building understanding of information systems ... - Semantic Scholar

Download PDF
2 downloads 0 Views 56KB Size Report
Comment
(Klein and Myers 1998) and interpretivist, qualitative research is increasingly ... methodological issues facing IS researchers undertaking interpretivist field ...
BUILDING UNDERSTANDING OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS PRACTICE: RESEARCH IN THE FIELD Jennie M. Carroll and Paul A. Swatman [email protected] ABSTRACT Field work is needed to bridge the gap which currently exists between information systems (IS) research and theory, and the practice of IS professionals in organisations. Examining how systems are developed and used, and the problems and concerns of IS professionals, provides the foundations for building understanding of IS practice. This paper examines some methodological issues raised by interpretive field work into one area of IS: systems analysis, also commonly called requirements engineering. The approaches used to tackle and resolve these issues, in particular that of the researcher’s intervention in the research context, have application to IS research in general. Given the lack of empirical reseach into IS practice and the continuing debate about interpretive IS reseach, the experiences from this research may assist IS researchers undertake interpretive field research.

1. INTRODUCTION Studying information systems (IS) professionals at work in real-life contexts is essential for IS researchers. IS is a practice-based discipline, examining the development and use of information technologies “in their context of real people in real organisations in a real society” (Keen 1987:3). Building understanding of how IS are developed and used in social, business and government environments involves research into IS professionals in their everyday contexts. We need to learn about their practices, problems and concerns in order to generate useful and usable research and theory; greater understanding and analysis of professional practice will inform IS theory as well as IS practice. However, a number of researchers have noted the lack of empirical research into systems development by IS practitioners in their everyday contexts (see, for example, Fitzgerald 1997; Markus 1997). Undertaking research which is focused on IS professionals at work suggests the need for field work. Indeed, Vidgen and Braa (1997:525) argue that “the primary laboratory for IS research is the organization”. There has been extensive debate about the nature of rigorous, IS field research. Positivist case study research as presented by Benbasat et al. (1987) and Yin (1984) is an accepted research method (Klein and Myers 1998) and interpretivist, qualitative research is increasingly gaining acceptance (Walsham 1995). In our work, we are concerned with research to develop understanding rather than enable prediction, and our emphasis is consequently on interpretive research. This paper explores some of the methodological issues facing IS researchers undertaking interpretivist field research. These issues are discussed with reference to one particular area of IS: systems analysis or, as it is more commonly labelled, requirements engineering (RE). Research to understand and then improve the RE process is used to illuminate some of the problems of interpretive IS field work. The paucity of empirical research into IS professionals in practice is reflected in research into RE. Much of the current understanding of RE is derived from research using artificial problems in artificial situations, presumably because examining practitioners in the field is difficult. Our research studies professional analysts at work in their organisational contexts, and raises a number of methodological issues: • how to undertake rigorous, interpretive research • how to gather data to build rich understanding of professionals’ practice • the inherent tension between building understanding and increased intervention by the researcher in the research context, and • the process by which understanding is built. This paper discusses these issues and how they were resolved in our field research. It details a research method that was devised to build knowledge and theory about the RE process. The method,

structured-case, has proved valuable in a series of field studies which examined analysts at work. However, the data-gathering part of the research proved difficult: the planned method of gathering data provided only surface understanding of the RE process. The problem of gaining access to the mechanisms, tacit knowledge and creative expertise employed by analysts raises the issue of intervention by the researcher in the research context. The various data-gathering options for field research are reviewed, especially in light of the researcher’s intervention, and the particular approach we used is outlined. Finally, the process of building understanding is illustrated with examples from our field work. The issues we faced in our research are not peculiar to studying professional analysts at work in the field. Rather, they are common to many areas of IS research: they are issues related to performing interpretive field work. Our learning and approaches to resolve these issues can assist in the conduct of interpretive field work for IS generally.

