Eur. J. Inf. Systs. (199S) 4,74-81 © 1995 Operational Research Society Ltd. All rights reserved 0960-085X/95 $ 12.00

Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method

G WALSHAM

Department of Management Science, The Management School, Lancaster University, Lancaster LAI 4YX, UK

There has been an increase in recent years in the number of in-depth case studies which focus onhuman actions and interpretations surrounding the development and use of computer-based informa-tion systems (IS). This paper addresses philosophical and theoretical issues concerning the nature ofsuch interpretive case studies, and methodological issues on the conduct and reporting of this type ofresearch. The paper aims to provide a useful reference point for researchers who wish to work in theinterpretive tradition, and more generally to encourage careful work on the conceptualisation andexecution of case studies in the information systems field.

Introduction

The importance of social issues related to computer-based information systems has been recognised increas-ingly over the last decade, and this has led some ISresearchers to adopt empirical approaches which focusparticularly on human interpretations and meanings.The vehicle for such 'interpretive' investigations isoften the in-depth case study, where research involvesfrequent visits to the field site over an extended periodof time. This paper focuses on such interpretive casestudies in the IS field, and considers philosophical andtheoretical issues concerning the nature of these stud-ies, and methodological issues on how to carry out andreport on studies in this tradition.

The development of the 'interpretive' empiricalschool in IS has not been free of controversy, anddebate continues on the relative merits of interpretivistversus positivist approaches to IS (Orlikowski &Baroudi, 1991), or the possibilities for their combina-tion (Lee, 1991; Gable, 1994). This paper can be seenas one contribution to that debate, since it contrastssome elements of interpretivist and positivist ap-proaches to case studies. However, despite thesedifferences, there are many points of agreement be-tween case study researchers working in these twotraditions. For example, Yin (1989) adopts an implicitlypositivist stance in describing case study research, buthis view that case studies are the preferred researchstrategy to answer 'how?' and 'why?' questions wouldalso be accepted by the interpretive school. Benbasatet al. (1987) also approach the issue of case studies froma positivist stance, but their argument that case studyresearchers need to be more explicit about theirresearch goals and methods is also of relevance to

interpretive IS researchers, and indeed is part of therationale for this current paper.

The IS literature contains reports and conclusionsfrom a significant number of interpretive case studies,covering a range of topics and issues (for exampleMarkus, 1983; Suchman, 1987; Zuboff, 1988; Boland &Day, 1989; Orlikowski, 1991; Walsham, 1993). Most ofthis literature is concentrated on the substantive casestudies themselves and the conclusions which can bedrawn from them. This is clearly a desirable focus, butthere are few published papers that provide a synthes-ised view of the nature and conduct of such case studieswith specific reference to the field of computer-basedIS; this leaves a gap in the literature where this paperaims to contribute.

In the next section, the research tradition of inter-pretive case studies is described in more detail, and iscontrasted with positivist approaches. This is followedby a section on the use of theory, which is a key issue inall research traditions. The remainder of the paper isfocused on methodological questions concerned withthe conduct of empirical research, and on the issue ofhow to report and generalize results from such work.The final section draws some overall conclusions oninterpretive case studies in IS research.

Philosophical basis of interpretive research

The ethnographic research tradition in anthropologyis a valuable starting point for a consideration of thephilosophical basis of interpretive case studies, since ithas been widely drawn on by organizational researchersconcerned with interpreting the patterns of symbolicaction that create and maintain a sense of organization(see, for example, Smircich, 1983). Geertz (1973) gives

Interpretive case studies in IS research GWalsham

a concise view of the status of the data which arecollected in an anthropological study:

What we call our data are really our own constructions ofother people's constructions of what they and theircompatriots are up to. (p. 9)

Van Maanen (1979), writing in the tradition oforganizational ethnography, calls the interviewee'sconstructions first-order data and the constructions ofthe researcher second-order concepts. He warns thatassuming an ethnographic stance is not a guarantee thatreseachers will collect valuable data no matter how longthey stay in the field. Second-order concepts rely ongood theory and insightful analysis, and mere collectionof in-depth case study data does not provide theseconcepts in itself. Examples of second-order conceptsin the IS literature, derived from interpretive casestudies, include the 'automate' concept from the workof Zuboff (1988), and the concept of 'technologicalframes' in Orlikowski & Gash (1994).

