SemOpenAlex |

SemOpenAlex

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1978778927> ?p ?o ?g. }

Showing items 1 to 94 of 94 with 100 items per page.

W1978778927 endingPage "135" @default.
W1978778927 startingPage "123" @default.
W1978778927 abstract "This special issue of the Information Systems Journal (ISJ) is dedicated to critical information systems (IS) research that involves a wide range of diverse research endeavours that explore the terrain beyond functionalist and positivist approaches, with the aim to transform IS practice and IS–organization relationships. Critical IS studies share with critical management studies (CMS) deep scepticism ‘regarding the moral defensibility and the social and ecological sustainability of prevailing conceptions and forms of management and organization’ (Adler et al., 2006), conceptions and forms made possible to a large degree by IS research and practice. Critical IS studies aim at revealing, criticizing and explaining how the development and use of IS in organizations and society in the pursuit of efficiency, rationalization and progress also increase social control and domination, with potential detrimental consequences for some stakeholders and society as a whole. Being ‘critical’ in IS research also means subscribing to a much broader historical, social and political view of the IS discipline and the role of IS across all institutional levels of society. Critical research draws attention to the ways in which economic and managerial interests, ideologies and discourses, assisted by educational and research funding institutions, shape and construct IS research. Critical IS researchers are concerned with the purpose, use and misuse of IS research outcomes in organizations and society. The point has been made in the International Conference on Information Systems 2007 senior scholars’ presentation that the location of many, if not most, IS programmes in business schools places certain constraints on their curriculum and research agendas. Future critical studies should also investigate IS research itself as a social activity – its practice, purpose, implications and institutional constraints under which it is currently operating. The goal of this special ISJ issue, as defined in the call for papers, is to explore the nature of the critical agenda and advance the ‘critical debate’ in information systems research. In order to document the breadth of current research, identifying itself as socially critical, and to encourage the widest possible debate, the editors deliberately chose not to . . . take a specific position on what should count as critical research. Rather, this special issue is devoted to show-casing exemplary work that documents current research pursuing an explicit critical agenda. Any explicit, philosophically grounded definition of ‘critical’ is welcome, but it must be clearly articulated and cogently argued. We received a total of 24 submissions. After initially screening out about half of them, and after at least two rounds of careful reviewing and editorial comments, we were pleased to accept seven papers for the special issue to be published in two instalments. The first four are published here and three will appear in later issues. The papers are sequenced in the order in which they were received with the exception of the first (by Stahl), which is particularly suited as a general introductory orientation towards critical research from a specific author perspective. Readers are reminded that all seven papers are pre-published on the ISJ web site, http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/toc/isj/0/0. The selected papers do indeed represent diverse theoretical traditions, building on varying conceptions of being critical and thereby contributing in different ways to a critical research agenda. With their diversity of critical concerns, theoretical foundations and practical relevance, the selected papers cast a wide net in documenting the current scope of critical IS research. The selection is also responsive to the widespread observation that there is a lack of empirical studies with critical orientation. Six of the seven studies are empirically based. By selecting these papers, we do not intend to provide a blueprint for critical IS scholarship. Rather, these papers show us that critical research tradition means constant change, emergence of new foci and agendas, rethinking of old explanations, and search for new theoretical perspectives. For instance, no longer can critical research in IS be identified only with applying concepts from Marx or Habermas’ critical social theory perspective. While the selected papers reflect the diversity of critical IS scholarship, they by no means exhaust the possible spectrum of critical research. The first purpose of this editorial is to give some background information on the history of critical social research in general and the way it has emerged as one of three IS research streams, which are typically labelled positivist, interpretivist and critical. We shall then locate the seven papers on a rough map of the landscape of critical research so that the outline of the journey on which this ISJ Special Issue on critical IS research promises to take