Brugha, C. (2000), “A Meta-System for Information Systems”, Systemist. [Systems]
A Meta-System for Information Systems
Cathal M. Brugha Department of Management Information Systems Michael Smurfit Graduate School of Business, University College Dublin, Blackrock, Dublin, Ireland
[email protected] Abstract. At the Second Conference on Philosophical Aspects of Information Systems in 1998 the contributors presented their views with the help of various metaphors and frameworks including Dialectics, Constructivism, Soft Systems Methods, Autopoiesis, and the Panopticon. A meta-system that could encompass these frameworks would help to develop the discussion. Nomology, a decisionscience-based meta-system of qualitative structures in general decision-making, is used to interpret and distil the major points made in some of the contributions. It shows that there was general support for a constructivist approach in Information Systems. INTRODUCTION At a conference on Philosophical Aspects of Information Systems: Methodology, Theory, Practice and Critique (PAIS II) held in July 1998 at the University of the West of England, Bristol, several different philosophical approaches were used to consider some ideas about Information Systems (IS). The papers were published in Systemist (Vol. 20, Dec 1998) the journal of the UK Systems Society. While the discussion was lively the variety of systems and metaphors used militated against a meeting of minds because they lacked a common framework. Such a framework would need to be very general and comprehensive, and to operate at a high level of abstraction. One of the contributions to PAIS II (Brugha, 1998e) used Nomology, which is a decision-science based meta-system of qualitative structures in general decision-making, to configure Galliers and Sutherland's 'Stages of Growth' model for IS in a general framework called a nomological map. This paper considers some of the other papers given at PAIS II within a nomological framework. The intention of this paper is to explore the potential of this framework for considering contemporary approaches to IS research. The hope is that it could facilitate future research and discussions in IS and reduce the burden on researchers to develop scholarship that ranges from Kant to Foucault. The common factor that all systems and models have is that they involve abstractions. Abstracting involves clustering ideas and forming language. The systems are used to consider relationships between objects, which may then be tested empirically. Any system that is used as a testing framework to evaluate research done in a variety of other systems must be able to operate at a very high level of
2 abstraction. Such testing need not always be done on empirical data. Usually it is done indirectly by evaluating how well the findings of other people's research and discussions fit some meta-system. Such is the case here. However, it raises a chicken-and-egg problem. How does one know that one has a good meta-system? Good research can lead to a good system, which can then help to evaluate further research. A bad system could distort the findings of good research. CRITICAL REALISM An underlying principle of philosophical studies of all sorts is that there exist regularities in human behaviour or societal processes that are common to all fields of decision. To discover these regularities it is necessary to explore deep structure within decision-making. Synthesising and formalising the results of such an exploration requires some kind of framework or meta-system. It would help if such a meta-system had support from empirical research in a variety of fields, not just in IS. Critical Realism (CR) (Bhaskar, 1978) is a formal method for investigating deep structure that distinguishes between three layers of the world of research.
These are the empirical in which
conclusions are drawn from research data, the actual which is bound by the context of its own situation, and the real which is the important layer that drives the other two. The real layer contains regularities in the behaviour of systems that operate as tendencies at a deep level. Mearman (1999) has reviewed the elements of CR research into these regularities and suggests that they comprise observation, abstraction, retroduction, elaboration of abstractions, scrutinisation of theories, and elimination of explanations. Retroduction was originally – and inappropriately - called abduction by C.S. Peirce (1867) who described it as “studying facts and devising a theory to explain them”. The “retro” aspect implies that the output of quality research is partial or incomplete “regularities” that, when combined with others, help to discover the underlying dynamics that have influenced the formation of some system. The “abstraction” aspect indicates that the research should be viewed as relating to levels that are deeper than the empirical and the actual. Two extensions of this abstraction concept are incorporated in Nomology. One extension is to explore how these regularities go beyond that of the particular field of study, in this case IS, into general decision-making by combining them with similar regularities found in other fields. The other extension is to extract these regularities into specific dis-aggregated axioms and principles.
