Background: Beyond the Objective

Background: Beyond the Objective

The choice of a research method is strongly coupled to the type of information that is available to the researcher. The choice of method determines what type of information will be sought for subsequent analysis. Furthermore, the type of information that is available will determine the types of analysis that may be conducted. However, the entire process must start with the research objective and how it is framed in terms of required information.

The positivist stance, prevalent in the natural sciences, is centred on the notion that all knowledge, in the form of facts, is derived from either observation or experience of real, objective, and measurable natural phenomena, thereby supporting the notion of quantitative analysis. Facts can thus be viewed as universal truths devoid of personal values and social interactions and independent of time and context. This enables researchers to focus on regularity, repeatability, and the verification and validation of causal relationships. The currency of such objective knowledge is the manipulation and metrification of objects and their relationships, expressed in the form of numbers to enable quantitative operations. This stance is difficult to sustain in failure research, where the actions, perceptions, and rationales of actors are not amenable to quantitative methods. (Note, however, that the actual findings and the factors leading to accidents can subsequently be modelled using quantitative notations.)

At the other extreme, (interpretivist, constructivist, or relativist) knowledge can be viewed as encompassing beliefs, principles, personal values, preferences, social context, and historical background, which are inevitably dynamic as they change with time (and context). Qualitative research methods originate in the social sciences, where researchers are concerned with social and cultural phenomena. Social interaction in human activity systems ensures intersubjectivity, as actors are forced to negotiate and agree on certain aspects. The humanistic perspective is outside the conventional positivist norm. The resulting emphasis is on the relevant interpretation of knowledge as held by participants in a social activity. Data sources utilised by researchers include observation, fieldwork, interviews, questionnaires, documents, texts, and the impressions and reactions of the researchers. Such qualitative perspective relies on words (Miles & Huberman, 1994), conveying feelings and perceptions, rather than numbers. Qualitative methods recognise the fact that subjects can express themselves and their feelings and, thereby, clarify the social and cultural contexts within which they operate. Meaning therefore needs to be "interpreted" in a process of "sense-making." Actions thus need to be understood in terms of intentions, which in turn are understood in their original context (Schutz, 1973). Indeed, Kaplan and Maxwell (1994) argue that the goal of understanding a phenomenon from the point of view of the main participants and their particular social, cultural, and institutional context is largely lost when the textual data are quantified.

Making sense of IS failures retrospectively is difficult. In general, there is very little objective quantitative failure information that can be relied upon. This makes the utilisation of quantitative methods less likely until all relevant information is understood. Indeed, a specific feature of failure is the unique interaction between the system, the participants, their perspectives, complexity, and technology (Perrow, 1984). Lyytinen and Hirschheim (1987) pointed out that failure is a multifaceted phenomenon of immense complexity with multiple causes and perspectives. Research into failures often ignores the complex and important role of social arrangement embedded in the actual context. This is often due to the quantitative nature of such research. More recently, Checkland and Holwell (1998) argued that the IS field requires sense-making to enable a richer concept of information systems. Understanding the interactions that lead to failures likewise requires a humanistic stance that is outside the conventional positivist norm to capture the real diversity, contention, and complexity embedded in real life. Forensic analysis thus relies on utilising qualitative approaches to obtain a richer understanding of failure phenomena in terms of action and interaction (as explored in subsequent sections).

(Note that triangulation, the mixing of quantitative and qualitative methods, offers the opportunity to combine research methods in a complementary manner in one study. A good example of such a mix in failure research would entail reliance on qualitative methods to capture the essence, context, and webs of interactions in the buildup to failure and complement the presentation by using more formal approaches to model the impact of such interactions.)