What do positivist and pragmatist researchers cite? the case of behavioral and design science research in information systems

Abstract

Citation is an essential feature of academic writing. Its importance lies in demonstrating how writers build intertextual links between their current work and other work. Yet, making references to prior scholarship can be a challenging task to novice writers. One of the problems is that they are unable to choose appropriate content to cite from previous literature and thus their academic texts have always been criticized for citing irrelevant ideas and missing crucial information that leverages their own work (Ridley, 2012). Given these challenges, much research has been conducted into citation practices in academic discourse (see, e.g., Hyland, 2002; Samraj, 2013). Different EAP writing guides (see, e.g., Paltridge, 2002; Feak & Swales, 2009) have also been published for EAP practitioners to teach students how to use citations in academic research writing. Despite plenty of research and instructional manuals, they have focused primarily on citation forms (integral vs. non-integral), citation verbs, and citation functions rather than citation content. For this reason, very little is known of the types of knowledge cited by writers in their own writing (see the exception of Kwan and Chan 2014). To address this gap, this paper will present a semantic analysis of citation use in literature reviews (LR) of published research articles in a multi-paradigmatic discipline – Information Systems (IS). More specifically, the study aims to examine the types of content cited in the LRs following two different paradigms (positivist and pragmatist). Using Kwan and Chan’s semantic citation typology, a total of 60 LRs (30 in each data set representing a particular paradigm) were examined. Findings reveal similarities and differences between the content cited in the two data sets. Such variations can be attributed to the differences in the nature of each of the two paradigms dominating the IS discipline. Pedagogical implications will be discussed.