By completing this assignment you will learn how to critically analyse and deconstruct scholarly arguments, using the two paradigms taught.
To complete this assignment you must analyse and deconstruct tw readings (details provided below), reconciling them to the two paradigms discussed in the lectures and in the following paper:
- Hirschheim, R. & Klein, H. K. (1989). Four paradigms of information systems development. Communications of the ACM, Vol. 32(10): 1199-1216.
To do well in this assignment, you must demonstrate a good understanding of how the authors attempt to convince you of the merits of their ideas. That is, you must demonstrate a good understanding of how the authors legitimate their views. To assist you to complete the assignment, follow the steps below.
Step 1: Download the Hirschheim & Klein (1989) paper (see above), and the four readings you need to deconstruct (see below).
Step 2: Learn the two paradigms
- Study Hirschheim and Klein’s (1989) paper in depth.
- Search out additional literature to aid your understanding, which you should then cite in your deconstruction.
- Learn the meaning of the terms that are new to you in the Hirschheim and Klein paper.
Step 3: Use the template, below, as a guide to help you deconstruct the four scholarly readings
We have already classified the two readings for you (see below). Your task is to deconstruct these readings, and explain why they embody their respective paradigm. The assignment template provides you with guidelines to help you deconstruct each reading.
The two readings you must read and deconstruct are:
| Reading | Paradigm |
| Cho, C.H., Laine, M., Roberts, R.W., & Rodrigue, M. (2015). Organized hypocrisy, organizational façades, and sustainability reporting, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 40: 78-94. | This reading is radical structuralist in nature. Why is this reading an exemplar of radical structuralism? |
| Atkins, J., Atkins, B.C., Thomson, I., Maroun, W. (2015). “Good” news from nowhere: Imagining utopian sustainable accounting, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 28(5): 651-670. | This reading is neo-humanist in nature. Why is this reading an exemplar of neo-humanism? |
Assignment template
Given Paper 1 – 500 words
| Question | In your lectures, four rationales for organisational analysis are described. |
| 1 | Critically discuss the argument presented by the author(s). |
| Answer hints:
· How do the author(s) try to describe their context? (e.g. how is the narrative presented?)
|
|
| 2 | What is the method – how do the author(s) convince their readers? |
| Answer hints:
· What data is relied on? · How is data collected? · How is data analysed? · Are the conclusions open to be challenged?
|
|
| 3 | Drawing on your answers from analysing Q (1) and (2), critically analyse and match your analysis to the rational given in Lecture 1 for Organisational Analysis |
| Answer hints:
· What rational is best matched to the paper analysed? · Critically discuss your reasoning
|
Given Paper 2- 500 words
| Question | In your lectures, four rationales for organisational analysis are described. |
| 1 | Critically discuss the argument presented by the author(s). |
| Answer hints:
· How do the author(s) try to describe their context? (e.g. how is the narrative presented?)
|
|
| 2 | What is the method – how do the author(s) convince their readers? |
| Answer hints:
· What data is relied on? · How is data collected? · How is data analysed? · Are the conclusions open to be challenged?
|
|
| 3 | Drawing on your answers from analysing Q (1) and (2), critically analyse and match your analysis to the rational given in Lecture 1 for Organisational Analysis |
| Answer hints:
· What rational is best matched to the paper analysed? · Critically discuss your reasoning
|