2. UNDERSTANDING THE RE PROCESS Requirements engineering has a pivotal role in systems development and its importance is well recognised (Boehm 1981; Hsia et al. 1993). Improving the RE process offers benefits to two major stakeholder groups in systems development: • customers - increasing their satisfaction through building an appropriate system in light of their needs, and • developers - increasing the quality of the requirements specification (in respect to completeness, accuracy and parsimony, for example), thus reducing defects which are the source of expensive rework. An essential first step in process improvement is understanding the current process. Perhaps surprisingly in view of the number of RE textbooks available, the RE process in professional practice is poorly understood (Carroll and Swatman 1997). It is a creative and ill-structured process, with few external markers or visible deliverables with which to trace the translation of vague, poorly-defined ideas into precise specifications. Requirements engineers appear unable to describe how they transform informally expressed needs into a formal requirements specification (Lubars et al. 1993). Studying a cognitive process which involves tacit knowledge is not easy. The intrinsic difficulties of understanding the process have been compounded by much of the early research into RE. Efforts have been directed towards resolving issues which appear interesting or challenging to researchers, rather than based on any real-life problem (Bubenko 1995). Other research (for example, Guindon 1990; Potts et al. 1994; Sutcliffe and Maiden 1992; Vessey and Conger 1994) has one or more of the following characteristics: • students rather than practising requirements engineers are studied • a “toy” problem is analysed and specified • the study is situated in a laboratory rather than analysts’ workplaces • time constraints, up to two or three hours, are placed on the analysts’ activities. While such research may provide some insights into aspects of RE, understanding the process involves studying practising requirements engineers at work in their professional contexts. Bubenko (1995) notes that there has been little investigation of the RE process and its problems in practice. He believes that researchers need to understand the important issues and problems facing practitioners, and therefore the types of research outputs that are useful and practical. Similarly, Lubars et al. (1993) argue that improving the requirements phase is difficult “... because there is little hard evidence about exactly what analysts, developers and marketing people do.” In addition, two of the key issues facing modern systems developers are size and complexity; these cannot be simulated in artificial situations or experiments which may not be scalable to real-world practice. Recently, a wider variety of methods has been used to study the RE process, including case studies (El Emam and Madhavji 1995; Mouakket et al. 1994), ethnography (Catledge and Potts 1996) and action research (Urquhart 1997; Vidgen 1997). We are aiming to perform rigorous research into real-life practices which implies that some kind of field research is needed. Field research is defined by the physical situation of the research: it takes place in the everyday context of the phenomena being studied. A research method, structured-case (Carroll et al. 1998) has been designed for performing rigorous IS field research.

3. THE STRUCTURED-CASE RESEARCH METHOD Structured-case has been devised to build knowledge and theory of the RE process and is suited for interpretivist field work. It is an original synthesis of aspects of existing research approaches; as pictured in Figure 1, structured-case has three components: • the conceptual framework • the research cycle (plan, collect data, analyse and reflect) • outputs of knowledge and theory.

INSERT carroll1.ppt HERE

Figure 1 The structured-case research method

3.1 The conceptual framework An important issue for a qualitative researcher is the amount of initial structure used to guide the research (Miles and Huberman 1994). An effective research method allows learning or theory to emerge from the data, so theory is truly induced from the data collected. This view, argued by proponents of grounded theory (for example, Strauss and Corbin 1990), implies little initial structure. By contrast, an efficient research method maximises the benefits of scarce resources (such as time, money, manpower and access to cases), reducing potentially excessive time in the field collecting vast amounts of data. This implies a tighter initial structure. Structured-case employs the use of a pre-defined structure to guide, focus and bound the research, thus maximising the benefits of available resources. We have called this structure the conceptual framework, following Miles and Huberman (1994:18), who see that it “explains, either graphically or in narrative form, the main things to be studied - the key factors, constructs or variables - and the presumed relationships between them.” The conceptual framework is formed by the research themes, a survey of the relevant literature, insights from practitioners or experts in the research area, and the researcher’s theoretical foundations (the conceptual lens through which the researcher sees the world). We believe that all researchers bring some kind of framework to the research process; it would be unrealistic to argue that researchers enter the field devoid of a framework or ideas about the important concepts in their area of interest. The requirements of good research suggest otherwise; for example, a thorough survey of the literature relating to a research theme is usual before entering the field, to prevent “re-inventing the wheel” or presenting findings that have previously been noted. By reading the literature, researchers colour their views of the research area and are exposed to a range of ideas, concepts and theories. In addition, all researchers interpret the world through some kind of conceptual lens which determines, among other things, which data are noticed, collected and therefore included in analysis. An important aspect of rigorous research is making such frameworks explicit rather than implicit: stating what is brought into the research process by the researcher. The conceptual framework in structured-case clearly expresses the researcher’s view of the important concepts in the research area. It represents the researcher’s current understanding of the research themes, incorporates a clear statement of the researcher’s theoretical foundations and lays the basis for building understanding as a result of the research cycle.

