Beliefs about natural science have been influential in information system (IS; Orlikowski and Baroudi, 1991).¹ For example, a belief exists that ‘the methods of natural science constitute the only legitimate methods for use in social science’ (Evaristo and Karahanna, 1997: 39). These legitimate methods include the use of ‘quantitative empirical methodologies—field experiment, survey, and laboratory experiments’ (Evaristo and Karahanna, 1997: 39). Understandably, many qualitative IS scholars have reported serious pressure to meet such standards. For example, De Vaujany et al. (2011) asserted that ‘in order to survive, the IS field had to draw on a model of research attributed to the natural sciences’ (p. 405). Similarly, Lyytinen and King (2004) referred to the ‘orthodox’ view in IS, according to which the IS ‘field’s survival depended on . . . drawing on a model of research attributed to the natural sciences’ (p. 222).

中文翻译：

---

关于信息系统中自然科学的神秘化信念

关于自然科学的信念已经影响了信息系统（IS； Orlikowski和Baroudi，1991）。^1个例如，存在一种信念，即“自然科学的方法构成了在社会科学中使用的唯一合法方法”（Evaristo和Karahanna，1997：39）。这些合法的方法包括使用“定量的经验方法-现场实验，调查和实验室实验”（Evaristo和Karahanna，1997：39）。可以理解的是，许多定性IS学者报告了要达到这样的标准的巨大压力。例如，De Vaujany等。（2011）断言“为了生存，信息系统领域必须借鉴归因于自然科学的研究模型”（第405页）。同样，Lyytinen和King（2004）提到了IS中的“正统”观点，根据该观点，IS“领域”的生存取决于。。。借鉴自然科学的研究模型（第222页）。