its readers becomes visible. Critical IS research embraces a range of theoretical perspectives and social movements from various forms of Marxism, through Critical Theory (Frankfurt School), to post-structuralism and post-modernism. Numerous references support this, e.g. Brooke (2002; 2008), Richardson & Robinson (2007), Kvasny & Keil (2006), Mitev (2006), Howcroft & Trauth (2005), Cecez-Kecmanovic (2001; 2005), McGrath (2005), Doolin (2004), Klein (1999), Ngwenyama & Lee (1997), Hirschheim et al. (1996), Hirschheim & Klein (1994), Lyytinen (1992), Lyytinen & Hirschheim (1989) and Klein & Lyytinen (1985). Because of its diversity, critical IS research is more characterized by contradictions and internal tensions than commonality in empirical focus, methods or underlying theories. However, critical IS researchers also do share some investigative concerns and a sense of purpose that distinguish them as a group from both positivist and interpretivist researchers. Here we review only a minimal set of characteristics of critical research, which could help to introduce the general themes and methodological foundation of the following papers. In analysing the critical research literature, Lyytinen (1992, p. 168) identified three principal concerns of critical researchers on which their work has had a notable impact: Criticism of the underlying instrumental rationality bias in IS and their ‘management ideology’. We shall refer to this as economic–technical rationalism. It also includes the applications of new forms of social control and domination. Classification and criticism of existing ‘technology driven’ development models and the exploration of alternative approaches to develop and use IS. We shall examine this aspect in relation to the papers published here under the heading of Dysfunctional problem reduction. Criticism of the dominating research canons and their imperfections of the ‘scientistic programme’. This aspect is concerned with the position of positivists that the methods of mathematics and the natural sciences are the only path to valid knowledge and therefore equally apply to all forms of scholarly respectable inquiry, including those in the cultural and social sciences. This postulate is also known as the ideal of the unified scientific method and has been extensively criticized as scientism in the debates surrounding philosophical hermeneutics. To these three concerns we need to add two more. One is focusing meta-critical analysis of the research literature in IS and the other on introducing new theoretical foundation in the critical debates. Both kinds of contribution do not focus on specific social conditions or cases as research objects, but on the investigations and theories pursued by other authors. A good example of meta-critical analysis is the paper by Lyytinen (1992). More recent contributions to this genre are those by Hirschheim et al. (1996), Wilson (1997) and Richardson & Robinson (2007). We did not receive any submission in this genre. However, Stahl's contribution to this special issue is concerned with introducing a broader foundation of IS research in ethical theories. Upon examining the general themes or purposes of the seven papers selected, we could identify three core concerns that have received the most attention. The first of these is the role of IS in enabling and maintaining the economic–rationalist view of organizations that prioritizes the interests of stockholders and managers over those of society as a whole (e.g. infinite growth in a finite world with obvious ecological consequences) and all other stakeholders, i.e. employees, community groups, society, environment, etc. The other two core concerns are the new forms of social control enabled by invasive IT applications and dysfunctional problem reduction in the design and implementation of IS. Given increasingly global market pressures and ever harder economic and operating conditions, it has become vital for companies’ survival to increase profitability and competitiveness. Most organizations see IS as one of the most important ‘tools’ for cost cutting, increasing efficiency and profitability, and for operating globally. In this role, IS are considered indispensable for company survival and growth. Similarly, leaders in the public and non-profit sector organizations see IS as effective means for automating and improving services and meeting performance targets while cutting jobs, taking their cues from the private sector. Such a view of IS roles implies systems’ justification based on instrumental rationality, i.e. as tools for achieving functional performance improvements and financial gains. The instrumental view of IS also legitimates managers’ prerogative of determining system purpose and goals. Most of mainstream IS research has not questioned the dominant instrumental rationality in IS practice. While some mainstream researchers have been quite critical of the ways in which IS are designed, implemented or used, they still, more or less overtly, assume a shared purpose for IS of assisting managers in achieving their goals and realizing profit interests. Critical IS researchers question such a narrow view and purpose of IS as unwarranted, unjust and ultimately detrimental