3.2 The research cycle The efficiency of the research is increased through the conceptual framework, while its effectiveness is aided by the research cycle. A highly iterative, cyclical approach is used for actually doing the research. The research cycle, adapted from the action research model of Susman and Evered (1978), is composed of four stages whereby the researcher plans, collects data, analyses and reflects. • Plan For the given conceptual framework, the researcher needs to plan the research approach, to identify what data are needed, how they are to be collected and from what types of organisations. As well, the researcher needs to detail methods for analysing the data accumulated. The plan for a particular research cycle is for guidance rather than prescription, and may be modified as a result of activities in the field. • Collect data Data collection is guided by the plan outlined in the previous stage, while the researcher remains flexible to adapt to unexpected factors. For example, interview questions may be broadened to collect data about an additional issue raised by a participant. • Analyse The data collected are analysed. While data collection and analysis can be seen as parts of the one stage (Marshall and Rossman 1995), we argue that they are separate but highly interrelated. Analysis during data collection guides further data collection; however, further analysis is needed at the end of the data collection stage to gain rich understanding of the data. • Reflect Deliberate, critical thought about any tentative interpretations is necessary for effective research (Dick 1992). Reflection helps researchers to remain sensitive to unexpected outcomes, to challenge current ideas (using the data, literature and insights), to consider alternative explanations and seek disconfirming evidence for their interpretations. Thus, reflection helps to ensure flexibility and effectiveness - by allowing theory to emerge from the data and integrating unexpected outcomes - as well as the rigour of the research effort.

3.3 The outputs of knowledge and theory The interplay between the conceptual framework and the research cycle provides for building knowledge and theory. The conceptual framework expresses the researcher’s current understanding (or pre-understanding in a hermeneutic circle) which shapes and guides the research cycle. One consequence of reflecting on the outcomes of analysis is that the conceptual framework is changed to incorporate the knowledge which has been built. Reflection on the findings accumulated in the research project to date (and the resulting series of conceptual frameworks which demonstrate this learning) may lead to constructing fragments of theory about the research themes. Thus, iterations of structured-case lead to the construction of a series of conceptual frameworks (CF1, CF2, CF3 ... CFn) which document the knowledge built to date. As well, they lay the basis of constructing theory, which Neuman (1991:30) sees as “a web of meaning” or “a system of interconnected ideas that condense and organize knowledge”. The knowledge and theory built are tightly linked to the data collected from the field; this ensures relevance. The process of explicitly stating the initial conceptual framework, documenting the dynamic process of building theory and learning through the series of conceptual frameworks, and an explicit research stage to critically reflect on any findings ensures the rigour of the research. Therefore, structured-case assists in achieving rigorous and relevant research.

4. THE FIELD RESEARCH An initial conceptual framework (called CF1) was constructed for the research into the RE process. It is based on literature in the requirements engineering and systems analysis domains as well as insights from a practising requirements engineer, all viewed through the researcher’s particular theoretical foundation (an interest in the human and social aspects of the application of technology in organisations).

The conceptual framework expresses the researcher’s understanding of the RE process prior to entering the field, and guided the research efforts during the first case study. Having constructed a conceptual framework, the first stage in the research cycle involves planning the research - the data and their collection and analysis - to compare the model derived from the literature with real-life practice. The aim is to gain access to the RE process, where access is “the ability to get close to the object of study, to really be able to find out what is happening.” (Gummesson 1991:21). A case was selected which involved an analyst specifying the requirements for a Web-based application, so that development could be contracted to a software house (Carroll and Swatman 1998). It was planned to gather data using participant observation, which would develop the researcher’s understanding of the overall context of the RE process. The data would be analysed using the concepts detailed in the conceptual framework, with “any other” categories to include unexpected outcomes. Reflection on the implications of any findings would lead to changes in the conceptual framework. The next stage in the research cycle is collecting the data. It became clear that participant observation, on its own, would not provide access to the analyst: to what he was doing and why. In order to increase understanding of the process, further intervention was needed. This raises the general issue of a researcher’s intervention in the field. All field research involves intervention. Some types of research aim to minimise the effects of this intervention (for example, positivist case study research), while others seek to maximise these effects (action research). In this case, we are seeking deep understanding through intentional intervention in the research context, and recognise the intrinsic tension between the goals of increasing understanding (which is desirable) and increasing intervention (which may have undesirable consequences). We aimed for the minimum amount of intervention which would achieve the maximum amount of understanding of the RE process in the limited time available.

