Introduction to the Special Issue on Philosophical Reasoning in Information Systems Research

A recurring theme in philosophic discussion for over two thousand years has been the nature of being and the nature of things. Aristotle was certain that fire and water were not the corpus of things. Spinoza, and more recently, Heidegger laid the foundation for 20th century thinking on the nature of being. Heidegger developed the notion of the Dasein, which is an existence that human beings uniquely possess and it relates to how things are perceived, encountered and used in everyday life. For example, a hammer is a hammer because it is used in the way a hammer is used. Computing technology is a fundamentally different thing from other technologies because it is infinitely malleable. It has an amplifying effect on perceptions. It is perceived in so many ways because it can be used in so many different ways.

 

Humankind and technology appear inextricably linked in a tapestry of near-infinite complexity. A decidedly human artifact--General Systems Theory, however, has tamed some of the chaos behind the beast.
 

It became clear after the call-for-papers for this special issue was proffered and the manuscripts began to arrive, that the systems approach and C. West Churchman have changed the way we perceive and construct systems. What is also clear is that the systems approach--and philosophy in general-- is a durable reasoning mechanism. Churchman’s legacy, however, transcends the systems approach. It is his constant reminder that we are ethical and moral human beings, that we should pay attention to the death of a single child in Africa, that sets him apart.
 

This special issue dedicated to C. West Churchman begins with an invited introduction by Kristo Ivanov. Invanov is, by his own admission, a student and proponent of C. West Churchman and the systems approach. Churchman has had a profound effect on Ivanov, and his European contemporaries, in teaching and the practice of operations research, management science, information systems and philosophical thinking.
 

In the second paper Jaana Porra synthesizes the material she obtained via a series of interviews with Churchman and from an ethics seminar given by Churchman. The picture she paints of Churchman's psyche is poignant and provocative. The breadth and depth of Churchman's insight into the state-of-the-world are truly global and decidedly human-centric.
 

John Haynes discusses the interdependence between Churchman’s Hegelian system and what is referred to as Perspectival Thinking. The thesis of his argument is that Perspectival thinking--where we see things from the point-of-view of taking a perspective and where the concept of ourselves is crucial-- is necessary for instilling a learning culture. The watchword is think locally, act locally, and be aware of our global intuitions.
 

“Questions and Information: Contrasting Metaphors” by Thomas Lauer discusses the importance of metaphors in developing information systems. The metaphor provides an important catalyst in asking the right questions and in developing the foundations of a knowledge management system. One must be careful, however, in selecting a metaphor because the metaphor can lead to inappropriate conceptualization of the way information is used. Churchman’s five models of inquiring systems (Liebnizean, Lockean, Kantian, Hegelian, and Singerian) are used as the basis for developing a question-centric approach to developing information systems.
 

Richardson, Courtney and Paradice examine Churchman’s Singerian approach for designing systems in the context of two organizations. They note that the Singerian model is applicable in high tech, e-business, and similar environments, where creativeness is essential and risk taking is the norm. They describe two organizations with a Singerian profile that have had success in applying Singerian principles.
 

The paper by Alexander Hars investigates the development of a class diagram model for representing scientific knowledge that is based on epistemology. He starts by developing class diagrams for the epistemologies of Popper, Nagel, Dubin and Bunge and then develops a synthesized, meta-model, for representing scientific knowledge.
 

Heinz Klein and Rudy Hirschheim argue that design and development choices are moral value judgments involving competing ideals. They propose a structure and set of rules that can be used as the basis for reasoning about and resolving design conflict. A primary objective of their approach is to create an environmental forum that fosters open debate about corporate values and organizational systems.
 

Cathal Brugha draws on Oriental and Western philosophy to develop a series of recommendation for improving the SDLC. In his paper he illustrates that the SDLC is a dialectical dynamic involving Convincing and Commitment and that Adjustment is a central activity of the process.
 

The manuscript by Garrity describes a development approach, based on general systems theory that synthesizes American and European design approaches. The approach, EASE (European/American Stuctured Environment), couples process centering with quality of worklife structures and measurement.
 

The paper by Miranda Mowbray is a provocative examination of the freedom of speech in virtual communities. Mowbray presents philosophical and political arguments as to why there are limits to free speech and presents a series of guidelines for administrators of virtual communities.
 

In closing we would like to leave you with a couple of excerpts from Porra's dialogue with C. West Churchman.
 

“On the broadest level, the systems approach belongs to a whole class of approaches to managing and planning our human affairs with the intent that we as a living species conduct ourselves properly in this world."
 

“...I’ll give you my theory of information (system)...What difference does it [information (system)] make in the pursuit of an objective [good and kindness] and what difference does it make in your actions toward this objective [good and kindness]. That’s the paradigmatic definition. If it [information] reduces the probability of attaining the objective [good and kindness], then it is negative information. If it increases it, then it is positive. You can begin to measure the amount of information by the decreased probability of attaining your objective [good and kind], and if it does nothing, it’s irrelevant…. [Porra, A Dialogue with C. West Churchman]."
 

Finally we would like to thank Professor Churchman for his role as advisory editor for this special issue of Information Systems Frontiers.
 

James F. Courtney
 

G. Lawrence Sanders
 

Special thanks are extended to the following referees for their assistance in assembling this issue:

 
Manish Agrawal, Paul Ambrose, John Artz, Barbara Sherman, Pratyush Bharati, Timothy G. Babbitt, Dan Seni, Dick Boland, Andrew Blyth, Bob Cerveny, Judith Carlisle, Janice Cerveny, Abhijit Chaudhury, David Vance, Eli Cohen, John Dobson, Alev M. Efendioglu, Paul Divirgilio, Bob Galliers, Murray Turoff, Bill Friedman, Bill Schiano, John Haynes, Edward Garrity, William Hodges, Rudy Hirschheim, Joseph Williams, Michael Ishman, Daniel Joseph, Leslie Willcocks, Timo Käkölä, Munir Mandviwalla, Kalle Lyytinen, Dick Mason, Mike Martin, Matthew K. McGowan, Robert Minch, Ian Mitroff, George Mickhail, Heinz Josef Musshoff, Dave Paradice, Dave Monarchi, Tony Moynihan, Sandy Richardson, Richard Orwig, Steven Wyman, Ron Weber, Ray Paul, Trevor Wood-Harper, Edgar Whitley, Rajiv Kishore, Nick Robak, Michael Parks, Raghav Rao, Saraswat Satya, Steve Probert, Jaana Porra, A. Graham Peace, Dan Jong Kim, Nava Pliskin, Ajay Vinze, Ja-Hyun Goo, Jim Courtney, Dawn Gregg, Janis Grevins, Alexander Hars, Joseph O’Donnell, Reinhard Schütte, Phil Dobson, Jim Courtney, Edward Garrity, Yong Jin Kim, Sungjune Park, Alison Adam, David L. Olson, Thomas Lauer, Lee Freeman, Steve Benson, Julian Newman, Werner Ulrich, Anne Nelson