The Paradigm Debate in Information Systems Research

The current debate over the ‘identity crisis' in the field of information systems has led to increasing calls from a number of researchers for the development of a common ‘intellectual core’ and common set of related methodologies. Currently the consensus seems to be that researchers in the field of information systems typically adhere to one or another broad schools of thought. There is debate as to the extent to which there can be communication or commensurability between the work of those in the different schools. Researchers arguing for the strong incommensurability thesis in information systems research hold the view that inherent differences in ontologies and epistemologies reflected, for example, in the claim of the incompatibility of quantitative and qualitative research methods within the same research design, make commensurability between work informed by the different paradigms impossible. The call seems to be made by a number of researchers for ‘harmony and convergence’ around a single paradigm out of pragmatic considerations because by doing this the field will become stronger. These arguments are made largely on the basis of the early work of Thomas Kuhn reflected in the work of Burrell and Morgan. This paper will attempt to trace the emergence of this debate from