Time, change and beliefs
- PDF / 46,416 Bytes
- 1 Pages / 595 x 794 pts Page_size
- 36 Downloads / 170 Views
EDITORIAL
Time, change and beliefs Ray J. Paul Editor European Journal of Information Systems (2004) 13, 165. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000506
With the passage of time, and inevitable change, peoples’ belief systems are often put to the test. Sometimes holders of beliefs find their beliefs under pressure from the changes around them. Some believers then seek to explain why their beliefs are still intact but that the world is not behaving as it should. Information Systems professionals do not appear to be any different to anyone else when it comes to belief systems. In this special issue, a platform is provided for ‘Interpretive’ approaches. Such approaches are widely accepted today, but not universally. The special issue gives our EJIS readership the opportunity to look at some Interpretive approaches that were presented at a focussed workshop held on the topic. If you are a sceptic concerning Interpretive approaches, how can I persuade you to read this issue? Perhaps by relating to you an analogous story: One of my colleagues at Brunel is a medium: she believes in ‘ghosts’ or to be more prosaic, the spirit world. Now, I observe there are many things that happen in life for which I have no explanation, and I take the view that my five senses allow me to comprehend what these five senses are designed to sense, but not what happens outside the boundaries of my five senses. I have no evidence to suggest that other things do not happen. My medium recently led her team to a house, by invitation, to seek y what? The house had in a previous century been used to execute sailors by hanging. My medium invited a second group to join them, a group of scientists who investigate the paranormal. During the night both groups reported strange lights, unaccountable activities (equipment switched off with no one present) etc. The mediums, who believe in the spirit world, found the evidence of the investigation supportive of their views. The scientists, whose equipment could not identify the evidence, concluded therefore that the experience had no contribution to make to scientific understanding of the paranormal. So both groups found the same evidence supported their initial beliefs. Is either approach more scientific than the other? The moral of this story is – please read this special issue putting aside any prior prejudice. Then you might find something worthwhile in one or more papers. Otherwise, do not be surprised if you find your prejudices reinforced.
Data Loading...