to many stakeholder groups and society. Instead, they draw attention to the neglect of other stakeholders needs, i.e. those of employees, customers, community groups and citizens. The second concern revolves around using IS for enabling and assisting new forms of control and organizing, not directed at a vision of the organization as a community, but rather at turning it into an efficient machine to realize measurable purposes. This is the case not only in the private but also in the public sector, where the purposes are not profit-oriented but are functional nevertheless. Examples are increasing church membership donations and rationalizing services for citizens in government administration – all are inspired by the instrumental/technical rationality progress story. Critical researchers have long argued that ‘technological rationality has become political rationality’ (Marcuse, 1964, pp. 15–16). The dominant form of instrumental/technological rationality stands at the intersection between managerial ideology and IS development methodologies. They are brought together to control human beings in much the same way as other resources (money, raw materials or natural environment), albeit in a more subtle and covert form – through ‘technical codes’. Critical researchers explore how these codes (information engineering, software code, algorithms, rules and procedures) invisibly inscribe values and interests of the dominant groups, and thereby strengthen their domination and routinize their exercise of power. Critical IS researchers aim to create or rather co-create situated knowledge to assist disadvantaged employees in their struggle for more humane working conditions, discretion and autonomy in work practices, and enhanced participation and agency. Thereby, they give voice to interests that otherwise would have little chance to be articulated and heard. Third, instrumental IS views, research contributions and practices reduce the problem domain of IS development and implementation to business processes and organizational functionality (model, procedure, control) and limit IS goals to performance improvements. The problem is – critical researchers warn – that in such a way organizations typically overlook a range of human, social and organizational implications of IS, including fragmentation and routinization of work, loss of discretion by employees, unjustified power centralization and increased control over employees, alienation, mistrust, etc. While these dehumanizing and socially dysfunctional implications of IS are of their primary concerns, critical IS researchers also point out that these may ultimately be detrimental to business performance as well. Namely, they are likely to undermine expected performance improvements and jeopardize (economic) IS success. Furthermore, by focusing too narrowly on cost cutting and efficiency goals and justifying IS solutions solely based on instrumental/technological rationality (focusing on the best technical IS solutions to achieve given functional goals), organizations may be missing opportunities for significantly transforming and improving their business models through innovative development and deployment of IS. In summary, critical IS researchers aim to (co)create knowledge with transformative and emancipatory intent by revealing how IS serve particular interests, by developing a situated understanding of positions and experiences of people affected by the systems, and by linking such understandings with broader conditions, power relations and social structures. They strive for changing consciousness and counteracting detrimental human and social consequences. Similar to other critical social studies, critical IS research seeks to serve democratic purposes and strives to become practically relevant. Brocklesby & Cummings (1996) trace the beginning of critical social research to Kant's influential 1784 letter to the King of Prussia, ‘What is enlightenment?’ It begins as follows: Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's own understanding without the guidance of another. This immaturity is self-incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding, but lack of resolution and courage to use it without the guidance of another. The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude! Have courage to use your own understanding! Kant (1784) This quote points out two important but limited aspects of critical research. One is its foundation in the enlightenment ideal; the other is the potential threat to its realization. In particular, Kant's (1784) letter identified two such threats: (a) individual shortcomings ('self-incurred immaturity’); and (b) ‘lack of resolution and courage’, which vaguely points to psychosocial barriers. However, on the whole, Kant's view emphasizes the potential and responsibility of the individual subject to achieve enlightenment and, with it, emancipation. From the perspective of contemporary literature, it is important to keep in mind that subsequent critical research has fundamentally challenged the feasibility of the enlightenment ideal and, with it, the possibility of overcoming the social forces of repression simply by, ‘sapere aude’, ‘dare to know!’ Two major theoretical streams of critical social thought can be identified. The first line of research tries to develop Kant's rationalist views further by reformulating the enlightenment ideal in new ways. Noting Nietzsche’ objections to human rationality [cf. Habermas’ (1972) analysis in Knowledge and Human Interest], it developed from Marx to the first generation of the Frankfurt School (founded by Horkheimer and Adorno), to Habermas’ critical social theory and Apel's discourse ethics (cf. Brocklesby & Cummings, 1996; Gorner, 2000, ch. 6 and 7). Most recently, it has precipitated a lively discussion of alternative models of democracy, first originated by Habermas’ (1989; 1996) noted work on The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere and revitalized with the publication of Between Facts and Norms. We shall refer to the first stream as the neo-humanist critical tradition. The second stream of thought is mostly critical of the enlightenment ideal and Kant's cerebral reasoning with his rationalistic ethics and includes a multitude of post-structural and post-modernist currents (Alvesson & Deetz, 2000; Kincheloe & McLaren, 2000). Its main line of relevance to IS goes from Nietzsche to Heidegger and Foucault. In general, this alternative post-modern stream of critical social research emphasizes the centrality of discourse that is implicated in the relations of power; rejects the notion of autonomous, self-determining individual and ‘essentialistic’ understanding of people assumed by the neo-humanist critical tradition. Instead, it examines the discursive production of the individual that reproduces domination; fragmented identities; loss of foundations and master narratives; and power/knowledge nexus (cf. Alvesson & Deetz, 2000). For example, Foucault's analysis of various forms of power and how they affect social structures, processes and agency makes the case with detailed historical studies of the medical and prison systems that it is power that determines what counts as truth and knowledge in the first place. This is also echoed in feminist theories and gender research where the concept of ‘reason’ is shown to be (en)gendered, homophobic and patriarchal; modern technologies and rationality have been associated with masculinity that perpetuate subordination and inequality of women. Therefore, expecting knowledge or truth ‘to make us free’ is a ploy to conceal power or self-defeating illusion. A possible consequence of this position is that it leads to severe scepticism, if not denial, of the feasibility of enlightenment. Diversity of philosophical foundations (indicated here only briefly) gives richness and vitality to socially critical research. The two broad streams of critical thought have emerged often through mutual fierce critique and debates (e.g. the Habermas–Foucault and Habermas–Gadamer debates). The tensions and conversations between the neo-humanist critical tradition and post-modernism involve an interplay between the praxis of the critical and the radical uncertainty of the postmodern. . . . [C]ritical theory provides the postmodern with a normative foundation (i.e. a basis for distinguishing between oppressive and liberatory social relations). Without such a foundation the post-modern critique is ever vulnerable to nihilism and inaction. (Kincheloe & McLaren, 2000, pp. 294–295) Unresolved tensions and debates between these two streams of socially critical research continue without the need or desire for synthesis (Mitev, 2006). They offer inspiring challenges for critical IS research. What is it that makes an inquiry critical? What are the criteria or characteristics which could be said to define the essence of critical social research in general and in IS in particular? Such a definitional exercise is necessary and must not be interpreted as a misguided attempt at fixing, once and for all, the meaning of critical research ex cathedra. While we see the critical approach as always changing and evolving, we consider it beneficial to the critical project to clarify and reflect on the meaning of critical and keep on doing so. Clearly, all research is by its nature critical to some extent, but not all research is necessarily socially critical. The first type or commonsense meaning of critical – such as ‘intention to find errors and flows’, ‘exercising or involving careful and rigorous judgment’– is commonly assumed by researchers, including IS, which has been the reason for some misunderstanding regarding the term ‘critical research’ (for instance, several submissions to this special issue were rejected on this basis). It is also assumed in the academic publications review process with the caveat that only those meeting certain qualifications are invited to participate. Kant's (1965)Critique of Pure Reason is usually credited with a second form of critique. It is concerned with the limits of human knowledge as such including the conditions that constrain and enable human inquiry in science and other forms of knowledge creation. It includes the critique of the limits and biases of a dominant orthodoxy in research practices. Examples are the criticisms of scholasticism by the originators of the age of enlightenment, or more recently, the criticisms of the limits of positivism