RIGOR IN INFORMATION SYSTEMS POSITIVIST CASE RESEARCH: CURRENT PRACTICES, TRENDS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS1
Toward the end of the 1980s, the issue of whether IS case research was rigorously conducted was first raised. The present study seeks to determine the extent to which the field of IS has advanced in its operational use of case study method. Precisely, it investigates the level of methodological rigo...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | MIS quarterly 2003-12, Vol.27 (4), p.597 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 597 |
| container_title | MIS quarterly |
| container_volume | 27 |
| creator | Dube, Line Pare, Guy |
| description | Toward the end of the 1980s, the issue of whether IS case research was rigorously conducted was first raised. The present study seeks to determine the extent to which the field of IS has advanced in its operational use of case study method. Precisely, it investigates the level of methodological rigor in positivist IS case research conducted over the past decade. To fulfill this objective, 183 case articles from seven major IS journals were identified and coded. Evaluation attributes or criteria considered in the present review focus on three main areas, namely, design issues, data collection, and data analysis. While the level of methodological rigor has experienced modest progress with respect to some specific attributes, the overall assessed rigor is somewhat equivocal and there are still significant areas for improvement. One of the keys is to include better documentation particularly regarding issues related to the data collection and analysis processes. |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_218120741</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>515523781</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_journals_2181207413</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNjN0KgjAcxUcUZB_vMLpO2GY4627MWbvQyf4r6Eq60AuJLM33b0QPEBz4cT44ExQwGrNwzyMyRQFhPA45T6I5WgxDSwihnPIANVYfjcW68MqMzYXTpsBwBadywKUB7fRFg8NSgMJWgRJWng5Ynq1VhcOlFdJpqWCLnQ9ST1GkfihNnnv__QO6QrPmdh_q9Y9LtMmUk6fw2XevsR7eVduN_cNXFaMJZYTvaPTX6APw1z4R</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>218120741</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>RIGOR IN INFORMATION SYSTEMS POSITIVIST CASE RESEARCH: CURRENT PRACTICES, TRENDS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS1</title><source>Business Source Complete</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><creator>Dube, Line ; Pare, Guy</creator><creatorcontrib>Dube, Line ; Pare, Guy</creatorcontrib><description>Toward the end of the 1980s, the issue of whether IS case research was rigorously conducted was first raised. The present study seeks to determine the extent to which the field of IS has advanced in its operational use of case study method. Precisely, it investigates the level of methodological rigor in positivist IS case research conducted over the past decade. To fulfill this objective, 183 case articles from seven major IS journals were identified and coded. Evaluation attributes or criteria considered in the present review focus on three main areas, namely, design issues, data collection, and data analysis. While the level of methodological rigor has experienced modest progress with respect to some specific attributes, the overall assessed rigor is somewhat equivocal and there are still significant areas for improvement. One of the keys is to include better documentation particularly regarding issues related to the data collection and analysis processes.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0276-7783</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2162-9730</identifier><identifier>CODEN: MISQDP</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, MIS Research Center</publisher><subject>Case studies ; Data collection ; Information systems ; Methods ; Qualitative research ; Research methodology ; Researchers ; Studies ; Trends</subject><ispartof>MIS quarterly, 2003-12, Vol.27 (4), p.597</ispartof><rights>Copyright University of Minnesota, MIS Research Center Dec 2003</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Dube, Line</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pare, Guy</creatorcontrib><title>RIGOR IN INFORMATION SYSTEMS POSITIVIST CASE RESEARCH: CURRENT PRACTICES, TRENDS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS1</title><title>MIS quarterly</title><description>Toward the end of the 1980s, the issue of whether IS case research was rigorously conducted was first raised. The present study seeks to determine the extent to which the field of IS has advanced in its operational use of case study method. Precisely, it investigates the level of methodological rigor in positivist IS case research conducted over the past decade. To fulfill this objective, 183 case articles from seven major IS journals were identified and coded. Evaluation attributes or criteria considered in the present review focus on three main areas, namely, design issues, data collection, and data analysis. While the level of methodological rigor has experienced modest progress with respect to some specific attributes, the overall assessed rigor is somewhat equivocal and there are still significant areas for improvement. One of the keys is to include better documentation particularly regarding issues related to the data collection and analysis processes.