VITS Research Network and Centre for Studies of Humans, Technology and Organization, Linköping University

In: Remenyi D., Brown A. (2003, Eds.) Proceedings of the 2 nd European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies (ECRM 2003), Reading University, Reading, UK, pp. 209-218 Dialectics in Information Systems Research - Potentials and Challenges Mikael Lind 1 and Ulf Melin 2 1, 2 VITS Research Network and Centre for Studies of Humans, Technology and Organization, Linköping University 1 School of Business and Informatics, University College of Borås, SE-501 90 Borås, Sweden 2 Information Systems and Management, Dept. of Computer and Information Science, Linköping University, SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden E-mail: mikael.lind@hb.se, ulf.melin@ida.liu.se Abstract A dialectic approach during information systems research has proven to be fruitful. Development work can be interpreted as reactions to contradictions between a thesis and an antithesis. By using a dialectic approach to knowledge creation one would emphasise a view on knowledge as emergent and thus not regard the world in black and white. A dialectic approach can however be performed in different ways and thereby there lie a lot of potentials and challenges in how to cope with such phenomenon. In this paper we will elaborate on two development cases, one concerning a theory development and one concerning a development of an understanding of an emergent organization, in order to find challenges and potentials with dialectics in information systems research. Key words: Dialectics, Information Systems Research, Information Systems, Business Process, Business Analysis, Emergent Organizations 1. Introduction Information systems research (ISR) can be performed in many different ways. One approach that we find fruitful is the dialectic approach. Development of knowledge and development of understandings are often performed through creation of synthesis through dialectic interplays, i.e. studying contradictions between theses and antitheses in order to arrive at syntheses. In this paper we explore how such an approach can be used in ISR. One important issue when using dialectic approaches is what to choose as thesis and antithesis. Theses and antitheses are social constructs. The choice of phenomena to regard as thesis and antithesis is therefore a tricky task. The antithesis does not necessarily include a dialogue directly with the thesis. Pure dialectics means that thesis and antithesis are regarded as ideal types (c.f. Weber, 1978). This paper builds upon experiences derived from using a dialectic approach in two cases considering information systems (IS) and business processes. The first case is a knowledge development project using a dialectic approach for generating knowledge about business process oriented business analysis. The second case is based on experiences using a dialectic approach when analysing an engineering firm s emergence and use of an IS both ahead and in shade of a larger (former owner) firm. Several actions performed by the CEO were an act of contradiction compared to their former owners. The purpose of this paper is to discuss experiences derived from the two cases in order to identify how dialectic approaches can be used during ISR. By analysing these experiences 1

potentials and challenges for using a dialectic approach for ISR are identified. The research approach can be characterised as exploratory. This paper is structured as follows. Initially we discuss the analytical framework we have used focusing dialectics, and the role of theories and empirical data during research. Further we will present the two cases. Then an analysis will be performed in which similarities and differences between the two cases are identified. A tentative framework will also be introduced for analysing the cases. This framework is to be used for describing, evaluating and designing research. After the analysis, the use of the generated synthesis will be shown for each case. In the last section some concluding remarks will be made and some potentials and challenges with a dialectic approach in ISR will be identified. 2. Dialectics, Theories and Empirical Data 2.1 Dialectics Dialectics originates from a form of logical argumentation, but is now concerned as a philosophical concept of evolution applied to diverse fields including thought, nature, and history (Encyclopædia Britannica online, 2003). The core in dialectics is the notion of the world as being full of contradictions (Skirbekk & Gilje, 2001). According to Hegel s dialectic process, development can be divided into three main phases: 1) The thesis as the original state, 2) The antithesis as the reaction against the thesis, and 3) The synthesis that solves the oppositions between the thesis and antithesis. Hegel s dialectic approach should be seen as a continuous process in which generated synthesises are regarded as a new thesis and thereby a starting point for a new dialectic sub process. We can also identify variants of this line of thinking in Marx and Engel s theories concerning social and economic processes, as well as Schumpeter s description of the process that incessantly revolutionizes economy. We will not go deeply into the phenomenon in this explorative paper we will rather base our reasoning on empirical findings in the two cases. This is of course made with the risk of being regarded as naïve. 