Getting pragmatic

European Journal of Information Systems (2010) 19, 251–256. doi:10.1057/ejis.2010.22 Information systems (IS) is often seen as a pragmatic discipline with an emphasis on applied research and practical implications (in addition to theoretical implications, of course). When EJIS editor Ray Paul (2002, p. 174) described himself as ‘a pragmatist, in a pragmatic rather than philosophical way’ I think he captured well how many IS scholars see themselves. For example, the action research methodology (Baskerville & Myers, 2004) as well as the design science research paradigm (Baskerville, 2008; Winter, 2008), two common IS research approaches, particularly in the European context, are both expressions of pragmatic ideas (Hevner et al., 2004; Lee & Nickerson, 2010). Essentially, a pragmatist outlook implies an interest in change and how people bring about and respond to change. To engage with the action character of the empirical field is at the core of pragmatism. This follows from Blumer’s (1969, p. 71) insight that ‘the essence of society lies in an ongoing process of action – not in a posited structure of relations. Without action, any structure of relations between people is meaningless. To be understood, a society must be seen and grasped in terms of the action that comprises it’. As pointed out by Goles & Hirschheim (2000) pragmatists are more interested in utility and usefulness than in an abstract notion of truth. That is, the true value of knowledge is seen to lie in its practical usefulness and its ability to bring about informed change. Indeed, as Hevner et al. (2004, p. 77) put it, ‘truth (justified theory) and utility (artifacts that are effective) are two sides of the same coin and y scientific research should be evaluated in light of its practical implications’. Note, however, that the pragmatist view of usefulness should not be mistaken for utilitarianism. Pragmatists acknowledge that usefulness must always be related to the particular value system of the social practice in which the knowledge is brought into play (Lee & Nickerson, 2010). Now, if IS is essentially a pragmatic discipline, we should have a lot to learn from pragmatism even beyond a focus on action and situated usefulness, should we not? In fact, over the years pragmatic thinking has inspired quite a lot of IS research. The most well known is perhaps that which has been explored within the so-called language/action perspective. This research came to focus a lot on the intentional aspects of language use and how IS codify language patterns that facilitate and impose restrictions on activities (e.g. Goldkuhl & Lyytinen, 1982; Winograd & Flores, 1986; Dietz, 2001; Weigand, 2006). Another important line of research is that referred to as organizational semiotics, spearheaded by the work of Ronald Stamper and colleagues (Stamper et al., 2000; Stamper, 2001). This strand of pragmatic thinking set out to investigate the various levels at which IS as sign systems affect organizations, from their material representations through to social prerequisites and consequences. In addition to these established research strands, a number of recent and related efforts have emerged, such as the EJIS special issue on ‘Action in Language, Organisations and Information Systems’ (Vol. 15, No. 1), recent scholarly contributions (e.g. Kuo & Yin, 2009; Lee & Nickerson, 2010; Zappavigna & Patrick, 2010), and the establishment of the AIS Special Interest Group on Pragmatist IS Research (SIGPrag), http://www.sigprag.org/. European Journal of Information Systems (2010) 19, 251–256 & 2010 Operational Research Society Ltd. All rights reserved 0960-085X/10