realizing emancipatory principles in information systems ... · emancipation refers to freeing...

Emancipatory Systems Development

RealizingEmancipatoryPrinciples inInformation SystemsDevelopment:The Case for ETHICS

By: Rudy HirschheimCollege of Business

AdministrationUniversity of HoustonHouston, Texas 77204-6283U.S.A.

Heinz K. KleinSchool of ManagementState University of New YorkBinghamton, New York 13902U.S.A.

Abstract

Information systems development methodologieshave been the subject of much attention over the.years.. A substantial body of research has focusedon the need to develop methodologies that sup-port viewing information systems as social con-structs, and information systems development(ISD) as a social process. But if development a social process, what principles~ideals shouldinform it? Recent research has called for "eman-cipatory" ideals to be included. This debate canbe expanded to explore not only what eman-cipatory principles might be applied in informa-tion systems development, but also how. ExistingISD methodologies only partially embrace eman-cipatory principles. One of these--ETHiCS--seems the most likely candidate to be extendedor "reformulated" to achieve emancipatory idealsmore comprehensively. Organizations using thisreformulated version of ETHICS should makesome progress advancing emancipation while atthe same time confronting limited resources and

the presence of power and authority. The ap-proach undertaken here is generic; researcherscan similarly apply these reformulation tech-niques to other methodologies based on otherparadigms.

Keywords: Neohumanism, critical socialtheory, emancipation, participa-tion, information systems develop-ment, methodology reformulation,socio-technical design

ISRL Categories: DD, FA10, FC

IntroductionMost information systems development (ISD)methodologies have traditionally concentrated onproducing functionally correct and efficient userrequirements, which would then form the basisof system specifications. These methodologiesdraw upon functionalist assumptions for theirtheoretical base (Hirschheim and Klein, 1992).However, there are alternative philosophicalbases of ISD. One Of .these is neohumanism.Whereas functionalism espouses the ideals of ef-ficiency and effectiveness, one of the key valuesof neohumanism is emancipation. The focus onemancipation, however, is not the only principaldifference between functionalism andneohumanism, as will be explained later.

While the philosophy of neohumanism is relative-ly mature and well-developed, its application tothe domain of management in general and ISDin particular is very far behind. Based on thereviews provided by Lyytinen (1992) andNgwenyama (1991), we believe that the applica-tion of neohumanist principles to ISD deservesconsiderably more attention than it has receivedso far. Neohumanism can suggest how to see oldissues in a new light and tackle many unresolvedproblems of ISD in a novel way. Take, for exam-ple, the issue of participation. Functionalismrecognizes the need for user participation in theanalysis, design, and implementation of an infor-mation system. Indeed, user involvement is con-sidered paramount to the success of a systemsdevelopment exercise. Participation is viewed asa necessary but not sufficient condition for suc-

MIS Quarterly~March 1994 83


cess. Functionalism sees it primarily as a meansto an end: to get better information on re-quirements, to build better system specifications,to overcome resistance, to validate design op-tions, etc. All of these are valid concerns and arealso embraced by neohumanism. In addition,however, neohumanism insists that participationis even more important for social sense-makingto create shared understandings and to meet theethical imperatives of work arrangements in ademocratic society. In fact, participation andemancipation have much in common; they are,so to speak, kindred spirits. In light of this it isnot surprising that a number of ISD researchersinformed by neohumanist ideas have suggestedthat in addition to user participation there is aneed for some type of emancipatory ideals/prin-ciples to be included (Avison, et al., 1993; Lee,1991; Lyytinen, 1986; Lyytinen and Hirschheim,1988; Lyytinen and Klein, 1985; Ngwenyama,1987). We agree with Lyytinen (1992) thatneohumanism could help to construct alternativeISD approaches that differ from those currentlyknown, both in their espoused values and goalsas well as in the means to achieve these goals(see also Kendall and Avison, 1993).

The purpose of this paper is to introduce eman-cipatory ideals with reference to their philosophi-cal foundation (neohumanism) and explain howthey relate to ISD at the level of the organization.Such a treatment of emancipatory concerns is im-portant because it could contribute to the realiza-tion of democratic ideals at the organizationallevel. It is beyond the scope of this paper to justifythe desirability of democratic ideals at all levelsof society in terms of underlying ethical theories,but there are possible treatments (see Deetz,1992 or Rawls, 1971).

The call for neohumanist values to be adoptedin IS is not new, nor for that matter is the call fortheir adoption in other academic disciplines.What ,~as been problematic, however, is howsuch values can be practically realized. Virtuallyno published examples exist of how neohumanistvalues have been implemented in practice. Whileseveral approaches to ISD could serve as a pointof departure, none places the ideal of emancipa-tion at its center. Without such methodologies,it is unlikely that much progress can be made.Indeed, of the four ISD paradigms identified byHirschheim and Klein (1989), only the neo-

humanist paradigm did not have an example ofits methodological application. While the goal ofdeveloping a methodology from scratch thatsystematically seeks to implement neohumanistvalues is laudable, it is also formidable. For-tunately, it is unnecessary to do so. In this paper,we suggest how an already existing ISD method-ology could be "modified" to incorporate theideals of neohumanism.

The modification follows certain systematic prin-ciples, which will later be characterized as a"critical reformulation" of methodologies. We seethis as a first step for the community, one thatwould facilitate the gradual adoption of eman-cipatory concerns in information systemsdevelopment on a broader scale.

The paper proceeds as follows. The next sectionprovides a concise exposition of some key ideasof neohumanism and how they relate to eman-cipatory ideals and related themes in manage-ment and ISD. The section particularlyconcentrates on the nature of neohumanistvalues. We focus on these values because inmodern times the ideal of emancipation has beenadvanced in the philosophical writings ofneohumanism, and neohumanism is best ex-plained by confronting it with its principalparadigmatic alternatives: functionalism andsocial relativism.

The following section articulates our choice of ahost methodology that serves as the basis for in-corporating neohumanist values within systemsdevelopment--ETHICS (Mumford, 1983)--andprovides a brief overview of ~ETHICS for thosewho are unfamiliar with it. We show how ETHICSintrinsically embraces a number ofneohumanist/emancipatory ideals. This is follow-ed by a proposed set of modifications to ETHICSinspired by the ideals of neohumanism, sug-gesting how emancipation could be achievedthrough systems development.

In the concluding section, we argue that ourmodification of ETHICS is nothing more than aspecial case of a more general concept--that ofcritical methodology reformulation. Critical refor-mulation involves two steps: (1) performing assumptions analysis to identify the basicbuilding blocks of a methodology and (2) propos-ing improvements for overcoming the limitationsinherent in these assumptions.

84 MIS Quarterly/March 1994


Emancipatory Ideals in theContext of Management andISDEmancipation is typically thought to embrace twodimensions: psychological and organizational.The former calls for the realization of the fullcreative and productive potential of individuals;the latter refers to the establishment of social con-ditions, which encourage effectiveness throughorganizational democracy, specifically overcom-ing existing forms of authoritarianism and socialcontrol if they perpetuate inequities of the statusquo in the work place. According to Ulrich (1983),emancipation refers to freeing those affected bysome form of planned change "from beingtreated merely as means for the purposes ofothers" (p. 257). While emancipatory principleshave a long and rich tradition, their applicationin the organizational domain has been limited.

Emancipatory ideals in themanagement contextHistorically, management ideology has not em-braced the ideals of emancipation but is insteadconsidered to have had a strong authoritarianbias (e.g., Taylorism or "managerialism" asdescribed by Deetz, 1992; cf. Alvesson andWillmott, 1992b; Braverman, 1974; Jenkins andSherman, 1979). Taylorism, however, has comeunder attack from at least three directions: thework place democracy movement (Clegg, 1960;Das, 1964; Herbst, 1976; Lansbury, 1980); par-ticipatory design concepts (Lucas, 1976;Pateman, 1970); and, most recently, the notionof social empowerment through teams (Katzen-bach and Smith, 1993). The work placedemocracy movement emphasizes innovationsin the institutional-legal sphere of organizationsand society and hopes to influence w~ork details"from the top down" or the "outside in." Par-ticipatory design programs typically operate atthe work-place level, where substantial progresswith emancipation can be made in everyday prac-tices through the involvement of the workers indecision making (the "micropractice ofdemocracy," as labelled by Deetz, 1992). Socialempowerment programs seek to lessen the directpower of management by turning over control to

teams that have decision-making authority andresponsibility.

These alternatives have also come under attack.Both participation and social empowerment havebeen criticized as merely concealing underlyingpower distortions because they are too narrowlyfocused on economic rationality and organiza-tional control objectives (cf. Deetz, 1992; Ehn andSandberg, 1979; Klein and Kraft, 1994). Butwhether such criticism is warranted depends onthe motives and details with which participationis implemented in a specific case.

We believe it is possible to see emancipatoryideals in projects that have attempted to imple-ment democracy in the work place (Nygaard,1975), to increase employee participation inorganizational decision making (Das, 1964;Lansbury, 1980), or have embraced social em-powerment (Hirschheim and Miller, 1993).Although there are numerous critics of such proj-ects, particularly projects attempting to increaseworker participation, we believe such criticism ismisguided. Deetz (1992), for example, a critic participation projects, fails to realize the manysincere, emancipatory concerns of participationschemes when he writes:

What is key to their difference is not always theactual practices involved but the motive. Whilemany participation programs are dominated byeconomic rationality and a strategic interest incontrol, work place democracy has focused onthe political issues involved. (p. 350).

We believe the main weakness of participationprograms has been that they failed to take intoaccount the political background constraints thatmost clearly manifest themselves in the institu-tional-legal context in which organizationsoperate. Because this context and the associatedhistorically grown organizational practices wereoften hostile to the goals of participation pro-grams, they were vulnerable to subversion oreven plain misuse by vested interests. But thisneed not be the case. Indeed, one contributionof this paper is the proposal of a theoretical struc-ture for organizing participation of those who aredirectly involved with ISD. It does not extend thisstructure to all affected by ISD (e.g., clients orthe general public, cf. Ulrich, 1983).

Within the specific context of management theoryliterature, Alvesson and Willmott (1992a) concep-



tualize the idea of emancipation in the manage-ment of organizations. Their work provides aclassification of different types of emancipationthat can be pursued by management: question-ing dominant forms of thinking; formulating uto-pian visions; and .articulating projects thatcontribute incremental steps toward emancipa-tion. Questioning refers to the process of criticiz-ing the status quo without necessarily providingan alternative. Utopian refers to the explicationof an ultimate vision without specific referenceto the current state. Incremental steps falls be-tween the two extremes, providing partial solu-tions for overcoming oppressive environments.Alvesson and Willmott also suggest how eman-cipatory studies could be reoriented to makethem more useful for practitioners who identifywith emancipatory values. A critical review ofpossible strategies to achieve emancipation inorganizations can also be found in Mumby (1988)and Deetz (1992).

In addition to management theory, planningtheory has contributed to emancipatory principlesby analyzing communicative distortions as bar-riers to the rationality of action and proposingpossible strategies to overcome them in practice(cf. Forester, 1989). Ulrich (1983), for example,in his "critical heuristics," outlines an approachto formulate planned social systems in a way thatallows emancipatory concerns to be addressedin the planning process.