by Gadamer (1979), Bernstein (1983), Habermas ([1971]1990) and many others. However, even though the second type of critique is often found in the critical social research literature, it is not unique to it. It is the typical domain of philosophers concerned with the nature of human knowledge and the advance of knowledge through science or other forms of inquiry. In contrast, the focus of the third type of critique is the functioning of society and its subunits, i.e. institutions, organizations, family and other groupings. Klein & Myers (2007, unpublished) refer to it as social critique. It is this kind of critique that is unique to critical social research and it must be concerned with the critique of prevailing social conditions, which prevent the achievement of certain values. Whereas it is very controversial which values should be selected to guide social critique, all social critique emphasizes some values. As we discussed above, the typical values with which past critical social researchers concerned themselves were enlightenment, justice and freedom. Alvesson & Willmott (1992) were among the first to provide a characterization of socially critical research in CMS (pp. 433–434). According to their analysis, for social research to be critical, it must be concerned with conditions of human existence which facilitate the realization of human needs and potentials; support a process of critical self-reflection and associated self-transformation; be sensitive to a broader set of institutional issues relating particularly to social justice, due process and human freedom. The 2005 ISJ debate between McGrath, Avgerou and Walsham further clarified the nature of critical research. This debate suggested that critical research typically (1) is engaging ‘with questions that are of an overtly political or moral nature’ (Avgerou, 2005, p. 106); (2) is driven by the motivation ‘to focus on what is wrong with the world rather than what is right’; (3) requires the choice of an appropriate theory; and (4) has the intent to influence others. Of these, (2) and (4) are adapted from Walsham (2005, pp. 111–115), even though we recognized that they are presented as the results of personal learning and not as a normative measure or checklist. We consider these proposals and debates – both published in premium journals – highly valuable and enlightening. However, in selecting papers, we did not commit to a specific set of criteria but thought in terms of alternative options, ultimately leaving it up to the authors to explain what they consider to be the essence of critical research in IS. In fact, the first of the papers presented in this issue made the characterization of critical research one of its principal concerns. The other six papers argued their own characterization of criticality in which most of the above criteria are recognizable. By virtue of its style and mode of analysis, the first paper, ‘The ethical nature of critical research in information systems’, by Bernd Stahl is closer to the neo-humanist than to the Nietzschean tradition of thought. From this vantage point, it provides a good overture to the Special Issue for three reasons. The first is a novel description of critical research as being characterized through its critical intention, critical topics, critical theories and critical methodologies. Second, it explicitly addresses the value question of critical research by insisting that close links exist ‘between ethics, morality, and critical research in IS’. In exploring the notions of ethics and morality in the context of critical research, the author suggests at least two ways of distinguishing between ethics and morality. This paper encourages us to reflect the ethical stance that past critical research has taken, whether it is more influenced by the German, French or other conceptions of morality. We feel that this first paper provides a possible definitional framework of the nature of critical research in IS to reflect possible connections and assumptions among the other six contributions. The paper by Teresa Marcon and Abhijit Gopal ‘Irony, critique and ethnomethodology in the study of computer work: irreconcilable tensions?’ tackles head-on the debates surrounding ethnomethodology as an appropriate approach for conducting critical inquiry. The authors point out that ethnomethodology seeks to reveal the reifying tendencies by which ‘taken for granted social practices maintain the appearance of things’. Through their exploration of examples in human computer interaction and computer-supported collaborative work, they present a view of ethnomethodology that provides for a ‘critical’ rather than a prescriptive reading or, as they put it, a showing rather than a telling of research inquiry. The paper revisits features of ethnomethodology which offer critical potential, including the ambiguity of language and sense-making, the notion of reflexivity and the highly contingent and contextualized nature of findings. The use of reflexivity, in particular, demonstrates that researchers should be constantly aware of their own practice and this, too, is a key element of critical inquiry. Critical research often operates through the use of irony, whereas ethnomethodology rejects