The article by Rudy Hirschheim and Heinz K. Klein explores four paradigms of information systems development (ISD), examining the implicit and explicit assumptions that guide the development process and how these assumptions affect the resulting systems. The four paradigms are functionalism, social relativism, radical structuralism, and neohumanism, each rooted in different epistemological and ontological assumptions about knowledge and reality. 1. **Functionalism (Objective-Order)**: This paradigm emphasizes rational and objective explanations of social affairs, focusing on the integration and stability of social systems. It assumes a measurable and objective reality and seeks to explain how individual elements interact to form an integrated whole. The developer is seen as an expert in technology and methods, and the primary role is to design systems that support rational organizational operation and effective project management. 2. **Social Relativism (Subjective-Order)**: This paradigm recognizes the complexity and subjectivity of reality, emphasizing that there is no single objective reality but rather multiple perceptions and constructions. It views systems development as a process of sense-making, where system objectives emerge through social interaction and consensus. The developer acts as a facilitator, helping users make sense of the new system and its environment. 3. **Radical Structuralism (Objective-Conflict)**: This paradigm postulates a fundamental social conflict between the interests of owners and labor, with economic reality explained by the interplay of these classes. It sees systems development as part of the rationalizing forces that either support the owners or their opponents, labor. The developer must choose between siding with management or labor, with the choice influencing the direction and outcomes of the system. 4. **Neohumanism (Subjective-Conflict)**: This paradigm advocates for radical change and emancipation, focusing on the role of social and organizational forces in understanding and overcoming barriers to change. It emphasizes the importance of user resistance as a sign of collective interest and seeks to create systems that enhance craftsmanship, working conditions, and product quality. The article uses generic story types to illustrate how these paradigms manifest in practice, providing a theoretical framework for understanding the nature, purpose, and practice of ISD. It highlights the importance of recognizing and analyzing these paradigms to better understand the outcomes and consequences of different development approaches.The article by Rudy Hirschheim and Heinz K. Klein explores four paradigms of information systems development (ISD), examining the implicit and explicit assumptions that guide the development process and how these assumptions affect the resulting systems. The four paradigms are functionalism, social relativism, radical structuralism, and neohumanism, each rooted in different epistemological and ontological assumptions about knowledge and reality. 1. **Functionalism (Objective-Order)**: This paradigm emphasizes rational and objective explanations of social affairs, focusing on the integration and stability of social systems. It assumes a measurable and objective reality and seeks to explain how individual elements interact to form an integrated whole. The developer is seen as an expert in technology and methods, and the primary role is to design systems that support rational organizational operation and effective project management. 2. **Social Relativism (Subjective-Order)**: This paradigm recognizes the complexity and subjectivity of reality, emphasizing that there is no single objective reality but rather multiple perceptions and constructions. It views systems development as a process of sense-making, where system objectives emerge through social interaction and consensus. The developer acts as a facilitator, helping users make sense of the new system and its environment. 3. **Radical Structuralism (Objective-Conflict)**: This paradigm postulates a fundamental social conflict between the interests of owners and labor, with economic reality explained by the interplay of these classes. It sees systems development as part of the rationalizing forces that either support the owners or their opponents, labor. The developer must choose between siding with management or labor, with the choice influencing the direction and outcomes of the system. 4. **Neohumanism (Subjective-Conflict)**: This paradigm advocates for radical change and emancipation, focusing on the role of social and organizational forces in understanding and overcoming barriers to change. It emphasizes the importance of user resistance as a sign of collective interest and seeks to create systems that enhance craftsmanship, working conditions, and product quality. The article uses generic story types to illustrate how these paradigms manifest in practice, providing a theoretical framework for understanding the nature, purpose, and practice of ISD. It highlights the importance of recognizing and analyzing these paradigms to better understand the outcomes and consequences of different development approaches.