Emancipatory ideals in the ISDcontextIn the ISD literature, the distinction between workplace democracy, participation, and social em-powerment approaches has not always beenclearly stated. In principle, emancipatory think-ing entered ISD through the participatory designmovement, which adapted concepts of workplace democracy to ISD. The emphasis on institu-tional aspects of emancipation in systemsdevelopment can be traced at least as far backas the "Iron & Metal Workers Project" under-taken in Norway from 1971 to 1973 under theleadership of Kristen Nygaard (1975). The proj-ect evaluated planning, control, and data pro-cessing systems from the perspective of theworkers. Attempts at embracing emancipatoryideals continued in the DUE project (Kyng and

Mathiassen, 1982), DEMOS project (Carlson, al., 1978; Ehn and Sandberg, 1983), and UTOPIAproject (B~lker, et al., 1987; Ehn, et al., 1983;Howard, 1985). These projects extended the no-tion of evaluation of information systems to placecontrol of development and use in the hands ofthe workers. The lessons from these projects areembodied in a loose collection of tools, tech-niques, and principles termed the "collectiveresource approach" (Ehn and Kyng, 1987).Recently, this approach has evolved to include"cooperative design" (Greenbaum and Kyng,1991; Kyng, 1991), which is suggestive Of a morecollaborative effort between designer and user.While these projects and the resulting collectiveresource approach have their origins in the idealof emancipation, it must be noted that their viewof emancipation embraces the goal of keepingthe control of systems development in the handso! the trade unions under the rubric of"democratic planning."

A different emphasis on realizing emancipationin ISD can be seen in the PIOCO model and theMARS project. Both aim at emancipation throughsocial learning. The PIOCO model of systemsdevelopment (livari and Koskela, 1987) attemptsto reconceptualize the project life cycle as alearning process (livari, 1983) in order strengthen critical reflection and self-insightbased on feedback from concrete actions.Kerola’s (1985; 1987) expansion of these ideasfocuses on superimposing the systems develop-ment process life cycle on the stages ofknowledge acquisition and learning in Kolb’s ex-periential learning theory (Kolb, 1984; Kolb andFry, 1975). This promises to make all participantsbetter aware of the social situation in whichsystems development takes place, a precondi-tion for successful cooperation. The MARS pro-ject (Lanzara and Mathiassen, 1985; Mathiassenand BC~jh-Andersen, 1987) also takes a learningperspective of .systems development (and use)but focuses directly on work practices. The star-ting point is an explicit recognition of the chronicdeficiencies of work practices in any group.V~rious tools (diagnostic, ecological, virtual,historical "maps") are suggested to help recordand reflect upon these practices (Lanzara andMathiassen, 1985). A more extensive review ofthe emancipatory potential of these two sociallearning approaches can be found in Klein andHirshheim (1993).



Some other methodologies or projects that movein the direction of emancipation through participa-tion are PORGI (Oppelland and Kolf, 1980), SSM(Checkland, 1981; Checkland and Scholes,1990), FLORENCE (Bjerknes and Bratteteig,1984), and SAMPO (Auram&ki, et al., 1988; 1992;Lehtinen and Lyytinen, 1983; 1984). These all ap-pear to recognize communication barriers andpossible therapeutic measures, but they areneither complete nor systematically gearedtoward emancipatory ideals. It is for this reasonthat we discuss below our proposed modificationof ETHICS (Mumford, 1983). We do not make sharp distinction between methodologies, ap-proaches, or "projects" (such as UTOPIA orDEMOS, if a project is intended to show a wayof developing systems to be followed by others).What we mean when we use any of these termsis an organized collection of rules and tools thatserve as resources for people when developinginformation systems (Lyytinen, 1987; Lyytinenand Ngwenyama, 1992). If the collection ofresources is fairly well-structured along the linesof a documented procedure (i.e., codified) withspecific tools (e.g., questionnaires, charting stan-dards), we prefer to speak of a methodology. Anexample is the ETHICS methodology, as outlinedin Appendix A.

Methodologies are informed by particularphilosophical assumptions or "paradigms"(Hirschheim and Klein, 1992). It is our contentionthat the paradigm in which emancipation playsthe most significant role, and which hastheoretically addressed the barriers to achievingemancipation, is neohumanism (Hirschheim andKlein, 1989).1 Appendix B provides a brief sum-mary of the four paradigms of ISD.

Explication of neohumanistemancipatory idealsIn recent times, the most prominent example ofa theory that builds on the assumptions ofneohumanism has been the critical social theory

1As will be seen later, the neohumanist paradigm embracesmore than just emancipation. It is additionally concerned witheffectiveness and efficiency (i.e., technical concerns) andmutual understanding (i.e., communicative concerns). should also be noted that while other paradigms might, tosome extent, also embrace emancipation, neohumanismplaces its primary focus directly on emancipation.

of Jurgen Habermas (1984; 1987). The followingtreatment of neohumanist emancipatory ideals isprimarily based on critical social theory becauseemancipation plays a major role in its theoreticalstructure, e.g., in terms of epistemology (Haber-mas, 1973) and the application to social analysis(Habermas, 1971).

In neohumanism, the principal goal of emancipa-tion is the establishment of conditions for humanexistence that facilitate the realization of humanneeds and potentials. In particular, emancipationis concerned with the processes "through whichindividuals and groups become freed fromrepressive social and ideological conditions, inparticular those that place socially unnecessaryrestrictions upon the development and articula-tion of human consciousness" (Alvesson andWillmott, 1992a, p. 432). This requires anelaboration of the meaning of human needs andthe realization of free choices in personal andwork life and, beyond this, as a citizen as a whole.

Requirements for an EmancipatoryMethodology

In the context of systems development, we pro-pose that the following four conditions are re-quired for a methodology to be consideredemancipatory. We state these conditions in ourown words based on Alvesson and Willmott(1992a) and then relate them to a domain thathas attempted to embrace emancipation--planning theory (Forester, 1989; Ulrich, 1983).We also briefly consider whether and howETHICS recognizes these conditions.

1. An emancipatory methodology must supportan active process for individual-and collectiveself-determination (Alvesson and Willmott,1992a, p. 433). This is similar to Ulrich’s(1983) principle that those affected in the plan-ning process "must be given the chance ofemancipating themselves from being treatedmerely as a means for the purposes of others"(p. 257). (This is a direct application of Kant’s(1964) "categorical imperative.") ETHICSrecognizes this through its overwhelming em-phasis on bottom-up (grass-roots)participation.

2. An emancipatory methodology must supporta process of critical self-reflection andassociated self-transformation (Alvesson and



Willmott, 1992a, p. 434). This corresponds toUlrich’s (1983) principle that social design "is notmerely a matter of instrumental orientationtowards some purpose .... but that for sociallyrational planning it is essential that the plannerinitiate a process of emancipatory self reflectionon the part of the affected" (p. 260). ETHICS found lacking in this regard but could be modifiedto include self-reflection and self-transformation.2

3. An emancipatory methodology must encom-pass a broader set of institutional issuesrelating particularly to social justice, due pro-cess, and human freedom (Alvesson andWillmott, 1992a). Such institutional issues arewell-captured in Forester’s (1989) distinctionof two types of communicative distortions:those that are "socially ad hoc" (e.g., "willfulunresponsiveness" by an individual) andthose that are "socially systematic" (e.g., "in-formation inequalities resulting from legitimatedivision of labor"). ETHICS realizes these in-stitutional issues in several forms. Prominentamong these are the recognition given toemployees’ ethical needs, quality of work life,personal autonomy, and the linkage betweenparticipation and democracy in general.

4. An emancipatory methodology must incor-porate explicit principles for the critical evalua-tion of claims made throughout the systemsdevelopment process, e.g., by questioning theknowledge and beliefs upon which theseclaims are based. This is related to Church-man’s (1971) notion of a "guarantor" design; in the words of Ulrich (1983), "[A]source of guarantee presupposed in eachdesign effort (including any designs for in-quiry..." (p. 261). In critical social theory, ra-tional discourse (see below) is proposed the guarantor. Rational discourse shouldreveal fallacious evidence and other forms of

2For example, one way in which ETHICS could be modified tosupport self-reflection is through diary keeping (cf. Jepsen, etal., 1989; Lanzara and Mathiassen, 1984). The diaries wouldact as a documentary record of an individual’s practices. Self-transformation could occur when an individual reflects uponhis or her experiences and then changes behaviors according-ly. In this way both successes and failures become importantassets for improving the practice. Another way ETHICS couldbe modified to support self-reflection is through argumentationsupport, e.g., the incorporation of electronic meeting systemsor other decision room-type features, as suggested later.

misinformation (e.g., Forester’s com-municative distortions). In the case ofETHICS, this is realized by an explicit pluralistmodel of inqu!ry, which is expanded uponlater in the paper.

Implications for ISD Methodologies

For an information systems developmentmethodology to embrace neohumanist ideals,and in particular emancipation, it would have toallow users and developers to build informationsystems that free their users from unwarrantedsocial constraints and psychological compul-sions, both during the learning cycle in which in-formation systems are built and subsequentlythrough their use. A critical aspect is that anemancipatory methodology and the resulting ISshould help to overcome communicativedistortions.

In practice, communication distortions abound.Distortions typically arise from weaknesses ofhuman personality or from asymmetries in thesocial context. These may occur through: (1)authority and illegitimate power, which createanxieties and cause people to distort or withholdinformation in order to protect themselves; (2)peer opinion pressure, which creates tunnel vi-sion for the sake of loyalty, reducing the validityof judgements by suppressing possible validitychecks through criticism; (3) time, space, andresource limitations preventing universal accessto knowledge, even though in principle it isavailable (this includes the common situationwhere knowledgeable people remain silent dueto lack of motivation to participate because ofwork overload or the socially created need towithhold important information unless it is toone’s advantage to engage in a debate); (4) socialdifferentiation, in particular differences in thelevel of education, specialization, and personalvalues and beliefs; and (5) the bias and limita-tion of language use, e.g., jargon and cognitiveanchoring.

Forester (1989), within the context of planningtheory, notes similar types of distortions. His tax-onomy classifies distortions into four types: (1)cognitive limits, which incorporate idiosyncraticpersonal traits affecting communication, as wellas random noise; (2) division of labor, whichrelates to information inequities resulting from the

88 MIS Quarterly~March 1994


traditional labor structures, as well as informa-tion loss across organizational boundaries; (3) in-terpersonal manipulation, which encompasseswillful unresponsiveness, interpersonal decep-tion, and bluffing; and (4)structural legitimation,which includes monopolistic distortions of ex-change, monopolistic creation of needs, andideological rationalizations.

In psychoanalysis (cf. Bion, 1959; Klein, 1965),various forms of compulsions have been studiedthat cause people to lose their hold on reality, "tokid themselves," as is commonly said. These aredefensive behaviors (avoiding the issue, blam-ing others, making up excuses), transferral ofconflict, exaggerated anxieties of perceived orreal threats, and other neurotic tendencies.of these cause people to make claims that can-not stand up to informed analysis, yet the actormay not be fully aware of this. At one time oranother we all appear to fall victim to illusions anddelusions.

The psychopathology of human cognition isusually reinforced by certain external social con-ditions. Prominent among the sources of exter-nal distortions (emanating from the social context)is the information processing bias exerted byauthority and other forms of power and ideology.ideology hides vested interest and power throughtheoretical constructions (verbal pictures) thatportray a state of affairs as natural (and thereforeunavoidable) or just, when in fact it is not. Thosecaught in ideology are led to limit their analysisin such a way that prevailing assumptions andconstraints are not subjected to informed criticalarguments (cf. Mumby, 1988, for a more detailedanalysis of the relationship between ideology andthe ideal speech situation). In summary, we maysay that tendencies that distort communicationwill arise from psychopathological emotions andsocial conditions.

