Kroeze Interpretivism in IS – a Postmodernist Knowledge Theory Proceedings of the Eighteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Seattle, Washington, August 9-12, 2012. 1 Americas Conference on Information Systems AMCIS2012 Seattle Interpretivism in IS – a Postmodernist (or Postpositivist?) Knowledge Theory Jan H. Kroeze University of South Africa kroezjh@unisa.ac.za ABSTRACT This paper explores the association between postmodernism and interpretivism. The paper’s objective is to show that the interpretivist research paradigm shows very clear postmodernist traits. After defining the two concepts the paper attempts to answer the research question whether interpretivism is a typical postmodernist approach to Information Systems science and research. The paper is conceptual, using a philosophical-logical approach. It makes a contribution to the discipline of Information Systems by taking the reflection on the continuum of positivism-interpretivism-critical research a level deeper by connecting interpretivism with the broader, encompassing paradigm of postmodernism. Keywords Interpretivism, postpositivism, positivism, postmodernism, Information Systems. INTRODUCTION This paper explores the associations between postmodernism and interpretivism. The paper’s objective is to show that the interpretivist research paradigm shows very clear postmodernist traits. After defining the two concepts the question is asked whether interpretivism may be regarded as a typical postmodernist approach to Information Systems (IS) science and research. A substantial body of scholarship exists on these topics, but postmodernism has received little attention in IS literature and very little research outputs have been found so far that reflect on the possible linkages between this overarching philosophy of our times and alternative research theories in our discipline. One exception to this statement is a study using postmodernist principles to suggest ethical guidelines which may help to improve the success rate of IS development projects (Chattejee, Sarker and Fuller, 2009). This paper aims to make a contribution to IS theory and philosophy by attempting an answer to the intricate research question, whilst acknowledging that all knowledge is provisional, especially when it touches on fluid belief systems. The paper is a follow-up of Kroeze (2010b) in which a linkage between interpretivism and postmodernism was suggested and discussed briefly. It also builds on and extends some of the ideas in Kroeze (2012). In interpretivist research it is preferable to use the term “premise” or “proposition” for the central theoretical statement (golden thread) of a piece of research, rather than the positivist term hypothesis (cf. DeLuca, Gallivan and Kock, 2008:58). The premise of this paper is that interpretivism may be regarded as a postmodernist epistemology. The presupposition of “multiple subjective realities” and “dynamic, socially constructed meaning” (e.g., how different IT company cultures experience truth, knowledge and methodologies) is an essential part of the interpretivist paradigm (Oates, 2006:292-293). Interpretivist studies try to understand a pluralistic world based on the principle that people assign meanings and values to their unique contexts. These propositions will be explored in more depth and the essential characteristics of interpretivism will be contrasted with positivism on the one hand, and aligned with postmodernism on the other hand. The conceptual research approach adopted for this paper is typical of humanities research, more specifically “conceptual philosophical research” using “philosophical-logical arguments” (cf. Becker and Niehaves, 2007:199-200). The literature review is more than a mere summary of what has been written on the subject before. The relation between the relevant concepts, that has not been discussed in depth in IS literature, is explored in an analytical and synthesizing way. The paper is a study in the philosophy of science. The philosophy of science explores the foundational issues and assumptions of science in general and with regard to specific disciplines.