A second feature of the anthropological tradition isits concern with 'thick description'. Geertz (1973) givesa fascinating example of this involving Jews, Berbersand the French in Morocco in 1912. The incidentrecounted involves 'sheep stealing' by one of the Jews,who Geertz calls Cohen, from some of the Berbers.However, on closer examination, the 'stealing' turnsout to involve compensation for an earlier incident inwhich Cohen was robbed and nearly killed by membersof the same Berber group. The French misunderstandthis and put Cohen in prison for what they take tobe simple theft on his part. Geertz uses the incidentto point out that the ethnographer is faced with amultiplicity of complex conceptual structures, many ofthem superimposed upon or knotted into one anotherand which must be first grasped and then renderedintelligible to others.

The IS researcher entering an organization today isalso faced with complex and intertwined conceptualstructures which it is difficult to grasp and renderintelligible as did Geertz in his anthropological work.The need for 'thick' description is just as important intrying to understand what is happening in connectionwith a complex computer-based information system,involving managers, users and designers, as it was intrying to interpret the interactions of Jews, Berbers andthe French in Geertz's study. As a specific illustrationof this, Boland and Day (1989) describe how a systemdesigner reinterprets the behaviour of someone who atfirst she thought was trying to help with her designwork, but on further reflection over a period of timeshe concludes that he was trying to isolate her fromothers for his own political interest. An IS researchercan only access these subtleties of changing inter-pretation by the use of approaches based on 'thick'description.

In discussing the purpose of his studies, Geertzargues that he is not trying to answer our deepestquestions about other societies, but merely to make hisinterpretations of these societies available in the'consultable record'. His goal is not to generate truth orsocial laws, and this interpretive approach can beclearly distinguished from the positivist tradition. Thisshould not be taken to imply that interpretive work isnot generalizable, although the nature of such general-izations is different in the two traditions. This point willbe considered in some detail in the penultimate sectionof the paper.

The differences between interpretive and positivistapproaches can be addressed more formally by con-sidering their epistemological and ontological stances.With respect to epistemology, concerned with thenature of knowledge claims, Archer (1988) definespositivism as the position that facts and values aredistinct, and scientific knowledge consists only of facts.He contrasts this position with two alternatives: 'non-positivism' in which facts and values are intertwinedand hard to disentangle, and both are involved inscientific knowledge; and 'normativism' which takesthe view that scientific knowledge is ideological andinevitably conducive to particular sets of social ends.Either of the latter two positions is open for theinterpretive researcher to adopt.

With respect to ontology, concerned with the natureof reality, Archer distinguishes between 'externalrealism' which considers reality as existing independ-ently of our construction of it, 'internal realism' whichviews reality-for-us as an intersubjective construction ofthe shared human cognitive apparatus, and 'subjectiveidealism' where each person is considered to constructhis or her own reality. The usual ontological stance foran interpretive IS researcher would involve one of thelatter two positions, particularly with regard to thehuman interpretations and meanings associated withcomputer systems.

The above brief discussion of epistemology andontology is summarised in Table 1. It clearly distin-guishes the positivist tradition, but it does not provideany definitive answers as to what precise philosophicalstance should be adopted by the interpretive ISresearcher. In the related field of 'systems', Mingers(1984) argued that there is considerable value in acareful examination of the philosophical basis ofdifferent types of interpretive approaches, and heidentified the existence of at least four substantivelydifferent strands of thought: phenomenology, ethno-methodology, the philosophy of language, and herme-neutics. He used this analysis to provide a thoughtfulcritique of the underlying philosophy of various keywriters in the systems field, including Checkland (1981)on soft systems methodology. The different strands ofthought identified by Mingers can be seen to underpin

Interpretive case studies in IS research G Walsham

Table 1 Alternative stances on knowledge and reality.