If communicative distortion as explained aboveis a key issue in emancipation, then the applica-tion of information systems could help to mitigatedistortions by facilitating the widest possibledebate of organizational problems, in particularamong subcultures or groups that without suchsystems would unlikely share their problems andconcerns. Whereas it would be unrealistic toassume that such a debate would lead to agreed-upon objectives and policies for achieving them,it could be expected to contribute to an improved

mutual understanding. This in turn could mitigatesome of the conflicts that would inevitably remainbecause of inequities in power and/or com-munication difficulties among socially diversegroupings (Forester, 1989). The goal of informa-tion systems development from this perspectiveis to institutionalize a series of checks andbalances that would guarantee this debate to oc-cur, and to occur within the context of "eman-cipated discourse." Emancipated discourserefers to communication between two or more in-dividuals where those engaged in the com-munication deceive neither themselves norothers; in other words, the discourse takes placein an environment free from distortions. (This isalso called a "rational discourse" or communica-tion in an "ideal speech situation.") It would benaive not to recognize that a rational discourseinevitably conflicts with the power structuresoperating in all social formations (cf. Deetz, 1992;Mumby, 1988). The failure to address the powerissue can be traced to the theoretical foundationsupon which the rational discourse rests. 3 We willpoint to. some of the strategies proposed tomitigate the influence of power structures in theconclusions of the paper.

The Concept of Emancipatory Discourse

Emancipatory discourse is concerned with defin-ing conditions in whict~ distorting tendencies areabsent. These criteria allow us to perform adiagnosis to assess the degree to which distor-

3The principle of free and undistorted communication is notwithout considerable criticism. This is very clearly seen in thewritings of Foucault’s (1972) "archeology of knowledge" (cf.Gutting, 1989; Habermas, 1986). Also, Giddens (1984) notesthat domination and power.should not be thought of merelyas noxious phenomena "but have to be recognized as in-herent in social association (or, I would say, in human actionas such)" (p. 32). If so, one must be critical of the ideal emancipation because the power relations are an inescapablefact of human life and cannot be mitigated by emancipatorydiscourse. However, Gidden’s (1984) theory takes as its basicbuilding block the notion of enactment of rules. This notionbuilds on Winch’s (1958) "idea of a social science," whichtypically has deflected attention from such important notionsas liberty, justice, freedom, and emancipation. Habermas’stheory, in contrast, takes as its basic building block the no-tion of a conscious act founded in human knowledge. Thisimplies a rationalist bias and explicitly draws attention to no-tions such as emancipation. Both basic building blocks areequally plausible and valuable yet lead to different insightson the conditions of social life. An exploration of this is beyondthe scope of this paper.



tions are present in a given situation. Emancipa-tion is concerned with remedies to overcomethese tendencies. The first three of the followingconditions are primarily concerned with externalconditions that facilitate a discourse without un-due social pressures; the fourth is concerned withthe internal conditions of each participant (cf.Habermas, 1971; 1973; 1984):

1. All participants must have equal opportunityto raise issues by asking questions, makingspeeches, and giving rebuttals or answers toquestions and speeches of others. This con-dition helps assure that distorting effects areperceived and put on the agenda.

2. All participants must be in an equal positionto give and refuse orders, to permit or prohibit,to promise or ask for promises, to ask forreasons or offer reasons, etc. This conditionaims at diffusing the distorting effects ofpower.

3. All participants must be in an equal positionto call into question the truth, correctness, ap-propriateness, or sincerity of what is said.Typically this is accomplished by asserting,interpreting, recommending, explaining, andgiving reasons, evidence, and counter-evidence. This condition helps maximize thechances that the best available evidence isused to test factual truth, instrumental correct-ness, or legitimacy (legality) of factual, in-strumental, and normative claims.

4. All participants must be in an equal positionto express their attitudes, feelings, concerns,doubts, etc. This condition assures that noposition can escape scrutiny and, hence, max-imizes the chances that illusions and decep-tions are uncovered. It also helps mitigateindividual differences in the capacity of ar-ticulation. Interests that are not .well-expressed have less chance of being heard.

The above conditions are primarily of diagnosticvalue. For emancipatory discourse to occur theseconditions need to be met. The implementationof these conditions is through an organizational"inquiry model" consisting of organizational ar-rangements, procedures, and technological sup-port. Inquiry consists of the various ways ofcollecting i~ ~formation and data that are neededfor the know,ledge base that supports organiza-tional activity,. Here we are concerned particularly

with the organizational activity of systemsdevelopment and, therefore, with the model ofinquiry adopted by IS development methodolo-gies. The assumptions made about what type ofknowledge is important for systems developmentand the ways in which it could be obtained (in-quiry procedures) is referred to as the episteomology of a systems development methodology,or, more specifically, of its inquiry model. As willbe shown later, ETHICS possesses the mostelaborate inquiry model that builds on a dialec-tic epistemology.4 However, the technical effec-tiveness of its inquiry model needs improvement.

Contributing to Emancipatory Discourse

There are a number of possible ways in whichinformation systems could mitigate the distortinginfluences (noted above) that make emancipatorydiscourse impossible. For example:

1. As currently practiced, data modeling ap-proaches do not stress checks and balancesthat could compensate for a number of typicalorganizational biases and distortions. To ad-dress this, the notion of syntactic and seman-tic integrity checks could be expanded toinclude a critical analysis of data modelinglanguage bias and other communicativedistortions. The purpose would be to achieve"performative integrity," which is concernedwith the actual effects of communication, i.e.,whether the use of the data model producesbeneficial outcomes.

,~,nother example of an inquiry model that aimed at implement-ing an emancipatory discourse is found in the organizationalclevelopment approach METAPLAN. In the start-up phase ofMETAPLAN (Metaplan, 1988), a large pin board is used elicit perceptions of issues, questions, proposals, and emo-tional reactions. This can be seen as a device to implementconditions 1, 3, and 4. A variant of this method was appliedin the start-up phase of a large computerized bank teller,.system (Kyng and Ehn, 1985). It was recognized that the usershad insufficient levels of knowledge and confidence to bemeaningful participants. To overcome this, the union organ-ized group sessions among the users, all of whom were=.oughly from the same organizational level (in line with con-clition 2) to express their concerns, feelings, and attitudestoward computerized banking systems. Examples of com-~’nents recorded during these sessions were, "Computers~’nake you feel that you are an expendable part in a bigmachine," "1 do not like to receive instructions and orderst’rom a machine," and so forth. The justifiable and unwar-ranted components of these comments were then carefully;analyzed by drawing on relevant industry experience.

90 MIS Quarterly~March ~994


2. Proper organization of the systems develop-ment process could provide rational motiva-tions for participating, sharing, and elicitingmissing information. This could be done byincorporating teamwork incentives into theproject organization to work against non-participation and withholding of intelligence(Wilensky, 1967).

3. Computer-b~.sed networks could help over-come the limitations of time and space, whichcontribute to intelligence failures. An exam-ple of this is described by Visala (1993).

4. Electronic meeting systems could motivatepeople to contribute their expertise by adver-tising agendas and making it easy to appendcomments and suggestions while at the sametime either keeping track of credits for con-tributions or granting anonymity if this im-proves the quality of the debate.

5. Highly interactive, user-friendly designs couldhelp overcome educational and skill dif-ferences of the systems development par-ticipants by providing help functions,articulation support through easy informationretrieval, and tutorial features.

6. Proper security controls could protect in-dividual rights through anonymity, motivatingpeople to communicate criticisms and radicalchange proposals by shielding them from thethreats of those in power, as is emphasizedin the group decision support literature.

The above discussion amounts to an agenda forachieving emancipation that can be implementedin different ways. Each of these ways will notnecessarily realize to the same extent the re-quirements for an emancipatory methodologydiscussed earlier. We shall follow the tenets ofthe neohumanism paradigm to detail how eman-cipatory ideals could be realized in the ETHICSmethodology.

Design Challenges andObjectives of the ETHICSMethodologyAfter reviewing several candidate methodologiesthat embrace emancipatory ideals to a limited ex-tent, we chose the ETHICS methodology (Mum-

ford, 1983) as the host of our exercise becauseit offers a reasonable starting place for outliningan emancipatory ISD methodology; relative toother approaches it has the strongest par-ticipatory component, embraces a wide set of ex-plicit values for ISD, and advocates structureddebate to resolve conflict, which is similar to therational discourse notion of neohumanism.

A general outline of the ETHICS methodology isgiven in Figure 1 and is further explained in Ap-pendix A. The following sections focus on the fun-damental principles of ETHICS that embraceemancipatory concerns and on ways tostrengthen the emancipatory features of ETHICS.It should be noted that the original design objec-tives of ETHICS did recognize several importantsocial objectives that relate to emancipatory con-cerns. These, however, need to be broadenedand strengthened to realize the key elements ofneohumanist ideals as described above.

According to Mumford (1981; 1983), the four fun-damental objectives of ETHICS are to:

1. Encourage participation ("system design for,by, and with the users," cf. Briefs, et al.,1983);

2. Improve the general conditions of work underthe label "quality of work life improvements";

3. Produce systems that are "technically effi-cient and have social characteristics whichlead to high job satisfaction";

4. Follow the socio-technical philosophy of try-ing for joint optimization, "making the bestuse of people, the best use of technology"(Mumford, 1983, p.10).

In order to encourage participation and overcomepractical obstacles to its implementation, ETHICSnotes four key aspects of participation: structure,content, process, and obstacles. The structureof participation is concerned with different formsof its realization, from political institutionalizationvia pressure groups to enlightened managementpolicy. Both direct and indirect forms of participa-tion (through intermediaries) need to be con-sidered in complex organizations. The issue of"token-participation" or its misuse formanipulative purposes along with a number oftypical obstacles are also recognized (cf. Mum-ford, 1984). The content of participation involvesthe consideration of the decision boundaries for

MIS Quarter/y/March 1994 91


Step 1: Step 2:Identify ~ Identifyproblem system

boundaries

Step 3: Describe existing systemStep 4: Specify key objectivesStep 5: Identify key tasksStep 6: Identify sets of tasksStep 7: Identify information needsStep 8: Identify varianceStep 10: Forecast future needs

Step 9: Diagnose job satisfactionneeds

lStep 11:Set and rankefficiency andjob satisfactionneeds

Step 19:Taketechnicaldecisions

Step 20:Takesocialdecisions

Step 12:Step 16: ~j Identify technical andSpecify priority business constraints

technicalt and business 7objective Step 14:

Identify technicalStep 18: resources availableCheck that technicaland social objectives Step 15:are compatible Identify social

’I

resources available/¯ Step 17:

Specify priority ~ Step 13:social objectives = Identify social

constraints

Step 21:Set outalternativetechnicalsolutions

Step 22:Set outalternativesocialsolutions

Step 23: Step 24: Step 25:Set out ’--’~-’ Rank compatible ~ Preparecompatible pairs of detailedsocio-technical socio-technical worksolutions solutions design

Figure 1. Schematic of the Stages of the ETHICS Methodology



participation, i.e. what subjects are to be decid-ed participatively. This includes the completesystems development life cycle (SDLC) from in-itiation and problem formulation to the evaluationof a working system. Under the process of par-ticipation, integrity issues are considered. Oneof these involves knowledge acquisition and lear-ning "so that decisions are taken from an inform-ed position" (Mumford, 1983, p. 26). The otherissue is power. ETHICS calls for power equaliza-tion to prevent bias by one-sided influence. Thisrecognizes one of the key issues in rationaldiscourse. On the whole, we can say thatETHICS, through participation, strives to realizethe so- called "ideal speech situation" (Haber-mas, 1984) that is a necessary condition foremancipatory discourse and can easily bestrengthened to encompass the missing con-cerns. Among the obstacles to participation arelack of trust, conflicts of interest, time pressuresand stress, low morale, effects of authority, andcommunication gaps (Mumford, 1983, p. 31).ETHICS uses the role of the facilitator to helpovercome these obstacles by ensuring thateveryone contributes and is listened to.

The value of participation is in its process.ETHICS, however, appears to say little regardingsystem requirements that need to be realizedbeyond the broad constraint that new systemsshould enhance rather than limit participatoryforms of work organization. 5 More concretevalues for system design are introduced underthe labels quality of work life and technicalefficiency.

