Skip to main content

A Framework for Validating Information Systems Research Based on a Pluralist Account of Truth and Correctness

Mingers, John, Standing, Craig (2020) A Framework for Validating Information Systems Research Based on a Pluralist Account of Truth and Correctness. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 21 (1). Article Number 6. ISSN 1536-9323. E-ISSN 1558-3457. (doi:10.17705/1jais.00594) (KAR id:59930)

PDF Author's Accepted Manuscript
Language: English
Download (554kB) Preview
[thumbnail of Validating Knowledge arxiv.pdf]
Preview
This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.
Request an accessible format
PDF Pre-print
Language: English

Restricted to Repository staff only
Contact us about this Publication
[thumbnail of 1701.04676]
Official URL
https://aisel.aisnet.org/jais/vol21/iss1/6

Abstract

Research in information systems includes a range of approaches which make varied contributions in terms of knowledge, understanding, or practical developments. In these days of “fake news” and spurious internet content, scholarly research needs to be able to demonstrate its validity – are its finding true, or its recommendations correct?

There has been much debate about the nature of truth – is it correspondence, coherence, consensual or pragmatic? Current debates revolve around the idea of a pluralist view of truth – that there are different forms of truth depending on the context or domain. Related to truth is the wider concept of correctness – propositions may be true but correctness can also be applied to actions, performances or behavior for which truth is not appropriate. We develop a framework for research validity and apply it to a range of research forms including positivist, interpretive, design science, critical and action-oriented. The benefits are: i) a greater and more explicit focus on validity criteria will produce better research; ii) having a single framework can provide some commonality between what at times seem conflicting approaches to research; iii) having criteria made explicit should encourage debate and further development. The framework is applied to a variety of empirical papers employing varied research approaches.

Item Type: Article
DOI/Identification number: 10.17705/1jais.00594
Uncontrolled keywords: action research, correctness, critical research, design science, interpretive research, positivist research, simulation, truth, validation
Subjects: B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > B Philosophy (General)
Divisions: Divisions > Kent Business School - Division > Kent Business School (do not use)
Depositing User: John Mingers
Date Deposited: 19 Jan 2017 13:42 UTC
Last Modified: 16 Feb 2021 13:41 UTC
Resource URI: https://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/59930 (The current URI for this page, for reference purposes)
Mingers, John: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4102-4696
  • Depositors only (login required):

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year