NOMOLOGY Nomology is the study of the decision-making processes of the mind and was named by Hamilton (1877, pp. 122-8) after the Greek word for law. It is based on the premise that intelligent beings’ choices tend to follow the same set of simple decision rules, and is somewhat akin to Ockham’s Razor that an explanation should be as simple as possible (William of Ockham, 1993). Hamilton (1877) also introduced the terms cognition, affect and conation as a triad of mental activities corresponding to knowing, feeling and willing, and which operate as levels which he called somatic, psychic and pneumatic. Hamilton credited Kant (1987, lxxxvii, pp. 15-18) with these ideas and specifically with proving the existence of the feeling level between knowing and willing. In Nomology (Brugha, 1998a)
3 this triad corresponds to three stages of a committing dimension. Nomology has two other dimensions: adjusting (Brugha, 1998a&b) and convincing (Brugha, 1998c). Adjusting is based on dichotomies, and so has two, four and eight aspects; it is objective in character. Committing and convincing are both subjective and have three aspects. Kant (1985) was also very concerned with categories and explored various versions of combinations of four and three categories. In this century C. West Churchman (1979) has interpreted Kant and contrasted him with his contemporary Bentham, who is best known for the Panoptican discussed below. In doing this Churchman associated Bentham with a society that is run using an objective law and external control, and Kant with relying on a subjective approach and the “Good Will” of the individual. “In Kant’s ideal, on matters of moral duty, the client, the decision maker, and the planner are one. The purposes and measures of performance disappear (there is no “trade-off” for immoral acts).” (Churchman, 1979, p.123) In Nomology the primary decision-making method is questioning using dichotomous answers that create categories. All qualitative decisions are addressed using the same set of questions, of which the first two are "what should we do, more planning or putting?" and "where should we do it, more with people or more in the place of our decision?" (Brugha, 1998a). These combine to produce a sequence of four general decision-making activities: proposing, perceiving, pulling, and pushing. Nomology takes Kant's 'moral duty' to a more general level and says that, if the decision-maker owns the problem in the sense of not being accountable for the results to anyone else, then his or her involvement will be subjective. In that case he or she will not be able self-impose a feeling of guilt about not dealing with the problem. Consequently the pull activity will become irrelevant and the four phases will become three levels of a development process. In Nomology there are two kinds of development processes, both of which are dialectical. One sort is introverted and about committing, and associated with constructivism. The other is extroverted and about convincing (Brugha, 1998c) and associated with dialectical critique.
DIALECTICS Kant (1985, p.417) considered the emergence of triads out of dichotomies as a process of interaction between a thesis and an antithesis, either of which could be argued objectively. How the third part of the triad, the synthesis, was arrived at then became the subject of lengthy consideration, most of all by Hegel (Inwood, 1983). They had several difficulties that hampered the clarification of their thought. They used an Aristotelian dialogical approach to develop their ideas, which is a somewhat meandering approach compared to decision science. They tried to argue upwards from thesis and antithesis to a higher level synthesis, whereas it is much easier to start with the four main adjustment categories and drop down to three (Brugha, 1998a). They worked from a very limited empirical base. Nowadays there is a vast amount of empirical research being carried out, and accessible via journals and particularly using IT. Much of their casework was based on slow-moving territories such as philosophy, literature and history. We have the advantage of numerous cases in management, most particularly in IS where the lessons from success and failure can be learned within months. Finally, because the dialectic can
4 appear either as committing or convincing, efforts by the early authors to explain it as one dynamic led to much complication. Nevertheless, the dialectic remains a useful system for explaining subjective decision-making. Although Kant was responsible for developing the concepts in the committing dimension, his exploration of the dialectic in Critique of Pure Reason (1985) was mainly as a convincing process. Churchman (1979) developed these ideas into a set of four triads of planning categories. Ulrich studied under Churchman and refined them (1983, 1999) into a set of twelve boundary requirements of Competent Research (Table 1). This shows research as an adjustment process in which each phase has to be done convincingly. These convincing stages match those of Nomology. First there should be a person who takes on himself or herself technical responsibility for that phase, i.e. the social role. Next it should take account of the views of other people that arise because of their role-specific concerns. Finally it should take account of the key problems that arise in the specific situation. Table 1: Ulrich's Boundary Critique Competent Research Motivates Informs Legitimises Enforces
The social role: who is / should be involved Client Expert Witness Decision-maker
This addresses role specific concerns in the context of other similar decisions Purpose Expertise Emancipation Resources
This relates to key problems that arise from the previous two in the particular situation Measure of improvement Guarantee World view Decision environment
At PAIS II George Alan (1998) affirmed the importance of the dialectical convincing process between stakeholders as "coming-to-know IS". John Hassall (1998) raised the question can IS really help managers and consultants decide? He linked the work of Kierkegaard with the Parent-Adult-Child (PAC) metaphor of Transactional Analysis (TA), and with three philosophical bases. One would agree with his conclusion that, because they are based on models which are in essence technical, decision support systems should be associated with a modernist perspective. On the other hand, the structure of convincing suggests that his associations between the three groups of ideas should be revised as follows in Table 2. Table 2: Philosophy of Choice Convincing Stages Self / Technical
Others
Situational
TA and PAC
Child: "my feelings"
Parent: "told us"
Adult: "own experience"
Kierkegaard
Aesthetics: "my feelings"
Ethics: "external "
Faith: "transcendent"
Philosophical Bases
Modernism: "depends on a rational process"
Classicism: "authority decides"
Post-Modernism: "valuing creativity"
Alan Phelan (1998) reviewed the dialectic and showed that it comprises two aspects, arriving at the truth (corresponding to convincing) and a constructivist approach.