Quality of work life (QWL) requires the design-ing of systems that support a work organizationwith interesting and rewarding jobs. The criteriafor this are variety, autonomy, challenge, oppor-tunities for social contacts, learning, and careeradvancement. ETHICS recognizes the larger

~lt has been pointed out to us by Enid Mumford that the cur-rent implementation of ETHICS is now dedicated to obtain-ing more detailed system requirements. She states:"Questionnaires, if used, are based on the Stafford Beer’Viable System Model.’ Also, the facilitator will try and ensurethat the Beer five levels are covered in the discussions thattake place. ETHICS, when used as a basis for building orchoosing an MIS, starts with a questionnaire to encourage theparticipants’ ’self-reflection.’ The desired information systemis later described in terms of the Beer five levels. The socio-technical ’variance analysis’ is essentially Beer’s level twoanti-oscillation level" (Mumford, 1993).

significance of meaningful jobs: work is an im-portant form of personality expression and self-realization. If people are ;’trapped" in mean-ingless jobs (be it only by economic pressures)or "dehumanized" eight hours a day by beingforced to work under poor social or physical con-ditions, this must cause alienation and personali-ty deformation. In order to put QWL concerns intopractice, ETHICS has a special framework toanalyze the fit of a system to meet social needsand tools to diagnose job satisfaction re-quirements (Mumford, 1983, p. 37). Social needsare classified broadly into needs associated withpersonality, task structure, employee values, orethical needs. Personality needs are met by op-portunities to use and enhance knowledge andskill to earn respect, status, self-esteem, andcareer advancement. Task structure needs arerealized if "employees are not required to under-take anything that they regard as too onerous,too demanding, too dull or too simple" (p. 48).Ethical needs are met if employees through theirwork can achieve what they believe in and if theorganizational policies on communication, con-sultation, and participation meet the employee’sexpectations (p. 52).

Technical efficiency embraces the kind of con-cerns that are the strength of functionalistmethodologies. ETHICS needs improvement inthe tools and methods serving this objective.Because technical and social design criteria andalternatives are explored separately, it is easy tostrengthen this part of ETHICS by using the func-tionalist tool kit for the realization of technicaldesign objectives. In addition, ETHICS con-tributes the method of variance analysis (alsocalled discrepancy analysis) from socio-technicalsystems design to control deviations from quali-ty and efficiency norms of work in process. Adistinction between key and operating variancesis made. The former are systemic and cannot befully eliminated but hopefully can be kept withinreasonable bounds (Mumford mentions the ex-ample of sales departments who tend to ex-perience difficulties in communicating withcustomers or production departments). The lat-ter are deficiencies to be corrected by the newsystem.

According to Davis (1972) the concept of joint op-timization states "that when achievement of anobjective depends on independent but correlated



systems, such as a technological and socialsystem, it is impossible to optimize for overall per-formance without seeking to optimize these cor-related systems jointly" (p. 167). ETHICSattempts to implement joint optimization byredesigning tasks in such a way that through thesharing of subtasks the value of work is in-creased. The value of work includes considera-tions relating to the quality of work life for thoseperforming the work within the organization, butat the same time it improves productivity from theperspective of market competitiveness. The goalof joint optimization is realized in the synthesisphase of ETHICS (steps 23-24 in Figure 1).

The strength, and the inherent difficulty, ofETHICS is that it does not seek to realize suchvaluable objectives at the expense of economicefficiency. It assigns equal importance to bothand argues that in many, if not most, cir-cumstances, systems with high QWL will alsolead to superior quality and efficiency. This attimes may be very difficult to achieve, andETHICS ultimately relies on a negotiated com-promise.

Realization of NeohumanistEmancipatory Concerns inETHICSIn order to provide an indication of how some ofthe important neohumanist concerns could be im-plemented in ETHICS, the following considersfour fundamental issues generally associatedwith neohumanism and, more specifically, withemancipation. The discussion is in terms of fun-damental principles and general strategies ratherthan in terms of detailed methods and tools. Theexclusive focus on ETHICS in this section shouldnot be misread as an implicit claim that other ap-proaches are unable to address emancipatoryconcerns through appropriate modifications.Historically, however, ETHICS appears to havebeen the first to incorporate both emancipatoryideals (such as its valiant insistence on authen-tic participation) and principles of critical inquirythat come close to the conscious implementationof a rational discourse.

The four issues selected for further explorationare:

What is the inquiry model of ETHICS? Follow-ing from that, how does ETHICS implementan approximation ef rational discourse?

How does ETHICS address efficiency and ef-fectiveness (i.e., technical) concerns?

3. How does ETHICS contribute to improvingmutual understanding (i.e., communicativeconcerns)?

4. How does ETHICS contribute to eman-cipation?

These questions, along with the theoretical con-cepts that inspired them, provide a framework forobserving and organizing the emancipatoryfeatures of ETHICS. It should be noted that in itspublished form, there is no mention in ETHICSof the concepts of an inquiry model, reality con-struction (sense-making, mutual understanding,hermeneutics), emancipation, or rationaldiscourse. However, if the features of ETHICSare analyzed with these concepts in mind, it ispossible to see how they are embedded withinthe methodology. Hence, our framework providesa new lens through which to view the body ofknowledge coded into the ETHICS methodology.]his also serves as a theoretical safeguard formisapplying ETHICS in manipulative ways, ashas been criticized by Ehn and Sandberg (1979).

]’he same questions can also be applied to anymethodology. For example, if they were appliedto structured analysis, they would reveal that itsemancipatory features are much less-pro-nounced than those of ETHICS. This couldbecome the starting point for its further develop-ment. Hence, the point of our contribution is thatthe theoretical basis that we apply to ETHICS isindependent of any particular methodology. Here,ETHICS is restated in terms of this theoreticalbasis, thereby changing its character. Insofar asparticipation is strongly related to emancipation,the following necessarily contributes to the ex-tensive discussion on participation. It also addsto the debate on the importance of differentdesign perspectives, e.g., technical-economic,strategic, participatory or emancipatory, or con-flict vs. harmony (cf. Mumford, 1984; Nygaardand Sorgaard, 1987; Wiseman, 1988).



Inquiry model of ETHICS and itsapplication of rational discourseBasically, an inquiry model is the set of pro-cedures recommended to collect and check theknowledge needed in analysis and design.Because neohumanism has major epistemolog-ical differences with other paradigms, amethodology’s inquiry model is of fundamentalimportance for a neohumanist approach to ISD.Therefore, special attention is given to the inquiryprocedure of ETHICS.

The most prominent feature by which ETHICSdistinguishes itself from other methodologies isthat it advocates pluralist or dialectical inquiry.It insists on setting out technical and socialcriteria and solutions separately from each other(cf. the two lines of parallel inquiry in Figure 1).Currently, ETHICS assigns the role of proposingtechnical solutions to one part of the design groupand the role of proposing social solutions to theother part of the design group, i.e., the users. Itis in keeping with the spirit of ETHICS to assignthese two lines of inquiry into alternative technicaland social solutions to separate teams that thenreport back to the design group for the processof ranking and synthesizing the relatively bestsolution. This on the one hand recognizes the ex-istence of professional bias and on the other handuses it constructively to improve the informationand knowledge available to the design group.The features of dialectical inquiry can easily ac-commodate other important concerns that arebetter handled in separate task forces. This wouldgeneralize the principal dialectic between socialand technical concerns to pluralist inquiry intoany concerns identified during the introductorystage of ETHICS.

Several accompanying measures are taken tosafeguard the free flow of information in inquiry:

1. A broad range of interests is to be includedin the design group both from within theorganization (Mumford, 1983, pp. 51-52) andappropriate external groups, such ascustomers or suppliers (p. 86). To make thispractical, permanent and temporary participa-tion in the design group are considered (p. 85),and (permanent or temporary) co-optation recommended (p. 54) when it becomes ob-vious that an important interest group hasbeen overlooked.

2. Conflicts are seen as legitimate and broughtout in the Open to minimize hidden agendas.Generally, a climate of openness and owningup to ideas and positions is encouraged (pp.27 and 88-89).

3. The importance of an equal power distribu-tion is recognized so that negotiated com-promises are not one-sided (p. 26). In caseswhere providing information could lead toreprisals, confidentiality is assured throughanonymity (p. 77). ETHICS’s discussion possible structures for participation containsexplicit hints on how to get around practicaldifficulties with this condition (pp. 24-31). Forexample, if there is a lack of suitably qualifieddirect participants, the vehicle of institutionalrepresentation (i.e., having someone elserepresent a disadvantaged group as aspokesman) can be used to safeguard this ex-tremely important condition.

4. A third group--the steering group and thefacilitator--give general guidance to the pro-cess. We propose to broaden their role toserve as a two stage "court of appeal" ifsevere conflicts arise or individual membersor outside parties jeopardize the integrity ofinquiry by using their power to affect designdecisions in a way that contravanes the spiritof ETHICS.

These measures are seen to institutionalize thefour conditions of rational discourse (or idealspeech situation) as discussed earlier. The ra-tional discourse feature of ETHICS could be fur-ther strengthened by using group decisionsupport systems concepts, which help overcomecommunication barriers (cf. Dennis, et al., 1988;Vogel, et al., 1990).

Besides implementing a sophisticated approx-imation of rational discourse, ETHICS takes stepsto assure that hard data do not suppress "softinformation." ETHICS’s inquiry model is aimedat using not only measurable data (empiricalanalytical knowledge) but also qualitative subjec-tive knowledge, as is typically gleaned in personaldiscussion. In particular, ETHICS places moreemphasis than other methodologies on inquiryinto pertinent values and ethical concerns. It doesso by administering special questionnaires thatinquire into the personal knowledge of those af-fected by system design regarding their expec-

MIS Quarterly/March 1994 95


tations and need~. Basically, the questionnairesare aimed at converting individual feelings intoshared social knowledge about the work situa-tion, which can become the basis for design ob-jectives and evaluating alternative designoptions. In particular, ETHICS’s instruments aimat eliciting (cf. Mumford, 1983, pp. 51-52 and77-82):¯ Personality needs (knowledge needs met by

opportunities for developing and enhancingknowledge and skills; psychological needs metby esteem, security, and advancement)

¯ Work role needs (support services and generalconditions that allow the doing of a good job,e.g., task structures that are motivating andchallenging)

¯ Ethical needs (equitable personnel policiesand granting of respect and recognition on alllevels)

On the whole then there is strong evidence thatETHICS’s inquiry procedures are sufficientlybroad and critical of the underlying assumptionsso they can deliver the general knowledge andconcrete information needed for emancipatorysystems development. Its inquiry model can easi-ly be strengthened in several places. Some ofthese were already indicated and others will sug-gest themselves in the following section.

Realization of technical concernsETHICS is able to accommodate a broad rangeof efficiency and effectiveness criteria becauseit is in part founded on a functionalist frame ofreference. It seeks to support the four keyorganizational functions defined by Parsons andShils (1951): (1) obiective-setting and attainment,(2) adaptation, (3) integration, and (4) stabiliza-tion (what Talcott Parsons called "patternmaintenance"). This is not inconsistent withneohumanist concerns as long as the continua-tion of existing patterns and goals is not used asan excuse to prevent fundamental change. If theparticipatory inquiry structure of ETHICS is allow-ed to work as intended, this is unlikely to hap-pen. Moreover, in the social domain there is aheavy emphasis on overcoming existing patterns,i.e., adaptation and setting objectives to reachbeyond the status quo are given more prioritythan integration and adaptation during the earlystages of systems analysis.