2.2 Roles of Theories and Empirical Data in Research The arrangements and knowledge creation processes can utilize different theories and models, or be more tied to the studied context, and the participating actors. The role of theories can be to guide research (generation of empirical data), interpret data, and an aim of a research process (generation of theories) (Walsham, 1995). Models can also, similar to the theories, be related to different stages of a research process. Theories and models have effects on our understanding, interpretation, and sense making. Theories can consequently be viewed as a way of seeing and also not seeing when conducting research (Walsham, 1993). This is a part of a classic discourse in qualitative research. The empirical data in research can also have several roles. Data can be a point of departure in the discovery of a grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Data can of course also be used to verify of falsify hypotheses in a more hypothetic-deductive way. In this paper we will try to illustrate an example how to use theory and empirical data in order to reach, what Lind and Goldkuhl (2002) define as, grounded knowledge. 2

3. The Case Studies In this section we briefly describe the two cases in which a dialectic approach is adopted. The first case is about developing a theory on how to understand business processes. The second case is about developing an understanding of an emergent organization. 3.1 The Business Process Theory Case The first case is a research project that has been going on during a six-year period. One objective in the project has been to develop a notion of business processes that can be used for putting requirements upon IS in a business process context. 3.1.1 Dialectic Procedure The research project takes as its starting point the trend in regarding the work of organizations as business processes. Traditionally organizations have in their development efforts focused on their internal activities at the expense of focusing on their environment. In different approaches for organizational development, such as TQM, BPR and Process Management, there is an emphasis to focus on the customer to a high degree. Common to all these approaches is that they focus on business processes in order to facilitate a focus on the parties organizations create value for. The most dominating view on business processes is the one that regards a business process as a phenomenon that takes one or more inputs and transforms these to an output that is of value to the customer. This transformative view on business processes acknowledges the need for addressing different parts. These parts are labelled main processes (of different types), sub processes and different activities. There are however unclear basis for what should be part of one business process and what parts that should not be included in a wholeness (on a certain level). In the dominating view of business processes there is a lack of criteria for distinguishing different parts (Davenport, 1993). Important strengths of the transformational view on business processes are however the focus on activity chains, value-adding activities, different wholenesses of different types and a customer-focus. In contrast to a transformative view on processes there is also the communicative view (e.g. the language/action-oriented view) (Austin, 1962; Searle, 1969; Habermas, 1984). This view is based on the idea that communication is not just transfer of information. When you communicate you also act. As a reaction against the transformative view on processes there also exist a number of process-oriented approaches for business modelling 1 based on the language/action perspective. By applying a communicative view on processes the organization s establishment and fulfilment of commitments are emphasised. Thereby relationships towards the surrounding are also emphasised. A communicative view on business processes is regarded as an antithesis in relation to the transformative view (the thesis) on business processes. Strengths in the communicative view on business processes are a focus on communication as the backbone. Weaknesses are however a total dissociation of material acts. The choice of what to regard as thesis and antithesis is based on the characteristics of the phenomenon and the purpose of the knowledge creation. Note that contradictions between the thesis and the antithesis do not have to be explicitly stated. 1 Example of approaches based upon the language/action perspective are Action Workflow (Medina-Mora et al, 1992), DEMO (Dietz, 1999), which are influenced by the conversation-for-action schema (Winograd & Flores, 1986). 3

