Information Systems Research Relevant Theory And

Informed Practice Ifip Tc8wg82 20th Year

Retrospective Relevant Theory And Informed
Practicelooking Forward From A 20year
Perspective On Is Research July 1517 2004
https://ebookbell.com/product/information-systems-research-
Manchester United Kingdom Bonnie Mae Kaplan Ifip
relevant-theory-and-informed-practice-ifip-tc8wg82-20th-year-
Working Group 82 Et Al download
retrospective-relevant-theory-and-informed-practicelooking-
forward-from-a-20year-perspective-on-is-research-
july-1517-2004-manchester-united-kingdom-bonnie-mae-kaplan-ifip-
working-group-82-et-al-4102984

Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

Information Systems Research Foundations Design And Theory Mohammed

Ali

https://ebookbell.com/product/information-systems-research-
foundations-design-and-theory-mohammed-ali-52365032

Information Systems Research Development Applications Education 10th

Sigsandplais Eurosymposium 2017 Gdansk Poland September 22 2017
Proceedings Malankowski

https://ebookbell.com/product/information-systems-research-
development-applications-education-10th-sigsandplais-
eurosymposium-2017-gdansk-poland-september-22-2017-proceedings-
malankowski-6753794

Information Systems Research Development Applications Education 11th

Sigsandplais Eurosymposium 2018 Gdansk Poland September 20 2018
Proceedings 1st Ed Stanisaw Wrycza

https://ebookbell.com/product/information-systems-research-
development-applications-education-11th-sigsandplais-
eurosymposium-2018-gdansk-poland-september-20-2018-proceedings-1st-ed-
stanisaw-wrycza-7319836

Information Systems Research Development Applications Education 12th

Sigsandplais Eurosymposium 2019 Gdansk Poland September 19 2019
Proceedings 1st Ed 2019 Stanisaw Wrycza

https://ebookbell.com/product/information-systems-research-
development-applications-education-12th-sigsandplais-
eurosymposium-2019-gdansk-poland-september-19-2019-proceedings-1st-
ed-2019-stanisaw-wrycza-10799994
Information Systems Research Methods Epistemology And Applications
Aileen Catersteel

https://ebookbell.com/product/information-systems-research-methods-
epistemology-and-applications-aileen-catersteel-1399448

Scandinavian Information Systems Research First Scandinavian

Conference On Information Systems Scis 2010 Rebild Denmark August 2022
2010 Proceedings 1st Edition Sabine Madsen

https://ebookbell.com/product/scandinavian-information-systems-
research-first-scandinavian-conference-on-information-systems-
scis-2010-rebild-denmark-august-2022-2010-proceedings-1st-edition-
sabine-madsen-4201692

Advances In Information Systems Research Education And Practice Ifip

20th World Computer Congress Tc 8 Information Systems September 710
2008 Milano Italy 1st Edition Jorma Riihijrvi

https://ebookbell.com/product/advances-in-information-systems-
research-education-and-practice-ifip-20th-world-computer-congress-
tc-8-information-systems-september-710-2008-milano-italy-1st-edition-
jorma-riihijrvi-4240434

Enterprise Content Management In Information Systems Research

Foundations Methods And Cases 1st Edition Alexander Simons

https://ebookbell.com/product/enterprise-content-management-in-
information-systems-research-foundations-methods-and-cases-1st-
edition-alexander-simons-4523038

Advances In Research Methods For Information Systems Research Data

Mining Data Envelopment Analysis Value Focused Thinking 1st Edition
Kwekumuata Oseibryson

https://ebookbell.com/product/advances-in-research-methods-for-
information-systems-research-data-mining-data-envelopment-analysis-
value-focused-thinking-1st-edition-kwekumuata-oseibryson-4594018
INFORMATION SYSTEMS RESEARCH
Relevant Theory and Informed Practice
 IFIP – The International Federation for Information Processing

IFIP was founded in 1960 under the auspices of UNESCO, following the First World Computer
Congress held in Paris the previous year. An umbrella organization for societies working in
information processing, IFIP’s aim is two-fold: to support information processing within its
member countries and to encourage technology transfer to developing nations. As its mission
statement clearly states,

IFIP’s mission is to be the leading, truly international, apolitical organization

which encourages and assists in the development, exploitation and application of
information technology for the benefit of all people.

IFIP is a non-profitmaking organization, run almost solely by 2500 volunteers. It operates

through a number of technical committees, which organize events and publications. IFIP’s
events range from an international congress to local seminars, but the most important are:

The IFIP World Computer Congress, held every second year;

Open conferences;
Working conferences.

The flagship event is the IFIP World Computer Congress, at which both invited and contributed
papers are presented. Contributed papers are rigorously refereed and the rejection rate is high.

As with the Congress, participation in the open conferences is open to all and papers may be
invited or submitted. Again, submitted papers are stringently refereed.

The working conferences are structured differently. They are usually run by a working group
and attendance is small and by invitation only. Their purpose is to create an atmosphere
conducive to innovation and development. Refereeing is less rigorous and papers are subjected
to extensive group discussion.

Publications arising from IFIP events vary. The papers presented at the IFIP World Computer
Congress and at open conferences are published as conference proceedings, while the results of
the working conferences are often published as collections of selected and edited papers.

Any national society whose primary activity is in information may apply to become a full
member of IFIP, although full membership is restricted to one society per country. Full members
are entitled to vote at the annual General Assembly, National societies preferring a less
committed involvement may apply for associate or corresponding membership. Associate
members enjoy the same benefits as full members, but without voting rights. Corresponding
members are not represented in IFIP bodies. Affiliated membership is open to non-national
societies, and individual and honorary membership schemes are also offered.
INFORMATION
SYSTEMS RESEARCH
Relevant Theory and
Informed Practice
IFIP TC8 / WG8.2 Year Retrospective: Relevant Theory and Informed
Practice–Looking Forward from a 20-Year Perspective on IS Research
July 15–17, 2004, Manchester, United Kingdom

Edited by

Bonnie Kaplan
Yale University, USA

Duane P. Truex III

Florida International University, USA
Georgia State University, USA

David WasteII
University of Manchester, United Kingdom

A. Trevor Wood-Harper
University of Manchester, United Kingdom
University of South Australia, Australia

Janice I. DeGross
University of Minnesota, USA

KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS

NEW YORK, BOSTON, DORDRECHT, LONDON, MOSCOW
eBook ISBN: 1-4020-8095-6
Print ISBN: 1-4020-8094-8

©2004 Springer Science + Business Media, Inc.

Print ©2004 by International Federation for Information Processing.

Boston

All rights reserved

No part of this eBook may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, recording, or otherwise, without written consent from the Publisher

Created in the United States of America

Visit Springer's eBookstore at: http://www.ebooks.kluweronline.com

and the Springer Global Website Online at: http://www.springeronline.com
 CONTENTS

Foreword xi

Preface xv

Conference Chairs xix

Associate Editors xx

Reviewers xxi

1 Young Turks, Old Guardsmen, and the Conundrum of the Broken Mold:
A Progress Report on Twenty Years of Information Systems Research
Bonnie Kaplan, Duane P. Truex III, David Wastell,
and A. Trevor Wood-Harper 1

Part 1: Panoramas
2 Doctor of Philosophy, Heal Thyself
Allen S. Lee 21

3 Information Systems in Organizations and Society: Speculating on

the Next 25 Years of Research
Steve Sawyer and Kevin Crowston 35

4 Information Systems Research as Design: Identity, Process, and Narrative

Richard J. Boland, Jr., and Kalle Lyytinen 53

Part 2: Reflections on the IS Discipline

5 Information Systems—A Cyborg Discipline?
Magnus Ramage 71

6 Cores and Definitions: Building the Cognitive Legitimacy of the

Information Systems Discipline Across the Atlantic
Frantz Rowe, Duane P. Truex III, and Lynnette Kvasny 83
vi Contents

7 Truth, Journals, and Politics: The Case of the MIS Quarterly

Lucas Introna and Louise Whittaker 103

8 Debatable Advice and Inconsistent Evidence: Methodology in

Information Systems Research
Matthew R. Jones 121

9 The Crisis of Relevance and the Relevance of Crisis: Renegotiating

Critique in Information Systems Scholarship
Teresa Marcon, Mike Chiasson, and Abhijit Gopal 143

10 Whatever Happened to Information Systems Ethics? Caught between

the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea
Frances Bell and Alison Adam 159

11 Supporting Engineering of Information Systems in Emergent

Organizations
Sandeep Purao and Duane P. Truex III 175

Part 3: Critical Interpretive Studies

12 The Choice of Critical Information Systems Research
Debra Howcroft and Eileen M. Trauth 195

13 The Research Approach and Methodology Used in an Interpretive

Study of a Web Information System: Contextualizing Practice
Anita Greenhill 213

14 Applying Habermas’ Validity Claims as a Standard for Critical

Discourse Analysis
Wendy Cukier, Robert Bauer, and Catherine Middleton 233

15 Conducting Critical Research in Information Systems: Can Actor-

Network Theory Help?
259

16 Conducting and Evaluating Critical Interpretive Research: Examining

Criteria as a Key Component in Building a Research Tradition
Marlei Pozzebon 275

17 Making Contributions from Interpretive Case Studies: Examining

Processes of Construction and Use
Michael Barrett and Geoff Walsham 293
Contents vii

Part 4: Action Research

18 Action Research: Time to Take a Turn?
Briony J. Oates 315

19 The Role of Conventional Research Methods in Information Systems

Action Research
Matt Germonprez and Lars Mathiassen 335

20 Themes, Iteration, and Recoverability in Action Research

Sue Holwell 353

Part 5: Theoretical Perspectives in IS Research

21 The Use of Social Theories in 20 Years of WG 8.2 Empirical Research
Donal Flynn and Peggy Gregory 365

22 StructurANTion in Research and Practice: Representing Actor

Networks, Their Structurated Orders and Translations
Laurence Brooks and Chris Atkinson 389

23 Socio-Technical Structure: An Experiment in Integrative Theory Building

Jeremy Rose, Rikard Lindgren, and Ola Henfridsson 411

24 Exposing Best Practices Through Narrative: The ERP Example

Erica L. Wagner, Robert D. Galliers, and Susan V. Scott 433

25 Information Systems Research and Development by Activity Analysis

and Development: Dead Horse or the Next Wave?
Mikko Korpela, Anja Mursu, Abimbola Soriyan, Anne Erola,
Heidi Häkkinen, and Marika Toivanen 453

26 Making Sense of Technological Frames: Promise, Progress, and

Potential
Elizabeth Davidson and David Pai 473

27 Reflection on Development Techniques Using the Psychology

Literature: Over Two Decades of Bias and Conceptual Blocks
Carl Adams and David E. Avison 493
viii Contents

Part 6: Systems Development: Methods, Politics,

and Users
28 Enterprise System as an Orchestrator of Dynamic Capability Development:
A Case Study of the IRAS and TechCo
Chee Wee Tan, Eric T. K. Lim, Shan Ling Pan, and Calvin M. L. Chan 515

29 On Transferring a Method into a Usage Situation

Brian Lings and Björn Lundell 535

30 From Critical Theory into Information Systems Practice: A Case Study

of a Payroll-Personnel System
Teresa Waring 555

31 Resistance or Deviance: A High-Tech Workplace During the Bursting

of the Dot-Com Bubble
Andrea Hoplight Tapia 577

32 The Politics of Knowledge in Using GIS for Land Management in India

S. K. Puri and Sundeep Sahay 597

33 Systems Development in the Wild: User-Led Exploration and

Transformation of Organizing Visions
Margunn Aanestad, Dixi Louise Henriksen,and Jens Kaaber Pors 615

34 Improvisation in Information Systems Development

Jørgen P. Bansler and Erling C. Havn 631

Part 7: Panels and Position Papers

35 Twenty Years of Applying Grounded Theory in Information Systems:
A Coding Method, Useful Theory Generation Method, or an
Orthodox Positivist Method of Data Analysis?
Tony Bryant, Jim Hughes, Michael D. Myers, Eileen Trauth,
and Cathy Urquhart 649

36 Building Capacity for E-Government: Contradictions and Synergies

in the Dialectics of Action Research
David Wastell, Peter Kawalek, Mike Newman, Mike Willetts,
and Peter Langmead-Jones 651

37 New Insights into Studying Agency and Information Technology

Tony Salvador, Jeremy Rose, Edgar A. Whitley, and Melanie Wilson 653
Contents ix

38 Researching and Developing Work Activities in Information Systems:

Experiences and the Way Forward
Mikko Korpela, Jonathan P. Allen, Olav Bertelsen, Yvonne Dittrich,
Kari Kuutti, Kristina Lauche, and Anja Mursu 655

39 Crossing Disciplinary Boundaries: Reflections on Information Systems

Research in Health Care and the State of Information Systems
Nicholas Barber, Patricia Flatley Brennan, Mike Chiasson, Tony
Cornford, Elizabeth Davidson, Bonnie Kaplan, and 657

40 The Great Quantitative/Qualitative Debate: The Past, Present, and

Future of Positivism and Post-Positivism in Information Systems
Michael D. Myers, Detmar Straub, John Mingers, and Geoff Walsham 659

41 Challenges for Participatory Action Research in Industry-Funded

Information Systems Projects
Karin Breu, Christopher J. Hemingway, and Joe Peppard 661

42 Theory and Action for Emancipation: Elements of a Critical

Realist Approach
Melanie Wilson and Anita Greenhill 667

43 Non-Dualism and Information Systems Research

Abhijit Jain 675

44 Contextual Dependencies and Gender Strategy

Peter M. Bednar 681

45 Information Technology and the Good Life

Erik Stolterman and Anna Croon Fors 687

46 Embracing Information as Concept and Practice

Robert Stephens 693

47 Truth to Tell? Some Observations on the Application of Truth

Tests in Published Information Systems Research
Brian Webb 699

48 How Stakeholder Analysis can be Mobilized with Actor-Network

Theory to Identify Actors
A. Pouloudi, R. Gandecha, C. Atkinson, and A. Papazafeiropoulou 705

49 Symbolic Processes in ERP Versus Legacy System Usage

Martin M. T. Ng and Michael T. K. Tan 713
x Contents

50 Dynamics of Use and Supply: An Analytic Lens for Information

Systems Research
Jennifer Whyte 723

51 Applying Adaptive Structuration Theory to the Study of

Context-Aware Applications
Carl Magnus Olsson and Nancy L. Russo 735

Index of Contributors 743

 FOREWORD

We are grateful for the support of the sponsoring and host organizations. Without
their involvement, endorsement and financial support, this conference would not have
been feasible. We would therefore like to extend our sincere thanks to the following
organizations: the International Federation of Information Processing (IFIP), Technical
Committee 8 of IFIP and WG 8.2 in particular, the School of Informatics at the
University of Manchester, and Salford City Council. We provide a brief introduction to
each of these organizations by way of providing historical context and information.

1 ABOUT IFIP
The International Federation for Information Processing (IFIP) was established in
1960. It is a multinational federation of professional and technical organizations (or
national groupings of such organizations) concerned with information processing. In any
one country, generally only one such organization—which must be representative of the
national activities in the field of information processing—is admitted as a Full Member.
On March 25, 2004, 47 countries were represented by Full Member organizations.
The Federation is governed by a General Assembly which meets once every year
and consists of one representative from each Member organization. The Federation is
organized into the IFIP Council, the Executive Board, and the Technical Assembly. The
Technical Assembly is divided into 11 Technical Committees and two Specialist
Groups. These committees and groups are in turn divided into Working Groups, of
which IFIP WG 8.2 is one (under Technical Committee 8).