ETHICS has special instruments to realize effi-ciency and effectiveness in three areas: (1) theuse of physical resources (through discrepancyanalysis), (2) human resources (through the "fit dimensions"), and (3) organizational control.Discrepancy analysis shows concern for cycletime and total quality by systematically recordingand analyzing deviations from standards. The fitmodel postulates that high job satisfaction andproductivity will result if the job requirements, asdefined by the organization, match theemployees’ job expectations (Mumford, 1983,p.40) in five areas: (1) using personal knowledgeand skills; (2) realizing personal interests; (3)meeting equity standards of remuneration andcontrol; (4) providing challenge, autonomy, andvariety of tasks; and (5) having a corporate culturethat does not contravene personal convictionsand standards of integrity (e.g., a pacifistemployee in the defense industry). Improvementof organizational control is based on modelingof organizational processes. The modelingfocuses on key information needs for problemprevention, coordination, organizational develop-ment (areas that need improvement), andreconciliation.

The dual structure of the inquiry process andsystems life cycle (Figure 1) can se~’ve as a war-rant that effectiveness and efficiency concernsare pursued vigorously and competently.

Realization of communicativeconcernsThe foundation for all communication is interac-tion. Therefore, ETHICS’s strong emphasis onparticipation is the most important feature thatsupports mutual understanding and helps main-tain a general orientation toward agreement.through consensual problem solving. In addition,ETHICS employs at least four other devices tofurther communicate concerns.

First, there is the formation of relativelyhomogenous groups to stimulate technical vs.social problem solving. This by itself facilitatesin-group communication. In order for this com-munication to stay on target, ETHICS providesthe groups with special data that are collectedthrough questionnaires. These data focus thediscussion on efficiency needs for the group (im-



proving efficiency) and job satisfaction needs forthe group (improving the quality of work life)(Mumford, 1983, pp. 74 and 76).

Second, ETHICS recognizes the limits of writtenforms of documentation. It therefore suggeststhat each member of the design groups meet insmall groups with his or her constituents. Theagenda for these face-to-face discussions in-cludes interpreting the meaning of the question-naire results, checking their accuracy,discovering the reasons for job satisfaction prob-lems, and collecting suggestions on how thesemight be easily avoided or corrected (pp. 77 and82). All this creates a positive atmosphere for con-sensual problem solving.

Third, ETHICS counteracts the communicationgap that tends to emerge between diverse groupsby institutionalizing synthesis and compromise.This is achieved by making it clear to all par-ticipants from the very beginning that the resultsof each group are merely partial; there will be aneed for separate meetings in separate phasesof ETHICS for deriving a global solution later (cf.the first three phases in the center of Figure 1).Along with these phases go attitudes that favorcompromise and are oriented toward reachingconsensual agreement. These are shaped by theexpectation that the final solution must incor-porate multiple objectives (pp. 13, 20, an’d 27),the achievement of which is supported by ap-propriate methods and tools in ETHICS. Thiscounteracts the suspicion that only lip servicemay be paid to some of these objectives, whereasothers are considered "really important."

Fourth,’ a device by which ETHICS safeguardscommunication is the concept of a facilitator. Hisor her role is to move the process along, remov-ing barriers to good communication as theyemerge, and to watch over the integrity of the pro-cess so that the atmosphere of mutual trust andconfidence does not suffer.

None of this is, of course, a guarantee thatcooperation will be forthcoming, but it sets a toneand atmosphere in which it is most likely to occur.

The above vehicles for maintaining and improv-ing mutual understanding and consensualagreements could be strengthened furtherthrough applying some of the ideas of expansiveand cooperative prototyping (cf. B~dker andGr~nb&k, 1991; Greenbaum and Kyng, 1991;

Gr~nb&k, 1989). These appear highly compati-ble with the spirit of ETHICS and could easily beincorporated into its middle stages.8 They wouldserve the double purpose of facilitating learningand of better understanding through hands-onexperience, thereby serving the social needs.They could also serve as a means for re-quirements quality assurance and thereby im-prove the technical quality of the designproposals.

Realization of emancipatoryconcernsA systems development methodology is eman-cipatory if it helps overcome constraints to humanwell-being due to physical (natural or technical),psychological, or social conditions or forces. Thetwo most important prerequisites for emancipa-tion are free inquiry and democratic practices.ETHICS explicitly addresses free inquiry throughits inquiry model. Democratic practices are im-plemented in ETHICS through its emphasis onparticipation. ETHICS’s inquiry model suggestsseveral measures to safeguard the conditions ofideal speech under which emancipatory dis-courses can flourish. These were discussed insome detail earlier. ~he previous treatment ofparticipation focused primarily on its hermeneuticfunction; in this section we need to expand onits significance for emancipation.

Mumford (1983) links the importance of participa-tion to the evolution of democratic forms ofgovernment in the nation state:

[It] was seen as committed to ideas of justice andfreedom, its problem was how to realize these.Parallel notions were concerned with the rightsof individuals and the importance of personalautonomy which could only be secured if mencould decide for themselves what they wantedto do (p. 23).

This passage leaves no doubt that ETHICSrecognized the emancipatory role of participationfrom the outset. It sees participation as a fun-damental value and not just as a means to securecompliance, to elicit detailed requirements, andthe like. Clearly, along with recognizing the needof participation for communication and problem

6 In fact the, XSEL project was based on the building and testingof prototypes until the user group decided the system couldbe released for general use (Mumford and MacDonald, 1990).

MIS Quarterly~March 1994 9"7


solving, ETHICS already has a truly emancipatoryvision of the importance of participation.

First, participation is important to emancipate theindividual from the alienating isolation that hasbeen caused by the rigid division of labor. Sec-ond, when seen in the psycho-analytic contextof group dynamics (cf. Bion, 1959; Klein, 1965),participation is important to maintain a healthypsychological balance by counteracting sub-conscious forces that lead to regression,anxieties, and reality distortions. Hence, conti-nuing participation is a prerequisite not only forthe realization of democracy but also for main-taining emotionally stable, self-confident andcreative personalities:

...it assists people to develop active, non-servilecharacteristics and democratic personality structures,and also enables them to broaden their horizons andappreciate the viewpoints and perspectives of others(Mumford, 1983, p. 24).

This makes it clear that participation has eman-cipatory effects in both the social and individualpersonality sphere, in addition to its fundamen-tal hermeneutic role.

It can be seen that emancipation producespositive consequences for effectiveness and ef-ficiency concerns: stable, self-confident per-sonalities are the pillars of a stress-resistant workforce; individuals confidently expressing ideas isthe bedrock of creativity needed to meet com-petitive demands; and only people accustomedto autonomous, responsible action can be ex-pected to take initiative when things go wrong,which increases the organization’s flexibility andcapacity to deal with uncertainty.

Critical inquiry and genuine participation set thestage for two other emancipation strategies: QWLand authentic forms of life.

QWL concerns are emancipatory because theyare aimed at helping large numbers of peopleovercome alienation through rewarding work.Work alienation is typically caused by estrange-ment from: (1) human contacts at the work place,(2) satisfying use of skill (craftsmanship), and sharing in the possession of the end-product.Together with authentic participation, socio-technical systems design (which fundamentallyinforms ETHICS) seeks to overcome all threesources of work alienation. It is through the con-cerns for QWL that ETHICS, too, contributes to

emancipation from physical constraints becauseit focuses on how to make the most beneficialuses of new technology.

Authentic forms of fife concern personalautonomy and being able to do what is con-sidered right and just. The incorporation of ethicalstandards into an ISD methodology is importantbecause emancipation necessitates thatemployees should be able to do what they believein (within reason, of course). Etzioni (1968) pointsout that it is the dilemma of our age that manypeople are made to believe what they know tobe irrelevant or of questionable validity and can-not do what they feel to be right and important.Breaking this double bind is an important eman-cipatory concern. For this, ETHICS’s conceptionof the."ethical fit" (that ethical needs are met ifthe organization meets the employees’ expecta-tions) needs to tightened. Expectations must bebased on an informed standard. Hence, the in-quiry into ethical needs should, from time to time,follow the same fundamental pattern as thedialectics between technical and social needs.Ethical needs must be determined by a debatebetween those who engage in fundamentalcriticism and those wishing for gradual reform ofthe status quo.7

ConclusionsIt is our contention that this paper contributes tothe intellectual discourse on information systems

7 The ideological difference between the critical reformers (fun-damental criticism) and gradual reformers (incrementalism)is well-known. When considering ethical issues, strong opin-ions are typically held. In ethical matters, radical reform oftenmakes the situation worse because it is almost impossible to~nticipate the consequences (cf. Popper, 1957). A good ex-~mple is prohibition. In addition, too much change may bealienating, especially for people used to the status quo. Thus,if a situation is perceived as tolerable, it is perhaps prudent~:o only gradually change. On the other hand, if the status quois only tinkered with, then there is the risk of myopia, missingany opportunities for real reform. Hence the need for radical(fundamental) criticism to see the options. But there is alsoa need for people to question and/or slow the reform to preovent hastiness, even negligence. The result should be adebate between the radical reformers and gradual reformersIo determine the prudent rate of change. This debate shouldbe organized dialectically, possibly following "roulmin’s (1958)structure. Albert’s (1968) bridging principles could be usedto help break some of the ties, as there is unlikely to be com-pelling enough arguments where the "force of the better argu-ment" notion (Habermas, 1984) could be used to resolve ties(see also Klein and Hirschheim, 1992).



development in three major ways: First, it ar-ticulates the concept and importance of eman-cipation. Second, it shows how IS research couldaddress emancipatory ideals through methodol-ogy reformulation. In this vein the paper alsomakes a modest contribution to the philosophyof neohumanism, which is strong on utopian vi-sion but short on principles for implementation,i.e., it lacks the idea of incrementalism. The papersuggests an incremental approach to addressemancipatory concerns that supplements the uto-pian critical vision of neohumanism which is veryinspiring but not helpful for dealing with the prac-ticalities and imperfections of every day work life.Third, it presents an example of methodologyreformulation.

Methodology reformulationThis paper can be read from two viewpoints. One,as the introduction suggests, is the argument forthe credibility and implementability of eman-cipatory ideals through systems development.The other, more subtle but also more general,is that this paper constitutes an example of a"critical reformulation" of a methodology that isapplicable not only to emancipation but to otherperspectives as well. Critical reformulation pro-ceeds in two steps: (1) assumption analysis,’which identifies the basic building blocks of amethodology and reveals the dependence of theirvalidity on the acceptance of underlyingphilosophical principles; and (2) the proposal improvements for overcoming the limitations in-herent in the assumptions.

Our methodology reformulation is critical in twosenses. The first sense of critical is that the refor-mulation establishes a connection between con-crete principles of action (as captured in themethodology) and an underlying theoretical ra-tionale, which we term "derivation." The deriva-tion, and, therefore, the reformulation, can becalled critical insofar as the underlyingphilosophical principles have passed the criticalscrutiny of the relevant informed community. Thesecond sense of critical is that it reminds us ofthe name of the social theoretic basis upon whichwe drew in this paper: critical social theory (or,more specifically, neohumanism, which is itsparadigmatic form).

The contribution of the critical reformulation pro-cess is that it offers a way of testing whether theknowledge base captured in a methodology is asadequate and penetrating as possible. We knowof no other way to achieve such a testing but byrelating the core principles of a methodology t°the current state of informed opinion about thefactual and normative content with which themethodology deals. This is exactly what we meanby critical reformulation. It is only through criticalreformulation that the connections between theprocedures of a methodology and its theoreticalbasis are revealed, thereby becoming the sub-ject of informed criticism. It is only through suchcriticism that ways and means can be found toovercome the biases and limitations of currentpractice.