The latter corresponds to the
5 committing dimension in the sense that it builds on layers or levels, e.g. knowing, feeling and willing. Recent developments in the literature on data modelling and database design suggest that they should contain both aspects of the dialectic. People in the computer industry have lots of experience of constructing business entity models. Phelan raised the question of how to incorporate understanding of such constructivist concepts into undergraduate courses without requiring students to do courses in ontology (the science of being) and epistemology (the science of knowing).
CONSTRUCTIVISM Hegel’s exploration of the dialectic emphasised the committing aspect and, in particular, the pneumatic corresponding to Man’s aspiration for ‘higher things’. His disciple Feuerbach focused more on the concrete, sense perception and the individual, and came to criticise Hegel. Feuerbach’s disciple, Marx, went further than Feuerbach did to the point of wishing to “turn Hegel on his head” in order to give first priority to the somatic, the "rational kernel in the mystical shell" (Marx, 1906, p.2; Brugha, 1998a). In the context of the poverty of the time it was understandable to wish to prioritise people’s somatic needs. Unfortunately, at a generic level, the Marxist position of inverting the order of the somatic, psychic and pneumatic created a confusion that coloured the understanding of the committing aspect of the dialectic. A better resolution would have been to use Simon’s satisficing concept and the idea of levels. The somatic base refers to needs that must be satisfied before moving to the psychic level and incorporating preferences. When one’s preferences have been satisfied one can then move to the pneumatic level of values. Despite Marx’s confusion, the traditional Marxist interpretation of dialectics is coherently constructivist. Each layer is constructed on the base of the previous layer, and the decision about when to proceed from one level to the next is made when the decision-maker or organisation feels it is right to do so. In IS, a particular strength of the Marxist emphasis on the somatic is that it helps to emphasise the importance of a constructivist commitment to entities. Bruce Robinson (1998) considered this tradition of dialectics and showed that it helps decisionmakers to understand ‘what’s going on’ in the real world in the context both of developing artefacts and structured human activities in information systems, and of providing a critique of assumptions (convincing). Ulrich Frank (1998) argued very strongly that the constructivist approach together with the establishment of procedures to evaluate (convince people about) the corresponding artefacts constitute the core of the information systems discipline. He urged the universities to undertake a serious interdisciplinary research strategy into the implications of a constructivist approach to information systems. Paul Wernick (1998) indirectly endorsed support for a constructivist approach in Information Systems by referring to Feyerebend’s view that scientific progress comes when it ignores fixed rules or ways of working.
SOFT SYSTEMS METHODODOLOGY In Nomology the full constructivist system corresponds to development decision-making and comprises a convincing process embedded within each committing phase giving a nine-stage structure. The seven stages in Checkland's (1981) Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) match this structure.
So do
6 reconstructions of Kubler-Ross's (1969) Stages of Dying, Maslow’s (1987) Hierarchy of Needs, the Systems Development Life Cycle, and Jung’s (1971) Thinking Functions. See Table 3 from Brugha (1998c, 1998e).
