Team 8: THE CRITICS Deanna, Anne, Ben

1. Team 8: THE CRITICSDeanna, Anne, Ben CRITICAL THEORY March 17, 2008

2. WHAT IS CRITICAL THEORY? The roots of the term critical theory can be traced back to the 1937 essay by Max Horkheimer of the Frankfurt School, Traditional and Critical Theory. Originally a social science theory grounded in Marxian ideology, critical theory has typically been oriented to critiquing and changing society, in contrast to traditional theory oriented only to understanding or explaining society. Although it has its origins in the Frankfurt School and Marxist concepts, recent social scientists such as Pierre Bourdieu, Michel Foucault and Jurgen Habermas, have developed and extended it further.

3. WHAT IS CRITICAL THEORY? To expose, through critique, the illusions and contradictions of social existence with a view to enabling and encouraging social change (Chua, 1986; Schwandt, 1990; Kincheloe & McLaren, 1994). Insight, critique, and transformative redefinition – all to balance empirical sensitivity and the discovery of repression (Richardson & Robinson, 2007). Praxis – combining theory and action to create scholarship which may lead to more equitable change (Kvasny & Richardson, 2004). In IS, critical theory is a radical alternative to more traditional “functionalist” approaches towards understanding information systems (R&R, 2007). In IS, a reminder that information systems are about people, as well as business strategy and technical development (R&R, 2007).

4. The Mysterious Case of the Missing Paradigm: A Review of Critical Information Systems Research 1991-2001Helen Richardson & Bruce Robinson, Information Systems Journal 17(3), 2007 • A reaction to Chen & Hirschheim (2004) finding that 81% of published IS articles are positivist, with remainder interpretivist. • Richardson & Robinson believe that CISR (Critical Information Systems Research) articles were unfairly excluded, giving impression of a “false dichotomy” amongst researchers and an absence of critical scholarly work. • C&H study looked at leading (“mainstream”) IS journals that are known to dismiss critical theories and methodologies. • “Critical studies aim to critique the status quo…” (Orlikowski & Baroudi, 1991), and only status quo publications were covered in C&H study! • Since critical IS researchers often publish outside of mainstream, R&R study includes more publications.

5. The Mysterious Case of the Missing Paradigm: A Review of Critical Information Systems Research 1991-2001Helen Richardson & Bruce Robinson, Information Systems Journal 17(3), 2007 • R&R found that CISR researchers largely chose to publish outside of mainstream IS journals (in 1991-2001 period). • CISR comes in many flavors – not always concerned with just theory, occasionally quantitative, and usually eschewing accepted research methodologies. • No overall theme to CISR articles, except for a rise in gender research. • CISR must be acknowledged by IS mainstream because of the social science aspects of IS, as opposed to a simple “technicist” focus. • CISR still relatively rare in IS, but not as rare as indicated in C&H study. There is more to the world of IS than the false dichotomy of positivism vs. interpretivism.

6. Doing Critical Research in Information Systems: A Case of Theory and Practice Not Informing Each OtherKathy McGrath, Information Systems Journal 15(2), 2005 • Overall: Need more explicit statements about methods of doing critical research; theory & practice not informing each other Social democratic view • Maintain values by incorporating them into the computer systems • Consistent with socio-technical approach Emancipatory view • From Frankfurt School, Habermas • Similar to socio-technical view but openly critical of status quo Eclectic view • 3 concerns of the critical researcher: • Insight, Critique, Transformative redefinition

7. Doing Critical Research in Information Systems: A Case of Theory and Practice Not Informing Each OtherKathy McGrath, Information Systems Journal 15(2), 2005 Much effort into defining nature, not how criticality is achieved Klein & Myers (1999) 7 principles for critical research Methodological issue: not what method to use, but how these methods change us and how to retain critical distance Critique of Walsham (2001) & Avgerou (2002) Pursuing different critical agendas Minimal descriptions of research methodologies 3 ways to develop research Explore how to make more use of existing research models Issues are key to the nature of critical research Evaluate what we have learned to make further developments

8. Learning About Being CriticalGeoff Walsham, Information Systems Journal 15(2), 2005 • Walsham admits that his work was largely interpretive and that the criticality of it were not well developed. • His main points are: • 1) personal motivation in key to conducting critical research; • 2) all topic areas have a potential critical agenda within them; 3) the choice of theory defines the degree of criticality and that IS researchers should be content to “borrow” theory from the social sciences; • 4) that the goal of critical research is to influence others. • Finally, he discounts McGrath’s concern about research methods as important to the sustained program of critical research in IS.

9. Doing Critical Research in Information Systems: Some Further ThoughtsChrisanthi Avgerou, Information Systems Journal 15(2), 2005 How do we achieve criticality? “Surely not by method” 2 risks with defining methodological principles • Producing misleading research accounts • Researcher and participant change, but not necessary documentable • Critical research comes from situated experience, not method • Restrictive effects of method • 7 principles may stifle critical debate

10. Doing Critical Research in Information Systems: Some Further ThoughtsChrisanthi Avgerou, Information Systems Journal 15(2), 2005 • Achieving criticality: 3 features of critical research to develop • Questions of a a political or moral nature • Interplay of theory and empirical study • Can’t just adopt one theory—criticality comes from several layers • Suspicion of instrumental reasoning • Progress not through objective technological advancement • Serves ends unquestioned of their political/moral status • Current weakness not methodological accountability but from limited contributions to social issues of ICT

11. Key Questions • Are methods important for critical research? How do you evaluate the quality of the research without an understanding of methods? • Does an account of methodology hurt the critical research being done? Does it remove the focus from the substance of this research? • Can critical research be part of the field? Is there a place for critical research within academe? Is pluralism the goal? • How can critical researchers design a research agenda as advocated by Avgerou? Should they? • Can PhD students be critical researchers or is it only the “luxury” of those who have already been accepted by the system?