Epistemology Ontology

Positivism: External realism:Facts and values are distinct Reality exists independentlyand scientific knowledge con- of our construction of itsists only of facts

Non-positivism: Internal realism:Facts and values are inter- Reality-for-us is an inter-twined; both are involved in subjective construction ofscientific knowledge the shared human cognitive

apparatus

Normativism: Subjective idealism:Scientific knowledge is ideo- Each person constructs his orlogical and inevitably con- her own realityductive to particular sets ofsocial ends

some of the research work on interpretive case studiesin the IS field: for example, Zuboff (1988) drew onphenomenology, Suchman (1987) on ethnomethodo-logy, and Boland & Day (1989) and Lee (1994) onhermeneutics. Further discussion of the nuances ofthese various interpretive positions is not possible here,but a principal conclusion from this section is thatresearchers need to reflect on their own philosophicalstance, which should be stated explicitly when writingup their work.

Use of theory in interpretive studies

A key question for researchers in any tradition,regardless of philosophical stance, concerns the role oftheory in their research. Eisenhardt (1989) discussesthis issue in the context of organizational research, andidentifies three distinct uses of theory: as an initialguide to design and data collection; as part of aniterative process of data collection and analysis; and asa final product of the research. We now discuss each ofthese with respect to interpretive case studies. Asummary of the examples in this discussion is given inTable 2.

Table 2 Examples of the use of theory in IS case studies.

Use of theory Interpretive IS case study

As an initial guide to design Walsham (1993) drawingand data collection on Pettigrew

As part of an iterative process Orlikowski (1993) usingof data collection and analysis grounded theory

As a final product of the re- Orlikowski & Robey (1991)search

The motivation for the use of theory in the earlierstages of interpretive cases studies is to create an initialtheoretical framework which takes account of previousknowledge, and which creates a sensible theoreticalbasis to inform the topics and approach of the earlyempirical work. For example, the theory of contextual-ism developed by Pettigrew (1987, 1990) suggestedthe need to study the content, context and processof organizational change when researching businessstrategy and its implementation in field studies. Wal-sham (1993) used this theory as a starting basis for thestudy of IS strategy and its implementation.

Although theory can provide a valuable initial guideas described above, there is a danger of the researcheronly seeing what the theory suggests, and thus using thetheory in a rigid way which stifles potential new issuesand avenues of exploration. It is desirable in interpre-tive studies to preserve a considerable degree ofopenness to the field data, and a willingness to modifyinitial assumptions and theories. This results in aniterative process of data collection and analysis, withinitial theories being expanded, revised, or abandonedaltogether. A simple metaphor for this latter case is theuse of scaffolding in putting up a building, where thescaffolding is removed once it has served its purpose.

With respect to theory as a final product of theresearch, Eisenhardt notes that the output from casestudy research may be concepts, a conceptual frame-work, propositions or mid-range theory. There is someirony in quoting Eisenhardt in the current paper, sinceshe explicitly states her epistemological position aspositivism, and mid-range theory is something whichshould, according to her views, then be tested formallyusing positivist approaches. This position on the role oftheory would not be acceptable to many interpretiveresearchers, although the view of theory as a desirablefinal product of case study research would be generallyshared. For example, Orlikowski and Robey (1991)drew on structuration theory (Giddens, 1984) and theirown empirical work in IS to construct a final product inthe form of a theory in which the organizationalconsequences of information technology are viewed asthe products of both material and social dimensions.

The three uses of theory in interpretive studiesdiscussed above can be usefully compared with the'grounded theory' approach of Glaser and Strauss(1967). These authors argued that the researchershould be primarily concerned with the discovery oftheory directly from field data. Although they recog-nised the usefulness of existing theory, for example toprovide conceptual categories for field research, theyemphasised the primacy of constructing theory fromthe observed field data. In the specific domain of ISresearch, Orlikowski (1993) describes the use ofgrounded theory as the basis of her interpretive casestudies on the adoption and use of CASE tools.