5. DATA-GATHERING IN FIELD RESEARCH The methods used in field research for gathering data can be placed on a continuum reflecting the degree of intervention made by the researcher into that context. Nandhakumar and Jones (1997) order researchers’ interaction with their research subjects from distant (with no direct contact, such as analysis of published data) to engaged (where there is intensive and extended contact, such as action research and consultancy). We take a somewhat different approach and examine the researchers’ intervention in the research situation, which Nandhakumar and Jones see as only one aspect of engagement. We argue that intervention varies from little (questionnaires) to much (action research) and present a brief summary of the data-gathering methods, along with some comments on their use for gaining rich understanding about the RE process.

5.1 Questionnaires Although the researcher is not physically present, mail or telephone questionnaires are interventions into participants’ working environment. Participants have to stop work, think about their practices and respond to questions. However, questionnaires can only provide snapshots in a complex and interactive process and they cannot impart a sense of the context of the process. Responses relate to what the participants thought that they did; there may only be a tenuous relationship to what they actually did. As well, the researchers may not understand enough about the process to ask the right questions.

5.2 Case study A range of data-gathering methods may be used within the case study strategy, including interviews, observation and participant observation (Yin 1984). The information systems discipline has tended to use mainly positivist case studies, although some IS researchers have used interpretivist case studies (for example, Orlikowski 1993; Walsham 1995). One aim of positivist research is to maintain the objectivity of researcher, to reduce the effects of the researcher’s intervention and to record the “objective reality” rather than the participants’ interpretations of activity and interaction. Data-gathering methods within case study research include: • Observation The intervention posed by observation may range from minimal (passive observation) to marked (where the researchers are full participants in the social processes being studied). Merely observing

•

•

the RE process is not sufficient to access the tacit knowledge, motives and beliefs of the analyst, necessary for developing deep understanding of the RE process. Other shortcomings of passive observation include incomplete understanding of the context and the process as the researchers may have only partial understanding of the language used in that context (the words used may have different value to the participants and the researchers). As well, the researchers’ presence may make the participants self-conscious, so that they do not act naturally. This is especially a problem where the observation takes place over a short period; over longer periods the participants may not notice the researchers. Interviews Different types of interviews offer different benefits in terms of developing understanding of the practice of professional analysts. Structured interviews allow between-case comparisons but are not responsive to changes in researchers’ understanding; researchers cannot add new questions, pursue unexpected comments or seek explanatory information. Unstructured interviews may be very adaptive and opportunistic: researchers’ initial plans may be constantly revised and adjusted. Semistructured interviews offer a mixture of both, with some set questions to structure the interview as well as allowing flexibility to explore new issues or surprising responses. Interviews share many of the shortcomings of questionnaires; as well, the physical presence of the researcher means that they pose a greater intervention than do questionnaires. Participant observation Participant observation involves the researcher participating in the research context as well as observing the phenomena being researched. The advantage is that the researcher becomes a part of the process being studied, which increases understanding of the context and the language, roles and issues used in that context.

5.3 Ethnography As in participant observation, ethnography involves the researchers’ full participation in the RE process, as they seek internalised knowledge of the context and participants’ views of the process. In ethnography, the researchers are present in the field for a prolonged period. This carries a risk that they lose objectivity, become too close to the process and its immediate issues to analyse the big picture, or “go native” and identify with the goals and aims of the research subjects. The main disadvantage of ethnography are time constraints: research into the RE process in real-life contexts means fitting in with the pressures of commercial imperatives, so that time is limited both with the analyst and in the interaction between the analyst and the client.