1.1 About IFIP Technical Committee Eight (TC8)

IFIP TC8 is the IFIP Technical Committee dedicated to the field of Information
Systems. It was established in 1966, and aims to promote and encourage the advance-
ment of research and practice of concepts, methods, techniques, and issues related to
information systems in organizations.
The declared scope of TC 8 scope is the planning, analysis, design, construction,
modification, implementation, utilization, evaluation, and management of information
systems that use information technology to support and coordinate organizational
activities including

effective utilization of information technologies in organizational context

xii Foreword

interdependencies of information technologies and organizational structure, rela-

tionships and interaction
evaluation and management of information systems
analysis, design, construction, modification and implementation of computer-based
information systems for organizations
management of knowledge, information, and data in organizations
information systems applications in organizations such as transaction processing,
routine data processing, decision support, office support, com -puter-integrated
manufacturing, expert support, executive support, and support for strategic
advantage plus the coordination and interaction of such applications
relevant research and practice from associated fields such as computer science,
operations management, economics, organization theory, cognitive science,
knowledge engineering, and systems theory

1.2 About IFIP Working Group 8.2: The Interaction

of Information Systems and the Organization
The International Federation for Information Processing Working Group 8.2 (WG
8.2) was established by IFIP in 1977 as a working group concerned with “the interaction
of information systems and the organization.” WG 8.2 conducts working conferences,
publishes books through IFIP, and publishes a semi-annual newsletter (OASIS). In
addition, the working group maintains a listserv, a Web site and holds business meetings.
The aims of the working group are the investigation of the relationships and
interactions among four major components: information systems, information techno-
logy, organizations, and society. The focus is on the interrelationships, not on the
components themselves. Its scope is defined in terms of information systems, organi-
zations, and society as follows:

Information systems: includes information processing, the design of systems,

organizational implementation and the economic ramifications of information.
Information technology: includes technological changes such as microcomputers,
distributed processing, and new methods of communications.
Organizations: includes the social group, the individual, decision making and the
design of organizational structures and processes.
Society: includes the economic systems, society’s institutions and values of
professional groups.

1.3 How to Join WG 8.2

One can become involved in the working group as a correspondent, a friend or a
member. If you would like to be placed on our mailing list, just write to our secretary
(preferably by e-mail) and asked to be placed on our mailing list. You will receive
newsletters and conference notices. The Web page also has information relating to
forthcoming events and conferences. You can also subscribe to our listserv. (Visit the
WG 8.2 Web site at http://www.ifipwg82.org/.)
Foreword xiii

You can become a friend of the group by attending one of our working conferences
or business meetings. Working conferences are held about every 12 to 18 months.
Business meetings are typically conducted twice yearly, once in conjunction with a
working conference, and once in conjunction with the International Conference on
Information Systems (ICIS).
Typically, a friend who has participated in two out of three consecutive business
meetings is eligible for election as a member. By this election process, the members of
the group nominate new members, who must then be confirmed by TC8.

2 THE SCHOOL OF INFORMATICS,

UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER
Formerly the School was known as the Department of Computation, at the
University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology (UMIST). This summer
is marked by a major event in the world of academe in the North West of
England—namely, the merger of two illustrious universities based in Manchester: the
Victoria University of Manchester (VUMAN) and UMIST. The new institution will be
known as the University of Manchester. Two IT-related departments are part of this new
milieu: Computer Science (from VUMAN) and Computation (UMIST). The latter will
be renamed the School of Informatics and will concentrate on the development of its
historical strengths on the applied side of the discipline of Computing. For this reason,
it will take up a position in the Humanities Faculty of the new university, alongside
Business, Education, Accounting, and other cognate disciplines. Information Systems
will be a powerful force within this new Faculty, bringing together a large cadre of well-
known scholars within the IS discipline, many of whom have played, and continue to
play, a prominent part in the work of WG8.2.

3 SALFORD CITY COUNCIL

The City of Salford is one of the various independent municipalities that make up
the conurbation of Greater Manchester, lying on the north west side of the conurbation.
There is a long tradition of collaboration between the City and local universities in
various areas of research, especially regarding information systems and the application
of IT. For nearly 10 years, there has been a particularly close relationship between the
IT Services department at the City, and researchers at Salford University, Manchester
Business School, and UMIST. Action research on eGovernment has been a strong
feature of this collaboration, culminating in national recognition for the City as a
pathfinder authority in this field and the establishment of a CRM Academy at
Manchester Business School, in partnership with the School of Informatics at UMIST.
This page intentionally left blank
 PREFACE

This volume includes the papers and panel descriptions refereed for presentation at
an International Federation of Information Processing (IFIP) Working Group 8.2
conference entitled “Relevant Theory and Informed Practice: Looking Forward from
a 20 Year Perspective on IS Research.” The conference was held at the University of
Manchester in Manchester, England, on July 15-17, 2004.
It was during the working group business meeting following the IFIP WG 8.2
working conference in 2001 on “Realigning Research and Practice in Information
Systems Development” in Boise, Idaho, that a conference call was approved for a new
conference dealing with the alignment of research practice and IS development. Those
who proposed the conference had been involved with WG 8.2 and other TC 8 working
groups over many years. The initial incentive for developing the theme of the con-
ference dates back to 1997 at the Philadelphia conference. It was observed that while
some were celebrating the end of the “methods wars” because some types of qualitative
work had become acceptable for publication in mainstream journals, the work by others
who were exploring questions outside the managerial, organizational, or technological
mainstream, or who were employing innovative research approaches, was still being
excluded from the discourse. Thus it was concluded that further attention to the question
of research approaches was required.
In a real sense, however, the seeds of this conference were sown in 1984 at the first
Manchester conference, when in the proceedings introduction Enid Mumford made a
declaration that continues to express a concern of the working group.

The members of the W.G. 8.2 are dedicated to stimulating and maintaining a
debate on the interrelationships between information systems, organizations
and society; and to influencing IFIP members, and information scientists,
teachers, trade unions, and the user of information systems, to think carefully
about the organizational and societal consequences of the systems they are
developing and using.

One of our areas of interest is research methodology and we have been looking
critically at the kinds of research associated up to now with information
science, and discussing the need for new approaches.

Our concern that traditional research methods can not adequately investigate
social needs and problems...
xvi Preface

So, as part of the working group’s living tradition, wherein about every six years it
makes an assessment of IS research methods, the call for this conference went out. And
how the community responded!

1 THE REVIEW PROCESS

The papers in this volume are those that survived a rigorous review and selection
process. We were gratified, at times even overwhelmed, by the record number of 113
submissions we received for the conference, with papers in a number of categories: full
research papers, practice-oriented papers, and panels. Three of the papers were by
authors specifically invited to provide a more panoramic view of the working group’s
progress and of IS research methods in general. In keeping with WG 8.2 standards, all
papers (including the invited papers) were subjected to a rigorous reviewing process
involving a minimum of four independent readings, with some manuscripts having
double that number. An associate editor (AE) assigned to each paper solicited two
independent, blind reviews. The AE reports and recommendations were then considered
by the four program cochairs at a meeting in Atlanta in late November 2003, with each
cochair taking lead responsibility for an equal allocation of roughly 28 papers. Any
borderline or contentious cases were referred to one or more fellow cochairs, and
discussed by the group as a whole. The usual care was taken to avoid conflicts of
interest in the assignment of associate editors and reviewers. In a few instances, papers
were sent out for yet additional review consideration by the general chairs or others with
the appropriate topical or methodological expertise.
The whole review process was underpinned and orchestrated using the AIS-ICIS
conference software, enabling this complex process to operate smoothly despite severe
time-space problems. The Web system allowed authors to submit papers electronically,
associate editors and reviewers to be assigned by the cochairs, reviews and reports to be
garnered and evaluated, decisions and recommendations to be made and recorded, and
accept/reject letters to be dispatched. Although there were moments when we felt (with
an acute sense of irony) in the midst of yet another IS failure, in the end all worked very
well, and it is doubtful whether a manual system could have supported the process
without considerably more blood, sweat, and tears.
We are deeply appreciative of the efforts made by the WG 8.2 community to see
through the review process to successful conclusion, and the associate editors, in
particular, who were the lynchpins of the whole process. Despite the exacting deadlines
(little over a month was available), virtually all of the reviews and reports were received
by the time of our Atlanta cochairs congress, enabling us to focus on our main tasks of
making the final selection of papers and drawing up the preliminary program structure.
We were gratified that 8.2’s reputation for rigorous review produced high quality
submissions. Of the 113 submissions received, we accepted 33 full research papers
(representing an acceptance rate of 29 percent for full papers) and 6 panel proposals.
Outside of this favored selection, there were many other interesting and valuable
submissions that we felt could make a very useful contribution to the conference. Rather
than limit this conference to a predetermined acceptance rate, we were anxious to
Preface xvii

include these as well, in the interests of both building the community and stimulating
lively debate. Accordingly, the cochairs decided at their Atlanta meeting to create a new
category of position papers, referred to more colloquially as “bright ideas.” Authors
were invited to submit a 2000 word précis, summarizing their main points in a pithy and
provocative fashion; 11 such pieces are featured in the final program.
Considering the final count for all papers, both full (33), position paper (11), and
panels (6) yields a more egalitarian overall acceptance rate of 44 percent. This
compares interestingly with the three previous research method conferences. According
to our best records, the initial gathering from September 1-3,1984, (called a colloquium
because of sensitivities within IFIP itself, as we are informed by those who were present)
had 18 papers and only 44 non-presenting participants. Virtually all papers submitted
were presented and published, nearly a 100 percent acceptance rate. It seems the
community of radicals in our then-new discipline were few in number. By 1990 and the
Copenhagen conference, a total of 23 papers (including 4 invited papers and 2 panels)
were presented and published. Since there were 59 papers submitted, the overall accep-
tance rate had fallen to 42 percent. Interestingly, the conference itself was among the
most heavily attended in the working group’s history. There were nearly 200 partici-
pants, attesting to the interest in the topic. The 1997 Philadelphia conference had 28
pieces, including 2 panels and 2 invited papers, from a field of roughly 60 submissions,
yielding approximately a 45 percent acceptance rate.
So, for the present conference, it is with some confidence that we can claim that the
quality of the reviewing process, the useful and thoughtful reviews received by authors
for both accepted and rejected works, and the rigor of that process, are in keeping with
the best traditions of the working group. Moreover, we are told by members of the
publishing community that the WG 8.2 conferences hold a much higher standard for
acceptance than is the norm for other working group conferences. We are proud to
maintain that standard. And for the record, the working group itself now numbers more
than 200 acknowledged members, 453 friends, plus correspondents and others who
participate via our books and our newsletter, OASIS. Perhaps the cost of being a
revolutionary is no longer so high!

2 THANKS TO OUR SPONSORS

The organization of such an IFIP working conference can be a daunting process.
For starters, given the bylaws and procedures of the parent organization, the working
group itself is not allowed to raise funds and maintain accounts, except for very small
balances to fund direct operating activities such as publishing newsletters. IFIP working
groups are voluntary organizations without paid staff or deep financial pockets.
Accordingly, each conference is treated as a relatively independent fiscal entity wherein
the conference organizers and book editors are taking on all of the responsibility to fund
and manage the event. This insulates IFIP and WG 8.2 and scares the devil out of the
organizers. Sponsorship in various forms is both essential and greatly appreciated. In
the case of the Manchester 2004 event, our gratitude and thanks go to the following
organizations for financial and material support to the conference:
xviii Preface

The School of Informatics, University of Manchester—£10,000 plus moral and

administrative assistance.
The IT Services, Salford City Council—£3,000 that provided the initial seed money
to the conference.
Georgia State University Department of Computer Information Systems for housing
members of the conference committee and for hosting the November 2003 meeting
of the conference chairs.
The AIS for providing the use of the on-line reviewing system. Special thanks to
Eph McLean and Samantha Spears at the AIS for their assistance.
The home institutions of the conference chairs for funding the needed travel,
administrative support, and indirect costs of managing the conference. Thank you
the to Florida International University’s Chapman Graduate School of the College
of Business Administration, and The School of Informatics at the University of
Manchester.

3 ACCOLADES AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

It is customary to thank everyone from our families and teachers to our colleagues
and support staffs, parakeets, and other ways of maintaining sanity under pressure.
Customary as it may be, we none-the-less truly are grateful. We heartily thank Janice
DeGross for her much-needed acerbic dose of keeping us on schedule and her superb
work making all the authors’ various, and often times tardy, contributions into a book.
Thanks also to the local organizing committee led by Peter Kawalek of the University
of Manchester for aggressive negotiations and sensitive choice of venues for all of the
conference events. Also, we acknowledge Kath Howell at the University of Manchester
for stepping in to tidy up a host of problems and last minute crises. We doff our hats to
the 8.2 officers, Julie Kendall, Michael Myers, and Nancy Russo, WG 8.2 Webmaster
Kevin Crowston, and the Honorary Conference Chairs, Richard Baskerville and Frank
Land, for their supportive advice on sensitive matters. Rod Padilla, technical support
manager at Georgia State University, kept the reviewing site running at the most critical
times and customized it for our use.
Thanks, finally, to the conference chairs of the previous research methods
conferences and to the past WG 8.2 chairs. We asked each of them to provide personal
remembrances of the research conferences and the history of the working group to help
us in framing our own remarks and continuing narrative of the working group’s
activities, for we see this event as part of a living and evolving intellectual and social
history. It is a history in which we are grateful to have had the chance to play a part.
We are most thankful for each other, for our ability to work together, to complement
each other’s strengths and tolerate one another’s foibles. But finally, of course, we
really are most thankful to you, the members of the IFIP Working Group 8.2 community,
for bringing this all about.

Bonnie Kaplan
Duane Truex
Dave Wastell
Trevor Wood-Harper
CONFERENCE CHAIRS

General Chairs
Richard Baskerville
Georgia State University

Frank Land
London School of Economics

Program Chairs
Bonnie Kaplan
Yale University

Duane P. Truex, III

Florida International University and
Georgia State University

David Wastell
University of Manchester

A. Trevor Wood-Harper
University of Manchester and
University of South Australia

Organizing Chairs
Peter Kawalek
University of Manchester

Bob Wood
University of Manchester
ASSOCIATE EDITORS

Ivan Aaen, Aalborg University, Denmark

Chris Atkinson, Brunel University, UK
Richard Baskerville, Georgian State University, USA
Dick Boland, Case Western Reserve University, USA
Tony Cornford, London School of Economics and Political Science, UK
Elizabeth Davidson, University of Hawaii at Manoa, USA
Gurpreet Dhillon, Virginia Commonwealth University, USA
Joseph Feller, University College Cork, Ireland
Guy Fitzgerald, Brunel University, UK
Brian Fitzgerald, University of Limerick, Ireland
Ole Hanseth, University of Oslo, Norway
Jonny Holmstrom, Umea University, Sweden
Debra Howcroft, University of Manchester, UK
Matthew Jones, University of Cambridge, UK
Karl Heinz Kautz, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
Julie Kendall, Rutgers University, USA
Ela Klecun-Dabrowska, London School of Economics and Political Science, UK
Frank Land, London School of Economics and Political Science, UK
Ben Light, University of Salford, UK
Kalle Lyytinen, Case Western University, USA
Lars Mathiassen, Georgia State University, USA
Natalie Mitev, London School of Economics and Political Science, UK
Michael Myers, University of Auckland, New Zealand
Joe Nandhakumar, University of Bath, UK
Peter Nielsen, Aalborg University, Denmark
Mike Newman, University of Manchester, UK
Hans-Erik Nissen, University of Lund, Sweden
Jeremy Rose, Aalborg University, Denmark
Frantz Rowe, University of Nantes, France
Nancy Russo, Northern Illinois University, USA
Steve Sawyer, Pennsylvania State University, USA
Janice Sipior, Villanova University, USA
Erik Stolterman, Umea University, Sweden
Eileen Trauth, The Pennsylvania State University, USA
Cathy Urquhart, University of Auckland, New Zealand
John Venable, Curtin University, Australia
Richard Vidgen, University of Bath, UK
Liisa von Hellens, Griffith University, Australia
Edgar Whitley, London School of Economics and Political Science, UK
Eleanor Wynn, Intel Corporation, USA
REVIEWERS