Interpretive case studies in IS research G Walstiam 77

With reference to the three categories of theoreticaluse discussed earlier, Glaser and Strauss would playdown the first use of theory as an initial guide to datacollection, and would emphasise the latter two uses aspart of the iterative research process and as a finalproduct of the work. Indeed, Glaser and Strausswarned against the first use of theory in rather strongterms, and cautioned the researcher against doing toofull a literature search before starting work:

. . . carefully to cover 'all' the literature before commen-cing research increases the probability of brutally destroy-ing one's potentialities as a theorist, (p. 253)

This author would not go so far. It is possible to accessexisting knowledge of theory in a particular subjectdomain without being trapped in the view that itrepresents final truth in that area. Glaser and Strauss'swarnings are valuable for reflection, but they surelytend towards approaches which risk ignoring existingwork.

An interesting discussion of the above issues is givenin a recent book on new strategies in social research(Layder, 1993). Layder argues that researchers can,and must, draw on general theories and employ them inempirical research. He accepts the positive aspects ofgrounded theory and its emphasis on learning fromfield data, but argues that:

. . . the grounded theory approach must break away fromits primary focus on micro phenomena. The very fixity ofthis concentration is a factor which prevents groundedtheory from attending to historical matters of macrostructure as a means of enriching . . . research on microphenomena, (p. 68)

An illustration of Layder's views translated to the ISdomain is that research on micro phenomena of ISdevelopment and use can, and should, be informed bymore general macro theories on the nature of organiza-tions and social processes within them.

Conduct of empirical work

This section is focused on the conduct of empiricalwork for interpretive case studies, and three sets ofissues have been selected for discussion, involving therole of the researcher, interviewing techniques, andreporting methods. This selection reflects the impor-tance of these issues to the interpretive IS researcher.Mumford (1985) provides some useful advice to the ISresearcher on other empirical issues such as the choiceof research topic, collaboration with in-company per-sonnel, and confidentiality.

Role of the researcherInterpretive researchers are attempting the difficulttask of accessing other people's interpretations, filter-

ing them through their own conceptual apparatus, andfeeding a version of events back to others, including insome cases both their interviewees and other audi-ences. In carrying out this work, it is important thatinterpretive researchers have a view of their own role inthis complex human process. Two different roles can beidentified, namely that of the outside observer and thatof the involved researcher, through participant obser-vation or action research. From an interpretive per-spective, neither of these roles should be viewed as thatof an objective reporter, since the collection andanalysis of data involves the researcher's own subjectiv-ity. In addition, and particularly with reference toin-depth case studies carried out over a period of time,researchers inevitably influence the interpretations ofthose people who are being researched, a processreferred to as the 'double hermeneutic' by Giddens(1984). So, even if researchers view themselves asoutside observers, they are in some sense conductingaction research by influencing what is happening in thedomain of action, if only by the sharing of concepts andinterpretations with the personnel in the field site.

Despite the above qualification, the 'outside ob-server' role preserves more distance from the personnelin the field organizations. The latter will tend to viewthe researcher not as one of themselves, but as anoutsider. The merit of this approach is that theresearcher is seen as not having a direct personal stakein various interpretations and outcomes, and thuspersonnel will often be relatively frank in expressingtheir views, provided a rapport of trust can beestablished. The main disadvantage of this role is thatthe outside researcher will not be present on manyoccasions, and will not get a direct sense of the fieldorganization from the inside. In addition, the re-searcher may sometimes be debarred from access tocertain data and issues which are regarded as tooconfidential or sensitive to be shared with outsiders.

The role of participant observer or action researcherinvolves the researcher being a member of the fieldgroup or organization, or at least becoming a tem-porary member for some period of time. The merits ofthis are that the participant observer will get an insideview, and will not normally be debarred from confiden-tial or sensitive issues. On the other hand, the involvedresearcher will be perceived as having a direct personalstake in various views and activities, and other person-nel may be more guarded in their expressed inter-pretations as a consequence. In addition, unless partici-pant observers or action researchers hide their researchmotives, which could be considered an unethicalposition (Mumford, 1985), they will still not beregarded as normal employees and thus not totalinsiders. A final problem with the role of involvedresearcher is the extreme difficulty of reporting the partone has played in the various matters under considera-

78 Interpretive case studies in IS research G Walsham

tion. Self-reporting faces the twin dangers of over-modesty and self-aggrandisement, and it is particularlydifficult to steer a middle path between these twoextremes.