5.4 Action research In action research, the researcher deliberately intervenes to achieve change in the participants’ problem situation. The researcher’s intervention is aligned to the participants’ aims or goals. The output of such intervention is change (or action) in the problem situation as well as increased understanding (or research) of a social or organisational situation. Here, the researcher plays two roles: studying the organisation’s processes as well as acting as a change agent. One possible problem is conflict in meeting the needs of both action and research.

6. INTENTIONAL INTERVENTION The data-gathering options were evaluated, and an acceptable balance between intervention and understanding within the time constraints was achieved. We used a combination of methods: • participant observation of the interaction between the analyst and the stakeholder in the RE process (the researcher assisted the analyst in the process), and • more intrusive intervention with the analyst while he was acting in the RE process. The analyst was questioned about his actions and motivations (“what are you doing now?”, “why?”) at suitable times during the process of deriving the specifications. As much as possible, questions were asked at break times (morning tea and lunch), so that the interaction between analyst and stakeholder was not affected. We have called this intentional intervention.

The data-gathering methods are presented in Figure 2, showing the one-way interaction (where the researcher observed and participated in the interaction between the analyst and stakeholders as part of the RE process) as well as two-way interaction between the analyst and the researcher.

INSERT carroll2.ppt HERE

Figure 2 Intervention in the research process At the end of the requirements phase, the researcher’s interpretations were validated with both the stakeholder and the analyst. This has not been shown in Figure 2 as it was not a direct intervention in the process - at this time the RE process had been completed. Data was gathered by the researcher participating in the process being studied (the RE process) at the same time as intervening with the analyst to ask what is being done and why. Intentional intervention comprises deliberate and active intervention, unlike case study research where the researcher aims to minimise the intervention. It is similar to a series of short, ad hoc interviews. The researcher’s intervention is adaptive and opportunistic: responses are analysed on the spot and questions are developed as part of the researcher’s participation in the RE process. If the researcher was surprised or puzzled by something, she intervened to ask the analyst about his actions. One possible consequence is that these questions may lead to changes in the process by causing the analyst to reflect on his practice or to try to include “best practices”. Unlike interviews, this intervention was part of the process, while the analyst is still acting rather than recollecting how he thought he had acted some time previously. As the aim of the intervention is to increase understanding, it differs from action research where intervention is aligned with the participants’ goals, to achieve change in a problem situation. This intervention was similar to action research, but with a different aim: the researcher had no intention of changing the analyst’s actions and was not aligned with the analyst’s goals. As well, the “research” role is performed by a different person to the “action” role, so that there is three-way, rather than two-way, interaction. As the research was undertaken in a limited time - intervening actively to question and understand, rather than absorbing over long period - it differs from conventional ethnography where depth of understanding is gained by immersion in the research context. In some ways, the combination of data-gathering methods can be seen as a type of “abbreviated ethnography” where deep understanding was derived from more direct intrusion in a shorter time than is usual in ethnography.

7. INTERVENTION OVER TIME The “collect data” and “analyse” stages of structured-case are highly iterative: the researcher is constantly analysing responses and reading cues while collecting data. Analysis of the responses guides the collection of further data: new issues are being raised, themes are emerging from the data already collected and new questions are formed. As understanding is built about the research themes, the datagathering methods are revised. In this field study, the researcher was seeking a balance between building understanding and affecting the research situation through intervention. Intervention - in the form of questions while participating - lessened as understanding increased. In the early stages of the research, intervention was great and so was learning. Over time, incremental increases in learning and understanding diminished: key aspects of the process had been explored and only minor details were added. Deep understanding of the context, language, roles and the process itself had been gained so the researcher had a greater idea of what is going on, what questions to ask and where to look to develop further understanding. As a result, there was less need for intervention in the process.

In subsequent case studies, intervention led to understanding of the context and different analysts’ motivations and actions. However, the amount of intervention decreased due to the understanding built in each previous cycle. Structured-case allows for sequential accumulation of knowledge about a process. As a result of each research cycle, the conceptual framework is revised, reflecting increased understanding. The new conceptual framework acts as pre-understanding for the next research cycle. The learning gained in that research cycle is expressed in another updated conceptual framework. In this way, structured-case encourages hermeneutic circles. The researcher, iteratively performing the research cycle and then updating the conceptual framework (from CF1, to CF2 ... to CFn), spirals towards understanding of the RE process, as pictured in Figure 3.