Pekka Abrahamsson, VTT Electronics - Embedded Software, Finland

Frederic Adam, University College Cork, Ireland
Alison Adam, University of Salford, UK
Chandra Amaravadi, Western Illinois University, USA
Kim Viborg Andersen, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
Bryant Antony, Leeds Metropolitan University, School of Management, UK
Doug Atkinson, Curtin University of Technology,
David Avison, Essec, France
Michel Avital, Case Western Reserve University, USA
Lars Baekgaard, Aalborg University, Denmark
Jørgen Bansler, Technical University of Denmark, Denmark
Stuart Barnes, Wellington University, New Zealand
Frances Bell, University of Salford, UK
Niels Bjørn-Anderson, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
Ahmed Bounfour, University of Marne La Vallee, France
Laurence Brooks, Brunei University, UK
Christopher Bull, Manchester Metropolitan University, UK
Tom Butler, University College, Cork, Ireland
Bong-Sug Chae, Kansas State University, USA
Mike Chiasson, University of Calgary, Canada
Melissa Cole, Brunel, UK
Fred Collopy, Case Western Reserve University, USA
Stephen Corea, Warwick Business School, UK
Joe Cunningham, University College, Cork, Ireland
Wendy Currie, DISC, UK
Christopher Davis, University of South Florida St Petersburg, USA
Bill Doolin, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand
Kristin Eschenfelder, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
Frances Fabian, A.B. Freeman School of Business, USA
Walter Fernandez, Australian National University, Australia
Per Flensburg, Växjö University, Sweden
Uri Gal, Case Western Reserve University, USA
Susan Gasson, Drexel University, UK
Matt Germonprez, Case Western Reserve University, USA
Ake Gronlund, Orebro University, Sweden
Arvind Gudi, Florida International University, USA
Noriko Hara, Indiana School of Library and Information Science, USA
Erling Havn, Technical University of Denmark, CTI, Denmark
Karin Hedstrom, University of Orebro, Sweden
Jukka Heikkila, University of Jyvaskyla, Finland
Ola Henfridsson, Viktoria Institute, Sweden
Helle Zinner Henriksen, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark, Denmark
David Hinds, Florida International University, USA
xxii Reviewers

Lionel Honoré, Université de Nantes, France

Gordon Hunter, The University of Lethbridge, Canada
Julio Ibarra, Florida International University, USA
Pertti Järvinen, University of Tampere, Finland
Nimal Jayaratna, Curtin University, Australia
Katrin Jonsson, Umea University, Sweden
Sten Jönsson, Gothenburg School of Economics, Sweden
Michelle Kaarst-Brown, Syracuse School of Information Studies, USA
Jannis Kallinikos, London School of Economics, UK
Eija Karsten, University of Turku, Finland
Seamus Kelly, University College Dublin, Ireland
Gaye Kiely, University College, Cork, Ireland
Heinz Klein, Temple University, USA
Ralf Klischewski, University of Hamburg, Germany
Ned Kock, Texas A&M University, USA
Lynette Kvasny, Penn State University, USA
Jeannie Ledington, University of Canberra, Australia
Jonathan Liebenau, London School of Economics and Political Science, UK
Angela Lin, University of Sheffield, UK
Rikard Lindgren, Viktoria Institute, Sweden
Jan Ljungberg, University of Gothenburg, Sweden
Cheri Long, Florida International University, USA
Jessica Luo, Case Western Reserve University, USA
Magnus Mähring, Stockholm School of Economics, Sweden
Angela Mattia, Virginia Commonwealth University, USA
Donald McDermid, Edith Cowan University, Australia
Tom McMaster, University of Salford, UK
Emmanuel Monod, University de Nantes, France
Ramiro Montealegre, University of Colarado, USA
Eric Monteiro, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway
Enid Mumford, University of Manchester, UK
Bjorn Munkvold, Agder University College, Norway
Lisa Murphy, University of Alabama IS Group, USA
Alistair Mutch, Nottingham Trent University, UK
Karen Neville, University College, Cork, Ireland
Petter Nielsen, University of Oslo, Norway
Sue Nielsen, Griffith University, Australia
Jacob Nørbjerg, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
Torbjörn Nordström, Umea University, Sweden
Philip O’Reilly, University College, Cork, Ireland
Niki Panteli, University of Bath, UK
Graham Pervan, Curtin University of Technology, Australia
Athanasia Pouloudi, Athens University of Economics and Business, Greece
Philip Powell, University of Bath, UK
Marlei Pozzebon, HEC Montreal, Canada
Sandeep Purao, Pennsylvania State University, USA
Reviewers xxiii

Jeria Quesenberry, The Pennsylvania State University, USA

Julie Rennecker, Case Western Reserve University, USA
Helen Richardson, University of Salford, UK
Suzanne Rivard, HEC Montréal, Canada
Knut Rolland, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway
Duska Rosenberg, Royal Holloway University of London, UK
Matti Rossi, Helsinki School of Economics, Finland
Bruce Rowlands, Griffith University, Australia
Sundeep Sahay, University of Oslo, Norway
David Sammon, University College, Cork, Ireland
Harry Scarborough, Warwick Business School, UK
Rens Scheepers, University of Melbourne, Australia
Ulrike Schultze, Southern Methodist University, USA
Gamila Shoib, School of Management, United Kingdom
Silvia Silas, Florida International University, USA
Rahul Singh, ISOM, USA
Mikael Söderström, Umeä University, Sweden
Carsten Sorensen, London School of Economics and Political Science, UK
Valerie Spitler, University of North Florida, USA
Jan Stage, Aalborg University, Denmark
Andrea Hoplight Tapia, Pennsylvania State University, USA
David Targett, Imperial College London, UK
Mark Thompson, Cambridge University , UK
Virpi Tuunainen, Helsinki School of Economics, Finland
Werner Ulrich, University of Fribourg, Switzerland
Betty Vandenbosch, Case Western Reserve University, USA
Richard Vidgen, University of Bath , UK
Erica Wagner, Cornell University, USA
David Wainwright, University of Northumbria, UK
Jonathan Wareham, Georgia State University, USA
Ulrika Westergren, Umeä University, Sweden
Chris Westrup, University of Manchester, UK
Mikael Wiberg, Umeä University, Sweden
Francis Wilson, University of Salford, UK
Youngjin Yoo, Case Western Reserve University, USA
This page intentionally left blank
 1 YOUNG TURKS, OLD GUARDSMEN,
AND THE CONUNDRUM OF THE
BROKEN MOLD: A Progress
Report on Twenty Years of
Information Systems Research

Bonnie Kaplan
Yale University

Duane P. Truex III

Florida International University and
Georgia State University

David Wastell
School of Informatics
University of Manchester

A. Trevor Wood-Harper
School of Informatics, University of Manchester, and
School of Accounting and Information Systems,
University of South Australia

1 INTRODUCTION
It is now 20 years since the first Manchester conference on information systems
research methodology. Since that auspicious gathering, the reputation, the reach, and
the impact of the IFIP WG 8.2 scholarly community has extended into mainstream IS
journals, conferences, and academic institutions world-wide. Twenty working con-
ferences in eight nations have published almost 400 papers covering all manner of social
theories and IS topics. The first gathering had bold and radical ambitions. Its provo-
cative title, “Information Systems Research—A Doubtful Science?,” challenged the
prevailing orthodoxy that the research methods of “normal science” should be the only
methods defining proper research in our field. The gauntlet was thrown and the research
2 Introduction

methods theme, albeit with evolving twists, was revisited again at the 1990 Copenhagen
IFIP 8.2 Working Conference, and again in 1997 in Philadelphia. The Copenhagen
gathering was organized around the assumption that radically different research
approaches existed in the IS research community; the call was made for methodological
pluralism and the debate extended around the philosophical traditions grounding IS
research methods.
The Philadelphia conference organizers acknowledged the battle for recognition
fought in the previous decade by IS researchers deploying nontraditional research
methods, and that these approaches were finally being recognized. They argued that
mature disciplines allowed both qualitative and quantitative research traditions to co-
exist. In contrast to the more tentative position of the earlier conclaves, the Philadelphia
conference invited authors to “assertively and unapologetically” apply and refine
qualitative research approaches. Where the Copenhagen conference called for methodo-
logical pluralism, Philadelphia dealt more with the diversity in approaches within the
qualitative research community. Each of the conferences took into account the role of
previous research methods conferences in shaping the debate, and each was a product
of the larger disciplinary discourse about research and the evolution of the discipline.
Following in this tradition, and 20 years after the first WG 8.2 research methods
conference, we thought it timely to look back and take stock of the working group’s
impact upon the practice of information systems development (ISD) and use in
organizations and other social contexts. This conference is the result. We variously
wondered: How relevant has our work really been? To what extent have we made an
impact on IS practice? To what degree have our theories been enhanced by drawing on
practice? Has the positivist mold really been broken or is the victory pyrrhic? How has
the past informed our developing and future research approaches?
We invited researchers and practitioners, both members of the now “old guard” and
the new “young Turks,” to continue WG 8.2’s tradition of debating method, exploring
the relevance of our research, and examining interrelationships between information
systems, organization, and society. We solicited both empirical and theoretical papers
that examined or empirically used IS research methods. The return of the conference
to its geographical origin provided an auspicious opportunity both to celebrate the
iconoclastic idealism of its forebears and to take stock of how the discourse on research
questions, themes, and methods has evolved in the interim. We were delighted with the
response to the Call for Papers, with a record number of submissions being received. As
noted in the Preface, a final selection of 33 full research papers was made, together with
6 panels and a novel category of short position papers.
The remainder of this chapter provides an overview of these various submissions,
beginning with the full research papers. These have been clustered into a number of
themes, which are reflected in the broad structure of the conference program. The first
section contains the three invited papers, which attempt in their various ways to outline
a set a panoramic views of our field, challenging the community to look critically at our
prescriptions, practices, and rhetoric. The further groupings of papers reflect a diverse
response to the various imperatives of this agenda. Section 2 contains papers addressing
foundational issues bearing on the core identity of the field itself, whereas those in the
subsequent section exemplify the critical interpretive tradition that has come to flourish
within the field, emblematizing (perhaps) our success in challenging the research
Kaplan et al./A Progress Report on 20 Years of IS Research 3

orthodoxy of two decades ago. This is followed in section 4 by a clutch of papers on

another alternative to the paradigm of normal science, namely action research, which has
gained a strong following within the field. A concern with the use of social theory with-
in IS research is the characteristic that unites the papers in section 5; these papers
emphasize new developments in theory, either of an integrative nature or regarding the
potential of some relatively unused, but possibly fruitful, new approach. The papers in
section 6 focus on the second sense of method which preoccupies us within our field
(i.e., the process for building systems rather than for conducting research). Methodo-
logical issues regarding information systems development, and the problems that beset
IS projects in real organizational contexts, reflect the linked concerns of these papers.
Following this overview of the research papers, we give a brief overview of the panels
and position papers, then move on in our final remarks to the adumbration of cross-
cutting themes and issues that emerge when reflecting on the conference content as a
whole.

2 OVERVIEW OF THE PAPERS AND

OTHER SUBMISSIONS

2.1 Panoramas
The invited papers open the book, laying out panoramic views and consequent
challenges of the field. In the opening paper, Lee makes an attempt to collectively hoist
us by our own petard. The expression means to be thrown up in the air by an explosive
charge (the petard) placed under castle walls to gain access. The WG 8.2 community has
been storming the castle gates since its earliest days, with its methods conferences at the
vanguard of the campaign. Lee’s paper challenges us to apply some of our own pre-
scriptive medicine to the conduct of our research. Using three articles from the previous
WG 8.2 methods conferences, Lee uses the rhetorical ploy of replacing key phrases such
as “information systems development” with “IS research” or “research on the practice
of research” to test the fit of our own prescriptions on our process of making research.
Lee imagines a gathering of influential IS researchers to design “helpful interventions
into our own research community,” employing our prescriptions for others to our own
process of research production and community building. The gathering would examine
the process by which we, through our journal editing activities and tenure and promotion
decisions, come to decide that which is enduring and of high quality. Lee challenges us
to turn our lenses of analyses on our own community of practice.
In the second paper, Sawyer and Crowston survey all of the previous WG 8.2
proceedings. They identify six characteristic research themes: (1) an orientation toward
social theories, (2) dominant conceptualizations of information and technology and a
common level of analysis, (3) an orientation toward the use of intensive research
methods, (4) use of critical and analytical perspectives in research, (5) an openness to
a range of research settings, and (6) an open discourse on the study of IS in organiza-
tions and society. They argue that WG 8.2 has not been as influential as it might have
been in shaping the wider disciplinary discourse, and offer ideas how it might be more
influential in the future. They see two opportunities to capitalize on current strengths
 4 Introduction

and past traditions: by better conceptualizing information and communication tech-

nologies (ICT) and by leading in further developing socio-technical theories of IS. They
illustrate how future 8.2 scholars may resolve dualistic tendencies and understand ICTs
as simultaneously social and technological.
In the third paper, Boland and Lyytinen recall how previous WG 8.2 methods
conferences were “characterized by our fervent struggles to define the correct way of
doing research,” lamenting that despite the progress made, “we now find ourselves in
another quagmire, rooted in a questioning of our identity.” Boland and Lyytinen rise to
Lee’s challenge in their analysis of the Group’s identity “as found in our theories, our
method and our reflexive practices,” and also to the concerns of Sawyer and Crowston
in suggesting the design of a better interface of the socio-technical world we as IS
scholars inhabit. Boland and Lyytinen argue against the current and misguided predi-
lection of defining the core of our field by what objects we study and how we align
ourselves with “the things that should be part of our identity.” They propose instead that
we consider the process through which we construct a common identity, and that we
consider researchers as designers of a process and of a shared identity. To illustrate the
point, they apply a kind of structurational analysis reflexively to their own research.

2.2 Reflections on the IS Discipline

This section picks up themes of reflexivity, challenge, and identity. These papers
are distinguished by discussion of crises and dichotomies within IS as a discipline.
Ramage begins by challenging us with profound questions of IS identity and institutional
acceptance in an engagingly playful way. His analysis provides, in the words of Marcon
et al., “an altered frame of mind” as he argues for a model of information systems in
terms of cyborgs, a metaphor for the human-technical mix of our times, and a description
of situations where the social and the technical merge and blur. IS, he reminds us, is
inevitably interdisciplinary, straddling the divide between social and technical perspec-
tives. Ramage embraces the inherent nature of IS as cyborg formed by an unholy fusion
of many disciplines, facing continual struggle for self-identity and legitimization: “to
live as a cyborg is not to be comfortable, it is to be challenging and challenged.” His
discussion suggests an explanation for the continual IS crises: Cyborgs are threatening.
Whether individual researchers or entire disciplines, cyborgs break societal norms. The
very existence of the cyborg breaks down power achieved and maintained through
categorization and dichotomization. Cyborgs are seen as double-headed monsters, to
be persecuted or rendered invisible.
Rowe, Truex, and Kvasny also address the constant challenge to the credibility of
IS as an academic field, calling for an end to the cognitive legitimacy crisis on political,
economic, and scholarly grounds. Their concern is with establishing clear boundaries
between our research concerns and those of others, so as to “mark a territory that is
uniquely our own.” They argue that our focus on evaluation and control are the
distinctive characteristics of IS that differentiate us from other fields. They ask what we
mean by an IT-enabled solution and even by information system while noting that
ontology, too, has multiple, and therefore unclear, definitions in our field. They invoke
three French sociologists (Crozier, Bourdieu, and Latour) to focus debate on the
Kaplan et al./A Progress Report on 20 Years of IS Research 5

ontological grounding of our field, thus highlighting the contribution of French scholars
and encouraging us to continue to explore the relevance of their work.
Ramage pushes us to reject either/or language in favor of both/and, thus avoiding
entrapment in a single understanding that works only for a particular time. The same
might be said for other dichotomies within IS, including rigor/relevance, qualitative/
quantitative, and theory/practice. Introna and Whittaker look at these divides, raising
the question of power while tracing the shift away from practice in MIS Quarterly.
Taking a Foucauldian stance, they analyze editorial statements and other claims to tackle
the important question of what the politics of truth means for research and publishing in
academic journals. Their analysis traces growing tension between research and practice,
or relevance and rigor, as MIS Quarterly pursued a policy of raising its stature as an
academic journal. Methodological emphasis also shifted, with editorial calls for
positivistic and theory-driven papers followed by attempts to make the journal more
pluralistic. Under the current leadership, MIS Quarterly claims to have moved beyond
“methods wars” and dismissed methodology as a problem. Nevertheless, the strong em-
phasis on empirical work makes it difficult for critical and speculative papers to get an
audience in MIS Quarterly. Consequently, Introna and Whittaker argue that journal
publication is more an indication of compliance with a journal’s regime of truth than an
indication of quality, and urge a questioning attitude toward attempts to institutionalize
rankings of journals.
Jones also rises to the role of intellectual inquisitor by examining publication
practice in the light of publication theory. He compares the doxa of a generally accepted
set of required elements for good IS research against what actually is done in practice.
He tests a set of papers judged to be best of breed in our field, finding that we do not
practice what we preach. He posits four accepted principles: that good research should
follow the scientific method, should fulfill certain criteria, should be relevant, and should
employ multiple methods. His analysis of the best papers from the International
Conference on Information Systems and MIS Quarterly either illustrates a kind of “do
as we say and not as we do” hypocrisy in both the positivistic and the interpretive com-
munities, or that something more complicated constitutes good research. This suggests
that methodological checklists “may be more likely to encourage ritualistic adherence
than improved [research] practice.” Thus Jones invites us to conduct a kind of
methodological reality check much like that envisioned by Lee.
The remaining authors in this section attempt to resolve splits within the discipline.
Marcon, Chiasson and Gopal also attempt to push us toward an altered frame of mind.
Like Boland and Lyytinen, they address questions of disciplinary core and identity,
offering a rethinking to address the crisis of relevance we now face, thus turning a
problem into an opportunity for renewal. They argue for reclaiming wider meanings of
critique from the way the term commonly is understood in IS, either as its deployment
in critical social theory or as in methodological critique. In exploring the connection
between critique and crisis, they point out how critique can be a critical turning point.
They advocate engendering crisis as way to move the field toward a holistic integration
of research, teaching, and consulting.
Bell and Adam also are concerned with divisions, specifically that between ethics
and IS. They see this as problematic both for education and practice. Ethics is taught
(when it is taught) as separate from ISD. Both students and practitioners have trouble
 6 Introduction

applying ethical codes or ISD methodologies to messy real-life situations. Bell and
Adam find fault with rationalist rule-based decision models and the prominence of
quantitative studies. Their discussion of ISD methodologies implicitly returns to IS
education. Educators could use case studies that explicitly incorporate ethics into sys-
tem development and rich descriptions of how ethical dilemmas actually are handled.
They look forward to a body of qualitative research in this area as a useful resource for
educators, transcending the limited view of ethical reasoning provided by quantitative
research.
Purao and Truex also address the issue of practice and relevance, this time seen
through another set of divergent paths in IS. They contrast software engineering’s focus
on creating information technology artifacts with research concerning organizational
impact and change. In an attempt to remedy the lack of impact on the practice of
research in either area, Purao and Truex combine insights from software engineering and
social theories. They attempt to integrate the two streams by shifting from traditional
development practices to a continuous redevelopment process. Drawing on emergent
systems development, they propose a set of requirements for new representation tech-
niques to take account of both the engineering of the IT artifact as well as the emergent
nature of organizational context in which the IT artifact will be deployed. They call
upon the WG 8.2 community to take up the challenge of reconciling these important and
complex questions. They also sound a warning cry, that in having two research
communities on parallel paths with little cross fertilization or mutual awareness, we miss
the opportunity for great intellectual synergy and waste a great deal of creative energy
in duplicated effort.

