An empirical investigation of the epistemological assumptions underlying two ISD approaches

A situated information systems design (ISD) methodology for supporting routine work is being iteratively developed and refined. Driven from a different theory of action from conventional ISD methodologies we have reason to believe that the new methodology assumes a different epistemological stance. As pointed out by Hirschheim (1995) there has been very little examination of epistemological assumptions implicit in ISD methodologies. Consequently, in this paper we address the differences in epistemological assumptions of the conventional ISD approaches (such as Structured System and Analysis Design Methodologies) and the situated ISD approach by constructing a simulated field situation to allow a conventionally-trained IS analyst to analyse the same case as had been previously analysed by applying the situated ISD methodology. We find that while the conventional approach focuses on articulated knowledge and observes the system under study with a detached stance, the situated approach includes tacit knowledge and recognises the importance of the environment. This is achieved through immersion in the system such that the situated analyst attempts to take the subject position of an actor in the system, while also maintaining some analytical distance.