Risk, Security and Organizational Aspects

Risk and Security matters are commonly characterized as being part of every day life, organizations, online, personal and business environments (Luhmann, 1993). They feature almost every human activity and they rep- resent an important step in the evolution of human beings (Adams, 1995) (Ritchie & Brindley, 2007). The purpose of this book is to investigate major research findings about risk and security from a social point of view (Sandaman, 1988), taking into account important contributions from social scholars and research into sci- ence, technology and society (Gallivan et al., 2005), in order to arrive to the definition of organizational issues (Jasperson et al., 2005). The arriving point is the impact of the mentions dimensions (i.e. risk and security) into organizations (Wynne, 1982), for a variety of composed aspects, operational risk, market risk, information risk, safety on the work- place and the like. In the Information Systems (IS) field, researchers have successfully identified a number of key factors influencing individual adoption of new Information Technologies (IT) which relate directly to risk and security (Volti, 2001) (Venkatesh et al., 2003). However, extant research sheds little light on the antecedents of ongo- ing or continued usage (Karahanna et al. 1999), the relationship between individual and institutional concepts of risk and security is also problemat- ic, and at first glance, it appears that extant theory is of little use in terms of understanding, perceiving and evaluating the mentioned concepts (Gallivan et al., 2005). This section presents an overview of the methodological matters that guided the study of the present monograph. It comments interpretivism, comments on the possible role of theory in this study and discusses the re- search strategy of the author itself as the antecedent, and including some discussion and speculation of previous research findings that proved to be particularly useful. Myers argues that a “research method is a strategy of inquiry which moves from the underlying philosophical assumptions to research design and data collection” (Myers, 1997). A research strategy is chosen according to the fit, between it, and the purpose of the study and the nature of the re- search question posed (Marshall & Rossman, 2006). Broadly speaking, one must decide what philosophical perspective will underpin the study and one must choose a qualitative, quantitative or mixed strategy. Philosophical perspectives are also known as paradigms, and are defined by Guba and Lincoln as “basic belief systems based on ontological, episte- mological and methodological assumptions” and described as “axiomatic systems... differ[ing] from one another on matters much more fundamental than the locale in which the inquiry is conducted, the format of the inquiry report, or the nature of the methods used” (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). We intend for the purpose of this monograph here a “paradigm” as a basic belief system or a worldview that guides the researcher. The emphasis is on the paradigms, their assumptions, and the implica- tions of those assumptions for research. In the research timeline, authors have criticized the over-quantification and the received view of know- ledge, noting such issues as the theory-laden and value-laden nature of facts and the relationship between the inquirer and the object of the inquiry (Willcocks & Whitley, 2009). The paradigms most commonly discussed are: positivism, post- positivism, critical theory, and constructivism. Prior to research into risk and security organizational issues, those par- adigms must be then examined with regard to ontology (what is the form and nature of reality), epistemology (what is the nature of the relationship between the knower and what can be known), and methodology (how can the inquirer go about finding out whatever he/she believes can be known) (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). The main philosophical perspectives or paradigms discussed in the sub- ject of this work are positivist, interpretivist and critical (Chua 1986) (Or- likowski & Baroudi 1991). Positivism continues to dominate (Orlikowski & Baroudi 1991) (Wal- sham 1995) (Davison et al., 2004) but interpretivism has been gaining steady ground (Lindgren, 2004) (Rescher, 2000). The aim of interpretivism is to gain understanding rather than to be able to make predictions (Orlikowski & Baroudi, 1991). Interpretive studies generally attempt to achieve this understanding of phenomena through the meanings that people assign to them (Walsham, 1995). More specifically, interpretive research aims to develop a richer under- standing the complex world of lived experience from the point of view of those who live it. The ontological assumptions of interpretivism (which is sometimes re- fer to as constructivism) can be labeled as relativist: “realities are appre- hendable in the form of multiple, intangible mental constructions, socially and experientially based, local and specific in nature... and dependent for their form and content on the individual persons or groups holding the con- structions” (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Interesting contributions by Winograd and Flores and, more recently, by Davison, and Baskerville and Myers points to shed light on the perceptions of individuals and how these percep- tions are shaped by the experiences of those individuals, which are local, specific and dynamic, and others, represented in discourse (Winograd & Flores, 1986) (Davison et al., 2004) (Baskerville & Myers, 2002).