Essay Instructions: BACKGROUND READINGS:
Please begin by reading the following article,
Becker, J., & Niehaves, B. (2007). Epistemological perspectives on IS research: A framework for analysing and systematizing epistemological assumptions. Information Systems Journal, 17(2), 197-214.
[Note: Epistemology and Ontology can be difficult concepts to understand, and to distinguish from each other. Therefore, we have provided additional resources in the Optional Materials section below to support you in strengthening your ability to differentiate and articulate these philosophical foundations of scientific research.]
The next article focuses on the issue of collaboration across philosophical research paradigms:
• Weber, R. (2008). The rhetoric of positivism versus interpretivism: A personal view.
MIS Quarterly, 28(1), III-XII.
[Note: Although the Weber article focuses on the field of information systems, the debate is germane to social science research (and some would argue to all scientific research; for example, see the optional materials section below for similar debates in the fields of finance, management accounting, and a debate in the Journal of Marketing spanning four articles and multiple authors from 1990-1992)].
Finally, please read the following three theoretical overviews (I encourage you to read the case assignment before reading these three articles):
• Ashforth, B., & Humphrey, R. (1997, January). The Ubiquity and Potency of Labeling in Organizations. Organization Science, 8(1), 43-58.
• Boland Jr., R., & Tenkasi, R. (1995). Perspective Making and Perspective Taking in Communities of Knowing. Organization Science, 6(4), 350-372.
• Jackson, J.W. (1993). Realistic group conflict theory: A review and evaluation of the theoretical and empirical literature. Psychological Record, 43(3), 395-405.
ASSIGNMENT:
In the required background readings, Dr. Ron Weber (2004) shared his personal reactions to the ways in which he felt that “positivists” were being caricatured by “interpretivists”. Toward the end of his article he wonders “why the rhetoric of positivism versus interpretivism has persisted” (p. X) and says that “I no longer want to be labeled as a positivist researcher or an interpretevist researcher. It is time for us to move beyond labels and to see the underlying unity in what we are trying to achieve via our research methods” (p. XI).
In this case assignment you will:
Compare and contrast three alternative theoretical rationales as explanatory mechanisms
for why the rhetoric of positivism vs. interpretivism has persisted.
Assignment Expectations
1. Give a brief overview of the framework that Becker and Niehaves (2007) (from the required background readings) provide.
2. Describe the overarching context that their framework establishes related to Dr. Weber’s concerns
3. Apply that framework to briefly assessing, comparing, and contrasting the epistemological bases for the following three articles (from the required background readings) as potential theoretical explanations for the persistence of the positivism vs. interpretivism rhetoric:
o Labeling theory: Ashforth and Humphrey, 1997
o Perspective making and taking in communities of knowing: Boland and Tenkasi, 1995
o Realistic group conflict theory: Jackson, 1993
4. Assess the degree to which each of the three potential theoretical explanations fits the nature of the problem that Dr. Weber posed (i.e., “why the rhetoric of positivism versus interpretivism has persisted”), and the context(s) within which it is situated
5. Argue for and support your choice of one of the three, or some combination of two or all three of the theoretical explanations, in terms of best fit and potential explanatory power as to why the rhetoric of positivism vs. interpretivism has persisted.
6. Make sure you articulate your understanding of each term that you employ (i.e., don't just say "inductivism" - define it, and provide evidence to support your contention as to why you believe that the author(s) is/are assuming an inductivist methodological aspect).
General Expectations
1. Length 4-5 pages of double spaced 12 point font text, plus cover and reference page.
2. Structure: Narrative style, including a brief introduction in which you provide an overview of your paper.
3. References; Follow Campion's (1997) rules for references (see background page).
4. Style: APA format.
Customer is requesting that (superduper68) completes this order.
