ABSTRACT
The attempt to give a clear and unambiguous definition of any concept is always problematic, as it presupposes the possibility of giving a fixed meaning to a term, even though language is always in motion. This is particularly true for contested terms, including many that we know from the social sciences. And it is even worse for the term ‘critical research’ or ‘critical theory’, where it can be argued that the very attempt to determine fixed characteristics of the term goes against the basics and beliefs that scholars engaged in it hold (Kincheloe and McLaren, 2005). It will nevertheless be necessary to describe what we mean by ‘critical’ in the specific area of information systems. Critical research in the field of information systems is often described as an alternative research approach, one that complements the more established positivist and interpretivist positions (Trauth, 2001). This is based on Orlikowski and Baroudi’s (1991) seminal paper, which was built on Chua’s (1986) work. This, in turn, can best be understood as a reaction to the dichotomous categorisation of social science research by Burrell and Morgan (1979). Critical research in this context is a paradigm1 or a world-view that consists of beliefs about physical and social reality (ontology, social relations, human rationality), knowledge (epistemology, methodology), and the relationship between theory and practice. The value of this view is that it allows alternatives to the prevailing paradigm of positivist research to be discussed. At the same time it is misleading because it implies that the three paradigms are mutually exclusive and comprehensive. Neither implication is correct.