this as tending to demean the accounts of informants. The authors demonstrate how critique should be reframed more broadly so that the issue of relying on irony can be addressed. Finally, by portraying the nature of ethnomethodological critique as deeply embedded in the accounts and experiences of members, the authors show that it can satisfy the emancipatory dimension of critical inquiry when re-presented as revelatory potential. Debra Howcroft and Eileen Trauth, in their paper titled ‘The implications of a critical agenda in gender and IS research’, examine the ways in which critical inquiry can contribute to gender research in IS. They do this initially by demonstrating how research findings change when the approach shifts from positivist, through interpretive to critical. One of their basic arguments is that inequalities still exist between men and women's technology work and that this is in need of evaluation from an emancipatory perspective. In particular, they call for an analysis of how both men and women contribute to the ongoing undervaluing of women's expertise. They note the dominance of Habermasian frameworks in critical IS research and point out the relative neglect of feminist projects. With the assistance of a field study of American women practitioners and academics in three different regions of the United States, they illustrate that a critical study can shift us from simply seeing how individuals cope with their situations to a deeper understanding of the relations that give rise to the situation itself. It is argued that this approach can then lead to raising the self-awareness of women and helping to equip them for action. Four key conclusions emerge from the paper, including the role of reflexivity for researchers and the possibility for our own personal characteristics to inform feminist research. The paper ‘Examining technology, structure and identity during an enterprise system implementation’ by Rosio Alvarez uses critical discourse analysis to evaluate a longitudinal study of Enterprise System (ES) implementation. Through a close examination of the discursive contexts, the author finds that perspectives on and relationships between users, clients and the system itself become transformed during the time of the study. Initially, favourable responses to an abstract concept are translated into much less supportive practices when the system goes live, giving rise to a mixed scenario of deskilling and reskilling among users. More unexpected, perhaps, are the findings concerning the re-structuring of work relationships and the links between technology and organizational structure. Power is found to work through rather than against subjectivity, giving rise to resistance on the part of workers. In particular, the research reveals issues relating to control, fairness and professional roles. The author presents these tensions between the dominant management discourse and professional identity as a ‘genealogy of resistance’, concluding that implementation of ES brings change not only to existing organizational structures but also to the identities of the professionals themselves. The paper ‘Critical reflection in planning information systems: a contribution from critical systems thinking’ by José-Rodrigo Córdoba has much in common with a reflective essay even though on the surface, it relates to the critical concern (B), i.e. of questioning existing ‘technology driven’ development models and the exploration of alternative approaches to develop and use IS. The paper starts by developing a methodological framework, with the claim that it would enable the continuous involvement of stakeholders as part of the IS planning process. It puts particular emphasis on including issues or people which often ‘are excluded from the concerns of those using the narrow (primary) boundary’, typically defined by the ruling stakeholders. In order to identify potential exclusions, the framework draws upon critical systems theory, especially boundary critique and autopoiesis, to support critical reflection of improvement possibilities. Insofar, it follows the blue print of the enlightenment ideal because with this kind of methodology, the framework counters the threat of dysfunctional problem reductions that are too narrow and biased by special interests. However, when evaluating the potential of this framework in the second part of the paper, the author draws on the work of Foucault on power relations and ethics. By drawing on this kind of theoretical foundations, the paper shows affinity to the second stream of critical research, which questions the feasibility if the enlightenment ideal and puts power analysis at its centre. The paper ‘Classifying: UK e-government web site benchmarking and the recasting of the citizen as customer’ by Benjamin Mosse and Edgar Whitley explores the ways in which the widespread use of e-government web sites is transforming the relationship between the citizen and the state. It focuses specifically on the benchmarking of government web sites in UK adopted from the private sector to achieve government-mandated targets for providing services online for ‘customers’. As the private sector becomes a model for the public sector's web presence, the