- Email: [email protected]
Editorial: A dialectic on methodologies in AIS research
International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 12 (2011) 81–83
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Accounting Information Systems
Editorial
Editorial: A dialectic on methodologies in AIS research Any field of inquiry has to institute its own dialectic1 in order to ensure progress. In nascent fields this is a more critical activity as research themes are defined and methodological choices are made that drive future research scope and direction. Research efforts in the discipline of accounting information systems (AIS) have progressed to the point that varying theories are applied to explain research phenomena of interest (e.g., Sutton, 2010). Theoretical bases draw from several cognate domains, including economics, computer science, individual and social psychology, organizational sociology, strategy and organizational behavior, among others. With such varied theoretical bases, research phenomena of interest in the AIS field are also as broad as ever. In general, AIS research has progressed to the point where it examines interrelated concepts and phenomena which lie at the interface between information technology and accounting, with a focus on the effects of IT and its use in accounting, reporting, auditing, and management control contexts, as well as on how problems relating to information communication and reporting, data quality and assurance, decision making and control, and the integrated nature of the information supply chain, shape the design and use of IT within and across organizations. The range of research topics that could be examined under the AIS research umbrella is very broad. In past editorials that appeared in this journal, several attempts were made to communicate the idea that the AIS research field is best served if we adopt a broad view of the world (Nicolaou, 2011; Sutton, 1992, 2000, 2008, 2010; Vaassen and Hunton, 2009).Notwithstanding our tradition in leading design science research in accounting (McCarthy, 1982), our research endeavors aim at a primarily conceptual understanding of the interactions among the development of IT artifacts and the development of information systems that, in their use, facilitate the communication, sharing, control, and audit of information in organizational contexts that are characterized by dynamic and integrated decision needs and choices. It has long been argued that accounting is inherently an information systems discipline (Sutton and Arnold, 2002), while it has long been accepted that the ‘identity crisis’ in information systems cannot be resolved by adopting an isolationist view of the world (Agarwal and Lucas, 2005). As a result, a view which would argue that AIS Research should be limited to those areas that lie at the intersection between accounting and information systems research foci would be quite limiting, as our research scope would inevitably be constrained by others' definitions of which research phenomena are relevant. We thus adopt here a broad view of what constitutes research phenomena of interest to AIS research. With this broad view, however, there also exists an analogous responsibility not to remain esoteric to a given tradition of theoretical bases and methods, but also to adopt a broad view in the methodologies we use, adapt, and develop in our own research. It is thus more imperative than ever that we initiate a
1 A ‘dialectic’ was first exemplified and defined by Aristotle as the “art of systematic discussion and of using deduction from reputable opinion” (Aristotle, Topics). This also relates to an inquiry with the aim “to find a method to argue about a proposed problem from probable premises, while avoiding self-contradiction” (Aristotle, The Organon).
1467-0895/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.accinf.2011.03.001
82
Editorial
“dialectic” on research methodologies. This should help critically question our assumed standards of what constitutes acceptable research methods and which methods relate to our self-constructed “‘scientific’ ‘knowledge’” (presuming an evolving philosophical stance). This special issue aims to provide an initial attempt to address this dialectic. The main purpose is thus to present alternative research methods that could be used to examine AIS research phenomena. In early 2010, a call for research was initiated by the editor to several senior scholars in the AIS research community, on an international basis. The specific aim of such an endeavor has been communicated as follows: “to seek high quality research notes that will each deal with a research method, as well as the types of problems for which it can be used; in relation, there should be a close tie between a method and a related theory or theoretical framework, which defines the range of research questions that could be examined using the method.” The ensuing dialog among the 40 or so members of the AIS Senior Scholars Group only reinforced the soundness of the initial intent which was to provide a series of notes that could be readily available to AIS researchers as they apply new and alternative methods in their research quests. As a result of that effort, the initial group of research notes that have been successfully finalized to date, is presented in this special issue. The first note by McKnight (2011-this issue) sets the stage for some basic philosophical arguments in scientific choices and biases, and argues for the utility of a special issue such as this and its potential effect on future research. Baxter and Hunton (2011-this issue) review the literature which examines affect (emotions, feelings and moods) in decision making contexts and argue for the experience sampling method that has been well established in the