2.3 Critical Interpretive Studies

Papers in this section all consider different aspects of critical social theory (CST)
in its relation to IS, both its use in our discipline or in more generic issues of interpretive
methodology. CST is operationalized by anchoring it to various interpretive research
traditions and techniques, or by positing linkages with other methods and theories.
The paper by Howcroft and Trauth considers the critical theoretic tradition in IS
research by reflexively applying a critical lens to critical IS research. The authors find
“little in the critical literature that differentiates critical IS research from other critical
arenas.” While avoiding issues of research technique, on the grounds that such questions
“can detract from the more central problem of how we chose to interpret and represent
social reality,” they argue that a researcher should be concerned with a trio of tasks
(namely, insight, critique, and transformative redefinition) when conducting critical IS
research.
Greenhill’s paper continues in a reflexive bent. It a self-conscious account of the
process of conducting a detailed case study while employing thick description. The
paper illustrates this with a description of the description and of the process. The
author’s goal was to contextualize the research by focusing on the method and the
process of the research itself.
In a paper dealing with integrating CST and method, Cukier, Bauer, and Middleton
offer an approach to operationalizing Habermas’s validity claims in critical discourse
Kaplan et al./A Progress Report on 20 Years of IS Research 7

analysis. They illustrate this in a technology-enabled learning case study, analyzing

distortions of communication in the discourse of adoption and use of this system.
brings a new wrinkle to the growing endeavor to integrate actor-network
theory with other social theories. Like Marcon, Chiasson, and Gopal, she looks outside
the traditional writing on critical social theory, the perspective of the Frankfurt School.
She makes a more difficult leap toward a critical postmodernism through the late work
of Foucault, hinting at how to scope a research program using the related and relative
strength of each approach.
The paper by Pozzebon responds to the invitation for authors in non-hermeneutic
traditions of interpretivism to suggest other criteria for research quality than those made
by Klein and Myers in their influential MIS Quarterly article. Pozzebon enriches the
discourse on the critical interpretative perspective by exploring the link between
interpretation and CST. She propounds four criteria for critical interpretative research:
authenticity, plausibility, criticality, and reflexivity.
Focusing on interpretive work as a class (case research in particular), Barrett and
Walsham address the basic question of the nature of a research contribution and then
proceed to illustrate how IS research employing interpretive case studies can contribute
to the advance of knowledge in our field. Their approach is interesting because they
examine research contributions as statements in a network of ideas. Following Latour’s
second rule of method—that is, to examine the transformations of statements—they
situate the particular case research findings within that network. Thus a contribution can
be judged by its impact on the network and upon the types of transformations it
undergoes as the network develops. They study the process of network construction via
an examination of how others cite a familiar and well-cited interpretive case study.
Barrett and Walsham’s description of their own process represents an intriguing
response to Lee’s opening challenge. It embodies a sort of doubly reflexive approach to
research in which the goal (i.e., the contribution) of the research is examined by
reflecting on how that contribution has itself been incorporated into the larger contextual
network.

2.4 Action Research

Directly addressing the need for real-world relevance, action research has been
postulated as the method for researchers to “rub” theory with practice. There has been
an increase in its use in Europe and Australasia, but not significantly in North America
and Asia. This has been due to different emphases on the nature of the main role of the
researcher in the change process. One sees the academic as mainly acting as a social
scientist in order to understand and explain practice. The other depicts the academic as
a joint collaborator acting both as a researcher and also as a practitioner to improve
practical outcomes in the organizational situation. In this section, the three papers
explicitly or implicitly outline the role of the researcher, and attempt to answer some of
the critiques of action research.
The first paper regards the researcher as a collaborator, with Oates reflecting on the
move of social science from a linguist turn to an action turn. The author then defines a
newer form of action research that places less emphasis on contribution to theoretical
 8 Introduction

knowledge, and stresses participation and individual personal growth in organizations.

This newer version of action research is then contrasted with more traditional forms in
the literature. The paper presents a confessional account of a study and outlines five
quality issues raised by this type of action research: relational praxis, reflexive-practical
outcome, plurality of knowing, significant work, and new and enduring consequences
or infrastructure. Because of the recent interest in action-based methods, the discussion
about how to address these issues is important for the IS research community.
Germonprez and Mathiassen appreciate the researcher’s role as a collaborator but
want to bring more rigor associated with social science to the action-based research
process. They explore the roles of conventional research methods that could contribute
to the use of action research in multi-method approaches and the means by which they
facilitate the creation of multi-contribution projects. The authors suggest and outline
two approaches for the integration of action research. The first is a planned strategy
where the main method is action research supplemented with other methods. The second
is an emergent one in which more conventional methods are employed initially, and
action research is then used to understand and explain the ongoing results that unfold in
many projects. Finally, the authors argue that both combinations can decrease signi-
ficantly the risk a researcher takes in using action research. If these approaches were
adopted, action research would be more attractive for conventional IS researchers and
doctoral students.
The final paper in this section, by Holwell, is based on work using Checkland’s soft
systems methodology for the UK National Health Service, with the academic again
operating as a collaborator. This version of action research uses an intellectual frame-
work of linked ideas through an intervention process applied to a situation. This process
is a learning cycle, in which lessons can be generated about theory, method, and
application. The author addresses the main criticisms leveled at action research: that
it lacks both generalizability and also external validity from a single site and single focus
study. The research program, described in three phases, covered a 4-year period,
involved 20 organizations, and included 10 discrete, single action research interventions.
Three concepts that are important in beginning to counter the main positivistic critics of
action research that arise from these studies are recoverability, iteration, and themes.

2.5 Theoretical Perspectives in IS Research

The papers in this section are distinguished by a dominant concern with the use of
theory in IS research, either by reviewing established practices or outlining a novel
development of general significance to the field, by refining, integrating or even
disinterring existing theoretical endeavor. A good starting point for synopsizing these
contributions is the excellent panorama of the use of social theory in the WG’s
deliberations provided by Flynn and Gregory. Like Sawyer and Crowston, they look at
past conference proceedings. In a remarkable effort of scholarship, all 381 papers in the
17 conferences since 1984 have been assayed. The prevalence of empirical social theory
in this collective oeuvre apparently runs at 46 percent, with 175 papers manifesting a
significant interest in theory either as an analytic device or the object of validation and
development. There are oscillations over the period, but a trend toward greater promi-
Kaplan et al./A Progress Report on 20 Years of IS Research 9

nence of social theory can be descried. Other highlights are the steadily increasing use
of qualitative and interpretive methods, together with some fascinating research demo-
graphics, such as the proclivity of male researchers, especially in North America, to
adopt the positivist paradigm.
Intriguingly, Flynn and Gregory draw up a “hit parade” of the top 10 social theories
in WG 8.2 research. Actor-network theory (ANT), perhaps unsurprisingly, comes out
as number 1, followed closely by structuration theory. Despite this, we are clearly a
cosmopolitan community, with the top 10 accounting for less that 20 percent of the
papers sampled. Interestingly, CST is not as prominent in the list as might have been
expected, although Foucault comes in at number 3. The clutch of papers in this section,
and in the conference more generally, is consistent with its forebears. Both ANT and
structuration theory figure prominently in the section, with two of the papers attempting
in different ways to conjoin the two perspectives.
Brooks and Atkinson propose a proprietary synthesis which they dub Structur-
ANTion. The neologism symbolizes the complementarity seen by the authors. Whereas
structuration theory provides an account of the interactive dynamics whereby social
structures are held together (through the recursive enactment of socially constructed
rules) and thus emphasizes stability, ANT provides a complementary narrative ad-
dressing the dialectics of socio-technical transformation in terms of the reconfiguration
of networks of human and nonhuman actants. Brooks and Atkinson’s framework is
intended to be a practical as well as an ornamental edifice, and they illustrate its deploy-
ment in an action research project in the UK National Health Service focused on the
development of patient-oriented services for cancer care.
Rose, Lindgren, and Henfridsson are also concerned with theoretical unification,
again involving ANT and structuration theory. Their primary concern is fundamental
for our discipline, namely whether we are to be eternally condemned as the users (and
abusers?) of theory from elsewhere, rather than the builders of theory in our own right.
The authors propose the idea of “adaptive theory making” as a distinctive role for
applied disciplines such as IS. Our concern with practical intervention inevitably
enjoins a degree of healthy pragmatism in which we draw on the most appropriate theory
available from a diverse array of sources, and assemble it into a multifaceted whole. The
concept of structure is taken as an example, and an attempt made to integrate elements
from three theoretical discourses: structuration theory, ANT, and Chomsky’s linguistic
work on deep versus surface structure. A case study is used to illustrate the approach
in action, this time in the manufacturing domain (Volvo’s attempt to design a compe-
tence management system).
ANT figures for a third time in the paper by Wagner, Galliers, and Scott. Here the
aim is methodological development regarding the deployment of ANT. The authors
propose the use of narrative methods for conducting interviews with human actants in
ANT studies. In these interviews, the researcher focuses on the meanings and explana-
tions given by participants to the unfolding events in IT-enabled organizational change.
They contend that there is a natural sympathy between ANT and the narrative approach.
Again, a case study is presented for illustrative purposes. It describes the vicissitudes
of an enterprise research planning implementation in a university setting, in which the
use of the best practice ideal as a means of translating interests in support of the project
was only partially successful, with significant concessions ultimately being forced in
terms of local customs and traditional practices.
 10 Introduction

Activity theory is the subject of the paper by Korpela et al. Although on Flynn and
Gregory’s hit parade (at number 6), the authors argue that, since its first appearance at
the Copenhagen conference in 1991, activity theory has received little attention within
IS, despite being influential in cognate fields (such as computer-supported collaborative
work) and having an impressive intellectual pedigree stretching back 80 years. The
authors pose the somewhat rhetorical question of whether this is a “dead horse” worth
flogging, or a paradigm deserving of renewed attention. They clearly believe the latter,
arguing that certain features of activity theory make it particularly suited for a key role
in IS research and development, such as its focus on work systems and its concern with
worker emancipation. In order to promulgate its greater use, they argue that a practical
development methodology is necessary, embodying activity theory concepts and
principles. Such a framework is described (ActAD) and an illustrative case study set in
a perinatal intensive care unit is provided.
The work of Orlikowski also features in the top 10, at number 5 in the Gregory and
Flynn list of favorites. It is the subject of the next of our papers, by Davidson and Pau,
who see unfulfilled potential in Orlikowski’s work with Gash on technological frames
of reference (TFM). Despite many citations, little real use of TFM in IS research prac-
tice has transpired. After tracing the genealogy of TFM, eight studies involving its use
are analyzed, from which a number of potential refinements and possible enhancements
are delineated. Some of these are substantive (e.g., developing a set of generic frame
attributes, moving beyond a limited concern with frame incongruence as the source of
change resistance); others are methodological (e.g., the deployment of TFM in an action
research mode to enhance its relevance to practice and its fertility as a source of new IS
theory).
The last of the papers in this section marks a departure by introducing theoretical
ideas that are relatively new in our domain. Although social theory in general has been
widely used in the 8.2 community, it is arguable that psychological theory has been
neglected, reflecting our general preoccupation with social and organizational issues
rather than those at the individual level. Adams and Avison draw on an eclectic mix of
psychological theory that deals with cognitive blocks and biases, and how these are
influenced and reinforced by the technical characteristics of development tools and
methods. These are serious concerns, as the adoption of a particular methodology will
inevitably have a decisive bearing on the conduct of the design process and the
lineaments of the resulting IS artefact. The paper makes a useful contribution by pro-
viding a theoretical framework in which to understand these biases and the possible
malignant effects they may have.

2.6 Systems Development: Methods, Politics, and Users

This section addresses the theory/practice relationship and disciplinary concerns
from another standpoint, that of systems development. IS has been recognized as a
discipline for more than 30 years. During that time it has rapidly evolved to reflect
changes in the application of information and communication technologies to a variety
of situations. Today, information systems development still remains one of the major
areas for enabling IS researchers to understand how theories can be applied to complex
Kaplan et al./A Progress Report on 20 Years of IS Research 11

practice. In this section, seven papers raise issues and challenge our assumptions about
the systems development process itself, methods in use, political aspects, and users’
participation and behavior.
Tan, Lim, Pan, and Chan analyze two in-depth case studies of a governmental
institution and a commercial establishment using Montealegre’s process model of
capability to explore how enterprise system adoption can be strategized for the purpose
of dynamic capability development. In doing this, the authors develop a process model
for enterprise system adoption that captures the essence of the interdependencies
between enterprise systems and dynamic capability development. They conclude that
enterprise systems can be strategic partners in the capability development process in
organizations.
Lings and Lundell discuss the difficulties of transferring a research method into a
commercial context. They argue that method transfer is a special case of knowledge
transfer. Based on four case studies of method transfer, a framework is postulated with
implications for method development. Four main themes in the framework are the
importance of a clear conceptual framework for a method, support for learning, usability
within a defined context, and acceptability to stakeholders.
The next two papers take up the challenge of integrating critical social theory with
practice. In the first, an action research project by Waring provides an opportunity to
engage in a critical approach to systems analysis with the intention of exploring the
politics of organizational life through the medium of integrated information systems
projects in the UK National Health Service. The paper describes how the emancipatory
principles of Habermas can be used to develop an innovative approach to participative
process and information flow modeling. One of the conclusions is that complex social,
organizational, and political issues endemic within organizations inhibit true discourse
and therefore constitute a barrier to effective ICT introduction and the integration of
information systems.
In the following paper, Tapia argues that a critical orientation is necessary to
understand ICT-enabled workplace culture and employee behavior. This study is based
in a dot-com organization where a group was resistant to organizational authority as the
result of comparable companies beginning to close. The paper shows that ICT-based
innovation may lead to increased deviant or resistant behavior in staff. Furthermore, it
concludes that the social environment of the dot-com bubble has allowed several myths
to propagate and affect human behavior in similar organizations.
The paper by Puri and Sahay picks up on the themes of participation and power.
Puri and Sahay concentrate on how to understand the knowledge politics in using and
designing a geographical information system (GIS) for land management in an Indian
context. They argue that power and politics are inseparable from the systems develop-
ment process and also that knowledge of the local context can complement scientific
knowledge that is needed to develop and use the GIS. The link between participation
and knowledge for meaningful use of GIS is crucial and communicative action can lead
to better design and technology acceptance by end-users.
User participation in developing information systems also is addressed by Aanestad,
Henriksen, and Pors. This has always been an important area for the 8.2 community.
This paper discusses three user-led projects that utilize generic technologies. These
developments were not formal processes but involved users significantly in influencing
 12 Introduction

the direction and outcome of the projects. The importance of continuing redesign,
tailoring, and adaptation when using these technologies is learned from these cases.
Finally in this section, Bansler and Havn give an account of improvisation in action
as an attempt to make sense of information systems development in organizations. They
report a longitudinal field study of the development of a Web-based groupware
application in a multinational corporation. In analyzing the dynamics of this situated
process, they argue that improvisation and bricolage play a vital role in the development
of the project. In conclusion, they suggest that this case provides an opportunity to
reconceptualize IS development.

