focus Groups (MORGAN DL, Ed.), pp 153–166, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pasmore W (1995) Social Science transformed: the socio-technical perspective. Human Relations 48 (1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pozzebon M and Pinsonneault A (2005) Global-local negotiations for implementing configurable packages: the power of initial organizational decisions. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 14, 121–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reddy M, Pratt W, Dourish P and Shabot M (2003) Sociotechnical requirements analysis for clinical systems. Methods of Information in Medicine 42 (4), 437–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott Smith C, Francovic C and Gieselman J (2000) Pilot test of an organizational culture model in a medical setting. The Health care manager 19 (2), 68–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel D and Dray S (2005) Avoiding the next schism: ethnography and usability. Interactions 12 (2), 58–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soh C and Sia SK (2004) An institutional perspective on sources of ERP package-organization misalignment. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 13, 375–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spradley JP (1979) The Ethnographic Interview. Harcourt Brace, Orlando, FL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss A, Fagerhaugh S, Wiener C and Suzcek B (1985) Social Organization of Medical Work. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss AL and Corbin J (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques 2e. SAGE Publications, Newbury Park, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tagliaventi MR and Mattarelli E (2006) The role of networks of practice, value sharing, and operational proximity in knowledge flows between professional groups. Human Relations 59, 291–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas J (1993) Doing Critical Ethnography. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson JD (1967) Organizations in Action. McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trist EL (1981) The sociotechnical perspective: the evolution of sociotechnical systems as a conceptual framework and as an action research program. In Perspectives on Organization Design and Behavior (VANDEN VEN AH and JOYCE WF, Eds), pp 19–75, Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urquhart C (2002) Regrounding grounded theory – or reinforcing old prejudices? A brief reply to Bryant. The Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application 4 (3), 43–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urquhart C (2007) The evolving nature of grounded theory method: the case of the information systems discipline. In The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory (BRYANT A and CHARMAZ K, Eds), pp 311–331, Sage Publications, London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 357–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaast E and Levina N (2006) Multiple faces of codification: organizational redesign in an IT organization. Organization Science 17 (2), 190–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Maanen J (1979) The fact of fiction in organizational ethnography. Administrative Science Quarterly 24, 539–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner EL, Howcroft D and Newell S (2004) Understanding the contextual influences on enterprise system design, implementation, use and evaluation. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 13, 271–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner EL, Howcroft D and Newell S (2005) Special issue part II: understanding the contextual influences on enterprise system design, implementation, use and evaluation. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 14, 271–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner EL and Newell S (2004) ‘Best’ for whom? the tension between ‘best practices’ ERP packages and diverse epistemic cultures in a university context. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 13, 305–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wasson C (2000) Ethnography in the field of design. Human Organization 59 (4), 377–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisband S (2002) Maintaining awareness in distributed team collaboration: implications for leadership and performance. In Distributed Work (HINDS P and KIESLER S, Eds), pp 311–333, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynekoop JL and Russo NL (1997) Studying system development methodologies: an examination of research methods. Information Systems Journal 7, 47–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Research support from the Manodori Foundation is gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Engineering Science and Methods (DISMI), Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy

    Elisa Mattarelli, Fabiola Bertolotti & Diego Maria Macrì

Authors
  1. Elisa Mattarelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fabiola Bertolotti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Diego Maria Macrì
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elisa Mattarelli.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mattarelli, E., Bertolotti, F. & Macrì, D. The use of ethnography and grounded theory in the development of a management information system. Eur J Inf Syst 22, 26–44 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.34

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.34

Keywords

Search

Navigation