Information Systems Research on the Global Playing Field: Balancing the Universal and the Local

Abstract

There seems to be an assumption in the research community that the purpose of knowledge gathering is to ascertain laws which represent universal unchanging truths [1]. This is not so much stated as built into much of the research zeitgeist. We see this, for example, with the DeLone and McLean (Petter, DeLone, & Mclean, 2013) model of success based originally on discrete technologies, then updated with consideration for ecommerce applications. The model, if thoroughly supported, would provide the set of antecedents for IS application success. Quantitative meta-analysis, if it were applied to the model, would show the relative strength of each antecedent on those that follow leading ultimately to the accumulated model’s impact on success. To the extent that individual studies would vary from these parameters, it would be assumed that (1) they represent some error or variance around the central tendency; or (2) there may have been something wrong with the study in how it was conducted. Two other possibilities that are less explored are that (1) the salience of antecedents may simply change over time, partly because of the fact that (2) technologies vary greatly in their influence on success, even within the same general family of technologies. A revised view of the DeLone-McLean model would not be one universal theory but a collection of representations showing variance as pertains to different categories of technology or purpose. There are many possible reasons for focusing on the search for universal unchanging truths. If and when we find them, there is great value and utility. Euclidean geometry was not refuted by Einsteinian theories; rather it continues to work quite well where it remains applicable. The multitude of such mathematical measures of physical forces attests to their value. To the extent that IS ‘borrows’ its definition of science from the physical sciences, it is likely that the search for unchanging universal truths will be a central goal. In fact, it is likely that many in the field have learned that this is what science is by definition and have not considered the alternative that knowledge, which is not universal, nor unchanging, can also embody great value. At any given time period knowing what rules seem to be applicable, and across which conditions, can have as much value in application as knowing what is universal and unchanging. Ryle (1945) calls for a distinction between knowing-that and knowing-how. Scientific propositions are of the knowing-that kind, a kind that can be expressed in propositions of a justified truth. Sometimes IS research attempts at that. However, many times, IS concerns with the knowing-how type of knowledge, and skills that cannot be expressed the same way, in spite of still being valuable. Vries (2016) reminds us that (physical) scientific knowledge is normally intended to be universal and nomothetical, i.e., its laws are expected to hold for all places and times. Technology knowledge, in contrast, tends to be more specific and ideo-graphical, describing particularities rather than generalities. In our view, IS as a discipline, benefits from both approaches – searching for theory, rules, and principles that apply everywhere and always; but benefits to an even greater extent by surfacing