2.7 Panels and Position Papers

The panels and position papers unsurprisingly echo many of the themes and motifs
of the full research papers.
Issues regarding research method preoccupy two of the panels. The first, “Twenty
Years of Applying Grounded Theory in Information Systems,” discusses the promise
grounded theory holds for our field and its wide use as a method for generating IS theory
from qualitative data. The panel addresses a set of concerns, including its problematc
relationship with positivism and the all-too-common lack of rigor in its deployment,
often to endow spurious legitimacy on any form of coding or indeed informal content
analysis. Action research (section 4) is the subject of the panel entitled “Building
Capacity for E-Government: Contradictions and Synergies in the Dialectics of Action
Research.” The promise of action research as a tool for building relevant IS theory is
directly addressed by this panel, with the spotlight thrown on the tensions that this
creates in the research process as the imperative to solve a practical organizational
problem conflicts with the requirement to deliver results of general theoretical interest
to the wider research community.
Theoretical matters are addressed by two of the panels, picking up and developing
some of the themes intoned in section 5. The nature of agency in socio-technical sys-
tems is tackled by the panel on “New Insights into Studying Agency and Information
Technology” Is agency an exclusively human attribute, is it primarily a technological
capability, or is it an inseparable property of the interaction of the two? Several of the
theoretical perspectives featured in the full papers are drawn into the debate, with
structuration theory, ANT and critical theory all making an appearance. The potential
of activity theory as a theoretical substrate underpinning a critical approach to IS
practice is addressed by the panel on “Researching and Developing Work Activities in
Information Systems: Experiences and the Way Forward.” This panel carries forward
the general arguments for a participative, work-oriented approach to ISD laid out in the
full research paper coauthored by several of the panelists (Korpela et al.). The focus of
the panel is on developing methodological guidelines for implementing the proposed
approach.
The two remaining panels address issues facing the conference on a more general
front. The panel “Crossing Disciplinary Boundaries: Reflections on Information Sys-
tems Research in Health Care and the State of Information Systems” asks, in a wide-
ranging way, to what extent the aspirations of relevant research have been realized in the
Kaplan et al./A Progress Report on 20 Years of IS Research 13

domain of health care. The commonalities, and differences, in the experience of

researchers in the medical informatics community and in our own field are addressed.
The differential treatment of ethics in the two areas might be highlighted given the
relative neglect of this topic in our field, as Bell and Adam lament (see section 2). In
general, the flow of knowledge and experience could be in either direction, with the
medical informatics and IS communities learning from each other’s travails. The last
and only invited panel, “The Great Quantitative/Qualitative Debate: The Past, Present,
and Future of Positivism and Post-Positivism in Information Systems,” provides a more
panoramic and dialectical discussion of IS methodology. This panel addresses many of
the core issues debated within the conference, which have been leitmotifs of the larger
methodological discourse over the last two decades. As a microcosm of the conference
itself, the panel will review progress in terms of two key deliberations: the opposition
between quantitative and qualitative research methods and the ascendancy of post-
positivistic approaches (critical and interpretive). The modernist notion of progress will
itself be debated, and a plea entered for greater diversity and pluralism in our research
practice, an injunction of earlier methods conferences echoed in several submissions
presented here.
Turning finally to the position papers, a number of resonances are notable, with the
papers falling into three distinctive clusters, mirroring the structure of the main program.
Unsurprisingly, research methodology preoccupies many of these short pieces. The
inherent tensions in action research are trenchantly pointed up by Breu, Hemingway, and
Peppard. An illustration is given showing how the unequal exercise of power on behalf
of the practitioner “side” severely compromised the rigor of the research interest in an
industrially based project. The relationships between critical research and both positi-
vism and interpretivism are addressed by Wilson and Greenhill, who add their voice to
the general call for methodological pluralism. Of note in their stance is the adoption of
a realist ontology to complement their overall concern with emancipation. The limits
of positivism and the poverty of scientism are the subject of Jain’s polemic. His
philippic is based on a rejection of Cartesian dualism and an advocacy of non-dualist
positions, drawing on the philosophies of Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, and Zen. Bednar’s
paper also addresses method, though here the primary concern is with IS development
rather than research. The analysis of contextual dependencies, within a double-loop
sense-making process, is proposed as a tool for addressing gender-related issues, at both
the micro and macro levels, within the systems development process.
Foundational issues come to the fore in the second group of position papers. Ethical
concerns resurface in the paper by Stolterman and Fors, whose main thesis challenges
us to reflect critically on core issues at the heart of our discipline by asking questions
regarding the purpose of IS development and research, as well as issues of methodology
and ontology. They call for improving the quality of life (the idea of the “good life”) as
a design aim, echoing the ideological stance of extant IS methodologies such as socio-
technical systems design. Foundational issues also are addressed by Stephens, who
challenges the often uncritical definition of the concept of information adopted within
the IS field and cognate domains. He considers it vital that this concept is
reproblematized, and a broader view taken of information as a “complex phenomena
embracing such issues as propriety, regulation, ethics, accessibility, and even aesthetics.”
Like Introna and Whittaker (section 2), Webb also visits the problematic nature of truth
 14 Introduction

and its relationship to the academic publication process. Webb, in an interesting com-
parison of a conference and a journal report of the same study, finds different truth
standards applied to inductive and deductive generalizations.
The final clutch of position papers addresses aspects of theory and its deployment
in IS research. The methodological enhancement of ANT is the concern of Pouloudi,
Gandecha, Atkinson, and Papazafeiropoulou, just as it is in the full paper by Wagner et
al. (section 5). Here stakeholder analysis is advocated as a tool for identifying actants
within an overall analytical approach based on ANT. The paper by Ng and Tan is also
of interest from a theoretical and methodological perspective. It deploys an interesting
admixture of ethnography and symbolic interactionism in an intriguing analysis of users’
adherence to in-house, legacy systems in the face of an ERP implementation. The use
of symbolic interactionism is of particular interest as this theoretical lens has prima facie
much to offer to IS research, although arguably underutilized to date. Further theoretical
novelty is provided by Whyte, who draws on work in the innovation studies tradition to
develop a new theoretical lens for analyzing the IT artifact that draws together both a
supply and a use side perspective. Whyte argues that these viewpoints traditionally have
been kept separate in our field. A case study of virtual reality technology is provided
to demonstrate the new lens in action. The rapid development of information technology,
outstripping the pace at which we can understand its meaning and effects, is Olsson and
Russo’s concern. They are interested in so-called “nomadic information systems,” and
provide a case study of a context-aware exemplar of this relatively new technology
(CABdriver) to illustrate the effectiveness of adaptive structuration theory as an analytic
lens to examine its impact.

3 CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS
In putting together our final thoughts for this twentieth anniversary of the
Manchester Conference, we asked the past chairs of the Working Group, and of the
previous three methods conferences, to reflect on the Group’s influence and significance
in the various methodological turns taken by the IS community in the past 20 years or
so. We are very grateful for their whole-hearted cooperation in this retrospection. Their
remarks were remarkably similar. All pointed to the stimulation and enjoyment provided
by participation in the Group’s work, to the pleasure of finding a collection of people
who took ideas seriously, self-critically challenging themselves to find new ways of
thinking. This has been a hallmark of the Working Group throughout its history, turning
our gatherings, according to one chair, into life-changing inspirational events. The past
chairs reminisced with pride about the growth of WG 8.2 to be the largest IFIP working
group. All were proud of our role in making qualitative methods a respected part of IS
research and relished the coming together of varied but kindred spirits within our
community as both fun and intellectually stimulating. All encouraged us to “stick at it,”
to keep our thinking fresh and our meetings provocative.
All agree that the 1984 Manchester conference had thrown down a gauntlet and
challenged the traditionalist orthodoxy with approaches that were not common at that
time in the discipline. The conference had challenged the scientific method in informa-
tion systems research and called for greater pluralism and diversity. Its success was
Kaplan et al./A Progress Report on 20 Years of IS Research 15

marked by the growing legitimacy of the linguistic and qualitative turns in IS research.
As WG 8.2 grew and asserted itself, held meetings in conjunction with the International
Conference on Information Systems, and nurtured researchers who began publishing in,
and later joining editorial boards of, respected journals, what we originally thought of
as “methods wars” were over, and the battle won. Victory was effectively proclaimed
at the 1997 conference and journals such as MIS Quarterly claim to have left such
concerns behind.
But is the war over? Can we now rest on our laurels? Have not the tyros of 1984
become the old guard of today; no longer rebels laying siege to the bastions of research
conservatism, have they now become gatekeepers, sometimes seeming to police the very
methods they helped establish as legitimate? Will we continue to see more flowers
blooming and intellectual diversity flourishing, or are storm clouds brewing? Is history
really at an end? The papers in this volume suggest not, that there is indeed much
unfinished business. While not generally addressing the qualitative-quantitative debate,
the present collection of papers reflect remarkably similar concerns to those exercising
the 1984 gathering: a sense of crisis in IS, concern over the relevance/rigor and
research/practice splits, debate over the role of theory, challenges to the very legitimacy
of IS as a discipline. Can the methods wars be over while these issues persist?
With such questions in mind, and with the encouragement from the past chairs and
authors in this collection, we offer further challenges to our community based on our
observations of the contributions to this conference. The papers offer an exciting mix
of ideas and combinations of theories, continuing the WG 8.2 traditions both of critical
reflection and methodological eclecticism. We are delighted that the reviewers and
associate editors kept to the Group’s tradition by turning a critical eye on the papers,
treating nothing and no one as a sacred cow. Everyone, the highly regarded as well as
the newcomers, benefitted from their scrutiny and thoughtfulness. Not one paper made
it through the review process unscathed. All were asked to revise, and many revised
more than once, so papers became better and better. The reviewers proved themselves
critical in the best senses of the word and in the best traditions of WG 8.2, and we, the
program chairs, tried to do the same. In the interest of seeing more diversity in thought
and approach, we occasionally overrode reviewers’ decisions when we thought a paper
had something particularly interesting to say, and decided to give the author(s) another
chance to say it better. Some of those turned out to be excellent thoughtful papers, to
challenge us to think, and then think some more. We also decided to try a new idea
which eventually developed into a forum for the “bright ideas” or position papers. This
innovation, we hope, will further stimulate radical thought and add to the spirit of
debate.
We have taken to heart the past chairs’ admonitions not simply to congratulate
ourselves on the successes of the Group, but to continue to pioneer new ideas. In the
spirit of pushing our community further forward, we note some potentially problematic
tendencies in the papers in this volume. One is a continuing confusion over, and some-
times conflation of, IS development method and IS research method. These are distinc-
tive problem domains, and clear differentiation is required. Whereas the objective of
the former is to design and deploy working artifacts through the use of information
systems development methods, the prerogative of the latter is the production of IS theory
through appropriate research techniques. Methods for designing and building systems
 16 Introduction

(e.g., structured methods, soft systems) are not the same as methods for developing
social theory (e.g., the hypothetico-deductive process of normal science, grounded
theory, etc.). This conference covers both dimensions of method, but in clearly
demarcated categories.
We have also attuned ourselves to the general sense of defensiveness that sometimes
seems to imbue our field, that we need to guard ourselves against encroachment or
imperialism from other, less-diffident disciplines. The conference papers reflect two sets
of possibly contradictory threads marking current discussion and controversy within IS
resulting from this. Perhaps in the spirit of “attack being the best form of defense” or
the theory of preemptive strikes, one thread calls for IS to be a reference discipline for
other fields (i.e., to be imperialistic itself). This thread is as apparent in this volume as
it perhaps has been in earlier times. The other is a persistent feeling that we must bring
in theory from outside, especially from esoteric French and German social theorists and
philosophers. We note a continuing dilettante tendency in the conference papers to
borrow theory from Latour, Habermas, Foucault, and assorted others. We have nothing
against French and German theory, but why these individuals in particular? Are there
no other social theorists or philosophers worthy of attention? Is this interest promoted
by the siren allure of the obscure and the exotic? Of course, there are examples outside
this clique in the erudition mustered here, but perhaps not the degree of diversity
suggestive of a healthy, open spirit of inquiry and scholarship. The list is more notable
in that few French and Germans even participate in WG 8.2, much as we wish they
would.
A number of papers propose novel combinations of these and other theories,
creating “new” theory through something like hybridization. Indeed, we half-jokingly
entitled a conference session “ANT-plus” at one point in our deliberations. As with any
hybrids, we wait to see which will be robust examples of hybrid vigor. But hybrids are
variations on their parents. We would like to see more of our own theory developed in
addition to borrowing from others. Must theory come from outside to be acceptable?
One way a corpus of home-grown theory might be cultivated is through grounded theory.
Although we applaud using qualitative approaches for theory generation, we are
concerned that grounded theory is sometimes written about as a theory, rather than as
a method for generating for theory. Moreover, there seems to be a tendency to conflate
grounded theory with qualitative research; labeling what one does as grounded theory
seems to serve the purpose of legitimating it, when a less grandiose appellation (such as
inductive reflection) may actually be more accurate. Similar concerns are taken up by
one of the panels. We hope our observations will prevent co-optation of qualitative
approaches into some increasingly innocuous, and therefore acceptable, form.
We point to a rather different concern when we examine the make-up of IFIP
Working Group 8.2. Just as a plurality of methods and theories enlivens the field and
leads to increased understanding, so would a good mix of people along a variety of
dimensions. For example, there have been relatively few participants outside the United
States, the United Kingdom and her former colonies, and northern Europe in general.
Alas, the same is true for this conference. While we clearly see the contribution, for
instance, that the Scandinavian social democratic tradition has made to both theory and
practice in our field, would that other perspectives were brought into the fold from
different political and social backgrounds removed from those with which we have
Kaplan et al./A Progress Report on 20 Years of IS Research 17

become so comfortable. We would like to see further enrichment deriving from consi-
deration of a broader range of working contexts than those of the business world, and
we are gratified to see papers in this volume based on experiences in hospital, govern-
mental, and educational settings. We hope WG 8.2 becomes an even more welcoming
place for participation from those studying IT in settings outside business organizations.
Similarly, although we tend to draw on ideas from a variety of other disciplines, we
infrequently work with people in those disciplines or invite them to our conferences. As
one past chair remarked, when we have expanded our horizons by inviting “outsiders,”
we changed the networks and dynamics of the Working Group. Here’s to making more
outsiders insiders, or at least welcomed guests.
We also note a tendency toward introspection. We applaud self-reflection. As is
evident in this chapter, we are certainly guilty of it ourselves. But we also need to be
wary. At what point does legitimate concern with methodology, or the state of the disci-
pline, become an immobilizing obsession? Is debate about methodology a displacement
activity that removes and detaches us from genuine but daunting engagement with the
world of practice that we purport to influence? Perhaps we had best get on with our
work, doing our research as best we can, sans such posturing over theory and method.
But that, too, is part of what WG 8.2 is about. We invite all to join in the fun and fray
of this anniversary celebration and, through this conference and the future work we hope
it stimulates, continue the tradition of keeping our meetings and our field, fresh,
vigorous, and provocative.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Bonnie Kaplan is on the faculty of Yale University’s School of Medicine and is a faculty
affiliate of the Information Society Project at the Yale Law School, and a Senior Scientist at
Boston University’s Medical Information Systems Unit. She previously held faculty appoint-
ments in Information Systems. She specializes in change management, benefits realization, and
people’s reactions to new technologies in health care. She consults for academic, governmental,
private, and business organizations in health care. Her publications have appeared in such
journals as Methods of Information in Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Informatics
Association, International Journal of Medical Informatics, Artificial Intelligence in Medicine;
Science, Technology and Human Values, and MIS Quarterly. She chairs the International
Medical Informatics Association Working Group-13: Organizational and Social Issues, and chairs
the Yale University Interdisciplinary Bioethics Project Research Working Group on Technology
and Ethics. She is a recipient of the American Medical Informatics Association President’s
Award and a Fellow of the American College of Medical Informatics.
Duane Truex researches the social impacts of information systems and emergent ISD. He
is an associate editor for the Information Systems Journal, has coedited two special issues of The
Database for Advances in Information Systems, and is on the editorial board of the Scandinavian
Journal of Information Systems, the Journal of Communication, Information Technology & Work,
and the Online Journal of International Case Analysis. His work has been published in Com-
munications of the ACM, Accounting Management and Information Technologies, The Database
for Advances in Information Systems, European Journal of Information Systems, le journal de
la Societé d’Information et Management, Information Systems Journal, Journal of Arts
Management and Law, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, and 40 assorted IFIP
transactions, edited books, and conference proceedings. He is a member of the Decision Sciences
and Information Systems faculty in the Chapman Graduate School, College of Business, at Florida
18 Introduction