criteria for benchmarking e-government web sites against the private sector are taken for granted, not available for discussion, questioning or justification. Particularly interesting is the application of some of Heidegger's fundamental ideas from the phenomenology of human existence for critical purposes. In general, Heidegger has not been quoted as a critical theorist. However, this paper suggests that the essence of these benchmarking technologies should be looked upon ‘as a process comprised of both finding and producing truth’, because it is fundamentally based on the act of classifying. By using Heidegger's (1977) concept of Ge-stell and applying it to the e-government web site benchmarking as a form of classification and truth production, the paper demonstrates how the ‘essence of technology’ reveals an intentional process of moving towards order which recasts the citizen as customer and thereby conforms to the logic of economic–technical rationalism. This recasting, implicit in the benchmarking process, the authors argue, becomes more than a metaphor for improving the responsiveness of government services and shapes future realities in government practice far beyond web site development and evaluation. Drawing on Heideggerian phenomenology, located in the second stream of critical research discussed above, this paper ‘warns us against living uncritically, conditioned by and playing a part in the truth that the essence of technology creates’. The last contribution, ‘A critical analysis of media discourse on information technology’, by Wendy Cukier, Ojelanki Ngwenyama, Robert Bauer and Catherine Middleton, very clearly relates to the neo-humanist tradition and links directly to the notion of ‘systematically distorted communication’ (caused by concealed power structures favouring economic-rationalist interests). It also links to the debate on the possible existence or role of a public sphere in Habermas’ two-track model of democracy which is relatively ‘domination free’, i.e. to some extent protected from distortion by the institution of free speech. The ethical stance underlying this construction is discourse ethics, the idea that minimizing communicative distortions is the prerequisite for making socially responsive decisions and meeting human needs in ways acceptable to all affected. The research is guided by one of the principal building blocks of Juergen Habermas’ (1984; 1987; 1996) critical social theory, in particular universal pragmatics. The authors’ methodology is discourse analysis of published texts and its critical intent is to reveal the hidden agendas and communicative distortions, which manifest themselves in the use of unreflected hyperbole. The contributions in this special issue illustrate that critical IS research is an ever changing and evolving project of reconstructing the IS scholar-ship ‘on the open sea’, to use Neurath's ([1932]1959, p. 201) metaphor, ‘never able to dismantle it in dry-dock and to reconstruct it there out of the best materials’ (Ulrich, 2006, p. 1). Such reconstructing makes at least two unique contributions, which are visible in various attempts in this special issue of ISJ. First, it challenges the normalizing effects of positivist IS research, which continues to be dominant in the literature (as surveyed in Chen & Hirschheim, 2004). At the same time, the papers in this issue also raise explicit ethical concerns and critical interests in IS praxis. Never satisfied with merely increasing knowledge (Horkheimer, 1972), critical IS research in general explores hidden agendas in technological and managerial discourses, revealing the variety of roles IS play in the workings of power and strengthening of social control. By bringing together diverse explorations of the critical agenda from current research projects, this special issue does not only document the current status of the ongoing restructuring, but also perhaps move the conversation about IS research in new directions, one that could move us past the negative dialectic of enlightenment – at least this is our hope. We gratefully acknowledge the contribution of reviewers Alison Adam, Zaheeruddin Asif, Andrew Basden, Debora Bunker, Aldo de Moor, Bill Doolin, Nik Hassan, Margaretha Hendrickx, Linda Hitchin, Minh Hugnh, Marius Janson, Kathy McGrath, Mike Metcalfe, Emmanuel Monod, Jacob Nørbjerg, Steve Probert, Bernd Stahl, Lesley Treleaven, and Gerard de Zeeuw, who also worked painstakingly for the last three years helping us develop this special issue. We also would like to express our gratitude to David Avison and the ISJ editorial team for their support and unfailing professionalism." @default.
W1978778927 created "2016-06-24" @default.
W1978778927 creator A5002325481 @default.
W1978778927 creator A5018723818 @default.
W1978778927 creator A5054461049 @default.
W1978778927 date "2008-03-01" @default.
W1978778927 modified "2023-10-15" @default.
W1978778927 title "Exploring the critical agenda in information systems research" @default.
W1978778927 cites W1536953681 @default.
W1978778927 cites W1573335570 @default.
W1978778927 cites W1844831399 @default.
W1978778927 cites W184800602 @default.
W1978778927 cites W1949432142 @default.
W1978778927 cites W1977126137 @default.