3.1.2 Result Towards a Synthesis A notion of processes used for developing IS needs to be based upon an understanding of how communication is performed within and between organizations. There is however also a need to understand the transformation performed by actors in the organization. It is therefore not possible to reduce our understanding of an organization to just communicative acts or material acts. We therefore need to take characteristics of both the thesis and the antithesis into consideration when a notion of business processes for IS is put forward. This is in line with the notion of social action (Goldkuhl and Röstlinger, 2002). During the knowledge creation, the contradictions between the transformative (the thesis) and the communicative (the antithesis) view served as a way to direct attendance towards essential aspects. These aspects then served as a basis for a thorough analysis whether to take some parts into consideration in a so-called further developed notion of business processes or not. This further developed notion of business process is to be regarded as a synthesis of the two identified views on businesses. This drove us to search theoretical foundations for going beyond the existing notions of business processes. Theoretical foundations used were the notion of social action (Goldkuhl and Röstlinger, 2002) and the notion of work practices (Goldkuhl and Röstlinger, 2002). Another driving force for the development of this synthesis was empirical observations. A number of process mappings had been performed in which a thorough documentation had been created. One could then test what it would mean to adopt a certain view on business processes. The further developed notion of processes argued for in Lind (2001), based upon a transformative and a communicative view on processes, empirical observations, and theoretical foundations, implies that (see also figure 1): there is a need to separate work performed in the organization for potential and specific clients. processes cannot exclusively be regarded as transformation or communication; transformation needs to be regarded in an assignment context. processes cannot exclusively be regarded as sequentially related sub-processes; there exist variants of processes consisting of sequentially related sub-processes. a one-sided focus on the customer not is enough; there is also a need to focus suppliers and other parties related to the business. an asymmetric view on customer satisfaction not is enough; reciprocal relationships between customer and supplier are a condition to emphasise satisfaction for both parties. Thesis: A transformative view on business processes Antithesis: A communicative view on business processes Empirical observations Synthesis: A further developed notion of business processes Theories about actions and practices Figure 1: A further developed notion of business processes a knowledge synthesis Based upon this synthesis that transcends the notion of business processes propagated for in the transformative and the communicative view on business processes two other results have been generated. First of all, fundamental business process types, have been identified based 4

upon the notion of work practices. Process types are to be regarded as a way to handle the diversity of work practices (c.f. Lind, 2003). Second, criteria for process determination, i.e. criteria for delimiting different business processes, have been generated. These criteria are also based upon the further developed notion of business processes, but also on theories about business interaction and product classification theories (c.f. Lind, 2001). 3.2 The Case of the Emergent Organization This second case is based on experiences using a dialectic approach when analysing an engineering firm s emergence and use of an IS both ahead and in shade of a larger (former owner) firm (Hansson et al, 2002). Several actions performed by the CEO were an act of contradiction (antithesis) compared to their former owners (thesis). Examples of actions performed are the choice of materials, logistics, and an IS. In all these choices the engineering firm s former owners were the antithesis with their own production material and know-how, logistic processes, and IS. Two examples of these actions will be further elaborated on below. Based on Hansson et al (2002) we here present some basic characteristics of the Engineering firm. The firm is a global supplier of products for manufacturing processes with its headquarters in Gothenburg, Sweden. Based on its global network, it offers products that are sold in more than 50 countries. In 1980 their trademark was registered and in 1981 the business became an independent, operating unit within a group of companies. The unit then entered a phase of rapid business and geographical expansion. After being an independent business within the group, they were acquired in 1997, and separated from their former owners. A closer historical examination of the official image of the Engineering Firm reveals the obstacles in the evolution and the development of new paths to surmount these obstacles. They all seem to have a common denominator in that they are based on doing the opposite to the owner firm s policy. This contradictory strategy was the Engineering Firm s guiding star when navigating through obstacles. They invented alternative tracks when the big company s structure felt as obstructing the liberty of action, explicitly they found out what their former owner and major customer prescribes and then they did the opposite, in the introduction and below we present a few stories as evidence of this. In these stories we can identify something that can resemble dialectics. As we have claimed above we identify the Engineering Firm group of today as a synthesis of, on one hand the former owner firm as a group (with its strategies, rules, regulations, norms etc.) as the thesis, and on the other hand the entrepreneur driven business unit the Engineering Firm (as a former part of a group) as the antithesis. 