</description><subject>Case studies</subject><subject>Data collection</subject><subject>Information systems</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Qualitative research</subject><subject>Research methodology</subject><subject>Researchers</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Trends</subject><issn>0276-7783</issn><issn>2162-9730</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2003</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqNjN0KgjAcxUcUZB_vMLpO2GY4627MWbvQyf4r6Eq60AuJLM33b0QPEBz4cT44ExQwGrNwzyMyRQFhPA45T6I5WgxDSwihnPIANVYfjcW68MqMzYXTpsBwBadywKUB7fRFg8NSgMJWgRJWng5Ynq1VhcOlFdJpqWCLnQ9ST1GkfihNnnv__QO6QrPmdh_q9Y9LtMmUk6fw2XevsR7eVduN_cNXFaMJZYTvaPTX6APw1z4R</recordid><startdate>20031201</startdate><enddate>20031201</enddate><creator>Dube, Line</creator><creator>Pare, Guy</creator><general>University of Minnesota, MIS Research Center</general><scope>0U~</scope><scope>1-H</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88K</scope><scope>8AL</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K7-</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L.0</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0N</scope><scope>M2T</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYYUZ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20031201</creationdate><title>RIGOR IN INFORMATION SYSTEMS POSITIVIST CASE RESEARCH: CURRENT PRACTICES, TRENDS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS1</title><author>Dube, Line ; Pare, Guy</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_2181207413</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2003</creationdate><topic>Case studies</topic><topic>Data collection</topic><topic>Information systems</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Qualitative research</topic><topic>Research methodology</topic><topic>Researchers</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Trends</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Dube, Line</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pare, Guy</creatorcontrib><collection>Global News & ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>Trade PRO</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Telecommunications (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Computing Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>Computer Science Database</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Standard</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Computing Database</collection><collection>Telecommunications Database</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>MIS quarterly</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Dube, Line</au><au>Pare, Guy</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>RIGOR IN INFORMATION SYSTEMS POSITIVIST CASE RESEARCH: CURRENT PRACTICES, TRENDS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS1</atitle><jtitle>MIS quarterly</jtitle><date>2003-12-01</date><risdate>2003</risdate><volume>27</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>597</spage><pages>597-</pages><issn>0276-7783</issn><eissn>2162-9730</eissn><coden>MISQDP</coden><abstract>Toward the end of the 1980s, the issue of whether IS case research was rigorously conducted was first raised. The present study seeks to determine the extent to which the field of IS has advanced in its operational use of case study method. Precisely, it investigates the level of methodological rigor in positivist IS case research conducted over the past decade. To fulfill this objective, 183 case articles from seven major IS journals were identified and coded. Evaluation attributes or criteria considered in the present review focus on three main areas, namely, design issues, data collection, and data analysis. While the level of methodological rigor has experienced modest progress with respect to some specific attributes, the overall assessed rigor is somewhat equivocal and there are still significant areas for improvement. One of the keys is to include better documentation particularly regarding issues related to the data collection and analysis processes.</abstract><cop>Minneapolis</cop><pub>University of Minnesota, MIS Research Center</pub></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0276-7783 |
| ispartof | MIS quarterly, 2003-12, Vol.27 (4), p.597 |
| issn | 0276-7783 2162-9730 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_218120741 |
| source | Business Source Complete; JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing |
| subjects | Case studies Data collection Information systems Methods Qualitative research Research methodology Researchers Studies Trends |
| title | RIGOR IN INFORMATION SYSTEMS POSITIVIST CASE RESEARCH: CURRENT PRACTICES, TRENDS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS1 |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-13T08%3A36%3A00IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=RIGOR%20IN%20INFORMATION%20SYSTEMS%20POSITIVIST%20CASE%20RESEARCH:%20CURRENT%20PRACTICES,%20TRENDS,%20AND%20RECOMMENDATIONS1&rft.jtitle=MIS%20quarterly&rft.au=Dube,%20Line&rft.date=2003-12-01&rft.volume=27&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=597&rft.pages=597-&rft.issn=0276-7783&rft.eissn=2162-9730&rft.coden=MISQDP&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E515523781%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=218120741&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |