skip to main content
10.1145/3361570.3361581acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicistConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Investigating Information Systems with the Extended Case Method

Published:24 March 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper introduces and exemplifies the Extended Case Method in Information Systems research. Furthermore, the article provides criteria for evaluating the method. The main argument of the study is that the ECM is ideal for reconstructing a known theory to a new context; particularly, when the objective is to theorize how different information systems respond to that context. The method promotes a "systemic significance" based on the topology of those systems rather than a statistical significance. The study provides the background of the ECM and argues its differences from alternative interpretative research methods in IS. After that, the paper elaborates an illustration of how to support the theoretical and practical relevance of the context, the selection of the theory, the commonalities and differences among information systems, and the extension of the theory, in research guided by the ECM.

References

  1. Alter, S. 2013. "Work system theory: overview of core concepts, extensions, and challenges for the future," Journal of the Association for Information (14:2), pp.1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Alter, S. 2015. "The concept of "IT artifact" has outlived its usefulness and should be retired now," Information Systems Journal (25:1), pp. 47--60.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Atwater, J. B., Kannan, V. R., and Stephens, A. A. 2008. "Cultivating systemic thinking in the next generation of business leaders," Academy of Management Learning & Education (7:1), pp. 9--25.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Baskerville, R. L., and Myers, M. D. 2002. "Information Systems as a reference discipline," MIS Quarterly (26:1), pp. 1--14.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Benbasat, I., and Zmud, R. W. 2003. "The identity crisis within the IS discipline: defining and communicating the discipline's core properties," MIS Quarterly (27:2), pp. 183--194.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Bjerregaard, T., and Klitmøller, A. 2016. "Conflictual practice sharing in the MNC: a theory of practice approach," Organization Studies (37:9), pp. 1271--1295.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Bloor, M., and Wood, F. 2006. Keywords in qualitative methods: a vocabulary of research concepts, SAGE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Burawoy, M. 1991. "The extended case method," in Ethnography unbound: power and resistance in the modern metropolis, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, pp. 271--287.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Burawoy, M. 1998. "The Extended Case Method," Sociological Theory (16:1), pp. 4--33.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Burton-Jones, A., McLean, E. R., and Monod, E. 2015. "Theoretical perspectives in IS research: from variance and process to conceptual latitude and conceptual fit," European Journal of Information Systems (24:6), pp. 664--679.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Ciuk, S., Koning, J., and Kostera, M. 2018. "Organizational ethnographies," in The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Business and Management Research Methods, Cassel, C., Cunliffe, A. K., and Grandy, G. (eds.), Thousand Oaks, California; London: SAGE Publications, pp. 270--285.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Corlett, S., and Mavin, S. 2018. "Reflexivity and researcher positionality," in The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Business and Management Research Methods, Cassell, C., Cunliffe, A. L., and Grandy, G. (ed.), Thousand Oaks, California; London: SAGE Publications, pp. 377--399.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Danneels, E. 2007. "The process of technological competence leveraging," Strategic Management Journal (28:5), pp. 511--533.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Danneels, E. 2011. "Trying to become a different type of company: dynamic capability at Smith Corona," Strategic Management Journal (32:1), pp. 1--31.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Davison, R. M., Martinsons, M. G., and Ou, C. X. J. 2012. "The roles of theory in canonical action research," MIS Quarterly (36:3), pp. 763--786.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Glaser, B. G., and Strauss, A. L. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research, Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Hassan, N. R. 2011. "Is information systems a discipline? Foucauldian and Toulminian insights," European Journal of Information Systems (20:4), pp. 456--476.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Hassan, N. R. 2014. "Paradigm lost... paradigm gained: a hermeneutical rejoinder to Banville and Landry's 'Can the Field of MIS be Disciplined?'" European Journal of Information Systems (23:6), pp. 600--615.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Hirschheim, R. A. 1985. "Information systems epistemology: a historical perspective," in Research Methods in Information Systems, M.E (ed.), North Holland: Elsevier Science Publisher B. V., pp. 13--35.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Hirschheim, R., and Klein, H. K. 2012. "A glorious and not-so-short history of the information systems field," Journal of the Association for Information Systems (13:4), pp. 188--235.