International University, and is an associate professor on leave from the Computer Information
Systems Department, Robinson College of Business, at Georgia State University.
David Wastell is Professor of the Information Society in the School of Informatics at the
University of Manchester. His current interests are in business process re-engineering, electronic
governance, IS research methods and the human factors design of complex systems. He has
published around 100 journal articles and conference papers in Information Systems, human
factors, health informatics and research methods, after an early research career in cognitive and
clinical psychophysiology. He is on the editorial board of European Journal of Information
Systems and Information and Management, has co-organized one previous IFIP conference (WG
8.6), and has co-authored two previous edited collections. He has considerable consultancy
experience, especially in the public sector.
Trevor Wood-Harper is Professor of Information Systems at the School of Informatics at
the University of Manchester and is Professor of Management Information Systems at the
University of South Australia, Adelaide. Trevor has held visiting chairs at University of Oslo,
Copenhagen Business School, and Georgia State University. He has coauthored or coedited 16
books and proceedings and over 200 research articles in a wide range of topics including the
Multiview Methodology, information systems evolution for developing countries, electronic
government, action research, ethical considerations in systems development, fundamentals of
information systems and doctoral education. He has successfully supervised 25 doctoral students
and acted as an external examiner for more than 75 Ph.D. theses in the UK, South Africa,
Norway, Sweden, and Australia.
 Part 1:

Panoramas
This page intentionally left blank
 2 DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY‚
HEAL THYSELF

Allen S. Lee
Virginia Commonwealth University

Abstract As doctors of philosophy who are specialists in information systems‚ we rou-

tinely perform diagnoses of‚ and write prescriptions for‚ individuals‚ groups‚
organizations‚ societies‚ and their artifacts. The proverb “physician‚ heal
thyself” requires that we ourselves‚ along with our scholarly artifacts‚ soci-
eties‚ organizations‚ and groups‚ undergo the same manner of diagnosis to
which we subject others‚ and that we have a taste of our own medicine. This
essay uses three published papers of Working Group 8.2 of the International
Federation for Information Processing—from the 1984 Manchester meeting‚
from the 1990 Copenhagen meeting‚ and from the 1997 Philadelphia
meeting—as a source of rich material with which to illustrate the difference
in our diagnoses and prescriptions if we were to do unto ourselves what we do
unto others.

1 INTRODUCTION
We are doctors of philosophy who are specialists in information systems. In this role
we perform diagnoses of‚ and we write prescriptions for‚ individuals‚ groups‚
organizations‚ societies‚ and their artifacts. At the same time we need to ask ourselves:
Must we practice what we preach? Must we ourselves‚ along with our scholarly
artifacts‚ societies‚ organizations‚ and groups‚ undergo the same manner of diagnosis to
which we subject others‚ and must we have a taste of our own medicine? The answer is
that we must: We doctors of philosophy may not exempt ourselves from our own
scrutiny or our own medicine—lest we violate the scientific requirement of consistency
in our research and the ethical requirement of the golden rule in our conduct.
Some might argue that our research has indeed been inconsistent and our conduct
hypocritical. It can appear that we doctors of philosophy readily and routinely train a
critical eye on others‚ but not ourselves. Others might argue that a finding of incon-
sistency and hypocrisy is premature. There is no a priori reason that the optimal or only
 22 Part 1: Panoramas

time to begin diagnosing and prescribing for ourselves is already in the past. And be-
cause the discipline of information systems is‚ at most‚ 50 years old‚ one can also argue
that the information systems discipline is ready‚ only now‚ to turn a critical eye on itself.
Although sharing a specialty in information systems‚ we doctors of philosophy are
a diverse lot. Mirroring the diversity among ourselves is the diversity of the research that
we publish in our journals‚ such as European Journal of Information Systems‚
Information Systems Research‚ Information Systems Journal‚ and MIS Quarterly. Of the
many different segments of our information systems research community‚ one that offers
itself as especially promising material for a revelatory case study is the one that calls
itself Working Group 8.2 of the International Federation for Information Processing.
Given its self-conscious and reflective stance on research methods and its comfort with
critical social theory‚ Working Group 8.2 is more likely than any other segment of the
information systems research community to be able to understand the scientific and
ethical necessity to heal itself and not just others. If the case cannot be made that we
doctors of philosophy of WG 8.2 are ready‚ willing‚ and able to do unto ourselves what
we have been doing unto others‚ then there would be little hope that the same case can
be made for the information systems research community overall.
WG 8.2 ’s self-conscious and reflective nature has long been evident in its existence
and has manifested itself in the form of a persistent concern over research methods. Not
only does the topic of research methods provide the theme for the current conference in
Manchester‚ but it was also the theme for three of WG 8.2’s past conferences—1997 in
Philadelphia‚ 1990 in Copenhagen‚ and in 1984‚ also in Manchester. WG 8.2 ’s regularly
recurring reflection on research methods is a manifestation of its awareness of and
sensitivity to the process of scientific research‚ apparently seen as distinct from‚ and no
less important than‚ any content that the process produces.1 In this light‚ if there are any
doctors of philosophy in the overall information systems research community who are
ready‚ willing‚ and able to do unto themselves what they do unto others‚ they are likely
to be found among the doctors of philosophy in WG 8.2.
The following argument examines three past instances in which WG 8.2 focused on
diagnosing and prescribing for others‚ and also what would have been different in these
instances if WG 8.2 had focused‚ in addition‚ on diagnosing and prescribing for itself.
This difference will serve to illustrate what we—people who are members of the 8.2
community and the information systems discipline overall—can do to practice what we
preach‚ with the result that we can satisfy both the scientific requirement of consistency
in our research and the ethical requirement of the golden rule in our conduct. The argu-
ment will begin with a fundamental point from Thomas Kuhn’s history of science—that
a community of scientific researchers has‚ and is shaped by‚ its own sociology‚ not
unlike any other community that these researchers themselves would typically
investigate.

1
“A great deal hinges on whether science is viewed as a body of propositions or as the
enterprise in which they are generated‚ as product or as process” (Kaplan 1964‚ p. 7). At the same
time‚ no choice need be made. Science can be viewed as both process and product. Arguably‚
viewing it as process is more important because science as product is determined by science as
process.
Lee/Doctor of Philosophy‚ Heal Thyself 23

2 SCIENTIFIC RESEARCHERS ARE

RESEARCH SUBJECTS TOO
Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1996) and his related studies are
instances of research in history and sociology. In his empirical‚ historical investigation
of natives who called themselves “scientists”—including those who called themselves
physicists and biologists and whose shared cultural beliefs‚ rituals‚ politics‚ and
superstitions are fascinating but beyond the scope of this single paper to examine—Kuhn
often refers to their sociology. One example is

Some of the principles deployed in my explanation of science are irreducibly

sociological‚ at least at this time. In particular‚ confronted with the problem of
theory-choice‚ the structure of my response runs roughly as follows: take a
group of the ablest available people with the most appropriate motivation; train
them in some science and in the specialties relevant to the choice at hand;
imbue them with the value system‚ the ideology‚ current in their discipline (and
to a great extent in other scientific fields as well); and finally‚ let them make the
choice. If that technique does not account for scientific development as we
know it‚ then no other will. There can be no set of rules of choice adequate to
dictate desired individual behaviour in the concrete cases that scientists will
meet in the course of their careers. Whatever scientific progress may be‚ we
must account for it by examining the nature of the scientific group‚ discovering
what it values‚ what it tolerates‚ and what it disdains.
That position is intrinsically sociological...(Kuhn 1970‚ pp. 237-238).

In examining scientists in this way‚ Kuhn is casting them in the role of research subjects
and‚ therefore‚ rendering them as objects of study.
One can argue that if physicists have a sociology‚ then other researchers do too.
Accepting the generalization that the people who call themselves social scientists and
information systems researchers are themselves research subjects similarly to how the
self-proclaimed natural scientists are research subjects‚ we may conclude that the former
are no more immune to sociological‚ historical‚ and other scientific investigation than
any other natives.
In some of our past annual meetings‚ we members of a society which we call 8.2
have offered research methods and perspectives for how we would diagnose‚ and
prescribe for‚ others—in particular‚ people in the midst of their organization‚ their
organization’s information technology‚ and the many phenomena emerging from the
mutually transforming interactions between the organization and the information
technology. In what follows‚ there are three instances of research methods or research
perspectives that members of 8.2 have entertained in presentations at their earlier
conferences. I have chosen the three papers so as to represent each of the earlier three
meetings‚ as well as to include authors whose prominence‚ recognition‚ and active
research programs extend to the present. Following each instance‚ in turn‚ is a scenario
for how— if ready‚ willing‚ and able—we members of WG 8.2 or the information
systems research community overall could likewise diagnose and prescribe for ourselves.
The examples build on earlier ones (Lee 2000) and are in keeping with their spirit.
 24 Part 1: Panoramas

2.1 Three Knowledge Interests for Information Systems

Development Information Systems Research and Publishing2
As early as at its 1984 meeting in Manchester‚ WG 8.2 recognized and embraced
critical theory. Lyytinen and Klein (1985) introduced the critical theory of Jürgen
Habermas to WG 8.2. The following passage from their paper well conveys its overall
spirit and identifies some ramifications of critical social theory for how information
systems researchers diagnose and prescribe for information systems development (pp.
225-226).3

The Implications of Three Knowledge Interests for Information Systems

Development

Because information systems development is currently dominated by

approaches based on the idea of purposive-rational action‚ the underlying
knowledge basis of many of its methodologies is [the] technical knowledge
interest. This appears to be true even of those methodologies which take a
broader social perspective such as socio-technical system approaches and
implementation research. Variations can only be found in the scope of inquiry‚
its conceptual basis and applied inquiring methods.
Our understanding of the process and content of information systems
development and its supporting methodologies can be improved considerably
if it is recognized that it includes not only [the] technical knowledge interest‚
but also practical and emancipatory knowledge interests.
First‚ restricting attention to [the] technical knowledge interest influences
how problems are defined and understood. They are perceived as given and as
totally independent of the investigator. Because of this narrow focus‚ methodo-
logies are unable to explain how people‚ through social learning‚ create new
meanings and concepts to cope with new situations.
Second‚ a concentration on technical knowledge interests conceals the real
processes of information systems development and their dependency on
communicative action. In the majority of information systems design methodo-
logies‚ design groups see users as “producers of information‚” as “primary
problem solvers” and as “opponents in an implementation game.” Information
systems development as a process of communicative action through ordinary
language is hardly known and rarely studied. In consequence‚ methods to assist
the sharing of different opinions and problems‚ and the role of ordinary lan-

2
The use of strike-outs‚ followed by italicized words replacing the stricken words‚ is
intentional. As the subsequent text will make clear‚ I use it to indicate how I am mapping lessons
about people‚ organizations‚ and information technologies from each of the three earlier 8.2
papers to the current situation of ourselves as researchers regarding our own information tech-
nology (i.e.‚ research methods) and our own organization (i.e.‚ our 8.2 community).
3
The citations in the quoted materials are suppressed.
Lee/Doctor of Philosophy‚ Heal Thyself 25

guage in this process‚ have not been developed and studied. Because of this‚
most methodologies cannot handle the participation issue or examine it
theoretically.
Third‚ existing methodologies appeal to value-neutrality and instrumental
reason. They define all information systems problems in terms of means and
ends‚ and the most efficient way of pursuing these. This selecting implies a
tyranny of means over ends. There is little consideration of values and goals‚
and the design process is seen as “an act of faith.” There is no attempt to
legitimate goals through developing a rationally grounded consensus among the
stakeholders.

Lyytinen and Klein’s use of critical theory to diagnose and prescribe for information
systems development is also suggestive of how they and other information systems
researchers can use critical theory to diagnose and prescribe for themselves and their
work (i.e.‚ information systems research). Consider

The Implications of Three Knowledge Interests for Information Systems

Development Information Systems Research and Publishing

Because information systems development information systems research

and publishing is currently dominated by approaches based on the idea of
purposive-rational action‚ the underlying knowledge basis of many of its
methodologies the methods used in information systems research is [the]
technical knowledge interest. This appears to be true even of those methodo-
logies research methods which take a broader social perspective such as those
used in socio-technical system approaches and implementation research.
Variations can only be found in the scope of inquiry‚ its conceptual basis and
applied inquiring methods.
Our understanding of the process and content of information systems
development information systems research and publishing and its supporting
methodologies research methods can be improved considerably if it is
recognized that it includes not only [the] technical knowledge interest‚ but also
practical and emancipatory knowledge interests.
First‚ restricting attention to [the] technical knowledge interest influences
how research problems are defined and understood. They are perceived as
given to the information systems researcher by what the research discipline
itself (its literature‚ its journals‚ its conferences) considers to be significant
research and as totally independent of the investigator. Because of this narrow
focus‚ methodologies research methods are unable to explain how people
information systems researchers‚ through social learning‚ create new meanings
and concepts to cope with new situations.
Second‚ a concentration on technical knowledge interests conceals the real
processes of information systems development information systems research
and publishing and their dependency on communicative action. In the majority
of information systems design methodologies research methods‚ design groups
see users editors and reviewers see researchers as “producers of information”
Another Random Scribd Document
with Unrelated Content
de mon sujet. Quoi qu'il en soit, la maréchale fut bientôt sur le pied
de s'entendre dire de pareilles pauvretés, et le duc de La Ferté, son
fils[262], homme adonné, s'il en fut jamais, à toutes sortes de
débauches, fut lui-même de ceux qui ne la ménagèrent pas. Elle
avoit quelque chose à démêler avec lui pour quelques intérêts; aussi
lui, qui n'avoit pas trop de bien pour fournir à ses désordres, ne
pouvant souffrir qu'elle lui demandât un douaire et des conventions,
commença ses litanies par lui dire si, après avoir ruiné son père, elle
vouloit encore lui ôter ce qui lui restoit. La maréchale, n'étant pas
demeurée court, comme de raison, à ces reproches, lui dit que
c'étoit bien à lui de parler, lui qui étoit non-seulement le mépris de
toute la cour, mais encore de toute la ville. C'étoit la pure vérité;
mais comme toutes sortes de vérités ne sont pas bonnes à dire, il ne
put souffrir celle-là, et lui répliqua que si ce n'étoit pas à lui à parler,
c'étoit encore moins à elle, qui étoit une vieille p...... Là-dessus, il lui
dit le nom de tous ceux qui avoient eu affaire à elle, et il en nomma
jusqu'à soixante-douze, chose incroyable, si tout ce qu'il y a de gens
à Paris ne savoient que je ne rapporte rien que de vrai. La maréchale
lui dit d'abord de parler de sa femme[263], et qu'il y avoit plus à
reprendre sur elle que sur qui que ce soit; mais le duc de la Ferté lui
ferma la bouche en lui disant qu'il savoit bien qu'il étoit cocu, mais
que cela n'empêchoit pas que son père ne l'eût été en herbe, en
gerbe et après sa mort.
Ce furent ses propres termes, qui désolèrent tellement la
maréchale, qu'elle se prit à pleurer. Mais elle avoit affaire à un
homme si tendre, qu'au lieu d'en être touché, il n'en fit que rire.
Cette comédie s'étant passée de la sorte, la maréchale alla se
plaindre au comte d'Olonne, chez qui elle savoit qu'il alloit souvent.
«Vous n'avez que ce que vous méritez, lui répondit alors le comte; et
après avoir voulu tâter, comme vous avez fait, du sceptre jusqu'à la
houlette, comment voulez-vous que vos affaires ne soient pas
publiques?» Il lui fit ce reproche parce qu'il se ressentoit du passé;
mais, après s'être donné ce petit contentement, il lui promit que cela
n'empêcheroit pas qu'il ne fît correction à son fils. En effet, l'ayant
vu une heure après, il lui dit qu'il avoit tous les torts du monde
d'avoir parlé à sa mère comme il avoit fait; qu'à son âge, il n'étoit
pas à savoir que rien ne le pouvoit dispenser du respect qu'il lui
devoit; qu'aussi croyoit-il que cela ne lui étoit arrivé qu'après être
soûl, autrement qu'il ne sauroit qu'en dire.
Il y avoit apparence que le duc de La Ferté alloit chercher
quelque excuse pour colorer une si grande faute, et même qu'en
ayant la dernière confusion, il prendroit le parti de la nier; mais, sans
s'en s'étonner aucunement: «Il est vrai, lui répondit-il, j'étois soûl, et
c'est de quoi elle a été fort heureuse, car sans cela je lui aurois bien
dit d'autres vérités... J'ai une liste fidèle de tous les tours qu'elle a
faits; et, jusqu'au collier de perles qu'elle a fait escroquer à monsieur
de Dreux[264], conseiller au grand Conseil, par le chevalier de
Lignerac[265], rien ne m'est inconnu.» Le comte lui demanda s'il
n'avoit point de honte de parler comme cela de sa mère; mais,
quelque réprimande qu'il lui fît, il lui fut impossible de lui faire
entendre raison.
Comme il ne se passe guère de choses dans le royaume que le
Roi ne sache, on lui donna bientôt le divertissement de cette
comédie, qui lui inspira un si grand mépris pour cette maison, qu'il
ne se put empêcher de le montrer. Mais le duc de La Ferté, qui
savoit bien qu'il étoit déjà perdu de réputation auprès de lui, ne s'en
mit guère en peine, non plus que la maréchale, laquelle continue
toujours à mener la même vie; de sorte que je pourrai une autre fois
vous apprendre la suite de son histoire, aussi bien que celle de
madame de Lionne: supposé néanmoins qu'elles trouvent toujours
des gens qui veuillent d'elles, ou qu'elles ne se convertissent pas.