W1978778927 cites W1987332906 @default.
W1978778927 cites W1990336234 @default.
W1978778927 cites W2032204225 @default.
W1978778927 cites W2033484627 @default.
W1978778927 cites W2051815671 @default.
W1978778927 cites W2057045867 @default.
W1978778927 cites W2060239032 @default.
W1978778927 cites W2061028423 @default.
W1978778927 cites W2061746292 @default.
W1978778927 cites W2130229588 @default.
W1978778927 cites W2168068719 @default.
W1978778927 cites W2500018075 @default.
W1978778927 cites W4246187969 @default.
W1978778927 cites W4247276202 @default.
W1978778927 cites W4254345607 @default.
W1978778927 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2008.00295.x" @default.
W1978778927 hasPublicationYear "2008" @default.
W1978778927 type Work @default.
W1978778927 sameAs 1978778927 @default.
W1978778927 citedByCount "53" @default.
W1978778927 countsByYear W19787789272012 @default.
W1978778927 countsByYear W19787789272013 @default.
W1978778927 countsByYear W19787789272014 @default.
W1978778927 countsByYear W19787789272015 @default.
W1978778927 countsByYear W19787789272016 @default.
W1978778927 countsByYear W19787789272017 @default.
W1978778927 countsByYear W19787789272018 @default.
W1978778927 countsByYear W19787789272019 @default.
W1978778927 countsByYear W19787789272020 @default.
W1978778927 countsByYear W19787789272021 @default.
W1978778927 countsByYear W19787789272022 @default.
W1978778927 countsByYear W19787789272023 @default.
W1978778927 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
W1978778927 hasAuthorship W1978778927A5002325481 @default.
W1978778927 hasAuthorship W1978778927A5018723818 @default.
W1978778927 hasAuthorship W1978778927A5054461049 @default.
W1978778927 hasBestOaLocation W19787789271 @default.
W1978778927 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
W1978778927 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
W1978778927 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
W1978778927 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
W1978778927 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
W1978778927 hasConcept C180198813 @default.
W1978778927 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
W1978778927 hasConcept C2522767166 @default.
W1978778927 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
W1978778927 hasConcept C539667460 @default.
W1978778927 hasConcept C56739046 @default.
W1978778927 hasConceptScore W1978778927C111472728 @default.
W1978778927 hasConceptScore W1978778927C127413603 @default.
W1978778927 hasConceptScore W1978778927C138885662 @default.
W1978778927 hasConceptScore W1978778927C144024400 @default.
W1978778927 hasConceptScore W1978778927C17744445 @default.
W1978778927 hasConceptScore W1978778927C180198813 @default.
W1978778927 hasConceptScore W1978778927C199539241 @default.
W1978778927 hasConceptScore W1978778927C2522767166 @default.
W1978778927 hasConceptScore W1978778927C41008148 @default.
W1978778927 hasConceptScore W1978778927C539667460 @default.
W1978778927 hasConceptScore W1978778927C56739046 @default.
W1978778927 hasIssue "2" @default.
W1978778927 hasLocation W19787789271 @default.
W1978778927 hasOpenAccess W1978778927 @default.
W1978778927 hasPrimaryLocation W19787789271 @default.
W1978778927 hasRelatedWork W2085477348 @default.
W1978778927 hasRelatedWork W2098269760 @default.
W1978778927 hasRelatedWork W2126984280 @default.
W1978778927 hasRelatedWork W2279112608 @default.
W1978778927 hasRelatedWork W2477989044 @default.
W1978778927 hasRelatedWork W2731985227 @default.
W1978778927 hasRelatedWork W3012208873 @default.
W1978778927 hasRelatedWork W3013226710 @default.
W1978778927 hasRelatedWork W4254774684 @default.
W1978778927 hasRelatedWork W598689402 @default.
W1978778927 hasVolume "18" @default.
W1978778927 isParatext "false" @default.
W1978778927 isRetracted "false" @default.
W1978778927 magId "1978778927" @default.
W1978778927 workType "article" @default.