首页> 外文期刊>The data base for advances in information systems >The Philosopher's Corner: Beyond Epistemology and Methodology - A Plea for a Disciplined Metatheoretical Pluralism
【24h】

The Philosopher's Corner: Beyond Epistemology and Methodology - A Plea for a Disciplined Metatheoretical Pluralism

机译:哲学家的角:超越认识论和方法 - 一个纪律关系的多元化辩护

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems has sponsored a series of articles on the thought of Paul Feyerabend (Treiblmaier, 2018, 2019; Gregor, 2018; Burton-Jones, 2018; Myers, 2018). Treiblmaier and the respondents discuss the actual meaning and implication of Feyerabend's ideas for information systems. In the series, the authors argue we already employ diverse methodologies. However, it is also apparent that a truncated view of philosophy as only concerned with epistemology and all methods as commensurable is employed. This paper argues we do not have a real diversity in the IS field and we should commit to the practice of a disciplined metatheoretic pluralism. Our methodology must not only be rigorously executed but also correctly interpreted in accord with our metatheoretic assumptions. We need to be open to all types of metatheory as well as methods and research topics. The paper provides four suggestions for how to implement disciplined metatheoretic pluralism: 1) Educate doctoral students into the various philosophical paradigms; 2) Require authors to state their metatheoretic assumptions and review for conformance to them; 3) Open publication venues to all authors, methodologies, metatheoretic commitments, and ideas; 4) Change the evaluation mechanism to reduce the pressure to conform to normal science.
机译:关于信息系统进步的数据基础已经赞助了一系列关于保罗Feyerabend的思想(TreiBlmaier,2019,2019; Gregor,2018; Burton-Jones,2018; Myers,2018)。 TreiIblmaier和受访者讨论了Feyerabend的信息系统思想的实际意义和含义。在该系列中,作者认为我们已经采用了不同的方法。然而,也显然,仅采用截断的哲学观,仅涉及认识论和所有可兼容的方法。本文认为我们在IS领域没有真正的多样性,我们应该承诺纪律关系多元化的实践。我们的方法不仅必须严格执行,而且还必须根据我们的传言假设正确解释。我们需要对所有类型的联系以及方法和研究主题开放。本文提供了四项建议如何实施纪律处分性多元化:1)教育博士生进入各种哲学范式; 2)要求作者说明他们的传言假设,并审查符合他们; 3)公开出版物场地到所有作者,方法,传言论承诺和想法; 4)改变评估机制,以减少符合正常科学的压力。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号