3.2.1 The Choice of an IT-system The former owner firm offered an IT-system that handled accounting. The CEO did not want to use that IT-system. They had found another IT-system from another supplier outside the group that better corresponded to their present business needs. In order to be able to chose the external IT-system the CEO started a campaign together with an engaged consultant to convince the group management team that the IT-system was the best for his unit. The task of the consultant was that for every page in documents arguing for their system there was a counter movement of two pages of arguments against the group IT-system. After a while the business unit were allowed to buy the external accounting IT-system, and this was one start of the strategy to avoid in-house development of IT-systems an important part of their emergent outsourcing strategy and to focus on core competence. 5

3.2.2 The Choice of a Building According to the CEO the logic that dominates in a group like the studied one is closely tied to the accounting system you do not exist if you are not present in the balance sheet. As an emerging unit they took advantage of this situation they more or less broke into and occupied a factory building that was equal to zero in the accounting system, but physically in good shape and ready to use for business. The building was kept for the 75th anniversary, as it was the original building of the company group s manufacturing. It was kept for sentimental reasons but not used for business, even though it was in good shape. The business unit in this case counteracted the economic irrationale of their owners in order to find localities. The synthesis was that they gained localities virtually free of charge. 3.2.3 Conclusion and Reflection The conclusion made by Hansson et al (2002) shows that the Engineering firm s emergence can be described as a dialectic interplay originally with their owner (the company group). The Engineering firm itself is a result from this interplay and a kind of synthesis (see figure 2). When the Engineering firm then became a large and self-contained organization we can identify how values in the organization are changing their former antithesis is not present. Thesis: Actions taken by the group CEO - former owner firm Antithesis: Action taken by the business unit CEO Synthesis: Emergence of the Engineering Firm Figure 2: The emergence of the Engineering Firm from a dialectic perspective In the referred study the dialectic approach is considered to be applicable in order to understand the emergence of a network organization (the Engineering Firm). 4. Analysis 4.1 Framework for Analysis In order to derive experiences from the two cases we have constructed a tentative framework (see figure 3) that can be used for further analysis. Both cases adopt a dialectic interplay for reaching a result, but for different purposes. The backbone of the framework is therefore the interplay between thesis and antithesis for generating a synthesis. The choice of regarding a certain phenomenon as a dialectic interplay is a perspective. The perspective is also the ontology concerning what to regard, i.e. to delimit, as the different components, i.e. the thesis, antithesis and the synthesis. The framework also accentuates the role of theories and empirical data for creating a grounded synthesis. The process of creating the synthesis is based upon contradictions between the thesis and the antithesis as categories to direct attendance towards for creating the synthesis. In figure 3 the arrows going from thesis to antithesis symbolises the positive aspects influencing the synthesis. The dotted circle (analysis) in figure 3 identifies these categories. 6

Perspective Thesis Antithesis Analysis Empirical data Synthesis Theories Figure 3: A tentative framework for knowledge creation based on a dialectic perspective 4.2 Comparative Analysis By adopting the framework above to the cases described in section 3.1 and 3.2 can be categorised in terms of used research approach. In table 1 we have categorised the cases according to categories inspired from the framework. Table 1. A comparative analysis of the dialectic interplay in the two cases Case Categories for comparison Case 1 Case 2 The researcher s intention Develop a business process theory Develop an understanding the emergence of an organization The choice of thesis The choice of antithesis The role of the synthesis The role of empirical data The role of theories A transformative view on business processes A communicative view on business processes The resulting theory (e.g. a further developed notion of business processes) Motivates the need for a synthesis Generative and validating role during creation of the synthesis The object of study Constitutes the thesis, antithesis and synthesis Generative and validating role during creation of the synthesis Perspective for delimiting the thesis, antithesis and synthesis Actions performed by the group CEO (owner firm) Actions performed by the engineering firm CEO The resulting organization The object of study Constitutes the thesis, antithesis and synthesis Perspective for delimiting the thesis, antithesis and synthesis As can be seen in table 1 there are some differences and similarities. Both cases use a dialectic approach for developing something. In the first case it is about developing a theory and in the second case it is about developing an understanding of an empirical phenomenon. 7