These all come from different sources, and yet they are facets of the same
constructivist process. For instance, in the second stage of a development cycle, people initially deny the existence of the problem and express their denial as opposition on a political level. Only when they then study it do they come to recognise what needs to be done. Table 3: Stages of Relating, Hierarchy of Levels, SDLC & Thinking Functions Committing
Convincing Stages
Phases
Technical - Self
Contextual - Others
Situational - Business
Somatic -
Confusion / Physical /
Denial / Political /
Upset / Economic /
Needs
Survey / Intuition
Study / Recognition
Definition / Believing
Psychic –
Bargaining / Social /
Depression / Cultural /
Inertia / Emotional /
Preferences
Selection / Sensing
Design / Learning
Acquisition / Trusting
Pneumatic -
Jealousy / Artistic /
Compliance / Religious /
Enthusiasm / Mystical /
Values
Construction / Experiencing
Delivery / Understanding
Maintenance / Realising
The development cycle combines both dimensions of the dialectic, with the convincing aspect operating as a critique of each phase of development. In Nomology the central characteristic of the committing and convincing dimensions is the idea of ownership of the decision processes by the decision-makers themselves, without judgement or interference from outsiders. Development takes place through the use of levels and stages. The process advances when the decision-makers feel comfortable that requirements of the previous levels or stages have been met. Anything that interferes with the ownership aspect inherent in SSM can undermine this development process and create entropy, i.e. the leakage of energy out of the system. In their criticisms of SSM, Ian Beeson and Marcus Lynch (1998) address this ownership issue. They question SSM, firstly for the way it privileges the observer of the Human Activity System (HAS) over its members, and also for its reluctance to consider HASs as existing in the real world. The difficulties to which Beeson and Lynch refer appear to have arisen with the development of Mode 2 SSM out of the original 7-Stage Mode 1 SSM. This questionable modification of SSM suggests that it may be an unsettled system that changes as its authors develop new case experiences. At his plenary talk at the 3rd UKAIS Conference, at Lincoln University in 1998, Peter Checkland dismissed 90% of the papers in the previous conference proceedings as worthless because they were not grounded in practice. He clearly spoke as a consultant who solves business problems, who then tries to present in formal terms what he has found ‘to work’. SSM should not be looked on a comprehensive system that is devoid of inconsistencies, but as a record of generally successful and insightful practice. As a pioneer system SSM did not have an academic background in which to base its ideas, and so seems to have justified itself incorrectly. Stephen Probert (1998) addressed these issues and came to
7 the following conclusions that are consistent with Nomology. First, he showed that SSM obscured the important theoretical distinctions between epistemological and psychological human thought processes. Also, he suggested that epistemic certitude is unattainable when undertaking systems practice. Epistemology is about knowing and, so, is objective. Development decision-making is subjective. The closest it gets to “knowing” is with “realising” (Table 3 above). On the other hand, some of Probert’s conclusions do not fit well with Nomology. For instance, he criticises SSM as “likely to appeal to persons of a particular psychological predisposition (and not to others)”. Furthermore, he condemns it because it may “even provide a comforting rationale for those individuals who are disposed to thinking and acting in prejudiced manners (e.g. on grounds of alleged racial or gender differences)”. Probert argues out of an epistemological framework, which contains its own bias, that “objective is good, subjective is bad”. The theme of Churchman’s book The Systems Approach and its Enemies (1979) reflects this suspicion that subjective issues such as politics are "enemies" of the systems approach. Development thinking is openly subjective and so takes account of all the views and feelings of decision-makers. Using a pejorative term like “prejudiced” could be interpreted to mean that subjective thinking is wrong. It is wrong only when it is presented as objective, as seems to have happened with SSM. Probert is right to suggest that personality typing can influence one's preference. See Brugha (1998c) for a review of the Enneagram and Jungian-based personality types, and Brugha (1998g) for a do-it-yourself web-based personality test that identifies one's Enneagram type and one's adjustment type. There is also a typing preference between these two systems, with some people tending to act more out of their subjective Enneagram type, and others identifying themselves more with their objective adjustment type. He is also right to cast doubt on people using their preference to determine which mode they should use when making a decision. Nomology appears to differ in that it suggests that the circumstances determine the choice. The decision when to use objective or subjective decisionmaking should be decided on the basis of ownership of the decision, and not on the basis of “appeal” or “psychological predisposition”. As discussed by Brugha (1998e) this subjective-objective difference defines when advice could become interference. It is so important that it has led to its own metaphor.
AUTOPOEISIS AND HUMAN VALUES The boundary between inside-owned development activities and outside-owned activities is emphasised as a membrane around a cell in Autopoiesis. The cell develops and creates itself from within, but also interacts with other cells. The cell concept is developed figuratively in Nomology in Figure 1. The cell becomes a cylinder, which is intended to correlate with a person or group.
