Grounded theory and action research as pillars for interpretive information systems research: A comparative study

Abstract

In the literature survey, there is evidence “why an interpretive paradigm is more suitable for evaluating e-government systems”. However, more than one method can be used when applying interpretive paradigm for evaluating information systems (as we do not consider e-government systems as exception) such as Action Research (AR) and Grounded Theory (GT). In this regard, two problems will arise: First, there is no explicit method that clarifies how AR and GT methods can be used for evaluating information systems. The second problem is to determine which method of them will be more appropriate for evaluating information systems. Accordingly, two frameworks for evaluating e-government systems have been proposed, namely ‘Grounded Evaluation Framework’ (GEF) and ‘Action Research Evaluation Framework’ (AREF), which are based on Grounded Theory (GT) and Action Research (AR) methods respectively, to give an example how GT and AR methods can be used in evaluating information systems. The suggested GEF and AREF have been applied to the “University Enrolment Service” in Egyptian e-government, and the findings have been analyzed to conclude that GEF is more appropriate for evaluating e-government systems.