Paradigmatic approaches used in enterprise resource planning systems research: A systematic literature review <s> DISCUSSION <s> This paper investigates aspects of the history and current state of interpretivism in IS research. The emergence of interpretivism is explored through the identification of a network of IS researchers working in the interpretive tradition, through an examination of the role of mainstream and alternative IS journals, and through an analysis of the rhetoric used to support interpretive claims. The paper contributes to analysis of the development of the IS field as a whole, and provides some conceptual ideas and a reference point for further work in this relatively neglected area of research. <s> BIB001 </s> Paradigmatic approaches used in enterprise resource planning systems research: A systematic literature review <s> DISCUSSION <s> Most of the research in the field of Information Systems appears to be guided by one set of philosophical assumptions -- those of positivism. Such paradigm unity could prove problematic as it might stymie alternative conceptions of problems in the IS field. This paper inquires into whether the field does indeed embrace a solitary paradigm and if so, what its implications are. In so doing, the paper provides an overview of positivism, its paradigmatic grounding, why it became popular, and the obstacles to change. The paper looks at the possibility of paradigm pluralism particularly as it relates to pragmatism. The relationship between pragmatism and the call for more relevance in IS research is also explored. In its examination of these topics, the paper notes the rather surprising importance Burrell and Morgan's notion of paradigms has played in the conception of the field's philosophical discussions. <s> BIB002 </s> Paradigmatic approaches used in enterprise resource planning systems research: A systematic literature review <s> DISCUSSION <s> As both technologies and organizations undergo dramatic changes in form and function, organizational researchers are increasingly turning to concepts of innovation, emergence, and improvisation to help explain the new ways of organizing and using technology evident in practice. With a similar intent, I propose an extension to the structurational perspective on technology that develops a practice lens to examine how people, as they interact with a technology in their ongoing practices, enact structures which shape their emergent and situated use of that technology. Viewing the use of technology as a process of enactment enables a deeper understanding of the constitutive role of social practices in the ongoing use and change of technologies in the workplace. After developing this lens, I offer an example of its use in research, and then suggest some implications for the study of technology in organizations. <s> BIB003 </s> Paradigmatic approaches used in enterprise resource planning systems research: A systematic literature review <s> DISCUSSION <s> In this journal, Chen and Hirschheim have provided a historical analysis of positivist and interpretivist research paradigms and methodologies in the 10 years following the much cited work of Orlikowski and Baroudi. In this paper, we investigate the mysterious case of the missing paradigm – that of the critical approach to information systems (IS) research. We take Chen and Hirschheim’s survey as our starting point and aim to fill the gap left by the absence of the critical paradigm in their analysis and make some criticisms of their method. Recent years have seen the growth of IS research that consciously adopts a critical perspective. This paper charts the development of critical IS research over the period of 1991–2001, adding some comments on more recent developments. We conclude by critically reflecting on the current development of critical research in the field of IS. <s> BIB004
The results of this study fall between the Orlikowski and Baroudi (1991) study's finding of 96.8% and the Chen and Hirschheim (2004) study's findings of 81%. However, if we exclude the unclear results (as did both Orlikowski and Baroudi, and Chen and Hirschheim), then the percentage of positivist research rises to 96.6% and this is identical to the Orlikowski and Baroudi study conducted over twenty years ago. For the reasons already outlined, the differences in classification schema and interpretation make comparisons of non-positivist paradigms difficult. These overall findings are generally in line with several other studies and commentaries, such as those by  , BIB002 ,  and  , which claim that positivism dominates IS literature. The findings of our study strongly suggest that the choice of research paradigms used in ERP literature is similar to that found in the wider contemporary IS literature (albeit slightly more biased towards positivism). It will be recalled that BIB004 used the same data and classification but different sampling methods to those of  . BIB004 concluded that the figure of 81% was grossly inflated; when adjusted for the total, the figure fell to 48.3%. However, just as these authors were correct to highlight why the 81% was an inflated figure, we would argue they have, in turn, underestimated the percentage of positivist articles. While using BIB004 classification of the primary data used in this study would deflate the dominance of positivism, it would not undermine the overall conclusion that ERP literature employs research paradigms with a higher positivism bias than would be found in the wider IS literature. Furthermore, irrespective of which of the two sampling methods is applied to this study, positivism dominates (91.4%, if we declare the unclear articles as non-positivist, or 96% if we exclude them). The three papers we could not classify fell under the heading of weak constructivist. The difficulty was in deciding if they should be deemed positivist or critical, or both, as they could easily be classified as being multi-paradigmatic. Our study did not initially consider multi-paradigmatic approaches. However, as far back as 2000, Goles and Hirshheim analysed other studies (notably BIB003  BIB001 and concluded that while IS studies were heavily guided by the positivist paradigm, they advocated the need to end the 'paradigm wars' and move instead to a stance based on paradigmatic pluralism. Other authors such as Mingers (2004) and Lewis and Kelman (2002) have advocated similar stances. Future studies would need to consider how to classify multi-paradigmatic stances. While none of the studies that used Chua's (1986) model explained the criteria used to exclude articles, if they used logic similar to that used in our study, then it would suggest to us that many of these excluded articles may be positivist. We therefore have reservations about Richardson and Robinson's claims as to an overestimation of positivism. Just because there is not enough information to classify an article as positivist, it doesn't follow that it automatically becomes non-positivist. Although this study used a different classification schema to that employed by other studies, the findings did align with the interpretation applied by  and  . Variations in interpretation will remain a difficulty with these types of studies until a more stable and widely agreed classification schema is accepted. Therefore, developing a more rigorous and widely accepted classification schema for categorising paradigms would be a worthwhile enterprise in order to improve the usefulness of future research in terms of making meaningful trend comparisons. We consider our study using the Johnson and Duberley (2000) framework to be a useful start in that direction. The overwhelming bias towards positivism in the ERP domain suggests that the increasing interest in social factors associated with ERP implementations has not been accompanied by changes in the 18 research paradigms used. While this study did not track paradigmatic changes over time in the ERP literature, the wider IS literature does suggest a remarkably stable pattern in respect to the dominance of positivism over the past decade. Given this trend, and the strong alignment of IS and ERP on research paradigms, it would appear reasonable to imply that what is happening in both bodies of literature is similar. While there are many possible explanations for why ERP literature maintains a higher rate of positivism than the wider IS literature, there are two that appear to be worthy of investigation. The first is that ERPs are in some sort of lag mode relationship to IS, possibly due to factors such as having little flexibility. The second is that while some researchers (Robey, Ross and Boudreau, 2002; Morris and Venkatesh, 2010) have claimed that the differences between ERPs and IS may be significant (especially in social terms), consistent with the claims of positivism, both can still be researched under the one paradigm. Indeed, positivism's claim of strength is that it can be applied to all forms of research. However, there are many other plausible explanations and there is a need for further research before any strong conclusions can be drawn. 