What advice can be given then on the choice of roles?In the view of this author, the choice should beconsciously made by the researcher dependent on theassessment of the above merits and demerits in eachparticular case. For example, Nandhakumar (1993)argued that his study of the design and developmentprocesses of an executive information system wasenhanced by his role as a participant observer, since itwas possible for him to be involved in the day-to-dayhappenings of the design team from the viewpoint of aninsider, in a way which would not have been possiblefor an outside observer. Whatever the decision madeby the individual researcher, it is essential that thechoice is made in an explicit and reflective way, andthat the reasons are given when reporting the results ofthe research.

Evidence from interviewsYin (1989) argues that evidence for case studies maycome from six sources: documents, archival records,interviews, direct observation, participant observation,and physical artifacts. However, with respect to inter-pretive case studies as an outside observer, it can beargued that interviews are the primary data source,since it is through this method that the researcher canbest access the interpretations that participants haveregarding the actions and events which have or aretaking place, and the views and aspirations of them-selves and other participants. Even in the case ofinterpretive case studies being carried out as a partici-pant observer or action researcher, it can be arguedthat interviews are still an important data source, sincethey enable researchers to step back and examine theinterpretations of their fellow participants in somedetail.

With respect to interviewing style, this will varybetween individuals, depending on personality, but onekey issue for all interviewers is the balance whichshould be adopted by them between excessive passivityand over-direction. If the interviewer directs theinterview too closely, and refuses to allow intervieweesto express their own views except in response toquestions that are tightly controlled by the researcher,then the data obtained will lose much of the richness ofinterpretation which is the raw material of sensitiveinterpretive studies. However, a researcher can err toofar the other way. If the researcher is too passive, forexample either by not prompting with questions whichfollow some new direction taken by the interviewee orby not offering his or her own ideas on some particularissue, a number of negative consequences can result.The interviewees may conclude that the researchers are

either not interested in their views and/or that theresearchers have no views of their own on the subjectsof investigation. This latter consequence can result inIS interviewees, for example, doubting the professionalcompetence of the researchers in the IS domain, andfuture collaboration with the research project becomesjeopardised.

A second important issue in interviewing concernsreporting media, since it is vital in an interpretive studyto 'capture' people's interpretations in as effective wayas possible, while at the same time conducting thenormal social interchanges of the interview. Oneapproach is to tape-record all research interviews. Theadvantage of this is that it provides a full description ofwhat was said, whereas note-taking is necessarilypartial. The main disadvantage is that, in the case ofconfidential or sensitive material, the respondent maybe seriously inhibited by the presence of the machine.A second disadvantage of tape-recording as the solemedium is the time that needs to be spent in eithertranscribing the tape recording or extracting a set ofuseful data from it. The main alternative to tape-recording is to make rough but extensive notes duringinterviews, and to write them up in full as soon aspossible after the interview. Again, with respect toadvice to the researcher, individual circumstances needto be considered. Note-taking supplemented by tape-recording where appropriate is one sensible approach.Tape-recording may be considered appropriate as asupplement in cases of relatively non-confidentialmaterial, particularly where the interview contains alarge amount of relatively 'hard' data which it would bedifficult to capture by note-taking alone.

This sub-section has dealt with interviewing tech-nique, but it is important to emphasise that goodtechnique is a necessary but not a sufficient conditionfor good interviewing. Access to people's thoughts,views and aspirations requires good social skills andpersonal sensitivity on the part of the researcher, andthese are less easily acquired than matters of technique.Zuboff (1988) described her interview approach asinvolving a 'non-judgemental form of listening'. Re-searchers should be constantly critical with respect totheir own performance in this area, and one approachis to carry out interviews in pairs and subsequentlyto undertake a critique of each other's style andsensitivity.

Reporting methodsThe issue of how to report field work is important in allresearch, but it can be argued that it is particularlycritical in interpretive case studies. Interpretive re-searchers are not saying to the reader that they arereporting facts; instead, they are reporting their inter-pretations of other people's interpretations. It is thusvital, in order to establish some credibility to the

Interpretive case studies in IS research GWalsham 79

reader, that they describe in some detail how they havearrived at their 'results'. Reporting on 'soft' humanissues is not an excuse for sloppiness.