This has the two
development dimensions of convincing and committing, and so matches Table 3. Convincing can be shallow and relate only to oneself, or it can be deep and relate to situations. Committing can be low, as in somatic (needs), or it can be high as in pneumatic (values). Outside of the cylinder there is the adjusting dimension which reflects the medium of interaction between people and groups. This reflects the energy or aura systems of the person. Critical in the adjusting system is the issue of balance. An out-of-balance system is reflected by a leaning tower image. The best orientation to have is to be
8 balanced and highly centred, i.e. well able to cope with situations. The opposite worst case is where the centre of gravity is outside the cylinder. Such a person or group has little sense of control and is too easily affected by others. This person has a weak Enneagram type and a strong adjustment type. Jose Rodrigo Cordoba (1998) describes an autopoiesis system as organisationally closed but interactively open. He uses the autopoietic metaphor to question the rationale incorporated in some IS implementation practice that uses 'rational' argument to justify considering objects and people as 'objects of manipulation' or 'externalities'.
He emphasised the importance of mutual co-existence
between people and organisations on an emotional level, and went as far as suggesting that "the way information systems have been conceived, designed and developed is a manifestation of a logic that is eroding the very basic notions of human beings in society". This view is line with Nomology and with the constructivist positions presented at PAIS II. Although presented using a biological metaphor, autopoiesis is very much concerned with human culture and value systems. In Nomology value systems are central to the highest level of commitment (Table 3). Misha Hebel (1998) suggested that information systems are composed of and therefore represent values in the same way as do organisations and individuals.
Consequently, the values
characterised by the methods, the participants and organisation in a management information system should be in accord.
Andrew Turk and Kathryn Trees (1998) showed how this could be done
effectively when using Geographic Information Systems and Multi-media to support the rights and culture of indigenous communities in Western Australia. David Wilson (1998) took a somewhat similar stance, but from a theoretical viewpoint, when he discussed ontological pluralism in Information Systems. Seeing that individuals behave in ontologically plural ways, and emerging IS disciplines draw from many irreconcilable traditions, it behoves the researcher to take a pluralist approach to the phenomena researched.
WULI-SHILI-RENLI AND THE PANOPTICON Two contributions at PAIS II that emerged from a very different perspective are about the Panopticon and wuli-shili-renli (WSR) (Gu and Zhu, 1995; Zhu, 1998a&b) a relatively modern methodology used for systems development in China. Its genesis started in the early 1970s with a sense of dissatisfaction with Chinese systems practice as being mechanistic, i.e. too dependent on wuli, a material and technical process of consciously knowing the outside world as distinct from oneself. This led in the early 1980s to the incorporation of shili, a cognitive and psychological process of sensing patterns of engagement between 'the human mind' and 'the world'. The late 1980s brought the inclusion of renli, a social and political process of caring about the inter-subjective relations among concerned parties. In WSR the objective / subjective distinction is important also. Wuli is seen as objective whereas shili and renli are seen as subjective, suggesting a structural match with Nomology. Brugha (1998f) has shown that wuli has parallels with adjusting, shili with convincing, and renli with committing. Their decision cycle (Gu and Zhu, 1995; Zhu, 1998a) of understanding desires, investigating conditions, formulating objectives, creating models, implementing proposals, and evaluating performance has a pattern similar to the SDLC.
9 WSR developed out of many years practice with projects within the context of an Oriental culture whose central differentiating feature appears to be a willingness to continually adjust to new circumstances and leaders whether of governments or of company projects. The developers of WSR saw themselves as redressing a balance by bringing in more subjective aspects to do with the running of projects, and in particular with renli, bringing in more commitment to caring responsibilities to do with projects.
This reflects clearly a parallel with the move towards a more constructivist approach
described in other PAIS II contributions. In his paper Zhu (1998c) reflected on some of the insights incorporated into WSR from Confucian and Taoist teachings.
