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.

European Journal of Information Systems (2004) 13, 165