Bla Bla

Weber/Editor’s Comments

EDITOR’S COMMENTS
The Rhetoric of Positivism Versus Interpretivism: A Personal View1
Many years ago I attended a conference on interpretive research in information systems. My goal was to learn more about interpretive research. In my Ph.D. education, I had studied primarily positivist research methods—for example, experiments, surveys, and field studies. I knewlittle, however, about interpretive methods. I hoped to improve my knowledge of interpretive methods with a view to using them in due course in my research work. A plenary session at the conference was devoted to a panel discussion on improving the acceptance of interpretive methods within the information systems discipline. During the session, a number of speakers criticized positivist researchharshly. Many members in the audience also took up the cudgel to denigrate positivist research. If any other positivistic researchers were present at the session beside me, like me they were cowed. None of us dared to rise and speak in defence of positivism. Subsequently, I came to understand better the feelings of frustration and disaffection that many early interpretive researchers in the informationsystems discipline experienced when they attempted to publish their work. They felt that often their research was evaluated improperly and treated unfairly. They contended that colleagues who lacked knowledge of interpretive research methods controlled most of the journals. As a result, their work was evaluated using criteria attuned to positivism rather than interpretivism. My most-vivid memory ofthe panel session, however, was my surprise at the way positivism was being characterized by my colleagues in the session. I was a positivist, but I subscribed to none of the assumptions that my colleagues in the panel session alleged I made when I undertook my research. I was baffled. I was unable to understand the basis for the rhetoric, nor at the time of the panel session the basis for thedistress that many of my interpretive colleagues so clearly felt. Subsequent to the panel session, I have read a number of books and articles about interpretive research and, in particular, the alleged differences between positivist and interpretive research. I am concerned that the alleged differences continue to be characterized in particular ways. Indeed, they have become so deeply ingrained inour discourse about research methods that, for the most part, they are taken for granted. They have become folklore. For me, however, the discourse remains unsatisfactory because basically I believe it is founded on false assumptions and tenuous arguments. If indeed differences exist between positivist and interpretive research, I believe they are not those canvassed in the typical rhetoric.Rather, other factors are at play.

1

I am indebted to Jörgen Sandberg for helpful discussions that motivated me to write these editorial comments. I am grateful, also, to Gordon Davis, Cynthia Beath, and the Senior Editors of the MIS Quarterly for comments on an earlier version of these editorial comments. Of course, they are in no way responsible for nor do they necessarily agree with mycomments. I stress, also, that the views expressed in these editorial comments are personal views and not official views of the MIS Quarterly.

MIS Quarterly Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. iii-xii/March 2004

iii

Weber/Editor’s Comments

In this editorial, I commit sacrilege. I tread on the hollowed ground of positivist versus interpretive rhetoric with muddy boots. One of my goals is to debunk much of therhetoric. In this regard, I am not seeking to be a curmudgeon. Rather, I hope to motivate reflection on whether the current rhetoric has substance or whether it is built on straw-man arguments. I believe it is time we revisit the key assumptions and arguments that underlie the rhetoric and assess their merit. I contend that many are vacuous and that they lead us down unhelpful paths. I believe...