So what should be reported in an interpretive casestudy? As a minimum, reporting on the collection offield data should include details of the research siteschosen, the reasons for this choice, the number ofpeople who were interviewed, what hierarchical orprofessional positions they occupied, what other datasources were used, and over what period the researchwas conducted. With respect to data analysis, reportingshould include how the field interviews and other datawere recorded, how they were analysed and how theiterative process between field data and theory tookplace and evolved over time. Orlikowski (1993) pro-vides a good example of careful reporting on the abovetopics.

Before leaving the topic of reporting methods, onefurther caveat is worth mentioning. Van Maanen(1989) reminds us that establishing validity in the eyesof a reader is part of the art of persuasion, and is asmuch a matter of rhetorical style and flair as it is ofaccuracy and care in matters of theory and method. Inother words, care in reporting is important, but is notsufficient, and Van Maanen suggests that the re-searcher must try to persuade by 'presenting a coherentpoint of view told with grace, wit and felicity' (p. 32).

Generalizations from interpretive research

A critical issue for researchers concerns the generaliza-bility of the results from their work, and Yin (1989)notes that this issue is often raised with respect to casestudies:

'How can you generalize from a single case study?' is afrequently heard question . . . . The short answer is thatcase studies . . . are generalizable to theoretical proposi-tions . . . (p. 21).

We will extend Yin's answer in this section to fourtypes of generalization from interpretive case studies:the development of concepts, the generation of theory,the drawing of specific implications, and the contribu-tion of rich insight. However, before discussing each ofthese generalizations in more detail, a short introduc-tion is necessary on the nature of theorising in the socialsciences, viewed from an interpretive stance.

Bhaskar (1979) describes the scientific process in thenatural sciences as involving three phases in whichphenomena are identified, explanations for the phe-nomena are constructed and empirically tested, and thegenerative mechanisms at work are described. Bhaskarargues that the human or social sciences can be tackledusing a similar methodology, but there are differencesin that social structures do not exist independently ofthe actions and conceptions of the human agents in

them, and the generative mechanisms of such struc-tures are not space-time invariant. Thus, generativemechanisms identified for phenomena in the socialsciences should be viewed as 'tendencies', which arevaluable in explanations of past data but are not whollypredictive for future situations. The generalizationswhich we discuss below should, therefore, be seen asexplanations of particular phenomena derived fromempirical interpretive research in specific IS settings,which may be valuable in the future in other organiza-tions and contexts.

We will now illustrate each of the four types ofgeneralizations using specific examples, although itshould be noted that the four types are not mutuallyexclusive categories. A summary of these examples isgiven in Table 3.

The first type of generalization concerns concepts.Zuboff (1988) used her interpretive case studies of ITuse in US organizations to develop the 'informate'concept, which has been widely quoted in the ISliterature and beyond. She introduced this concept asfollows:

Thus, information technology, even when it is applied toautomatically reproduce a finite activity, is not mute. Itnot only imposes information (in the form of programmedinstructions) but also produces information . . . informa-tion technology supersedes the traditional logic of automa-tion. The word that I have coined to describe this uniquecapacity is informate. Activities, events, and objects aretranslated into and made visible by information when atechnology informates as well as automates, (pp. 9-10)

A single concept such as 'informate' can be part ofa broader network or an integrated clustering ofconcepts, propositions and world-views which formtheories in social science (Layder, 1993). As anillustration in the IS field, it was noted earlier thatOrlikowski and Robey (1991) drew on their empirical

Table 3 Examples of generalizations from IS case studies.

