FROM THE GROUND TO CORE ASSUMPTIONS: A REFLECTIVE EXAMINATION OF PERSPECTIVE VERSUS STRUCTURE IN IS THEORIZING AND WRITING

FROM THE GROUND TO CORE ASSUMPTIONS: A REFLECTIVE EXAMINATION OF PERSPECTIVE VERSUS STRUCTURE IN IS THEORIZING AND WRITING

Evaluations of theoretical contributions in IS tend to be partial in that the decision as to whether or not a particular work constitutes a contribution rests almost entirely on well-established structures. While these structures allow for progression, they also allow for the muting of perspectives (that could be equally important theoretical contributions) that may only be realized by non-conformance. Furthermore, core ontological and epistemological assumptions should arguably be of core interest when assessing theoretical contribution, as going from the ground to core assumptions allows for even more critical analyses of underlying processes and conceptualizations; however, doing so normally requires more space than is typically allowed. This necessitates a temporary suspension of traditional structures in order to critically examine overall logic. This paper allows for this examination by presenting a reflective piece in the form of a hypothetical paper that focuses on decision making in IS. The hypothetical paper offers a tool for theorizing in IS by giving a specific example of how one would go from the ground to core assumptions on a particular topic. This paper then concludes by reflecting on the hypothetical paper and raises the qustion: at what point do our rules defeat the purpose?