social, psychological and neurological sciences. The method has many applications in AIS research, as it can be used to enhance internal validity in survey methods as well as ecological validity in experimental settings. Konchitchki et al. (2011-this issue) review and critically evaluate the use of an event study method in past information systems research and offer insights into key concerns associated with the use of the method and provide specific recommendations on modeling issues that often present daunting choices in that method. Yeow and Faraj (2011-this issue) originate from the domain of organizational communications and information systems and review narrative network methods to study patterns of actions in enterprise systems and organizational change. This method can be especially important as enterprise systems mature and there is an increased interest in both tracing organizational effects post-adoption as well as in the qualitative assessment of postimplementation review practices (e.g., Nicolaou, 2004). The note by Srivastava (2011-this issue) reviews the evidential reasoning approach, used to model decision uncertainties in decision problems, and shows the superiority of this method over other methods for modeling AIS-related problems such as systems reliability assessment. Masoner et al. (2011-this issue) present a method frequently encountered in past research, meta-analysis, and present an application in the information systems success literature in order to evaluate the unitary nature of constructs. Geerts (2011-this issue) follows with a re-examination of the design science research method and a retroactive application of the method to AIS research; the method is also illustrated using the REA specification. Chan and Vasarhelyi (2011-this issue) discuss seven distinct innovative aspects of continuous auditing and their implications, while they also present paradigmatic propositions for the future of assurance that could motivate future research in this important area of AIS research and practice. In the last note in this issue, Wheeler and Murthy (2011-this issue) discuss experimental decision aid research; while this type of research might have been conducted with increased frequency in past AIS research, we may still lack complete understanding of the unique advantages and disadvantages of carrying out experimental studies in this area. All in all, these notes should provide some important insights that should assist and further enhance future AIS research. My hope is that this special issue will be used in both Ph.D. seminars and in the research of seasoned scholars alike. As the AIS field matures and embraces a wider range of research phenomena, so would AIS researchers embark into new research areas and either apply new research methodologies, or re-evaluate the theories and methods they have tried and tested in the past. The present dialectic on research methodologies should serve as a valuable resource in these efforts. References Agarwal R, Lucas Jr HC. The information systems identity crisis: focusing on high-visibility and high-impact research. MIS Q 2005;29(3): 381–98.
Editorial
83
Baxter RJ, Hunton JE. Capturing affect via the experience sampling method: Prospects for accounting information systems researchers. Int J Acc Inf Syst 2011;12(2):90–8 (this issue). Chan DY, Vasarhelyi M. Innovation and practice of continuous auditing. Int J Acc Inf Syst 2011;12(2):152–60. Geerts G. A design science research methodology and its application to accounting information systems research. Int J Acc Inf Syst 2011;12(2):142–51 (this issue). Konchitchki Y, O'Leary D. Event study methodologies in information systems research. Int J Acc Inf Syst 2011;12(2):99-115 (this issue). Masoner M, Lang S, Melcher A. A meta-analysis of information system success: A reconsideration of its dimensionality. Int J Acc Inf Syst 2011;12(2):136–41 (this issue). McCarthy WE. The REA accounting model: a generalized framework for accounting systems in a shared data environment. Acc Rev 1982;LVII(3):554–78. McKnight DH. Good science, bad science: Preventing paradigm paralysis and method-bias malaise. Int J Acc Inf Syst 2011;12(2):84–9 (this issue). Nicolaou AI. Quality of postimplementation review for enterprise resource planning systems. Int J Acc Inf Syst 2004;5(1):25–49. Nicolaou AI. Looking ahead (editorial). Int J Acc Inf Syst 2011;12(1):1–2. Srivastava R. An introduction to evidential reasoning for decision making under uncertainty: Bayesian and belief functions perspectives. Int J Acc Inf Syst 2011;12(2):126–35 (this issue). Sutton SG. Can we research a field that we cannot define? Toward an understanding of the AIS discipline. Adv Acc Inf Syst 1992;1(1): 1-13. Sutton SG. The changing face of accounting in an information technology dominated world. Int J Acc Inf Syst 2000(1):1–8. Sutton SG. Reflections on the future of AIS research. Int J Acc Inf Syst 2008;9:201. Sutton SG. A research discipline with no boundaries: reflections on 20 years of defining AIS research. Int J Acc Inf Syst 2010;11(4): 289–96. Sutton SG, Arnold V. Foundations and frameworks for AIS research. In: Arnold V, Sutton SG, editors. Researching accounting as an information systems discipline. American Accounting Association; 2002. p. 3-10. Vaassen EHJ, Hunton JE. An eclectic approach to accounting information systems. Int J Acc Inf Syst 2009;10(4):173–6. Wheeler P, Murthy U. Experimental methods in decision aid research. Int J Acc Inf Syst 2011;12(2):161–7 (this issue). Yeow A, Faraj S. Using narrative networks to study enterprise systems and organizational change. Int J Acc Inf Syst 2011;12(2):116–25 (this issue).
Andreas I. Nicolaou Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH, USA Tel.: +1 419 372 2932; fax: +1 419 372 2875. E-mail address: [email protected].