One of these is the idea of
complementary opposites, expressed as Yin and Yang in Oriental culture, which has parallels with adjustment decision-making in Nomology. The change in Chinese systems practice from being too mechanistic and lacking subjectivity is reflected in their recent changes in society and politics. The image in Figure 1 can be used to describe the traditional contrast between East and West. The typical oriental point of view sees the world as outside, quick to adjust and slow to commit. The typical occidental view, often associated with business deal-makers from the United States, sees the world as based on leaders, quick to commit and slow to adjust. While this constructivist view is common in western society and in business, it is disputed in Information Systems. The early years of IS were dominated by mechanistic (adjustment) issues. There has also been a concern that the power of Information Technology to observe and record people's movements and activities could be turned into a power to control. Discussion of this in information systems also centres on the subjective - objective argument. As mentioned above, this goes back to the Kant - Bentham difference and the latter's model of societal control, the Panoptican, which the French philosopher Michel Foucault (1979) introduced into the debate twenty years ago. Foucault used the idea of archaeology to describe his form of methodology based on historical analysis. The Panoptican (from the Greek words for see and all) was invented by Jeremy Bentham as an image of a prison where the warder sees all the prisoners in their cells, and uses pleasure and pain to control their activities. Bentham's idea was to use the image as a model for the development of laws in society that maximise control in the interest of the 'objective' good of society. In the context of Figure 1 society acts in a powerful way to ensure that individuals adjust. Potentially this could reduce the individual's freedom to develop. Using the image in Figure 1, the analogy would be of a pressure to make the cylinder smaller. This would correspond to diminishing individuals’ capacities to have commitments and to hold convictions, i.e. to develop themselves. Foucault used the Panoptican and other images of power to develop a critique of bodies of knowledge in society, and of social and institutional mechanisms of power. He then extended the archaeology idea into one of genealogy, to describe the change over time in the organisation of power in society. The focus of his ideas changed from emphasis on somatic aspects of power in Discipline and Punish (1979) to psychic aspects in The History of Sexuality (1980). Corresponding to this change was a move away from treating people as objects to one where people controlled themselves. Gutting (1989) suggests that this reflects his new conception of the nature of power, and that he did not always see power as destructive, but also as a source of positive values including truth and knowledge. Richard Kamm (1998) took a similar line in
10 emphasising the continuous development of Foucault’s own ideas towards the more psychological aspects of the effect of societal power, and toward more concern for increasing individuals’ capacity to affect their own lives. Gammack and Goulding (1998) presented the most extreme anti-constructivist view at the conference. They suggested that the best balance between the adjustment and development systems (see Figure 1) should be a panoptic one that keeps control out of the hands of 'relatively uninformed participants'. Information Systems should be used to facilitate a closed system of interacting functions in the interest of maintaining social stability. They leave the reader wondering are they serious or not when they so over-state the case with statements like the following. "Technologically enabling a bewildering choice of means, with apparent freedom to construct one's own situations, whilst ensuring these are contained, should be the task of socially responsible designers." Maybe they were being true to Foucault who seemed to be very keen to use extreme images to develop awareness of society's thinking about the autopoietic boundary between society and the individual.
META-SYSTEMS Jim Gilligan (1998) described Information Systems as a 'meta-discipline' because it has grown from a rich variety of professional and academic roots. He suggested that it lacks any central purpose in the present. He proposed a return to the marketplace to test and validate information systems concepts. Robert Stephens (1998) identified a meta-linguistic model in information systems research and proposed that the metaphysical assumptions inherent in this model should be examined. Once again the problem of the chicken-and-egg arises, in this case that of language and the world. He suggested that the real need is to understand the nature of language. Both these views are consistent with the Nomology project. Nomology would say, "I decide, therefore I think". If the basic rules underlying decision-making are simple and universal, then market testing of the concepts is the most robust way develop the principles and axioms, and to evaluate their implications. As is apparent from Table 3, Nomology interprets language as clusters of activities and concepts that arise out of the structure of decisions. One can use the many levels of abstraction that populate decision-making to understand the structure of language. Then one can free it from the genealogies of knowledge and power that have influenced society. As a new area that is fast-moving with many cases in action at any time, with each case having relatively short life-cycles, Information Systems is an ideal testing ground, not just in its own interests, but also for clarifying decision-making in general.