A corollary of this thesis is that a critical refor-mulation contributes to broadening the scope ofcurrent methodologies. These methodologiesmay unduly restrict the consideration of all fac-tors that are important for the success of systemsdevelopment projects. Insofar as the narrownessand rigidity of a methodology is a cause for ISfailure, critical reformulation redresses one of thereasons for IS failure. Hence, methodology refor-mulation not only makes explicit the impliedtheoretical basis but also may contribute to im-proving the methodology. For example, manymethodologies have evolved over time inresponse to practical issues. These issues haveguided the methodologies architects. But in ad-dressing these practical issues the architectsoften ignore or are unaware of the theoreticalfoundations upon which their assumptions lie. In-deed, we should not necessarily expect the arch-itects to carry the burden of formulating amethodology’s theoretical rationale in addition toconstantly improving its workability. It is our beliefthat IS researchers can cooperate with practi-tioners on such methodology evolution in a fruit-ful way.

Demonstrating the power of these ideas in a con-crete example using ETHICS also pointed out ashortcoming of neohumanism, namely its failureto consider how the process of emancipation canbe advanced under the constraining circum-stances of limited resources and the presenceof power and authority, a necessary considera-tion in the organization of social life in generaland work organization in particular (cf. footnote

MIS Quarterly/March 1994


3). This paper shows how, through incrementalchanges in which information systems aredesigned and implemented, at least some pro-gress could be made with emancipation in prac-tice. This contention, of course, needs to betested further. It needs to be followed up with fieldobservations and action research.

Finally, this paper presented a concrete exam-ple of methodology reformulation. Its main con-tribution lies in the moving of four key featuresof the ETHICS methodology center stage andsuggesting a new way of presenting not just thismethodology but any methodology with someemancipatory potential. The four key featuresdiscussed in the ETHICS methodology providea framework for assessing the emancipatorypotential of any approach to ISD.

Whereas the ETHICS example presented in thispaper exclusively dealt with a reformulationbased on neohumanism, in particular criticalsocial theory, the approach followed is muchmore general. As noted earlier, it can be appliedto methodologies based on other paradigms.However, it is our contention that neohumanistprinciples are preferable for the critical reformula-tion of methodologies because they direct atten-tion to what .we consider to be the key issues inovercoming oversimplistic notions of many text-book methodologies. These include: howsystems development affects the situation of usergroups, how it fits into the general organizationalatmosphere, how to pay sufficient attention topower and politics, how to give credit to tacitknowledge of organizational expertise, how to en-courage rather than inhibit organizational sense-making and informed value choices, and finally,above all, how to treat people as ends inthemselves rather than merely as means toachieve organizational goals. This is the truemeaning of emancipation.

LimitationsAlthough we advocate emancipation, we are notso naive as to believe this can be achieved bysimply modifying an existing ISD methodology.Reality is, of course, much more complex. In-deed, our analysis contains two principal limita-tions. First, it is exclusively focused onmethodologies. But as is clearly known from

rnany implementation studies, methodologies bythemselves, no matter how well-conceived, arenot enough to change working practices, be theyfor the purpose of addressing emancipation orother concerns. Kling’s (1987) web model revealsthat information systems are like social institu-tions in that they are embedded in a complex webof social norms and practices. It depends on theparticulars of these contextual factors of theorganizational environment as to how amethodology will be applied and how theresulting IS will be used. Hence, the samemethodology and the same IS (technically) mayproduce very different effects in differentorganizations. The emancipatory potential of anymethodology in a concrete situation must bejudged in this light.

The second limitation is that critical social theorydoes not point to effective ways of handling thedarker side of organizational life, which blocksthe road to emancipation, in particular the distor-tions arising from vested interests and power.Hence, the realization of rational discourse andgood participation in practice may be fraught withmany more difficulties than have been acknowl-edged in our previous analysis. We see someconsolation in the suggestion by Forester (1989)that the analysts (or planners) are not complete-ly powerless in that they have more opportunityto influence decisions than those merely affectedby the change but not involved in its design. Theanalysts (planners) have access to informationand can control certain agendas. Moreover,analysts can leverage their power to mediatedistorting influences by anticipating the effectsof power and conflict. Forester provides an ex-tensive systematic analysis on the practicalissues of information control, misinformation, anddistorted communications, with possiblecounterstrategies for all planners. These couldbe adapted to the realm of ISD.

This paper has focused on theoretical ideas.Nevertheless, they should serve as a guide forinvestigating the potential emancipatory (andrepressive) effects of different approaches to ISDin practice (as is, for example, proposed in Kleinand Myers, 1993). The ideas presented in thispaper also provide a theoretical framework andrationale for an action research project to testtheir implementability and actual effects.

11)1)MIS Quarterly~March 1994


AcknowledgementsWe wish to thank the associate editor and fouranonymous reviewers for their help on this paper.Their penetrating criticisms have led to con-siderable improvements in the paper’s content,structure, and style.

ReferencesAlbert, H. Traktat Uber Kritische Vernunft, J.C.B.

Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tubingen, Germany,1968.

Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. "On the Idea ofEmancipation in Management and Organiza-tion Studies," Academy of ManagementReview (17:3), July 1992a, pp. 432-464.

Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. (eds.) CriticalManagement Studies, Sage Publications,London, 1992b.

Auram&ki, E., Hirschheim, R., and Lyytinen, K."Modeling Offices Through DiscourseAnalysis: The SAMPO Approach," The Com-puter Journal (35:4), August 1992, pp.342-352.

Auram&ki, E., Lehtinen, E., and Lyytinen, K. "ASpeech-Act Based Office Modeling Ap-proach," Transactions on Office InformationSystems (6:2), April 1988, pp. 126-152.

Avison, D., Kendall, J., and DeGross, J. (eds.)Human, Organizational, and Social Dimen-sions of Information Systems Development,North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1993.

Bion, W. Experiences in Groups, Basic Books,New York, NY, 1959.

Bjerknes, G. and Bratteteig, T. "The ApplicationPerspective: Another Way of ConceivingSystems Development and EDP-BasedSystems," in Proceedings of the SeventhScandinavian Research Seminar onSystemeering, M. S&&ksj&rvi (ed.), Helsinki,1984, pp. 204-225.

B~)dker, S. and Gr~)nb&k, K. "Design in Action:From Prototyping by Demonstration toCooperative Prototyping," in Design at Work:Cooperative Design of Computer Systems, J.Greenbaum and M. Kyng (eds.), LawrenceErlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1991, pp.197-218.

B~lker, S., Ehn, P., Kammersgaard, J., Kyng, M.,and Sundblad, Y. "A UTOPIAN Experience:On Design of Powerful Computer-Based Tools

for Skilled Graphic Workers," in Computersand Democracy: A Scandivian Challenge, G.Bjerknes, P. Ehn, and M. Kyng (eds.),Avebury, AIdershot, United Kingdom, 1987,pp. 251-278.

Braverman, H. Labor and Monopoly Capital--The Degradation of Work in the TwentiethCentury, Monthly Review Press, New York,NY, 1974.

Briefs, U., Schneider, L., and Ciborra, C. (eds.).Systems Design, For, With and By the Users,North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1983.

Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. SociologicalParadigms and Organizational Analysis,Heinemann, London, 1979.

Carlson, J., Ehn, P., Erlander, B., Perby, M., andSandberg, A. "Planning and Control from thePerspective of Labor: A Short Presentation ofthe DEMOS Project," Accounting, Organiza-tions, and Society (3), 1978, pp. 3-4.

Checkland, P. Systems Thinking, Systems Prac-tice, J. Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UnitedKingdom, 1981.

Checkland, P. and Scholes, J. Soft SystemsMethodology in Action, J. Wiley & Sons,Chichester, United Kingdom, 1990.

Churchman, C.W. The Design of InquiringSystems, Basic Books, New York, NY, 1971.

Clegg, H. Industrial Democracy, Blackwell, Ox-ford, United Kingdom, 1960.

Das, N. Experiments in Industrial Democracy,Asia Publishing House, New York, NY, 1964.

Davis, L. "Job Satisfaction Research: The Post-Industrial View," in Design of Jobs, L. Davisand J. Taylor (eds.), Penguin Books, Har-mondsworth, United ~Kingdom, 1972, pp.154-176.

Deetz, S. Democracy in an Age of CorporateColonization--Developments in Communica-tion and the Pofitics of Everyday ~_ife, StateUniversity of New York Press, Albany, NY,1992.

Dennis, A., George, J., Jessup, L., Nunamaker,J., and Vogel, D. "Information Technology toSupport Electronic Meetings," MIS Quarter-ly (12:4), December 1988, pp. 591-624.

Ehn, P. and Kyng, M. "The Collective ResourceApproach to Systems Design," in Computersand Democracy: A Scandinavian Challenge,G. Bjerknes, P. Ehn, and M. Kyng (eds.),Avebury, Aldershot, United Kingdom 1987, pp.17-57.



Ehn, P. and Sandberg, A. "Systems Develop-ment: Critique of Ideology and the Division ofLabor in the Computer Field," in ComputersDividing Man and Work, A. Sandberg (ed.),Arbetslivcentrum, Swedish Center for Work-ing Life, Stockholm, Sweden, 1979.

Ehn, P. and Sandberg, A. "Local Union Influenceon Technology and Work Organization: SomeResults From the DEMOS Project," inSystems Design For, With and By the Users,U. Briefs, C. Ciborra, and L. Schneider (eds.),North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1983, pp.427-437.

Ehn, P., Kyng, M., and Sundblad, Y. "TheUTOPIA Project: On Training, Technology,and Products Viewed .From the Quality ofWork Perspective," in Systems Design For,With and Bythe Users, U. Briefs, C. Ciborra,and L. Schnieder (eds.), North-Holland,Amsterdam, 1983, pp. 439-449.

Etzioni, E. The Active Society, The Free Press,New York, NY, 1968.

Forester, J. Planning in the Face of Power,University of California Press, Berkeley, CA,1989.

Foucault, M. The Archaeology of Knowledge,Penguin, Harmondsworth, United Kingdom,1972.

Giddens, A. The Constitution of Society, PolityPress, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 1984.

Greenbaum, J. and Kyng, M. (eds.). Design atWork: Cooperative Design of ComputerSystems, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,Hillsdale, NJ, 1991.

Gr~)nb&k, K. "Extending the Boundaries of Pro-totyping: Toward Cooperative Prototyping," inProceedings of the 12th IRIS - Part I, S.B~lker (ed.), DIAMI PB-296-1, Aarhus, Den-markl 1989, pp. 219-238.

Gutting, G. Michel Foucault’s Archaeology ofScientific Reason, Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 1989.

Habermas, J. Legitimation Crisis, Heinemann,London, 1971.

Habermas, J. "Wahrheitstheorien," inWirklichkeit und Reflexion: Walter Schulz Zum60. Geburtstag, H. Farhrenbach (ed.), Neske,Pfullingen, Germany, 1973, pp. 211-265.

Habermas, J. The Theory of Communicative Ac-tion: Reason and the Rationalization of Socie-ty, Vol. I, T. McCarthy (tr.), Beacon Press,Boston, MA, 1984.

Habermas, J. "The Genealogical Writing ofHistory: On Some a prioris in Foucault’sTheory of Power," Canadian Journal ofPolitical and Social Theory (10:1-,?), 1986, pp.1-9.

Habermas, J. The Theory of Communicative Ac-tion: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Func-tionalist Reason, Vol. II, T. McCarthy (tr.),Beacon Press, Boston, MA, 1987.

Herbst, P. Alternatives to Hierarchies, MartinusNijhoff, Leiden, The Netherlands, 1976.

Hirschheim, R. and Klein, H. "Four Paradigmsof Information Systems Development," Com-munications of the ACM (32:10), October1989, pp. 1199-1216.

Hirschheim, R. and Klein, H. "Paradigmatic In-fluences on Information Systems Develop-ment Methodologies: Evolution andConceptual Advances," in Advances in Com-puters, Vol. 34, M. Yovits (ed.), 1992, pp.293-392.

