An empirical investigation of rigour versus relevance in information systems research

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

ABSTRACT

The purpose of the study was to investigate the rigour and relevance of IS research; as researchers and practitioners are divided and living in a different world of aspiration m conducting research. This division is as a result of many reasons. The gap between researchers and practitioners has promulgated debate and argument among the two that has lasted for years. Many believed that IS research is effective and others opposed it. Others within or outside the discipline consider whether IS research output affects and impacts decision making in the industry. Meanwhile, the debate on rigour and relevance has lasted for decades but, in reality, the differences gap still persists, in spite of efforts by researchers. Their efforts and hard-work seem not to be very effective. This study seeks to determine whether practitioners meet their needs and

expectations and whether they address them through the rigour and relevance of iS/academic research. It is also to determine whether this debate which has lingered over the years is worth it.

The growing problems and needs in the practitioners' world call for an investigation into this rigour and relevance. There is an on-going criticism that IS research lacks rigour, relevance. effective communication and acceptance in the field as noted in the literature. The identified problem under investigation now is lack of rigour, relevance and other issues such as consistency, transparency, communication and inaccessibility in IS research. The population for the study comprised academic lecturers attending the South African Institute for Computer Scientists and Information Technologists (SAICSIT 20 12) conference and orth-West University IS and Computer Science (Mafikeng Campus) academics. The population was 90 lecturers/academics and the sample size of 73 answered the questionnaires.

Keyword: Rigour, Relevance, Debate, Information Systems (IS), Academia, Collaboration, Research, Academic, Researchers, Practitioners, Applied discipline. Research method and

Academic researchers.

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

(21)

(22)

(23)

(24)

(25)

(26)

(27)

(28)

(29)

(30)

(31)

(32)

(33)

(34)

(35)

(36)

(37)

(38)

(39)

(40)

(41)

(42)

(43)

(44)

(45)

(46)

(47)

(48)

(49)

(50)

(51)

(52)

(53)

(54)

(55)

(56)

(57)

(58)

(59)

(60)

(61)

(62)

(63)

(64)

(65)

(66)

(67)

(68)

(69)

(70)

(71)

(72)

(73)

(74)

(75)

(76)

(77)

(78)

(79)

(80)

(81)

(82)

(83)

(84)

(85)

(86)

(87)

(88)

(89)

(90)

(91)

(92)

(93)

(94)

(95)

(96)

(97)

(98)

(99)

(100)

(101)

(102)

(103)

(104)

(105)

(106)

(107)

(108)

(109)

(110)

(111)

(112)

(113)

(114)

(115)

(116)

(117)

(118)

(119)

(120)

(121)