11
REFERENCES: Alan, G. (1998), "Coming to Know I.S. – A Dialectical Process?", Systemist, Vol. 20, pp. 5-10 (Special Edition), Dec 1998. Anonymous Authors, (1955), Alcoholics Anonymous, 2nd Edition, New York: Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc. Avison, D.E. and Fitzgerald, G. (1995) Information Systems Development: Methodologies, Techniques and Tools, Second Ed. McGraw-Hill, London. Beeson, I. and Lynch, M. (1998), "Re-Animating the Human Activity System", Systemist, Vol. 20, pp. 22-34 (Special Edition), Dec 1998. Bhaskar, R. (1978), “A Realist Theory of Science”, Hemel Hemsptead, Harvester, in Archer, M., Bhaskar, R., Collier, A., Lawson, T. & Norrie, A. (Eds.) (1998) Critical Realism: Essential Readings, London, Routledge. Brugha, C. (1998a), The structure of qualitative decision making, European Journal of Operational Research, 104 (1), pp 46-62. Brugha, C. (1998b), The structure of adjustment decision making, European Journal of Operational Research, 104 (1), pp 63-76. Brugha, C. (1998c), The structure of development decision making, European Journal of Operational Research, 104 (1), pp 77-92. Brugha, C. (1998d), “A Generic Change Management Decision Model”, Matching Technology With Organisational Needs, Proceedings of the 3rd UKAIS Conference, Lincoln University, Chapter 39, pp 420-430. Brugha, C. (1998e), "Information Systems Development: Who Owns the Decision?", Systemist, Vol. 20, pp. 48-63 (Special Edition), Dec 1998. Brugha, C. (1998f), “Considering WSR In The Context Of Nomology, A Generic Meta Model For Systems Studies”, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Systems Science and Systems Engineering (ICSSSE), August 25-28, Beijing. Brugha, C. (1998g), “The Cathal Brugha Personality Test”, available on “Know Your Mind Homepage” at http://mis.ucd.ie/STAFF/CBRUGHA/COLOUR/colour.htm Checkland, P. (1991), Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. Chopra, D. (1994), The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success, San Rafael, CA: Amber-Allen Publishing / New World Library. Churchman, C. West, (1979), The Systems Approach and its Enemies, Basic Books, Inc., Publishers: New York. Cordoba, J. R. (1998), "The Autopoietic Notion of ‘the other’ for IS-Implementation", Systemist, Vol. 20, pp. 64-78 (Special Edition), Dec 1998. Fessard, G. (1956), La Dialectique des Excercises spirituels de saint Ignace de Loyola, 1, pp 40-41, Paris: Aubier.
12 Foucault, M. (1979), Discipline and Punish: the Birth of the Prison, Vintage / Random House: New York. Foucault, M. (1980), The History of Sexuality. Volume 1: An Introduction, Vintage / Random House: New York. Frank, U. (1998), "Increasing the Level of Automation in Organisations: Some Remarks on Formalisation, Contingency and the Social Construction of Reality", Systemist, Vol. 20, pp. 98-113 (Special Edition), Dec 1998. Galliers, R.D. and Sutherland, A.R. (1991), Information systems management and strategy formulation: the ‘stages of growth’ model revisited, J. of Information Systems, 1, pp 89-114. Gammack, J. and Goulding, P. (1998), "Information Systems and the Spectacle: Humans in the Machine", Systemist, Vol. 20, pp. 114-118 (Special Edition), Dec 1998. Gilligan, J. (1998), "Back to the Marketplace: Mindfulness in Information Systems", Systemist, Vol. 20, pp. 119-127 (Special Edition), Dec 1998. Gu, J. and Zhu, Z. (1995), “The Wuli Shili Renli approach: An Oriental systems methodology”, in Systems Methodology: Possibilities for Cross-Cultural Learning and Integration, (eds., Gerald Gutting, G. (1989), Michel Foucault's Archaeology of Scientific Reason, Cambridge University Press. Hamilton, W. (1877), Lectures on Metaphysics, Vols. 1 and 2, 6th Ed., in Lectures on Metaphysics and Logic, Edinburgh and London: William Blackwood and Sons. Hassall, J. (1998), "Choice in Practice – Can Information Systems Really Help Managers and Consultants to Decide?", Systemist, Vol. 20, pp. 128-139 (Special Edition), Dec 1998. Hebel, M. (1998), "Human Values in M.I.S. – Fit or Misfit?", Systemist, Vol. 20, pp. 140-152 (Special Edition), Dec 1998. Inwood, M. (1983), Hegel, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Johnsen, E. (1993), Strategic Analysis and Synthesis - An Axiomatic Model, Copenhagen Business School Management Research Institute. Jung, C. (1971), Psychological Types, in The Collected Works of C. J. Jung Volume 6, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Kamm, R. (1998), "Information Systems and the Use of Foucault: Is the Panopticon Always Relevant?", Systemist, Vol. 20, pp. 153-165 (Special Edition), Dec 1998. Kant, I. (1987), Critique of Judgement, Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company. Kant, I. (1985), Critique of Pure Reason, (Translated by Norman Kemp Smith) McMillan, (First published in 1929). Kubler-Ross, E. (1969), On Death and Dying, New York: Macmillan. Lavidge, R. and Steiner, G. (1961), “A Model For Predictive Measurements of Advertising Effectiveness”, Journal of Marketing, (October) 59-62. Linn, D. and Linn, M. (1977), Healing Life’s Hurts - Healing Memories Through Five Stages of Forgiveness , New York: Paulist Press. Marx, K. (1906), in Engels, F. Capital, Vol. 1, ed., Moore and Aveling, tr., Chicago: Charles Kerr. Maslow, A. (1987), Motivation and Personality, New York: Harper & Row.
