Natural sciences, philosophy of science and the orientation of the social sciences

The Debate paper (by Siponen/Klaavuniemi) is part of the wider discourse whether or not, and with what consequences, Information Systems (IS) and other social sciences could be or should be ‘science’ (most recently McBride, 2018; Nelson, 2016). The Debate thesis rests on the position that IS research could be, or should be, based on a model of ‘science’ as understood and practised in the natural sciences. The central Debate thesis, depicted in Figure 1, is the claim that IS researchers have mis-characterised the natural sciences. The Debate paper then itemises nine supposed mis-characterisations of the natural sciences by IS researchers, contrasting them to either philosophy of science writings or examples of research in the applied natural sciences. The Debate paper concludes that correctly depicted natural sciences provide an appropriate and applicable model for IS research, including qualitative IS research, and suggests concrete measures, such as extending the scope of IS PhD education. I will comment on the Debate thesis from the perspective of a qualitative IS researcher (i.e. the target audience) and from the history of the IS field and that of the philosophy of science. In particular, I am seeking to provide a balanced presentation of what my IS research colleagues actually meant and of what most scholars in the philosophy of science and scientists in the natural sciences typically do or argue in their works.1 First, I agree with the implication of the Debate thesis that the natural sciences and the philosophy of science discipline (my colleague provides an excellent introduction: Godfrey-Smith, 2003) over past decades have changed and that they offer important and relevant insights for IS researchers. I appreciate the thrust of the Debate thesis encouraging my colleagues and me, as IS researchers, to continue to engage with and read in other disciplines. Second, I agree with the actionable conclusions of the Debate thesis, and support the suggestions, even if I may approach them from a different analysis. In particular, the broadening and extension of IS PhD training is a concrete measure that I fully support, not the least based on my own experience. Third, I am, however, less than convinced by the ‘mischaracterisations’ or ‘misunderstandings’ attributed to IS researchers. I find the Debate thesis argument and analysis wanting in that IS research quotes have been cherry-picked from their textual and historical contexts and crucial distinctions having been conflated. As a result, the Debate thesis paper contributes less than what I was hoping to clarification of the precise nature of the supposed mis-characterisations. To be clear, in some respects, I agree with some of the ‘mischaracterisations’, but not with the way in which they are framed and analytically supported.2 To contribute, I will seek to add distinctions, history and context to the Debate. In a sense, the Debate’s analysis is weak precisely on the classical matters of much greater concern to the humanities than to the sciences: the consideration of history, context and Verstehen of meaning and intentions.3 The meanings of statements are neither isolated nor timeless; they need to be placed in their textual and historical contexts.