Another observation that can be made is that theories and empirical data have roles in the dialectic interplay, but the roles are different. In case one theories are the object of study and in case two empirical data is the object of study. Consequently theory constitute the thesis, antithesis and synthesis in case one and empirical data constitute the thesis, antithesis and synthesis in case two. Theory and empirical data also have additional roles in case one. Theory and empirical data have the role of being generative and validating for creating the synthesis. This is in line with the creation of grounded knowledge (c.f. Goldkuhl, 1999; Lind and Goldkuhl, 2002). When creating syntheses it is said that positive aspects both from the thesis and the antithesis should influence a synthesis. Negative aspects in the thesis and the antithesis should be left behind. In case one these negative aspects are strengthened both in the empirical data and the theories used for creating the synthesis. The empirical data in this case are the conception of business processes when adopting such perspective on the performance of an organization. In the second case the negative aspects are lacking arguments for performing actions from different actors. 5. The Use of the Resulting Synthesis In this section we will discuss how the synthesis developed in section 3 have been used for future development. In the first case the knowledge synthesis has been used as an ingredient in another dialectic interplay, in which the origins of the synthesis is regarded as an antithesis. In the second case another loop of dialectics have been identified, in which the resulting synthesis is regarded as a new thesis. 5.1 Case 1: As a Part of Another Dialectic Interplay The dialectic interplay described in the first case, i.e. the business process case, is a part of another dialectic interplay. The overall research question guiding this research project is how to perform business modelling in order to perceive the work of organization as business processes. In order to cope with this question there is a need to understand both the business modelling approach and the underlying perspective behind the aspects that are focused when shifting between different levels of abstractions. By approach it is meant the order in which shifting occurs between the different levels. Business modelling is about moving between levels of abstractions in order to perceive the object that is studied. Business modelling has been a highly debated issue for a long time. In the late sixties Börje Langefors introduced the need for performing an object system analysis (Langefors, 1973). This emanated from the fact that a thorough understanding of the business, i.e. the object, is needed in order to understand the business s support of IS. Langefors (ibid) claimed that businesses are imperceivable systems, but by regarding the business as a system with subsystems on different levels the observer can perceive the imperceivable system. Humans are not able to cope with too many concepts simultaneously. The systems analysis approach (TOS) presented by Langefors is an attempt to propose a way of working when perceiving imperceivable systems. This approach is based on the idea that the outer properties for a certain system are first defined and then the inner properties by sub-dividing the system into inter-related sub-systems. The sub-systems may be sub-divided further to new sub-systems. In the research project the systems-oriented approach for performing business modelling is taken as the thesis. Both weaknesses and strengths can be identified with this approach. The consequence of adopting such an approach to business development is a weak orientation 8

towards the surrounding. Another weakness is the basis for delimitation of different parts. It has been said that a systems-oriented approach to business modelling should be performed in an intuitive and iterative way. On the other hand there are some positive aspects that can be used as a basis for a complimentary approach. Such aspects are the acknowledgement of and the need of different levels of abstraction in order to cope with complex phenomenon, the recursiveness, and the de-compositional approach as one, but not as an exclusive approach, to perceive organizational work. In order to cope with the weakness of a restricted orientation towards the customer a processoriented approach for business modelling is chosen as the antithesis. A business process oriented view as the basis for perceiving organizational work is seen as a reaction against the systems-oriented way to model. The underlying perspective behind a process-oriented approach needs however to be developed, which was the result of the dialectic interplay described in section 3.1. The knowledge developed within this research project is about finding meaningful parts to focus on different levels of abstraction, when organizational work is perceived as business processes. Inspiration has been gathered from the system-oriented approach for business modelling in the sense that a system (as a unit) is broken down into different parts and thereby one can shift between different levels of abstraction. On the other hand