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Accounting Information Systems
Editorial
Editorial: A dialectic on methodologies in AIS research Any field of inquiry has to institute its own dialectic1 in order to ensure progress. In nascent fields this is a more critical activity as research themes are defined and methodological choices are made that drive future research scope and direction. Research efforts in the discipline of accounting information systems (AIS) have progressed to the point that varying theories are applied to explain research phenomena of interest (e.g., Sutton, 2010). Theoretical bases draw from several cognate domains, including economics, computer science, individual and social psychology, organizational sociology, strategy and organizational behavior, among others. With such varied theoretical bases, research phenomena of interest in the AIS field are also as broad as ever. In general, AIS research has progressed to the point where it examines interrelated concepts and phenomena which lie at the interface between information technology and accounting, with a focus on the effects of IT and its use in accounting, reporting, auditing, and management control contexts, as well as on how problems relating to information communication and reporting, data quality and assurance, decision making and control, and the integrated nature of the information supply chain, shape the design and use of IT within and across organizations. The range of research topics that could be examined under the AIS research umbrella is very broad. In past editorials that appeared in this journal, several attempts were made to communicate the idea that the AIS research field is best served if we adopt a broad view of the world (Nicolaou, 2011; Sutton, 1992, 2000, 2008, 2010; Vaassen and Hunton, 2009).Notwithstanding our tradition in leading design science research in accounting (McCarthy, 1982), our research endeavors aim at a primarily conceptual understanding of the interactions among the development of IT artifacts and the development of information systems that, in their use, facilitate the communication, sharing, control, and audit of information in organizational contexts that are characterized by dynamic and integrated decision needs and choices. It has long been argued that accounting is inherently an information systems discipline (Sutton and Arnold, 2002), while it has long been accepted that the ‘identity crisis’ in information systems cannot be resolved by adopting an isolationist view of the world (Agarwal and Lucas, 2005). As a result, a view which would argue that AIS Research should be limited to those areas that lie at the intersection between accounting and information systems research foci would be quite limiting, as our research scope would inevitably be constrained by others' definitions of which research phenomena are relevant. We thus adopt here a broad view of what constitutes research phenomena of interest to AIS research. With this broad view, however, there also exists an analogous responsibility not to remain esoteric to a given tradition of theoretical bases and methods, but also to adopt a broad view in the methodologies we use, adapt, and develop in our own research. It is thus more imperative than ever that we initiate a
1 A ‘dialectic’ was first exemplified and defined by Aristotle as the “art of systematic discussion and of using deduction from reputable opinion” (Aristotle, Topics). This also relates to an inquiry with the aim “to find a method to argue about a proposed problem from probable premises, while avoiding self-contradiction” (Aristotle, The Organon).
1467-0895/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.accinf.2011.03.001
82
Editorial
“dialectic” on research methodologies. This should help critically question our assumed standards of what constitutes acceptable research methods and which methods relate to our self-constructed “‘scientific’ ‘knowledge’” (presuming an evolving philosophical stance). This special issue aims to provide an initial attempt to address this dialectic. The main purpose is thus to present alternative research methods that could be used to examine AIS research phenomena. In early 2010, a call for research was initiated by the editor to several senior scholars in the AIS research community, on an international basis. The specific aim of such an endeavor has been communicated as follows: “to seek high quality research notes that will each deal with a research method, as well as the types of problems for which it can be used; in relation, there should be a close tie between a method and a related theory or theoretical framework, which defines the range of research questions that could be examined using the method.” The ensuing dialog among the 40 or so members of the AIS Senior Scholars Group only reinforced the soundness of the initial intent which was to provide a series of notes that could be readily available to AIS researchers as they apply new and alternative methods in their research quests. As a result of that effort, the initial group of research notes that have been successfully finalized to date, is presented in this special issue. The first note by McKnight (2011-this issue) sets the stage for some basic philosophical arguments in scientific choices and biases, and argues for the utility of a special issue such as this and its potential effect on future research. Baxter and Hunton (2011-this issue) review the literature which examines affect (emotions, feelings and moods) in decision making contexts and argue for the experience sampling method that has been well established in the social, psychological and neurological sciences. The method has many applications in