INSERT carroll3.ppt HERE

Figure 3 Spiralling towards understanding As understanding increases (building knowledge) or tentative explanations for the observations are constructed (building theory fragments), the researcher may return to: • the literature, and perhaps explore other domains, to discover any existing models to explain the observations • the analysts studied, to verify the knowledge and theory being built • the text (transcripts of the case studies). The products of the participant observation and intentional intervention are rich understanding by the researcher and detailed transcripts of the interaction between the analyst and stakeholder as well as the analyst’s articulations of his actions, motives, interpretations and roles. These can be re-explored as a result of insights in subsequent cases: new ideas can be checked and emergent themes tested using the data gathered in previous cases.

8. CONCLUSION Our investigation of one area of IS practice and research, requirements engineering, involves studying professional analysts at work in their everyday environments. This has raised a number of methodological issues, including: • how to perform rigorous field research • methods of gathering data to build rich understanding • the need to resolve the intrinsic tension between increased understanding and increased intervention in the research context, and • the process of building understanding. A method for performing rigorous field research, called structured-case, was devised to study professional analysts at work in their everyday environment. Within structured-case, we faced the problem of how to gather data in order to build rich understanding of the RE process. Options for gathering data in field research were examined, and a key issue appeared to be the researcher’s intervention in the research context. Intervention helps the researcher gain access to the analysts’ expertise and practices, but it affects the people and process being studied. In order to derive the most understanding of the RE process in the time available, with the least intervention by the researcher, we used a combination of data-gathering methods: • participant observation of the RE process, and

•

interviews with the analyst while he acted in the RE process. We have called this intentional intervention. The combination of participant observation and intentional intervention enabled the researcher to gather and record rich, detailed data about the RE process in action. This led to significant learning about the analyst’s context and actions. We observed that the amount of intervention needed diminishes over time. This allows the researcher to progressively “step away” from the process and avoid some of the problems with highly interventionist research methods such as ethnography and action research (for example, identification with the participants’ rather than the research goals and lack of an overall view of the research context). The process of building understanding is guided and enabled by structured-case. Knowledge and understanding of the RE process is built sequentially, cycle by cycle, case by case. Initially, the researcher was uncertain about what to ask about such a poorly understood area and so the RE process was explored opportunistically: the researcher’s questions brought responses which led to new questions. Iterations of the research cycle and revision of the conceptual framework constitute a hermeneutic circle. Coupled with further exploration of the relevant literature, the knowledge of experts and re-examination of the data collected, this lays the basis for rigorous and relevant interpretive research. The methodological issues faced in our research, and the way that we addressed these issues, are relevant to IS researchers in general. The problem of investigating a poorly understood process where little previous empirical research has been undertaken is common to many areas of IS. While much of the discussion has focused on the RE process, the experiences and findings outlined in this paper are applicable to other areas of IS research and may play a role in reducing the gap between IS research and practice.

REFERENCES BENBASAT, I., GOLDSTEIN, D.K. and MEAD, M. (1987). The Case Research Strategy in Studies of Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 11(3), 369-386. BOEHM, B.W. (1981). Software Engineering Economics. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. BUBENKO, J.A. (1995). Challenges in Requirements Engineering. In RE’95: Proceedings of the Second IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 160-162. CARROLL, J.M., DAWSON, L.L. and SWATMAN, P.A. (1998). Using Case Studies to Build Theory. In Proceedings of the 9th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (EDMUNDSON, B. and D. WILSON Eds), The Australian Computer Society, Sydney, 64-76. CARROLL, J.M. and SWATMAN, P.A. (1997). How Can the Requirements Engineering Process be Improved? In Proceedings of the 8th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (SUTTON, D.J. Ed.), The Australian Computer Society, Darlinghurst, 458-469. CARROLL, J.M. and SWATMAN, P.A. (1998). The Process of Deriving Requirements: Learning from Practice. In Proceedings of the 9th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (EDMUNDSON, B. and D. WILSON Eds), The Australian Computer Society, Sydney, 51-63. CATLEDGE, L. and POTTS, C. (1996). Collaboration During Conceptual Design. In Proceedings of ICRE: Second International Conference on Requirements Engineering, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 182-189. DICK, B. (1992). So You Want To Do an Action Research Thesis? Internet document, University of Queensland. EL EMAM, K. and MADHAVJI, N.H. (1995). A Field Study of Requirements Engineering Practices in Information Systems Development. In RE’95: Proceedings of the Second IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 68-80. FITZGERALD, B. (1997). The Use of Systems Development Methodologies in Practice: A Field Study. Information Systems Journal, 7, 201-212. GLASS, R.L. (1989). The Temporal Relationship Between Theory and Practice. The Journal of Systems and Software, 10(1), 65-67, (July). GUINDON, R. (1990). Knowledge Exploited by Experts During Software System Design. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 33(3), 279-304 (Sept). GUMMESSON, E. (1991). Qualitative Methods in Management Research. Sage, Newbury Park.