there are also some strengths with the existing approaches for perceiving organizational work as business processes. By this approach one will focus on the products and the clients that legitimise the existence of organizations. None of these approaches are however enough, but they complete each other there is a need for another synthesis that builds upon the synthesis described in section 3.1. An approach for perceiving organizational work as business processes has been developed that builds upon the further developed notion of business processes. This approach has been called the theory of imperceivable business systems (TIBS) (c.f. Lind, 2001). TIBS is a synthesis that has been developed through a double-dialectic approach (see figure 4). Antithesis: A process-oriented approach to business modelling Thesis: A system-oriented approach to business modelling Thesis: A transformative view on business processes Antithesis: A communicative view on business processes Synthesis: A further developed notion of business processes Synthesis: The theory of imperceivable systems Figure 4: A double-dialectic approach for developing the theory of imperceivable business systems (TIBS) The result of this knowledge creation is to be regarded as a theory to divide organizations, based on two inter-linked knowledge syntheses, for perceiving organizational work as business processes. It has been satisfactory to use a dialectic approach in which contradictions in theses and antitheses have been transcended into syntheses. Note however that the development of the two syntheses build upon new ingredients not identified by contradictions, but identified in empirical data and theoretical concepts. This is in line with approaches for justifying knowledge during knowledge creation by shifting between the empirical and the theo- 9

retical levels for generation and grounding of knowledge (cf. Lind and Goldkuhl, 2002). The two syntheses developed within this research project are to be regarded as new theses for future dialectic approaches for knowledge creation. A condition for regarding something as a thesis is that it builds upon good arguments that can be valued. 5.2 Case 2: Secondary Dialectics The Engineering Firm, in the case presented by Hansson et al (2002), considered as a synthesis above is itself a new thesis in their new environment (as a large firm, with a new owner): The follower has been the followed in a turn of secondary dialectics. This secondary dialectics can be another line of thinking that could give us an increased understanding of the dynamics of emerging networks. (ibid, p. 14) This change in scenery is called secondary dialetics another cycle of the dialectic interplay in the emergence of an organization. The understanding of the new situation for the Engineering Firm, by using a secondary dialectic approach, concerns the fact that they are a kind of new thesis. A possible new antithesis is e.g. their sales units around the world, or their so-called leading customers. One can also interpret the situation as that they have a lack of antitheses at the moment; and thereby suffers from it in terms of further emergence 6. Concluding Discussion Potentials and Challenges Knowledge creation as a result of theory (as in the case of the theory development case above) and at itself (as a mean to generate understanding, as in the case of the emergence of the Engineering Firm above) has been performed based on a dialectic approach. We have chosen a rather free use of the dialectic approach. This can of course be discussed from a more orthodox dialectic perspective, but seems to be fruitful in our line of thinking and the case studies that we have performed. Another reflection that can be addressed is that we think that it often is not sufficient to stop with a synthesis if you should develop a grounded theory. In order to increase the value of the synthesis you should go beyond dialectics and use other theory and empirical data to strengthen your results. One example of this is when using a dialectic approach in order to develop a theory. Some requirements of such theory should of course be based on criteria for grounded knowledge, this means that the knowledge is internally, empirically, and theoretically validated. Note that empirical observations and additional theories also can have a role during the actual generation of the synthesis. In our comparative analysis we have also identified several differences and similarities between the use of a dialectic perspective (see table 1) in the two cases. Some of the differences concern the researcher s intention, the choice of thesis and antithesis, and the role of the synthesis. We have also identified that the role of the empirical data, and the theories used differs in the two cases. The latter roles are interestingly a mirror of the two cases the role of the empirical data has the role of the theories in the other case and vice versa. Similarities concerns more the overall dialectic approach (see figure 1 and 2). The comparative analysis has been performed based on a tentative framework that has been put forward in order to describe what happened during the dialectic processes. Our intention 10