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Holton, J. A. 2018. "From Grounded Theory to grounding theorizing in qualitative research," in The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Business and Management Research Methods, Cassel, C., Cunliffe, A. K., and Grandy, G. (eds.), Thousand Oaks, California; London: SAGE Publications, pp. 233--250.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Lee, A. S., and Hubona, G. S. 2009. "A scientific basis for rigor in Information Systems research," MIS Quarterly (33:2), pp. 237--262.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Luo, H., Luo, W., and Strong, D. 2000. "Perceived critical mass effect on groupware acceptance," European Journal of Information Systems (9:2), pp. 91--103.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Gluckman, M. 1958. Analysis of a social situation in modern Zululand, Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Myers, M. D. 1999. "Investigating Information Systems with Ethnographic Research," Communications of the Association for Information Systems (2:23), pp. 1--20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Nevo, S., Nevo, D., and Ein-dor, P. 2009. "Thirty years of IS research: core artifacts and academic identity thirty years of IS research: core artifacts and academic identity thirty years of IS research: artifacts and academic identity," Communications of the Association for Information Systems (25:24), pp. 221--242.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Orlikowski, W. J., and Iacono, C. S. 2001. "Desperately seeking the "IT" in IT research - a call to theorizing the IT artefact," Information Systems Research (12:2), pp. 121--134.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Prasarnphanich, P., and Wagner, C. 2008. "Creating critical mass in collaboration systems: Insights from Wikipedia," in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Digital Ecosystems and Technologies, pp. 126--130.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Prasarnphanich, P., and Wagner, C. 2011. "Explaining the sustainability of digital ecosystems based on the Wiki model through Critical Mass Theory," IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, (58:6), pp. 2065--2072.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Scaratti, G., Gorli, M., Galuppo, L., and Ripamonti, S. 2018. "Action Research: knowing and changing (in) organizational contexts," in The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Business and Management Research Methods, Cassell, C., Cunliffe, A. L., and Grandy, G. (ed.), Thousand Oaks, California; London: SAGE Publications, pp. 286--307.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Ragin, C. C. 1994a. "The Process of social research: Ideas and evidence," in Constructing social research: The unity and diversity of method. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Pine Forge Press, pp. 55--76.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Ragin, C. C. 1994b. "Using qualitative methods to study commonalities," in Constructing Social Research: The Unity and Diversity of Method, Thousand Oaks, California: Pine Forge Press, pp. 81--103.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Taylor, H., Dillon, S., and van Wingen, M. 2010. "Focus and diversity in Information Systems research: meeting the dual demands of a healthy applied discipline," Management Information Systems Quarterly, (34:4), pp. 647--667.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Urquhart, C., Lehmann, H., and Myers, M. D. 2010. "Putting the 'theory' back into grounded theory: Guidelines for grounded theory studies in information systems," Information Systems Journal (20:4), pp. 357--381.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Van Slyke, C., Ilie, V., Lou, H. and Stafford, T. 2007. "Perceived critical mass and the adoption of a communication technology," European Journal of Information Systems (16:3), pp. 270--283.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Venable, J., Pries-Heje, J., and Baskerville, R. 2016. "FEDS: a framework for evaluation in design science research," European Journal of Information Systems (25:1), pp. 77--89.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Wade, M., Biehl, M., and Kim, H. 2006. "Not Information Systems is ^ a Reference Discipline (And What We Can Do About It)," Journal of the Association for Information Systems (7:5), pp. 247--269.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Wadham, H., and Warren, R. C. 2014. "Telling organizational tales: The extended case method in practice," Organizational Research Methods (17:1), pp. 5--22.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Walsham, G. 1995a. "Interpretative case studies in IS research: nature and method," European Journal of Information Systems (4:2), pp. 74--81.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Walsham, G. 1995b. "The emergence of interpretivism in IS research," Information Systems Research (6:4), pp. 376--394.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Walton, J. 1992. "Making the Theoretical Case," in What is a Case? C. C.Ragin and H. S.Becker (eds.), New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 121--137.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Yin, R. K. 1994. Case study research: design and methods, Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    ICIST '19: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Information Systems and Technologies
    March 2019
    249 pages
    ISBN:9781450362924
    DOI:10.1145/3361570

    Copyright © 2019 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 24 March 2019

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited
  • Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)3
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

    Other Metrics

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader