reduction should give greater explanatory and predictive power. The traditional approach to gain explanation and prediction is experimental methods Lee, 1991 in
Braa et al., 1999. The understanding point is achieved through a process of interpretation to gain greater richness of insight into the role IS in organisational
setting and is achieved through case studies Boland, 1991, Orlikowski, 1993 in Braa et al., 1999. Movement toward change point is achieved through a process of
intervention as typified by action research Baskerville et al., 1996.
1.20.1. IS Research Approaches for the Organisational Laboratory
Figure 3.2 Research Approaches Vidgen et al., 1997
In Figure 3.2a, Braa and Vidgen locate research approaches within the proposed IS research framework for the organisational laboratory Vidgen et al., 1997
and Braa et al., 1999. They align purified research approaches; field experiment with prediction, case study with understanding, and action research. Hybrid research
approaches which have a less pure basis with respect to the ideal types of research outcome are placed in triangle; hard case study is represented as a mix of
understanding and prediction, quasi-experiment as a mix of prediction and change, and action case as a mix of understanding and change. Figure 3.2b contrasts purified
disciplines, field experiment, soft case study, and action research, with hybrid disciplines, quasi-experiment, hard case study, and action case. This following section
will describe the research approaches in the IS research framework for the organisational laboratory - in-context research shown in Figure 3.2.
1.20.2. Case Study
Galliers 1992 classifies the case study as a scientific method. In contrast, Iivari categories the case study as interpretivist method Iivari, 1991 in Braa et al.,
1999. In a revised taxonomy Galliers Galliers, 1993 in Braa et al., 1999 presents IS research approaches on a spectrum ranging from traditional positivism observation-
based to newer post-positivism interpretations and positions the case study nearer to the observation-based end of the spectrum. It shows the difficulty of categorising
the case study as either positivist or interpretivist. According to Cavaye, case study research can be used in positivist and interpretivist methods, for testing or building
theory, with a single or multiple case study design, using qualitative or mixed methods Cavaye, 1996. In the following section, the different between two types of
case studies, the positivist-informed hard case study and the interpretivist soft case study will be described.
1.20.2.1. Hard Case Study
A case study is ‘an empirical enquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between
phenomenon and context are not clearly evident’ and it ‘relies on multiple sources of
evidence’ Yin, 1994 p. 13. Case studies are applicable for research which use
research methods that do not explicitly control or manipulate variables, studies a phenomenon in its natural context, and studies the
phenomenon at one of a few sites Weick, 1984 in Cavaye, 1996.
According to Cavaye, positivist case study try to measure pre-defined variables, according to pre-defined measures using pre-defined
research intruments
Cavaye, 1996
. He then argues that positivist case studies try to understand a social setting through identifying individual components of a
phenomenon and describe the phenomenon concerning constructs and relationship between construct. He also argues that positivism emphasises rigour in research
Keen, 1991 in Cavaye, 1996 through focusing on evidence, theoretical grounding and persuasiveness of logical argument.
Cavaye notes that the criteria for a good research in positivism as the research should make controlled observations, should be able to be replicated, should be able
to be generalised and should use formal logic
Cavaye, 1996
. Case studies allow the study to capture reality in detail and analyse many
variables; problem with case study from a positivist stance include the difficulty of generalisation from individual case study, the lack of control of individual variables
associated with the difficulties in distinguishing between cause and effect, and different stakeholders have different interpretations Galliers, 1992.
1.20.2.2. Soft Case Study
Walsham describes interpretative case study approach as However, from an interpretive position, the validity of an extrapolation from an individual case or cases
depends not on the representativeness of such cases in a statistical sense, but on the plausibility and cogency of the logical reasoning used in describing the results from
the cases, and in drawing conclusions from them . Walsham, 1993.
Orlikowski and Baroudi describe the use of case studies for information systems research concerning the interpretivist sense of generalisation as every
particular social relation is the product of generative forces or mechanisms operating at a more global level, and hence the interpretive analysis is an induction guided and
couched within a theoretical framework from the concrete situation to the social totality beyond the individual case
Orlikowski et al., 1989, quoted by Walsham, 1993.
Interpretative case study tries to understand the nature of a phenomenon and to elicit meaning from seemingly irrational behaviour in the social setting Cavaye,
1996. He then argues that the aim of interpretative case study is to understand phenomena from the point of view of participants directly involved with the
phenomenon in the study. According to him, interpretative research enters a social setting without a priori constructs, but allows construct to emerge in the field where
the researcher try to learn about and understand the phenomenon.
1.20.3. Field experiments and quasi-experiments
Galliers 1992 describes field experiments as an extension of laboratory experiments into the organisationsocial context. The key feature of the laboratory
experiment approach that is applicable to field experiment approach is the
identification of the precise relationship between chosen variables in a controlled environment using qualitative analytical techniques. He noted that the idea here is that
field experiments try to construct an experiment in a more realistic environment than in laboratory setting.
According to Galliers 1992, the major advantage of the approach is the ability to control and isolate a small number of variables, which may then be studied
intensively. The major weakness of the approach is the difficulty to identify relationships which are exist in the real world due to over-simplification of the
experimental situation and the isolation of such situations from most of the variables that exist in the real world. In addition, the problem of replication as it is extremely
difficult to achieve sufficient control to enable replication of the experiment with only the study variables being altered. The difficulty of finding organisations prepared to
be experimented on also becomes the weakness of this approach. In any experimental design, randomisation and experimental control become
essential elements Zmud et al., 1989 in Braa et al., 1999. Randomisation is to allocate the people or units being studied to the experimental group, or to a control
group, on an entirely random basis, without taking account of their characteristics or preferences. Experimental control is to take appropriate steps to get rid of nuisance
variables, which are factors other than the independent variables that might be responsible for observed changes in the dependent variable. There are two types of
field experiments Cook et al., 1979; Zmud et al., 1989 in Braa et al., 1999. The first is true experimental design, which has the criteria of multiple treatments or one
treatment and a control group, randomisation, and experimental control. The second is quasi experimental design, which does not meet the three criteria rather attempt to
maintain as many of the properties of true experimentation as possible, given the constraints of the research setting.
1.20.4. Action Research