with this tentative framework is to use it not only for analysing performed research, but also for research design. This is however a task for the future. A primary subject in the two cases is the intention to establish a better ground for understanding business processes, organizational emergence and IS for researchers and participating practitioners. The use of a dialectic perspective is one approach to do this according to our findings presented in this paper. We therefore think that this is one potential with the dialectic approach. We also think that the dialectic approach (see figure 3) have similarities with a hermeneutic research approach (and especially the hermeneutical circle (Gummesson, 1988)). We change points of view when analysing the thesis on one hand, and when analysing the antithesis on the other hand. The dialectic approach in itself advocates a view on knowledge creation as emergent by letting a synthesis become a thesis (c.f. section 5). These aspects are core in a hermeneutic approach. Another important aspect, and a challenge, of the dialectic approach is that the choice of what phenomena that should be the thesis and the antithesis (the contradiction). We claim that this is not a mechanical, given, process. We as humans and researches make choices, constructions of knowledge, and categorizations from our point of view (pre-understanding and understanding) and sense making of the world (cf. Berger and Luckmann, 1967; Weick, 1979). An issue that we have not dealt with so much in this paper is the use of different models for visualising the characteristics as well as the strengths and weaknesses of a certain phenomenon. Models are simplifications, but there also lies power in visualising the importance of different concepts. Further we believe that there is a need for procedures of how to perform research based on dialectic interplay procedures. This is a challenge for further research. One can of course also investigate the concept of dialectics more thoroughly. This is also an issue for further research. References Austin J. L. (1962) How to do things with words, Oxford University Press Berger, P.L and Luckmann, T (1967) The Social Construction of Reality, Anchor Books, Doubleday, New York. Davenport T. H. (1993) Process Innovation Reeingeering Work through Information Technology, Havard Business School Press, Boston Dietz J. L. G. (1999) Understanding and Modelling Business Processes with DEMO, Proc. 18th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER'99), Paris Encyclopædia Britannica online (2003) http://www.eb.com, accessed 21 st of January, 2003 Gummesson, E (1988) Qualitative methods in management research: case study research, participant observation, action research/action science, and other qualitative methods used in academic research and management consultancy, Chartwell-Bratt, Bromley Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Aldine de Gruyter, New York. Goldkuhl G. (1999): The Grounding of Usable Knowledge: An Inquiry in the Epistemology of Action Knowledge. CMTO, Linköping University Goldkuhl G., Röstlinger A. (2002) Towards an integral understanding of organizations and information systems: Convergence of three theories, in Proc of the 5 th International Workshop on Organizational Semiotics, Delft Habermas J. (1984) The theory of communicative action 1, Reason and the rationalization of society, Beacon Press 11

Hansson, H., Melin, U. and Sjöstrand, F. (2002) The Rationale of a Network Organization a Study of Emergence, 18 th EGOS Colloquium, Organizational Politics and the Politics of Organizing, July 4-6, Barcelona, Spain. Langefors B. (1973): Theoretical Analysis of Information Systems. Fourth edition, Studentlitteratur, Lund Lind M. (2001): Dividing Businesses into Processes Foundations for Modelling Essentials. Presented at IFIP WG 8.1 Working Conference on Organizational Semiotics: Evolving a Science of Information Systems. 23-25 juli 2001, Montreal Lind, M. (2003) The Diversity of Work Practices - Challenging the Existing Notion of Business Process Types, Action in Language, Organizations and Information Systems (ALOIS 2003) - An International Workshop on Scandinavian Basis, March 12-13, 2003, Linköping, Sweden Lind M., Goldkuhl G. (2002) Grounding of Methods for Business Change: Altering between Empirical, Theoretical and Internal Grounding in Remenyi D. (Eds.) Proceedings of European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies, MCIL, Reading, UK Medina-Mora R., Winograd T., Flores R., Flores F. (1992) The Action Workflow Approach to Workflow Management Technology, In Turner J., Kraut R. (Eds.) Proceedings of the Conference on Computer- Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW 92, ACM Press, New York Searle J. R. (1969) Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language, Cambridge University Press, London Skirbekk, G., Gilje, Nils., (2001) History of Western Thought: An Introduction to the Philosophical Roots of Modernity. Taylor & Francis Books Ltd. Walsham, G (1993) Interpreting Information Systems in Organizations, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. Walsham, G (1995) Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method, European Journal of Information Systems, No. 4, pp 74-81. Weber M. (1978) Economy and society. University of California Press, Berkeley Weick, K. (1979) The Social Psychology of Organizing, 2 nd Edition, McGraw-Hill. Winograd T., Flores F. (1986) Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design, Ablex, Norwood NJ 12