Type of generalization Interpretive IS case study

Development of concepts Automate - Zuboff (1988)

Generation of theory

Drawing of specificimplications

Contribution of richinsight

Theory of organizational conse-quences of IT - Orlikowski &Robey (1991), Jones & Nand-hakumar (1993)

Relationship between designand development and businessstrategy - Walsham & Waema(1994)

Limits of machine intelligence;differences between plans andpractical actions; need for morethoughtful machine design -Suchman (1987)

Interpretive case studies in IS research G Walsham

work in IS to construct a theoretical frameworkconcerned with the organizational consequences ofinformation technology. They argued that their frame-work could be used to guide studies in two main areasof information systems research, namely systemsdevelopment and the organizational consequences ofusing IT. Jones and Nandhakumar (1993) describe theapplication of the framework to the analysis of aninterpretive case study of the executive informationsystem development process in a large manufacturingcompany. They conclude that the framework wasvaluable to their work, but go on to suggest some areasfor further theoretical development. The two paperstaken together provide a good illustration of theorygeneration and development based on interpretive IScase studies.

A third type of generalization from interpretivecase studies involves specific implications in particulardomains of action. Walsham and Waema (1994) draw anumber of such implications based on an in-depth casestudy of the development of IS in a financial servicescompany over an eight-year period. One implicationconcerns the relationship between the design anddevelopment process and business strategy:

An ad hoc methodological approach to the developmentof computer-based information systems, accompanied bya clear business focus, can lead to rapid systems develop-ment, but the price paid for such an approach can beinflexibility and a lack of adequate integration. Design anddevelopment drawing heavily on formalized methods canbe slow and geared to 'systems for today', if the develop-ment proceeds at a time when the business vision andrelated IS strategy remain unclear, (p. 171)

The quotation above uses verbs such as 'can' ratherthan 'will' in line with the earlier discussion ofgeneralizations as tendencies rather than predictions.The implication provided a good description of a'generative mechanism' in the case study which wasinvestigated, and it may prove a useful insight forrelated work in other organizations and contexts.

The final category of generalization which we willconsider here is that of 'rich insight' from interpretivecase studies. This phrase is designed to capture insightsfrom the reading of reports and results from casestudies that are not easily categorised as concepts,theories, or specific implications. For example, thebook by Suchman (1987) discusses the problem ofhuman-machine communication based on an interpre-tive case study of the use of a particular copying

machine. She develops concepts such as 'plans' and'situated actions', various theories regarding human-machine interaction, and specific implications in do-mains such as artificial intelligence. However, thisreader gained more from the book than is captured bythese categories, since Suchman provided rich insighton a wide range of topics, including the limits ofmachine intelligence, the inherent differences betweenplans and practical actions, and the need for morethoughtful machine design.

A further illustration of the above point follows fromnoting that the selection of the 'informate' conceptfrom Zuboff s book does not do justice to the richnessof the insights which many readers have gained fromher work. This can be judged by the way it has beenwidely quoted on topics such as the changing nature ofwork in contemporary society, and the need to em-power workers in the information age in order to makefuller use of their human capabilities. We should not bemisled into too narrow a view of the generalizationswhich readers can gain from studying the reports andresults from interpretive case studies, and the categoryof 'rich insight' attempts to describe these broader andmore diffuse implications.

Conclusion

A number of writers in the IS field have alreadydemonstrated that interpretive case studies, if carriedout and written up carefully, can make a valuablecontribution to both IS theory and practice. However,the volume and range of such studies are relativelylimited at the present time. It can be argued that thereis a need for much more work from an interpretivestance in the future, since human interpretationsconcerning computer-based information systems are ofcentral importance to the practice of IS, and thus to theinvestigations carried out by IS researchers.

This paper has aimed to contribute to the futuredevelopment of the interpretive school of IS researchby providing discussion and guidance on a range ofissues. These were concerned both with the philoso-phical and theoretical nature of interpretive studies inthe IS field, and with methods of conducting andreporting such work. The paper has aimed to provide auseful reference point on these issues, and moregenerally to encourage IS case study researchers toreflect on the basis, conduct and reporting of theirwork.

References

ARCHER S (1988) 'Qualitative' research and the epistemologicalproblems of the management disciplines. In Competitiveness andthe Management Process (PETTIGREW A, Ed.), pp. 265-302. BasilBlackwell, Oxford.

BENBASAT I, GOLDSTEIN DK and MEAD M (1987) The case research

strategy in studies of information systems. MIS Quarterly 11(3),369-386.

BHASKAR R (1979) The Possibility of Naturalism. Harvester,Brighton.