Hirschheim, R. and Miller, J. "Implementing Em-powerment Through Teams: The Case of Tex-aco’s IT Division," in Proceedings of the 1993 ̄ACM SlGCPR Conference, M. Tanniru (ed.),St. Louis, MO, April 1-3, 1993, pp. 255-264.

Howard, R. "UTOPIA: Where Workers Craft NewTechnology," Technology Review (28:3), April1985, pp. 43-49.

livari, J. Contributions to the Theoretical Foun-dations of Systemeering Research and thePIOCO Model, unpublished doctoral disserta-tion, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland, 1983.

livari, J. and Koskela, E. "The PIOCO Model forIS Design," MIS Quarterly (11:3), September1987, pp. 401-419.

Jenkins, C. and Sherman, B. The Collapse ofWork, Eyre Methuen Publishers, London,1979.

Jepsen, L., Mathiassen, L., and Nielsen, P."Back to Thinking Mode: Diaries for theManagement of Information Systems Develop-ment Projects," Behavior and InformationTechnology (8:3), 1989, pp. 207-217.

Kant, I. Groundwork of the Metaphysics ofMorals, translated and analyzed by H. Paton,Harper Torch, New York, NY, 1964.

Katzenbach, J. and Smith, D. The Wisdom ofTeams, Harvard Business School Press, Cam-bridge, MA, 1993.

Kendall, J. and Avison, D. "lEmancipatoryResearch Themes in Information Systems

lO2 MIS Quarterly/March 1994


Development: Human, Organizational andSocial Aspects," in Human, Organizational,and Social Dimensions of InformationSystems Development, D. Avison, J. Kendalland J. DeGross (eds.), North-Holland, Amster-dam, 1993, pp. 1-12.

Kerola, P. "On the Fundamentals of a Human-Centered Theory for Information SystemsDevelopment," Report of The Eighth Scan-dinavian Seminar on Systemeering, Part I,Aarhus, Denmark, Aug. 14-16, 1985, pp.192-210.

Kerola, P. "Integration of Perspectives in theConception of Office and its Systems Develop-ment," in The Report of the lOth IRIS, P. J&r-vinen (ed.), University of Tampere, Tampere,Finland, 1987, pp. 369-392.

Klein, H.K. and Hirschheim, R. "Rationality Con-cepts in Information Systems DevelopmentMethodologies," Accounting, Managementand Information Technologies (1:2), 1991, pp.157-187.

Klein, H.K. and Hirschheim, R. "The Rationalityof Value Choices in Information SystemsDevelopment," working paper, College ofBusiness Administration, University ofHouston, Houston, TX, 1992.

Klein, H.K. and Hirschheim, R. "The Applicationof Neohumanist Principles in InformationSystems Development," in Human, Organiza-tional and Social Dimensions of InformationSystems Development, D. Avison, J. Kendalland J. DeGross (eds.), North-Holland, Amster-dam, 1993, pp. 263-280.

Klein, H.K. and Kraft, P. "Social Control andSocial Contract in NetWORKing: TQM and theControl of Work in the United States," CSCW,1994, forthcoming.

Klein, H.K. and Myers, M. "Emancipation throughISD? A Project Proposal to Investigate theEmancipatory and Compulsive Effects of ISDin Practice," working paper, State Universityof New York, Binghampton, NY, November1993.

Klein, M. Contributions to Psycho-Analysis:1921-1945, Hogarth Press, London, 1965.

Kling, R. "Defining the Boundaries of ComputingAcross Complex Organizations," in CriticalIssues in Information Systems Research, R.Boland and R. Hirschheim (eds.), John Wiley,Chichester, United Kingdom, 1987, pp.307-362.

Kolb, D. Experiential Learning, Experience as theSource of Learning and Development, Pren-tice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N J, 1984.

Kolb, D. and Fry, D. "Toward an Applied Theoryof Experiential Learning," in Theories ofGroup Processes, C. Cooper (ed.), Wiley, NewYork, NY, 1975.

Kyng, M. "Cooperative Design: BringingTogether the Practices of Users andDesigners," in Information SystemsResearch: Contemporary Approaches andEmergent Traditions, H.E. Nissen, H. Klein,and R. Hirschheim (eds.), North-Holland,Amsterdam, 1991, pp. 405-416.

Kyng, M. and Ehn, P. "STARDUST Memories:Scandinavian Tradition and Research onDevelopment and Use of Systems and Tools,"paper presented at the Conference onDevelopment and Use of Computer-BasedSystems and Tools, Aarhus, Denmark, August1985.

Kyng, M. and Mathiassen, L. "Systems Develop-ment and Trade Union Activities," in Informa-tion Society: For Richer, For Poorer, N.Bjorn-Andersen, M. Earl, J. Hoist, and E.Mumford (eds.), North Holland, Amsterdam,1982, pp. 247-260.

Lansbury, R. (ed.). Democracy in the Work Place,Longman Cheshire, Melbourne, Australia,1980.

Lanzara, G. and Mathiassen, L. "Mapping Situa-tions Within a System Development Project:An Intervention Perspective on OrganizationalChange," working paper, DIAMI PB-179,University of Aarhus, Denmark, November1984.

Lanzara, G. and Mathiassen, L. "Mapping Situa-tions Within a Systems Development Project,"Information & Management (8:1), January1985, pp. 3-20.

Lee, A. "Architecture as a Reference Disciplinefor MIS," in Information Systems Research:Contemporary Approaches and EmergentTraditions, H.E. Nissen, H. Klein, and R.Hirschheim (eds.), North-Holland, Amsterdam,1991, pp. 573-592.

Lehtinen, E. and Lyytinen, K. "The SAMPO Proj-ect: A Speech-Act Based Information AnalysisMethodology With Computer Based Tools,"working paper, Department of ComputerScience, University of Jyv&skyl~, Jyv&skyl~,Finland, 1983.



Lehtinen, E. and Lyytinen, K. "DiscourseAnalysis as an Information System Specifica-tion Method,." Proceedings of the 7th Scan-dinavian Research Seminar on Systemeering,M. S&&ksj&rvi (ed.), Helsinki, Finland, August26-29, 1984, pp. 146-198.

Lucas, J. Democracy and Participation, PenguinBooks, Harmondsworth, United Kingdom,1976.

Lyytinen, K. Information Systems Developmentas Social Action: Framework and Critical Im-plications, unpublished doctoral dissertation,Department of Computer Science, Universityof Jyv&skyl&, Jyv&skyl&, Finland, 1986.

Lyytinen, K. "A Taxonomic Perspective of Infor-mation Systems Development: TheoreticalConstructs and Recommendations," inCritical Issues in Information SystemsResearch, R. Boland and R. Hirschheim(eds.), J. Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UnitedKingdom, 1987, pp. 3-41.

Lyytinen, K. "Information Systems and CriticalTheory," in Critical Management Studies, M.Alvesson and H. Willmott (eds.), Sage, Lon-don, 1992, pp. 159-180.

Lyytinen, K. and Hirschheim, R. "InformationSystems as Rational Discourse: An Applica-tion of Habermas’s Theory of CommunicativeAction," Scandinavian Journal of Manage-ment (4:1/2), 1988, pp. 19-30.

Lyytinen, K. and Klein, H. "The Critical SocialTheory of Jurgen Habermas as a Basis for aTheory of Information Systems," in ResearchMethods in Information Systems, E. Mumford,R. Hirschheim, G. Fitzgerald, and T. Wood-Harper (eds.), North-Holland, Amsterdam,1985, pp. 219-232.

Lyytinen, K. and Ngwenyama, O. "What DoesComputer Support For Cooperative WorkMean? A Structurational Analysis of ComputerSupported Cooperative Work," Accounting,Management and Information Technologies(2:1), 1992, pp. 19-37.

Maddison, R., Baker, G., Bhabuta, L., Fitzgerald,G., Hindle, K., Song, J., Stokes, N., andWood, J. Information System Methodologies,Wiley Heyden, Chichester, United Kingdom,1983.

Mathiassen, L. and B~gh-Andersen, P."Semiotics and Informatics: The Impact ofI=DP-based Systems Upon the ProfessionalLanguage of Nurses," Journal of Pragmatics

(10), 1986, pp. 1-26.Mathiassen, L. and BC~jh-Andersen, P. "Systems

Developm.ent and Use: A Science of the Truthor a Theory of Lies," in Computers andDemocracy, G. Bjerkenes, P. Ehn, and M.Kyng (eds.), Avebury, Aldershot, UnitedKingdom, 1987, pp. 395-417.

McCarthy, T. The Critical Theory of JurgenHabermas, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1982.

Metaplan. Primer for the Metaplan Technique:How to Moderate Group Discussions Usingthe Metaplan Technique, Quickborn, Ger-many, 1988.

Mumby, D. Communication and Power inOrganizations: Discourse, Ideology andDomination, Ablex, Norwood, NJ, 1988.

Mumford, E. "Participative Systems Design:Structure and Method," Systems, Objectives,Solutions (1:1), January 1981, pp. 5-19.

Mumford, E. Designing Human Systems: TheETHICS Method, Manchester BusinessSchool, Manchester, United Kingdom, 1983.

Mumford, E. "Participation: From Aristotle to To-day," in Beyond Productivity: InformationSystems Development for Organizational Ef-fectiveness, T. Bemelmans (ed.), North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1984, pp. 95-104.

Mumford, IE. Private communication with authors,May 1993.

Mumford, E. and MacDonald, B. XSEL’s Pro-gress: The Continuing Journey of an ExpertSystem, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester,United Kingdom, 1990.

Ngwenyama, O. Fundamental Issues ofKnowledge Acquisition: Toward a Human Ac-tion Perspective of Knowledge Acquisition, un-published doctoral dissertation, WatsonSchool of Engineering, State University ofNew York, Binghamton, NY, 1987.

Ngwenyama, O. "The Critical Social Theory Ap-proach to Information Systems: Problems andChallenges," in Information SystemsResearch: Contemporary Approaches andEmergent Traditions, H.E. Nissen, H. Klein,and R. Hirschheim (eds.), North-Holland,Amsterdam, 1991, pp. 267-280.

Nygaard, K. "The Iron and Metal Project: TradeUnion Participation," in Computers DividingMan and Work, A. Sandberg (ed.),Arbetslivcentrum, Stockholm, Sweden, 1975.

Nygaard, K. and Sorgaard, P. "The PerspectiveConcept in Informatics," in Computers and



Democracy: A Scandinavian Challenge, G.Bjerknes, P. Ehn, and M. Kyng (eds.),Avebury, Aldershot, United Kingdom, 1987,pp. 371-393.

Oppelland, H. and Kolf, F. "ParticipativeDevelopment of Information Systems," in TheInformation Systems Environment, H. Lucas,F. Land, T. Lincoln, and K. Supper (eds.),North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1980, pp.219-238.

Parsons, T. and Shils, E. (eds.). Toward General Theory of Action, Harvard UniversityPress, Cambridge, MA, 1951.

Pateman, C. Participation and DemocraticTheory, Cambridge University Press, Cam-bridge, United Kingdom, 1970.

Popper, K. The Poverty of Historicism, Routledgeand Kegan Paul, London, 1957.

Rawls, J. A Theory of Justice, Harvard Universi-ty Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 1971.

Thompson, P. Quality Circles, AMACOM, NewYork, NY, 1982.

Toulmin, S. The Uses of Argument, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, UnitedKingdom, 1958.

Ulrich, W. Critical Heuristics of Social Planning,Haupt, Bern, Switzerland, 1983.

Visala, S. An Exploration into the Rationafity ofArgumentation in Information SystemsResearch and Development, unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, University of Oulu, Oulu,Finland, 1993.

Vogel, D., Nunamaker, J.F., Martz, B.,Gro~howski, R., and McGoff, C. "ElectronicMeeting System Experience at IBM," Journalof Management Information Systems (6:3),Winter 1989/1990, pp. 25-43.