13 Mearman, A. (1999), Towards a Critical Realist Econometric Methodology, Faculty of Business & Management Working Paper No. 31 / March, University of Lincolnshire & Humberside, ISSN 1465-2838. O’Brien, J.A. (1993), Management Information Systems: A Managerial End User Perspective, Second Ed. Homewood, IL: Irwin. Peace Pilgrim (1981), Steps Toward Inner Peace, Friends of Peace Pilgrim, 43480 Cedar Avenue, Hemet, California 92544. Peters, T. and Waterman, R. (1991) Successful American Companies, Marketing Classics - A Selection of Influential Articles, 7th. Ed., Ed. Ben Enis and Keith Cox, Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Phelan, A. (1998), "Constructed or Given Meanings? Epistemological, Ontological and Hermeneutics Aspects of Data Modelling", Systemist, Vol. 20, pp. 176-186 (Special Edition), Dec 1998. Pierce, C. (1867), in C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss (Eds.), Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Pierce, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press. Alan, G. (1998), "Coming to Know I.S. – A Dialectical Process?", Systemist, Vol. 20, pp. 5-10 (Special Edition), Dec 1998. Probert, S. K. (1998), " A Critical Analysis of Soft Systems Methodology and its (Theoretical and Practical) Relationship with Phenomenology", Systemist, Vol. 20, pp. 187-207 (Special Edition), Dec 1998. Simon, H. (1977), The New Science of Management Decisions, Rev. Ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Stephens, R. (1998), "The Meta-linguistic Model in Information Systems", Systemist, Vol. 20, pp. 221228 (Special Edition), Dec 1998. Turk, A. and Trees, K. (1998), "Ethical Issues Concerning the Development of an Indigenous Cultural Heritage Information System", Systemist, Vol. 20, pp. 229-242 (Special Edition), Dec 1998. Tyrrell, B.J. (1982), Christotherapy II, New York: Paulist Press. Ulrich, W. (1983), Critical Heuristics of Social Planning - A New Approach to Practical Philosophy, New York: John Wiley & Sons. Ulrich, W. (1998), “If Systems Thinking is the Answer, What is the Question?”, Lincoln School of Management Working Paper No. 22, 1998, University of Lincolnshire & Humberside. Waterman, R., Peters, T., and Phillips, J. (1980), Structure is not organisation, Business Horizons (June). Waterman, R. (1982), The seven elements of strategic fit, The Journal of Business Strategy, 2 (3), (Winter). Wernick, P. (1998), "Feyerabend and Information Systems Development: Against Methods?", Systemist, Vol. 20, pp. 256-259 (Special Edition), Dec 1998. Whitten, J., Bentley, L., and Barlow, V. (1989), Systems Analysis and Design Methods, 2nd Ed., Homewood, IL, IRWIN. William of Ockham. (1993), "Ockham's Razor or principle of economic thought”, Collier's Encyclopedia, Ed. L. Bahr & B. Johnston, P.F. Collier, Inc. N.Y.
14 Wilson, D. W. (1998), "Ontological Pluralism and Information Systems Research", Systemist, Vol. 20, pp. 260-270 (Special Edition), Dec 1998. Woolfe, R. (1993), The Path To Strategic Alignment, Information Strategy: The Executive’s Journal, (Winter), pp 13-23. Zhu, Z. (1998a). “WSR: A systems approach for information systems development”, Systems Research and Behavioural Sciences, in press. Zhu, Z. (1998b). “Cultural imprints in systems methodologies: The WSR case’, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Systems Science and Systems Engineering (ICSSSE), August 25-28, Beijing. Zhu, Z. (1998c). "Confucius and Lao-Tzu: Are Their Teachings Relevant to Information Systems Development?", Systemist, Vol. 20, pp. 271-283 (Special Edition), Dec 1998.