AIS research, as it can be used to enhance internal validity in survey methods as well as ecological validity in experimental settings. Konchitchki et al. (2011-this issue) review and critically evaluate the use of an event study method in past information systems research and offer insights into key concerns associated with the use of the method and provide specific recommendations on modeling issues that often present daunting choices in that method. Yeow and Faraj (2011-this issue) originate from the domain of organizational communications and information systems and review narrative network methods to study patterns of actions in enterprise systems and organizational change. This method can be especially important as enterprise systems mature and there is an increased interest in both tracing organizational effects post-adoption as well as in the qualitative assessment of postimplementation review practices (e.g., Nicolaou, 2004). The note by Srivastava (2011-this issue) reviews the evidential reasoning approach, used to model decision uncertainties in decision problems, and shows the superiority of this method over other methods for modeling AIS-related problems such as systems reliability assessment. Masoner et al. (2011-this issue) present a method frequently encountered in past research, meta-analysis, and present an application in the information systems success literature in order to evaluate the unitary nature of constructs. Geerts (2011-this issue) follows with a re-examination of the design science research method and a retroactive application of the method to AIS research; the method is also illustrated using the REA specification. Chan and Vasarhelyi (2011-this issue) discuss seven distinct innovative aspects of continuous auditing and their implications, while they also present paradigmatic propositions for the future of assurance that could motivate future research in this important area of AIS research and practice. In the last note in this issue, Wheeler and Murthy (2011-this issue) discuss experimental decision aid research; while this type of research might have been conducted with increased frequency in past AIS research, we may still lack complete understanding of the unique advantages and disadvantages of carrying out experimental studies in this area. All in all, these notes should provide some important insights that should assist and further enhance future AIS research. My hope is that this special issue will be used in both Ph.D. seminars and in the research of seasoned scholars alike. As the AIS field matures and embraces a wider range of research phenomena, so would AIS researchers embark into new research areas and either apply new research methodologies, or re-evaluate the theories and methods they have tried and tested in the past. The present dialectic on research methodologies should serve as a valuable resource in these efforts. References Agarwal R, Lucas Jr HC. The information systems identity crisis: focusing on high-visibility and high-impact research. MIS Q 2005;29(3): 381–98.
Editorial
83
Baxter RJ, Hunton JE. Capturing affect via the experience sampling method: Prospects for accounting information systems researchers. Int J Acc Inf Syst 2011;12(2):90–8 (this issue). Chan DY, Vasarhelyi M. Innovation and practice of continuous auditing. Int J Acc Inf Syst 2011;12(2):152–60. Geerts G. A design science research methodology and its application to accounting information systems research. Int J Acc Inf Syst 2011;12(2):142–51 (this issue). Konchitchki Y, O'Leary D. Event study methodologies in information systems research. Int J Acc Inf Syst 2011;12(2):99-115 (this issue). Masoner M, Lang S, Melcher A. A meta-analysis of information system success: A reconsideration of its dimensionality. Int J Acc Inf Syst 2011;12(2):136–41 (this issue). McCarthy WE. The REA accounting model: a generalized framework for accounting systems in a shared data environment. Acc Rev 1982;LVII(3):554–78. McKnight DH. Good science, bad science: Preventing paradigm paralysis and method-bias malaise. Int J Acc Inf Syst 2011;12(2):84–9 (this issue). Nicolaou AI. Quality of postimplementation review for enterprise resource planning systems. Int J Acc Inf Syst 2004;5(1):25–49. Nicolaou AI. Looking ahead (editorial). Int J Acc Inf Syst 2011;12(1):1–2. Srivastava R. An introduction to evidential reasoning for decision making under uncertainty: Bayesian and belief functions perspectives. Int J Acc Inf Syst 2011;12(2):126–35 (this issue). Sutton SG. Can we research a field that we cannot define? Toward an understanding of the AIS discipline. Adv Acc Inf Syst 1992;1(1): 1-13. Sutton SG. The changing face of accounting in an information technology dominated world. Int J Acc Inf Syst 2000(1):1–8. Sutton SG. Reflections on the future of AIS research. Int J Acc Inf Syst 2008;9:201. Sutton SG. A research discipline with no boundaries: reflections on 20 years of defining AIS research. Int J Acc Inf Syst 2010;11(4): 289–96. Sutton SG, Arnold V. Foundations and frameworks for AIS research. In: Arnold V, Sutton SG, editors. Researching accounting as an information systems discipline. American Accounting Association; 2002. p. 3-10. Vaassen EHJ, Hunton JE. An eclectic approach to accounting information systems. Int J Acc Inf Syst 2009;10(4):173–6. Wheeler P, Murthy U. Experimental methods in decision aid research. Int J Acc Inf Syst 2011;12(2):161–7 (this issue). Yeow A, Faraj S. Using narrative networks to study enterprise systems and organizational change. Int J Acc Inf Syst 2011;12(2):116–25 (this issue).
Andreas I. Nicolaou Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH, USA Tel.: +1 419 372 2932; fax: +1 419 372 2875. E-mail address: [email protected].