Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method

Eur. J. Inf. Systs. (199S) 4,74-81 © 1995 Operational Research Society Ltd. All rights reserved 0960-085X/95 $ 12.00 Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method G WALSHAM Department of Management Science, The Management School, Lancaster University, Lancaster LAI 4YX, UK There has been an increase in recent years in the number of in-depth case studies which focus on human actions and interpretations surrounding the development and use of computer-based information systems (IS). This paper addresses philosophical and theoretical issues concerning the nature of such interpretive case studies, and methodological issues on the conduct and reporting of this type of research. The paper aims to provide a useful reference point for researchers who wish to work in the interpretive tradition, and more generally to encourage careful work on the conceptualisation and execution of case studies in the information systems field. Introduction The importance of social issues related to computerbased information systems has been recognised increasingly over the last decade, and this has led some IS researchers to adopt empirical approaches which focus particularly on human interpretations and meanings. The vehicle for such 'interpretive' investigations is often the in-depth case study, where research involves frequent visits to the field site over an extended period of time. This paper focuses on such interpretive case studies in the IS field, and considers philosophical and theoretical issues concerning the nature of these studies, and methodological issues on how to carry out and report on studies in this tradition. The development of the 'interpretive' empirical school in IS has not been free of controversy, and debate continues on the relative merits of interpretivist versus positivist approaches to IS (Orlikowski & Baroudi, 1991), or the possibilities for their combination (Lee, 1991; Gable, 1994). This paper can be seen as one contribution to that debate, since it contrasts some elements of interpretivist and positivist approaches to case studies. However, despite these differences, there are many points of agreement between case study researchers working in these two traditions. For example, Yin (1989) adopts an implicitly positivist stance in describing case study research, but his view that case studies are the preferred research strategy to answer 'how?' and 'why?' questions would also be accepted by the interpretive school. Benbasat et al. (1987) also approach the issue of case studies from a positivist stance, but their argument that case study researchers need to be more explicit about their research goals and methods is also of relevance to interpretive IS researchers, and indeed is part of the rationale for this current paper. The IS literature contains reports and conclusions from a significant number of interpretive case studies, covering a range of topics and issues (for example Markus, 1983; Suchman, 1987; Zuboff, 1988; Boland & Day, 1989; Orlikowski, 1991; Walsham, 1993). Most of this literature is concentrated on the substantive case studies themselves and the conclusions which can be drawn from them. This is clearly a desirable focus, but there are few published papers that provide a synthesised view of the nature and conduct of such case studies with specific reference to the field of computer-based IS; this leaves a gap in the literature where this paper aims to contribute. In the next section, the research tradition of interpretive case studies is described in more detail, and is contrasted with positivist approaches. This is followed by a section on the use of theory, which is a key issue in all research traditions. The remainder of the paper is focused on methodological questions concerned with the conduct of empirical research, and on the issue of how to report and generalize results from such work. The final section draws some overall conclusions on interpretive case studies in IS research. Philosophical basis of interpretive research The ethnographic research tradition in anthropology is a valuable starting point for a consideration of the philosophical basis of interpretive case studies, since it has been widely drawn on by organizational researchers concerned with interpreting the patterns of symbolic action that create and maintain a sense of organization (see, for example, Smircich, 1983). Geertz (1973) gives Interpretive case studies in IS research a concise view of the status of the data which are collected in an anthropological study: What we call our data are really our own constructions of other people's constructions of what they and their compatriots are up to. (p. 9) Van Maanen (1979), writing in the tradition of organizational ethnography, calls the interviewee's constructions first-order data and the constructions of the researcher second-order concepts. He warns that assuming an ethnographic stance is not a guarantee that reseachers will collect valuable data no matter how long they stay in the field. Second-order concepts rely on good theory and insightful analysis, and mere collection of in-depth case study data does not provide these concepts in itself. Examples of second-order concepts in the IS literature, derived from interpretive case studies, include the 'automate' concept from the work of Zuboff (1988), and the concept of 'technological frames' in Orlikowski & Gash (1994). A second feature of the anthropological tradition is its concern with 'thick description'. Geertz (1973) gives a fascinating example of this involving Jews, Berbers and the French in Morocco in 1912. The incident recounted involves 'sheep stealing' by one of the Jews, who Geertz calls Cohen, from some of the Berbers. However, on closer examination, the 'stealing' turns out to involve compensation for an earlier incident in which Cohen was robbed and nearly killed by members of the same Berber group. The French misunderstand this and put Cohen in prison for what they take to be simple theft on his part. Geertz uses the incident to point out that the ethnographer is faced with a multiplicity of complex conceptual structures, many of them superimposed upon or knotted into one another and which must be first grasped and then rendered intelligible to others. The IS researcher entering an organization today is also faced with complex and intertwined conceptual structures which it is difficult to grasp and render intelligible as did Geertz in his anthropological work. The need for 'thick' description is just as important in trying to understand what is happening in connection with a complex computer-based information system, involving managers, users and designers, as it was in trying to interpret the interactions of Jews, Berbers and the French in Geertz's study. As a specific illustration of this, Boland and Day (1989) describe how a system designer reinterprets the behaviour of someone who at first she thought was trying to help with her desig (...truncated)