Wilensky, H. Organizational Intelligence:Knowledge and Policy in Government and In-dustry, Basic Books, New York, NY, 1967.

Winch, P. The Idea of a Social Science, Rutledge& Kegan Paul, London, 1958.

Wiseman, C. Strategic Information Systems, Ir-win, Homewood, IL, 1988.

About the AuthorsRudy Hirschheim is director of the InformationSystems Research Center and professor of in-formation systems in the College of Business Ad-ministration at the University of Houston. He haspreviously been on the faculties of TempletonCollege (University of Oxford) and the London

School of Economics (University of London). has also worked as a senior consultant with theNational Computing Centre in Manchester. Heis co-consulting editor of the John Wiley Seriesin Information Systems. Besides being anassociate editor of the journal MIS Quarterly, heis also on the editorial boards of Accounting,Management and Information Technologies andJournal of Information Systems. Among thebooks Dr. Hirschheim has published include: Of-fice Automation: A Social and OrganizationalPerspective (John Wiley, 1985); InformationSystems Education: Recommendations and Im-plementation (with R. Buckingham, F. Land, andC. Tully, Cambridge University Press, 1987);Critical Issues in Information Systems Research(with R. Boland, John Wiley, 1987); InformationSystems Outsourcing: Myths, Metaphors andReafities (with M. Lacity, John Wiley, 1993); andInformation Systems and Data Modeling: Con-ceptual and Philosophical Foundations (with H.Klein and K. Lyytinen, Cambridge UniversityPress, forthcoming).

Neinz K. Klein is associate professor of informa-tion systems at the School of Management at theState University of New York, Binghamton andleads the information systems research groupthere. A major focus of his research has been theanalysis of alternative paradigms of informationsystems development and the application ofcritical social theory to rationality, user participa-tion, and conflict management in ISD. Dr. Kleinhas published articles on decision supportsystems, office information systems, informationresearch methodology, and alternative ap-proaches to information systems development,including recent papers in Communications of theACM, Advances in Computers, and Office:Technology and People. He is a member of theeditorial board of the Journal of InformationSystems, Information, Technology and Peopleand the Wiley Series in Information Systems. Heis co-editor of Systems Development for HumanProgress (with K. Kumar, North-Holland 1989)and Information Systems Research: Contem-porary Approaches and Emergent Traditions(with H.E. Nissen and R. Hirschheim, North-Holland 1991) and Co-author of InformationSystems and Data Modeling: Conceptual andPhilosophical Foundations (with R. Hirschheimand K. Lyytinen, Cambridge University Press,forthcoming).

MIS Quarterly~March 1994 1(}5

Emancipatory Systems Developmen!

Appendix AETHICS

This brief overview of ETHICS divides the discussion into four sections: (1) purpose and rationale, (2)focus, (3) phase structure, and (4) special methods and tools.

Purpose and RationaleETHICS, an acronym for Effective Technical and Human Implementation of Computer Systems, is amethodology developed by Enid Mumford at the Manchester Business School and has been evolvingover the past 15 years (Mumford 1983). It is quite different from the traditional approaches to informa-tion systems development in that it is based on the ideals of socio-technical systems (STS). A key aspectof the methodology is that it views participation not only as a necessary device to obtain valid requirements,or stimulate commitment, but as an intrinsic right or end in itself. Consequently, users play a very largeand important role in systems development. While user involvement is important in any methodology,it is absolutely vital in ETHICS.

FocusWhile the participative nature of ETHICS is often written about in the literature, this facet of themethodology should not be overemphasized. The methodology is a serious attempt at operationalizingthe key aspects of the socio-technical systems philosophy. In particular, two design teams are formed,each with a different focus of attention. One is concerned with the technical design of the system, theother with its social design. Another important aspect of I--THICS is its focusing on the job satisfactionneeds of the system users. ETHICS’s social orientation is clearly visible throughout the methodology.

Phase StructureThe ETHICS methodology contains six stages, which are further divided into 25 steps (cf. overview inFigure 1).

Stage 1: Essential systems analysisStage 1 is the preliminary phase of the ETHICS methodology. The procedures carried out here havemuch in common with the more conventional methodologies. For example, in this stage the problemto be solved is identified, its boundaries are noted, the current system is analyzed and described, andkey objectives and tasks are identified. After the establishment of key objectives and tasks, it is necessaryto pinpoint key information needed to accomplish these objectives and tasks. Subsequently, a diagnosisis made of efficiency needs and job satisfaction needs, and a future forecast ("future analysis") is under-taken. The final step in the first stage is an exercise in which all interest groups rank the list of objectiveson a scale of 1-5. (Stage 1 includes steps 1-11 in Figure 1.)

Stage 2: Socio-technical systems designStage 2 tries to reconcile the social side with the technic’al side of systems design. In this stage, thetechnical and business constraints are set out, as well as the social constraints. Two different groupsare formed (one focusing on the social aspects of the system, the other the technical aspects) whosejob it is to find technically and socially desirable design options. After identification of the social andtechnical constraints, the resources available for both the technical and social system are identified and



examined. The objectives and tasks set in Stage 1 for the technical and business side and the socialside are set out in priority style. The objectives (in ranked order) are then checked for compatibility beforeactual technical and social systems decisions are taken. Revision may be necessary before this final ¯step is completed. (Stage 2 includes steps 12-20 in Figure 1.)

Stage 3: Setting out alternative solutionsIn Stage 3, an examination of any alternative technical and social solutions is undertaken. These areset out in matrix form, evaluating possible advantages and disadvantages as well as overall compatibili-ty with the established objectives. As in the previous stage, each will be evaluated against three criteria:priority, constraints, and resources. Once doubtful solutions are eliminated, a short list of technical solu-tions and one of social solutions is drawn up. (Stage 3 includes steps 21-22 in Figure 1.)

Stage 4: Setting out compatible SolutionsStage 4 merges the short lists set out in Stage 3 to see which solutions are most compatible. Incompletesolutions are discarded. Technical and social solutions found to operate well together are entered intoan evaluation matrix for the next stage. (Stage 4 includes step 23 in Figure 1.)

Stage 5: Ranking socio-technical solutionsIn Stage 5, the matrix set up in the previous stage is ranked using information generated in Stage 3,while still ensuring all socio-technical solutions meet the criteria outlined in Stages 1 and 2. (Stage includes step 24 in Figure 1.)

Stage 6: Preparing a detailed work designIn Stage 6, a detailed list and description of all tasks people would perform under a particular socio-technical solution’s implementation is drawn up. Tasks are ranked in terms of simplicity, and attemptsare made to provide a balanced spread of required skills and complexity of tasks. Checks are madeto ensure that created jobs are as interesting and satisfying as possible using a Set of "issues of con-cern." If the highest-ranking Socio-technical solution scores high on these issues while achieving thetechnical objectives, it is accepted as the final solution. If this is not the case, another short-listed solu-tion is tried in the same manner. (Stage 6 includes step 25 in Figure 1.)

Special Methods and ToolsETHICS adopts a number of special methods for systems development. For example, there is a specialdiagramming method used for describing work layout. There is also a job diagnostic questionnaire, whichis used to elicit views on the job situation. More importantly perhaps, ETHICS employs a facilitator whoseeks to find a consensus on the systems development exercise using special questionnaire instruments.

Another special feature is the use of dialectics to stimulate the generation of socially and technicallydesirable alternatives. Mumford (1983) noted that managers often varied technical solutions after thefact at the implementation stage. She observed that much more could be accomplished to meet socialrequirements if they were considered at a stage when design was not yet frozen. At that time, socialobjectives could often be met with little or no extra cost. This gave rise to the split of the developmentteam described in Stage 2 and the explicit consideration of social and technical design objectives asdescribed in Stages 3 and 4.



Appendix B

Four Paradigms of Information Systems DevelopmentWe define "paradigm" as the most fundamental set of assumptions adopted by a professional com-munity that allow them to share similar perceptions and engage in commonly shared practices. Becausesystems developers must conduct inquiry as part of design and have to intervene into the social worldas part of implementation, it is natural to distinguish two types of related assumptions: those associatedwith inquiry to obtain the knowledge needed for design and those associated with the nature of society.Both types of assumptions have affected methodologies, and both types are beginning to change inthe recent research literature on methodologies. The new focus on mutual understanding reflects dif-ferent types of assumptions about the nature of knowledge and how it is acquired. The concern for eman-cipation reflects different assumptions about the nature of society.

In the modern world, these assumptions have been deeply influenced by the prevailing canons of science.Hence, we would expect connections between the assumptions held by professional communities aboutscience and what these communities consider good practice. (The set of assumptions about what definesgood practice of medicine or law and what is quackery is a good example.) Maddison, et al. (1983) notethat methodologies came about by practitioners trying to upgrade their standards. If they are correct,it is to be expected that the assumptions about the nature of science in part became embedded in thedescription and practice of methodologies. Insofar as the assumptions about science would vary be-tween different times or different societies, this in due time should become reflected in different typesof methodologies. This is indeed shown by Hirschheim and Klein (1992).

According to Burrell and Morgan (1979), the assumptions about the nature of human knowledge andinquiry can be broken down into four fundamental sets of beliefs: ontological (beliefs about the natureof the world around us); epistemological (beliefs about how knowledge is acquired); methodological (beliefsabout the appropriate mechanisms for acquiring knowledge); and human nature issues (beliefs aboutwhether humans respond in a deterministic or non-deterministic, i.e. voluntaristic, fashion). Dependingon the precise nature of these beliefs, one can distinguish a "subjectivist-objectivist" dimension, whichis more commonly seen as the two extremes of philosophical inquiry. Objectivists hold that the worldexists independent of our observation of it and that there is one method for knowledge acquisition, whichis the same for both the natural and social world. Subjectivists, on the other hand, hold that the worldis socially constructed and not independent of the individual observing it. Moreover, the method forknowledge acquisition in the natural world is not necessarily appropriate for the social world. Clearly,from a subjectivist viewpoint, knowledge arises from human interaction. No set of observations can replacethe sharing of ideas from which arise informed opinions. Hence, the importance of sense-making andachieving of mutual understandings throughout the systems life cycle.

The second set of assumptions is associated with the nature of society. Two basic positions can beidentified, depending on whether one tends to believe that society is best conceived in terms of orderor conflict and radical change. The "order" or "integrationist" view of society emphasizes stability, in-tegration, functional coordination and consensus. The "conflict" or "coercion" view of society stresseschange, conflict, disintegration, and coercion.

Both sets of assumptions, those about knowledge (objectivism vs. subjectivism) and those about socie-ty (order vs. conflict) can be combined. When these two dimensions are mapped on to one another theyyield four paradigms of social science that are also manifest in information systems development: func-tionalism, social relativism, radical structuralism, and neohumanism (cf. Hirschheim and Klein, 1989).

The functionalist paradigm is concerned with providing explanations of the status quo, social order, socialintegration, consensus, need satisfaction, and rational choice. It seeks to explain how the individualelements of a social system interact together to form an integrated whole. The social relativist paradigm



seeks explanation within the realm of individual consciousness and subjectivity. It seeks to explain struc-tures, social roles, and institutions through their existence as expressions of meanings that individualsattribute to the world they live in. The radical structuralist paradigm has a view of society and organiza-tions that emphasizes the need to transcend the limitations placed on existing social and organizationalarrangements. It focuses primarily on the structure and analysis of economic power relationships. Theneohumanist paradigm seeks change, emancipation, and the realization of human potential and stressesthe role that different social and organizational forces play in understanding change. It focuses on allforms of barriers to emancipation--in particular ideology (distorted communication), power andpsychological compulsions, and social constraints--and seeks ways to overcome them.


realizing emancipatory principles in information systems ... · emancipation refers to freeing...

Documents