HSIA, P., DAVIS, A. and KUNG, D. (1993). Status Report: Requirements Engineering. IEEE Software, 10(6), 75-79 (Nov). KEEN, P.G.W. (1987). MIS Research: Current Status, Trends and Needs. In Information Systems Education: Recommendations and Implementation (R.A. BUCKINGHAM et al. Eds) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1-13. KLEIN, H.K. and MYERS, M.D. (1998). A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly Special Issue on Intensive Research, (forthcoming). LUBARS, M., POTTS, C. and RICHTER, C. (1993). A Review of the State of Practice in Requirements Modeling. In RE’93: Proceedings of the IEEE Internationa;l Symposium on Requirements Engineering, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 2-14. MARKUS, M.L. (1997). The Qualitative Difference in IS Research and Practice. In Information Systems and Qualitative Research (A.S. Lee, J. LIEBENAU and J.I. DE GROSS Eds), Chapman & Hall, London. MARSHALL, C. and ROSSMAN, G.B. (1995). Designing Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. MILES, M.B. and HUBERMAN, A.M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. MOUAKKET, S., SILLINCE, J.A.A. and FRETWELL-DOWNING, F.A. (1994). Information Requirements Determination in the Software Industry: A Case Study. European Journal of Information Systems, 3(2) , 101-111. NANDHAKUMAR, J. and JONES, M. (1997). Too Close for Comfort? Distance and Engagement in Interpretive Information Systems Research. Information Systems Journal, 7(2) , 109-131, (April). NEUMAN, W.L. (1991). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Allyn and Bacon, Boston. ORLIKOWSKI, W.J. (1993). CASE Tools as Organizational Change: Investigating Incremental and Radical Changes in Systems Development. MIS Quarterly, 17(3) , 309-340 (Sept). POTTS, C., TAKAHASHI, K. and ANTON, A.I. (1994). Inquiry-Based Requirements Analysis. IEEE Software, 21-32 (March). STRAUSS, A. and CORBIN, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research - Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Sage, Newbury Park. SUSMAN, G.I. and EVERED, R.D. (1978). An Assessment of the Scientific Merits of Action Research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(4) , 582-603 (Dec). SUTCLIFFE, A.G. and MAIDEN, N.A.M. (1992). Analysing the Novice Analyst: Cognitive Models in Software Engineering. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 36, 719-740. URQUHART, C. (1997). Exploring Analyst-Client Communication. In Information Systems and Qualitative Research (A.S. Lee, J. LIEBENAU and J.I. DE GROSS Eds), Chapman & Hall, London. VESSEY, I. and CONGER, S.A. (1994). Requirements Specification: Learning Object, Process and Data Methodologies. Communications of the ACM, 37(5) , 102-113 (May). VIDGEN, R. (1997). Stakeholders, Soft systems and Technology: Separation and Mediation in the Analysis of Information Systems Requirements. Information Systems Journal, 7, 21-46. VIDGEN, R. and BRAA, K. (1997). Balancing Interpretation and Intervention in Information Systems Research: The Action Case Approach. In Information Systems and Qualitative Research (A.S. Lee, J. LIEBENAU and J.I. DE GROSS Eds), Chapman & Hall, London. WALSHAM, G. (1995). Interpretive Case Studies in IS Research: Nature and Method. European Journal of Information Systems, 4, 74-81. YIN, R.K. (1984). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.