NOTES.

[224] Voy. tome 1, pp. 5, 83, et t. 2, p. 403.

[225] Voy. le tome 1, pp. 5, 83, et le t. 2, p. 403.

 [226] Voy. le tome 1, p. 5, 7, 36.

[227] C'est-à-dire «Il dépensa tout ce qu'il avoit pour

acheter des habits élégants.»

[228] Le maréchal de La Ferté n'étoit pas gouverneur de

la Lorraine; mais il avoit, en Lorraine, les gouvernements des
pays et évêchés de Metz et de Verdun, puis des villes et
citadelles de Metz et de Moyenvic.

[229] Il est noir. (Note du texte.)

[230] Le marquis de Beuvron étoit lieutenant général de

Normandie et gouverneur du vieux palais de Rouen.

[231] Conf. t. 2, p. 443.

[232] A chaque instant, sous le moindre prétexte, on

faisoit partir pour l'Amérique les femmes publiques. (Voy. t. 2
pp. 123 et 136.)

[233] Fils de Noël de Bullion, seigneur de Bonnelle, et de

mademoiselle de Prie, Charlotte de Toussy. (Voy. t. 1, p. 82-
83.)

[234] Mademoiselle de La Ferté, Catherine-Henriette de

Senneterre (Saint-Nectaire), se maria en effet dans la maison
de Bullion, à laquelle appartenoit le marquis de Fervaques.
Elle épousa François de Bullion, marquis de Longchêne,
cousin-germain de Fervaques, qui mourut sans alliance.
Mademoiselle de La Ferté, née en 1662, étoit bien jeune, on
le voit, au temps où madame d'Olonne avoit si fort à cœur de
la marier.

[235] Alphonse Noël, marquis de Fervaques, fut en effet

gouverneur des pays et comtés du Maine, Laval et Perche,
mais après 1669, époque où le duc de Tresme occupoit
encore cette charge. Il fut aussi capitaine lieutenant des
chevau-légers de la Reine.
 [236] Voy. tome 1, p. 82, 265.

[237] Charles-Denys de Bullion devoit, en effet, après la

mort de son frère, qui ne laissa pas de postérité, hériter de
tous les biens de la famille. Il fut prévôt de Paris et
gouverneur du Maine.

[238] Voy. t. 2, p. 402-403. Le duc de Longueville étant né

en 1649, il semble que nous soyons à peine arrivés à l'année
1669; il y a ici une contradiction avec ce qui est dit deux
pages plus haut, où l'on montre M. de Fervaques gouverneur
du Maine.

[239] Jean-Louis de Fiesques, comte de Lavagne, fils de

Charles-Léon, comte d'Harcourt, et de Gilonne d'Harcourt,
veuve du marquis de Piennes. C'est à lui que Louis XIV fit
donner par les Génois une somme de 300,000 fr. pour le
dédommager de la confiscation faite, au XVe siècle, du comté
de Lavagne.

[240] Var.: Edit. 1754: effronterie.

[241] Antoine Ruzé, marquis d'Effiat, chevalier des ordres

du Roi, premier écuyer de Philippe, duc d'Orléans. Il fit partie
du conseil de régence pendant la minorité de Louis XV. Né en
1638, il mourut en 1719, sans laisser de postérité. Cf. t. 2, p.
406.

[242] Mademoiselle de Fiennes étoit fille d'un fils de la

nourrice de la reine d'Angleterre, lequel avoit épousé, à vingt-
deux ans, une dame d'atours de cette reine. Madame de
Fiennes avoit quarante ans au moment où elle se maria ainsi
par amour; et mademoiselle de Montpensier, qui avoit tant de
raisons pour n'être pas sévère, lui reproche cette folie qui l'a
faite «belle-fille de madame la nourrice, belle-sœur de toutes
ses femmes de chambre, et femme d'un jeune homme de
vingt-deux ans, sans bien, sans charge, parce qu'il est beau
et bien fait.» Elle la blâme ensuite de n'avoir déclaré son
mariage que quand elle étoit prête d'accoucher de cette fille
dont il est ici question.
 [243] L'hôtel de La Ferté faisoit l'admiration de Paris.
Isolé, entouré de quatre rues, il étoit «le seul à Paris qui fût
de cette manière», dit Sauval. Sa grande galerie, sa chapelle,
la plus grande de toutes celles qui étoient dans des palais ou
des hôtels particuliers, sa grande basse-cour, son écurie,
voûtée, soutenue par deux rangs de colonnes et assez grande
pour recevoir quatre-vingts chevaux, sa grande serre
d'orangers, faisoient qu'on disoit à Paris: Senneterre-la-
Grande. Non-seulement, dit encore Sauval, toutes ces pièces
sont grandes, mais encore il n'y a point de maison à Paris où
on les rencontre toutes ensemble d'une grandeur si
considérable. Sa galerie est bordée de tableaux où Perrier,
Mignard, Hyacinthe et Evrard ont peint une partie de l'histoire
d'Aminthe. Le maréchal de La Feuillade acheta dans la suite
cet hôtel, et c'est sur l'emplacement qu'il occupoit que fut
construite la place des Victoires.

[244] La promenade du Cours-la-Reine avoit perdu en

partie sa vogue, et le beau monde alloit alors beaucoup du
côté de la porte Saint-Antoine: les allées de Vincennes, d'un
côté, et, d'un autre, un boulevard qui commençoit à s'ouvrir
et qui devoit plus tard s'étendre jusqu'à la porte Saint-
Honoré, en passant par les portes Saint-Martin et Saint-Denis,
attiroient la foule en été.

[245] Voy. le texte des pages 409 et suivantes, et la note,

p. 411, t. 2.

[246] La terre de la Loupe donnoit son nom à la branche

de la famille d'Angennes à laquelle appartenoient et madame
d'Olonne et madame de la Ferté.

[247] En 1672.

[248] Sœur de Lauzun. Voy. t. 2, passim, et ci-dessous, p.

322.

[249] Louis de Bechameil, marquis de Nointel, né vers

1617, étoit alors conseiller au Parlement et secrétaire du
Conseil; il devint plus tard, en 1674, maître des requêtes
ordinaires de l'hôtel du Roi. Il fut aussi intendant de
Bretagne.

[250] Voy. ci-dessus t. 2, p. 412.

[251] Madame de Nogent, sœur de Lauzun, n'étoit pas la

seule des femmes qui formoient une sorte de cour auprès du
jeune duc de Longueville. Madame de Thianges, madame
d'Uxelles et beaucoup d'autres, dit Mademoiselle de
Montpensier, étoient fort de ses amies. (Voy. ci-dessus t. 2, p.
412-413, note.)—Diane-Charlotte de Caumont-Lauzun, née
en 1632, étoit mariée depuis neuf ans environ (28 avril 1663)
à Arnauld de Bautru, comte de Nogent. Elle avoit quarante
ans à l'époque du voyage de Flandre. Elle vécut jusqu'en
1720, atteignant ainsi sa quatre-vingt-huitième année.

[252] Les louis, les écus au soleil, étoient des pièces de

monnoie d'or marquées d'un soleil. On connoît le vers de
Régnier:

Je fis, dans un escu, reluire le soleil.

[253] Le manteau étoit une des parties obligées du

costume. On le portoit en été, dit Furetière, par ornement,
comme en hiver pour se garantir du froid et de la pluie. Les
gens de robe, comme Bechameil, et les gens d'église,
portoient le manteau long.

[254] Terme de partisan, pour dire enchère. (Note du

texte.)

[255] Voy. ci-dessus, p. 228.

[256] Voy. ci-dessus, t. 2, p. 411, note 340. Le Roi fut

heureux de l'occasion qui se présenta de légitimer un enfant
sans nommer la mère. Ce fut pour lui un précédent dont il
devoit s'autoriser. Mademoiselle de Montpensier n'en fait pas
mystère: «Pendant que j'étois sur le chapitre de M. de
Longueville, dit-elle (édit de Maëstricht, t. 6, p. 360), j'ai
oublié de dire qu'il déclara un bâtard qu'il avoit au Parlement,
afin de le rendre capable de posséder le bien qu'il lui voudroit
donner: on ne nomma pas la mère. Comme il faut pour cela
des lettres patentes du Roi, elles furent accordées sans peine.
On déclara alors M. du Maine et mademoiselle de Nantes; je
ne me souviens pas si M. le comte de Vexin et mademoiselle
de Tours le furent en même temps. La mère du chevalier de
Longueville étoit une femme de qualité dont le mari étoit
vivant. Il disoit à tout le monde, dans ce temps-là: «Ne
savez-vous point qui est la mère du chevalier de
Longueville?» Personne ne lui répondoit, quoique tout le
monde le sût.»

[257] Les lettres d'Etat étoient celles que le Roi donnoit

aux ambassadeurs, aux officiers de guerre et à tous ceux qui
sont absents pour le service de l'Etat. Elles portoient
surséance de toutes les poursuites qu'on pouvoit faire en
justice contre eux. Elles ne s'accordoient que pour dix mois;
mais, dit Furetière, qui fait d'une définition une satire
politique, on les renouvelle tant que le prétexte dure.

[258] Le pamphlet marche, on le voit, assez vite. La mort

du duc de Longueville, dont nous ne sommes pas encore bien
éloignés, est de 1672. Nous sommes maintenant amenés à la
mort du maréchal de La Ferté. Le maréchal mourut le 27
septembre 1681, âgé de quatre-vingt-un ans.

[259] Yolande-Julie, fille de Louis II de La Trémouille,

premier duc de Noirmoutier, et de Renée-Julie Aubery, qu'il
avoit épousée en 1640, épousa, le 31 décembre 1675,
François de la Trémouille, marquis de Royan, grand sénéchal
de Poitou et gouverneur de Poitiers. Celui-ci étoit fils de
Philippe de La Trémouille, et, par conséquent, frère de ce
Louis de La Trémouille, comte d'Olonne, qui avoit épousé la
sœur de la maréchale de La Ferté.

[260] Voy. la note précédente.

[261] La mère de madame de Royan étoit Renée-Julie

Aubery, à qui les chansons n'ont guère reproché que d'avoir
désiré l'honneur du tabouret chez la Reine, c'est-à-dire le titre
de duchesse. Elle mourut en 1679, quatre ans après le
mariage de sa fille. (Cf. Dictionnaire des Précieuses, t. 2, p.
139.)
 [262] Henri-François de Saint-Nectaire, né le 23 janvier
1657, duc par la démission de son père, agréée par le Roi le 8
janvier 1678. Colonel d'un régiment d'infanterie, puis
brigadier, puis maréchal de camp et enfin lieutenant général;
il fut aussi gouverneur de Metz et pays Messin, ville et évêché
de Verdun, Vic et Moyenvic, aussi par la démission du
maréchal son père. Le duc de La Ferté, qui avoit épousé, le
18 mars 1675, Marie-Isabelle de La Mothe-Houdancourt, fille
du maréchal de ce nom, mourut le 1er août 1703, âgé
seulement de quarante-six ans.—Cf. t. 2, p. 424.

[263] Voy. la note précédente.

[264] Joachim de Dreux étoit conseiller au Grand Conseil

depuis l'année 1681. Il étoit docteur de Sorbonne et avoit été
chanoine de l'Eglise de Paris.

[265] Voy. ci-dessus, et t. 2, p. 420.

LA FRANCE

DEVENUE

I TA L I E N N E
AVEC LES AUTRES DÉSORDRES
DE LA COUR.
 LA FRANCE
DEVENUE

ITALIENNE
AVEC LES AUTRES DÉSORDRES
DE LA COUR[266].