BOLAND RJ and DAY WF (1989) The experience of system design:

Interpretive case studies in IS research G Walsham

a hermeneutic of organizational action. Scandinavian Journal ofManagement 5(2), 87-104.

CHECKLAND P (1981) Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Wiley,Chichester.

EISENHARDT K (1989) Building theories from case study research.Academy of Management Review 14(4), 532-550.

GABLE GG (1994) Integrating case study and survey researchmethods: an example in information systems. European Journal ofInformation Systems 3(2), 112-126.

GEERTZ C (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures. Basic Books,New York.

GIDDENS A (1984) The Constitution of Society. Polity Press,Cambridge.

GLASER BG and STRAUSS AL (1967) The Discovery of GroundedTheory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Weidenfeld andNicholson, London.

JONES M and NANDHAKUMAR J (1993) Structured development?A structurational analysis of the development of an executiveinformation system. In Human, Organizational, and SocialDimensions of Information Systems Development (AVISON D,KENDALL JE and DEGROSS JI, Eds.), pp. 475-496. North-Holland, Amsterdam.

LAYDER D (1993) New Strategies in Social Research. Polity Press,Cambridge.

LEE AS (1991) Integrating positivist and interpretive approaches toorganizational research. Organization Science 2(4), 342-365.

LEE AS (1994) Electronic mail as a medium for rich communication:an empirical investigation using hermeneutic interpretation. MISQuarterly 18(2), 143-157.

MARKUS ML (1983) Power, politics and MIS implementation.Communications of the ACM 26(6), 430-445.

MINGERS J (1984) Subjectivism and soft systems methodology - acritique. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis 11, 85-103.

MUMFORD E (1985) Researching people problems: some advice to astudent. In Research Methods in Information Systems (MUMFORDE, HIRSCHHEIM R, FITZGERALD G and WOOD-HARPER T, Eds.),pp. 315-320. North-Holland, Amsterdam.

NANDHAKUMAR JJ (1993) The practice of executive informationsystems development: an in-depth case study. PhD Thesis, Depart-ment of Engineering, University of Cambridge.

ORLIKOWSKI WJ (1991) Integrated information environment ormatrix of control? The contradictory implications of informationtechnology. Accounting, Management and Information Technolo-gies 1(1), 9-42.

ORLIKOWSKI WJ (1993) CASE tools as organizational change:investigating incremental and radical changes in systems develop-ment. MIS Quarterly 17(3), 309-340.

ORLIKOWSKI WJ and BAROUDI JJ (1991) Studying informationtechnology in organizations: research approaches and assumptions.Information Systems Research 2(1), 1-28.

ORLIKOWSKI WJ and GASH DC (1994) Technological frames: makingsense of information technology in organizations. ACM Trans-actions on Information Systems 12(2), 174-207.

ORLIKOWSKI WJ and ROBEY D (1991) Information technology andthe structuring of organizations. Information Systems Research2(2), 143-169.

PETTIGREW A (1987) Context and action in the transformation of thefirm. Journal of Management Studies 24(6), 649-670.

PETTIGREW A (1990) Longitudinal field research on change: theoryand practice. Organization Science 1(3), 267-292.

SMIRCICH L (1983) Concepts of culture and organizational analysis.Administrative Science Quarterly 28(3), 339-358.

SUCHMAN L (1987) Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem ofHuman-Machine Communication. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

VAN MAANEN J (1979) The fact of fiction in organizationalethnography. Administrative Science Quarterly 24(4), 539-550.

VAN MAANEN J (1989) Some notes on the importance of writing inorganization studies. In The Information Systems Research Chal-lenge: Volume I (CASH JI and LAWRENCE PR, Eds.), pp. 27-33.Harvard Business School, Boston, Massachusetts.

WALSHAM G (1993) Interpreting Information Systems in Organiza-tions. Wiley, Chichester.

WALSHAM G and WAEMA T (1994) Information systems strategy andimplementation: a case study of a building society. ACM Trans-actions on Information Systems 12(2), 150-173.

YIN RK (1989) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage,Newbury Park, California.

ZUBOFF S (1988) In the Age of the Smart Machine. Basic Books.New York.