a facilité de toutes les dames avoit rendu leurs charmes

si méprisables à la jeunesse, qu'on ne savoit presque
plus à la cour ce que c'étoit que de les regarder; la
débauche y régnoit plus qu'en lieu du monde, et quoique
le Roi eût témoigné plusieurs fois une horreur
inconcevable pour ces sortes de plaisirs, il n'y avoit qu'en cela qu'il
ne pouvoit être obéi. Le vin et ce que je n'ose dire étoient si fort à la
mode qu'on ne regardoit presque plus ceux qui recherchoient à
passer leur temps plus agréablement[267]; et quelque penchant qu'ils
eussent à vivre selon l'ordre de la nature, comme le nombre étoit
plus grand de ceux qui vivoient dans le désordre[268], leur exemple
les pervertissoit tellement qu'ils ne demeuroient pas longtemps dans
les mêmes sentiments.
La plupart des gens de qualité étoient non-seulement de ce
caractère, mais il y avoit encore des princes, ce qui fâchoit
extraordinairement le Roi. Ils se cachoient cependant autant qu'ils
pouvoient pour ne lui pas déplaire, et cela les obligeoit à courir toute
la nuit, espérant que les ténèbres leur seroient favorables. Mais le
Roi (qui étoit averti de tout) sut qu'un jour après son coucher ils
étoient venus à Paris[269], où ils avoient fait une telle débauche, qu'il
y en avoit beaucoup qui s'en étoient retournés soûls dans leurs
carrosses. Et comme cela s'étoit passé dans le cabaret[270] (car ils ne
prenoient pas plus de précaution pour cacher leurs désordres), il prit
sujet de là d'en faire une grande mercuriale à un jeune prince qui s'y
étoit trouvé, en qui il prenoit intérêt. Il lui dit que du moins, s'il étoit
assez malheureux pour être adonné au vin, il bût chez lui tout son
soûl, et non pas dans un endroit comme celui-là, qui étoit de toutes
façons si indigne pour une personne de sa naissance.
Le reste de la cabale n'essuya pas les mêmes reproches, parce
qu'il n'y en avoit pas un qui touchât le Roi de si près; mais, en
récompense, il leur témoigna un si grand mépris qu'ils furent bien
mortifiés[271]. Et, à la vérité, ils furent quelque temps sans oser rien
faire qu'en cachette; mais comme leur caractère ne leur permettoit
pas de se contraindre longtemps, ils en revinrent bientôt à leur
inclination, qui les portoit à faire les choses avec plus d'éclat.
Pour ne pas s'attirer néanmoins la colère du Roi, ils jugèrent à
propos de faire serment, et de le faire faire à tous ceux qui
entreroient dans leur confrérie, de renoncer à toutes les femmes: car
ils accusoient un d'entre eux d'avoir révélé leurs mystères à une
dame avec qui il étoit bien, et ils croyoient que c'étoit par là que le
Roi apprenoit tout ce qu'ils faisoient. Ils résolurent même de ne le
plus admettre dans leur compagnie; mais s'étant présenté pour y
être reçu, et ayant juré de ne plus voir cette femme, on lui fit grâce
pour cette fois, à condition que s'il y retournoit il n'y auroit plus de
miséricorde. Ce fut là la première règle de leur confrérie; mais la
plupart ayant dit que leur ordre allant devenir bientôt aussi grand
que celui de Saint-François, il étoit nécessaire d'en établir de solides,
et auxquelles on seroit obligé de se tenir, le reste approuva cette
résolution, et il ne fut plus question que de choisir celui qui
travailleroit à ce formulaire. Les avis furent partagés là-dessus, et
comme on voyoit bien que c'étoit proprement déclarer chef de
l'ordre celui à qui l'on donneroit ce soin, chacun brigua les voix et fit
paroître de l'émulation pour un si bel emploi. Manicamp[272], le duc
de Grammont[273] et le chevalier de Tilladet[274] étoient ceux qui
faisoient le plus de bruit dans le chapitre, et qui prétendoient
s'attribuer cet honneur, à l'exclusion l'un de l'autre: Manicamp, parce
qu'il avoit plus d'expérience qu'aucun dans le métier; le duc de
Grammont, parce qu'il étoit duc et pair, et qu'il ne manquoit pas
aussi d'acquit; pour ce qui est du chevalier de Tilladet, il fondoit ses
prétentions sur ce qu'étant chevalier de Malte, c'étoit une qualité si
essentielle pour être parfaitement débauché, que quelque avantage
qu'eussent les autres, comme ils n'avoient pas celui-là, il étoit sûr
qu'il les surpasseroit de beaucoup dans la pratique des vertus.
Comme ils avoient tous trois du crédit dans le chapitre, on eut de
la peine à s'accorder sur le choix; et quelqu'un ayant été d'opinion
qu'ils devoient donner des reproches les uns contre les autres, afin
que l'on choisît après cela celui qui seroit le plus parfait, chacun
approuva cette méthode. Et le chevalier de Tilladet, prenant la
parole en même temps, dit qu'il étoit ravi qu'on eût pris cette voie,
et qu'elle alloit lui faire obtenir ce qu'il désiroit; que Manicamp auroit
pu autrefois entrer en concurrence avec lui, et qu'il ne l'auroit pas
trouvé étrange, parce que le bruit étoit qu'il avoit eu de grandes
qualités; mais qu'aujourd'hui que ses forces étoient énervées, c'étoit
un abus que de le vouloir constituer en charge, à moins qu'on ne
déclarât que ce qu'on en feroit ne tireroit à aucune conséquence
pour l'avenir; qu'en effet, il n'avoit plus rien de bon que la langue, et
que toutes les autres parties de son corps étoient mortes en lui.
Manicamp ne put souffrir qu'on lui fît ainsi son procès en si
bonne compagnie, et ayant peur qu'après cela personne ne le voulût
plus approcher, il dit qu'il n'étoit pas encore si infirme qu'il n'eût
rendu quelque service à la maréchale d'Estrées, sa sœur[275]; qu'elle
en avoit été assez contente pour ne pas chercher parti ailleurs; que
ceux qui la connoissoient savoient pourtant bien qu'elle ne se
satisfaisoit pas de si peu de chose, et que puisqu'elle ne s'étoit pas
plainte, c'étoit une marque qu'il valoit mieux qu'on ne disoit.
Il y en eut qui voulurent dire que cette raison n'étoit pas
convaincante, et qu'une femme qui avoit pris un mari à quatre-vingt-
quinze ou seize ans n'étoit pas partie capable d'en juger; mais ceux
qui connoissoient son tempérament leur imposèrent silence et
soutinrent qu'elle s'y connoissoit mieux que personne.
Le chevalier de Tilladet fut un peu démonté par cette réponse;
néanmoins il dit encore beaucoup de choses pour soutenir son droit,
et, entre autres, qu'il avoit eu affaire à Manicamp, et qu'il n'avoit pas
éprouvé cette grande vigueur dont il faisoit tant de parade. On fut
obligé de l'en croire sur sa parole, et il s'éleva un murmure dans la
compagnie qui fit juger à Manicamp que son affaire n'iroit pas bien.
Quand ce murmure fut apaisé, le chevalier de Tilladet reprit la
parole, et dit qu'à l'égard du duc de Grammont, il y avoit un péché
originel qui l'excluoit de ses prétentions: qu'il aimoit trop sa
femme[276], et que, comme cela étoit incompatible avec la chose
dont il s'agissoit, il n'avoit point d'autres reproches à faire contre lui.
Le duc de Grammont, qui ne s'attendoit pas à cette insulte, ne
balança point un moment sur la réponse qu'il avoit à faire; et comme
il savoit qu'il n'y a rien tel que de dire la vérité, il avoua de bonne foi
que cela avoit été autrefois, mais que cela n'étoit plus. La raison qu'il
en rapporta fut qu'il s'étoit mépris à son tempérament; qu'il avoit
attribué les faveurs qu'il en avoit obtenues avant son mariage au
penchant qu'elle avoit pour lui; mais que, celles qu'elle avoit
données depuis à son valet de chambre lui ayant fait connoître qu'il
étoit impossible de répondre d'une femme, il lui avoit si bien ôté son
amitié qu'il lui avoit fait succéder le mépris; que c'étoit pour cela qu'il
avoit renoncé à l'amour du beau sexe, lequel avoit eu autrefois son
étoile, et qui l'auroit peut-être encore si l'on y pouvoit prendre
quelque confiance; que, quoi qu'il fût fils d'un père[277] et cadet d'un
frère[278] qui avoient eu tous deux de grandes parties pour obtenir
les premières dignités de l'ordre, il étoit cependant moins redevable
de son mérite à ce qu'il avoit hérité d'eux[279] qu'à son dépit; que
Dieu se servoit de toutes choses pour attirer à la perfection; qu'ainsi,
bien loin de murmurer contre sa providence pour les sujets de
chagrin qu'il lui envoyoit, il avouoit tous les jours qu'il lui en étoit
bien redevable.
 Le chevalier de Tilladet n'eut rien à répondre à cela, et chacun
crut que l'humilité du duc de Grammont, jointe à une si grande
sincérité, feroit faire réflexion aux avantages qu'il avoit par dessus
les autres, soit pour les charmes de sa personne ou pour le rang
qu'il tenoit. En effet, il alloit obtenir tout d'une voix la chose pour
laquelle on étoit alors assemblé, si le comte de Tallard[280] ne se fût
avisé de dire que l'ordre alloit devenir trop fameux pour n'avoir
qu'un grand maître; que tous trois étoient dignes de cette charge, et
qu'à l'exemple de celui de Saint-Lazare[281], où l'on venoit d'établir
plusieurs grands-prieurs, on ne pouvoit manquer de les choisir tous
trois.
Chacun, qui prétendoit à son tour de parvenir à cette dignité,
approuva cette opinion; mais comme on fit réflexion que dans
quelque établissement que ce soit, c'est dans les commencements
où l'on a particulièrement besoin d'esprit, on résolut de faire choix
d'un quatrième, parce que les trois autres n'étoient pas soupçonnés
de pouvoir jamais faire une hérésie nouvelle. Le choix tomba sur le
marquis de Biran[282], homme qui avoit plus d'esprit qu'il n'étoit
gros; mais dont la trop grande jeunesse l'eût exclus de cet honneur
sans le besoin qu'on en avoit. D'abord que l'élection fut faite, on les
pria de travailler tous quatre aux règles de l'ordre, dont le principal
but consistoit de bannir les femmes de leur compagnie. Pour pouvoir
vaquer à une chose si sainte, ils quittèrent non-seulement la cour,
mais encore la ville de Paris, où ils craignoient de recevoir quelque
distraction, et, étant enfermés dans une maison de campagne, ils
donnèrent rendez-vous aux autres deux jours après, leur promettant
qu'il ne leur en falloit pas davantage pour être inspirés. En effet,
chacun les étant allé trouver au bout de ce temps-là, on trouva qu'ils
avoient rédigé ces règles par écrit, dont voici les articles:

I.
Qu'on ne recevroit plus dorénavant dans l'ordre des
personnes qui ne fussent visitées par les grands maîtres, pour
voir si toutes les parties de leur corps étoient saines, afin
qu'elles pussent supporter les austérités.

II.
Qu'ils feroient vœu d'obéissance et de chasteté à l'égard
des femmes, et que si aucun y contrevenoit, il seroit chassé
de la compagnie, sans pouvoir y rentrer sous quelque
prétexte que ce fût.

III.
Que chacun seroit admis indifféremment dans l'ordre, sans
distinction de qualité, laquelle n'empêcheroit point qu'on ne
se soumît aux rigueurs du noviciat, qui dureroit jusqu'à ce
que la barbe fût venue au menton.

I V.
Que si aucun des frères se marioit, il seroit obligé de
déclarer que ce n'étoit que pour le bien de ses affaires, ou
parce que ses parents l'y obligeoient, ou parce qu'il falloit
laisser un héritier. Qu'il feroit serment en même temps de ne
jamais aimer sa femme, de ne coucher avec elle que jusqu'à
ce qu'il en eût un; et que cependant il en demanderoit
permission, laquelle ne lui pourroit être accordée que pour un
jour de la semaine.

V.
Qu'on diviseroit les frères en quatre classes, afin que
chaque grand prieur en eût autant l'un que l'autre. Et qu'à
l'égard de ceux qui se présenteroient pour entrer dans l'ordre,
les quatre grands prieurs les auroient à tour de rôle afin que
la jalousie ne pût donner atteinte à leur union.

VI.
 Qu'on se diroit les uns aux autres tout ce qui se seroit
passé en particulier, afin que quand il viendroit une charge à
vaquer, elle ne s'accordât qu'au mérite, lequel seroit reconnu
par ce moyen.

VII.
Qu'à l'égard des personnes indifférentes, il ne seroit pas
permis de leur révéler les mystères, et que quiconque le feroit
en seroit privé lui-même pendant huit jours, et même
davantage si le grand-maître dont il dépendroit le jugeoit à
propos.

VIII.
Que néanmoins l'on pourroit s'ouvrir à ceux qu'on auroit
espérance d'attirer dans l'ordre; mais qu'il faudroit que ce fût
avec tant de discrétion, que l'on fût sûr du succès avant que
de faire cette démarche.

IX.
Que ceux qui amèneroient des frères au couvent jouiroient
des mêmes prérogatives, pendant deux jours, dont les
grands-maîtres jouissoient; bien entendu néanmoins qu'ils
laisseroient passer les grands-maîtres devant, et se
contenteroient d'avoir ce qu'on auroit desservi de dessus leur
table.

C'est ainsi que les règles de l'ordre furent dressées; et, ayant été
lues en présence de tout le monde, elles furent approuvées
généralement, à la réserve que quelques-uns furent d'avis qu'on
apportât quelque tempérament à l'égard des femmes, crime qu'ils
vouloient n'être pas traité à la dernière rigueur, mais pour lequel ils
souhaitoient qu'on pût obtenir grâce, après néanmoins qu'on l'auroit
demandé en plein chapitre et observé quelque forme de pénitence.
Mais tous les grands-maîtres se trouvèrent si zélés que ceux qui
avoient ouvert cette opinion pensèrent être chassés sur-le-champ; et
s'ils n'avoient témoigné un grand repentir, on ne leur auroit jamais
pardonné leur faute.
On célébra dans cette maison de campagne de grandes
réjouissances pour être venu à bout si facilement d'une si grande
entreprise; et après bien des choses qui se passèrent, et qu'il est
bon de taire, on convint que les chevaliers porteroient une croix
entre la chemise et le justaucorps, où il y auroit élevé en bosse un
homme qui fouleroit une femme aux pieds, à l'exemple des croix de
saint Michel[283], où l'on voit que ce saint foule aux pieds le démon.
Après qu'on eut accompli ces saints mystères, chacun s'en revint
à Paris, et quelqu'un n'ayant pas gardé le secret, il se répandit
bientôt un bruit de tout ce qui s'étoit passé dans cette maison de
campagne, de sorte que les uns excités par leur inclination, les
autres par la nouveauté du fait, s'empressèrent d'entrer dans l'ordre.
Un prince, dont il ne m'est pas permis de révéler le nom, ayant
eu ce désir, fut présenté au chapitre par le marquis de Biran, et
ayant demandé à être relevé des cérémonies, on lui fit réponse que
cela ne se pouvoit et qu'il falloit qu'il montrât exemple aux autres.
Tout ce qu'on fit pour lui, c'est qu'on lui accorda qu'il choisiroit celui
des grands-maîtres qui lui plairoit le plus; et il choisit celui qui l'avoit
présenté, ce qui fit grand dépit aux autres, qui le voyoient beau,
jeune et bien fait.
Cette grâce fut encore suivie d'une autre qu'on lui accorda,
savoir: qu'il pourroit choisir de tous les frères celui qui lui seroit le
plus agréable, dont néanmoins la plupart commencèrent à
murmurer, disant que, puisqu'on violoit sitôt les règles, tout seroit
bientôt perverti. Mais on leur fit réponse que ces règles, quelque
étroites qu'elles pussent être, pouvoient souffrir quelque modération
à l'égard d'une personne de si grande qualité; que, quoiqu'on eût dit
qu'elles seroient égales pour tout le monde, c'est qu'on n'avoit pas
cru qu'il se dût présenter un prince d'un si haut rang; que comme à
Malte les princes de maison souveraine étoient naturellement
chevaliers grand'-croix, il étoit bien juste qu'ils eussent pareillement
quelque privilége dans leur ordre; autrement qu'ils n'y entreroient
pas, ce qui ne leur apporteroit pas grand honneur.
On n'eut garde de ne se pas rendre à de si bonnes raisons, et,
chacun ayant calmé sa colère, on complimenta le prince sur
l'avantage qui revenoit à l'ordre d'avoir une personne de sa
naissance, et il n'y en eut point qui ne s'offrît à lui donner toute
sorte de contentement. Il se montra fort civil envers tout le monde
et promit qu'on verroit dans peu qu'il ne seroit pas le moins zélé des
chevaliers. En effet, il n'eut pas plustôt révélé les mystères à ses
amis, que chacun se fit un mérite d'entrer dans l'ordre, de sorte qu'il
fut bientôt rempli de toute sorte d'honnêtes gens.
Mais comme le trop grand zèle est nuisible en toutes choses, le
Roi fut bientôt averti de ce qui se passoit, et que même on avoit
séduit un autre prince, en qui il prenoit encore plus d'intérêt qu'en
celui dont je viens de parler. Le Roi, qui haïssoit à la mort ces sortes
de débauches, voulut beaucoup de mal à tous ceux qui en étoient
accusés; mais eux, qui ne croyoient pas qu'on les en pût convaincre,
se présentèrent devant lui comme auparavant, jusqu'à ce que,
s'étant informé plus particulièrement de la chose, il en relégua
quelques-uns dans des villes éloignées de la cour, fit donner le fouet
à un de ces princes en sa présence, envoya l'autre à Chantilly[284], et
enfin témoigna une si grande aversion pour tous ceux qui y avoient
trempé que personne n'osa parler pour eux.
Le chevalier de Tilladet, qui étoit cousin germain du marquis de
Louvois[285], se servit de la faveur de ce ministre pour obtenir sa
grâce, et lui protesta si bien qu'il étoit innocent qu'il en fut parler à
l'heure même à Sa Majesté. Mais Elle, qui ne croyoit pas légèrement,
ne s'en voulut pas rapporter à ce qu'il lui disoit, et remit à lui faire
réponse quand il en seroit instruit plus particulièrement. Pour cet
effet, il fit appeler le jeune prince qui avoit eu le fouet, et lui ayant
commandé, en présence du marquis de Louvois, de lui dire la vérité,
le marquis de Louvois fut si fâché d'entendre que le chevalier de
Tilladet lui avoit menti, qu'il s'en fut du même pas lui dire tout ce
que la rage et le dépit étoient capables de lui inspirer.
 Il n'y eut que le duc de Grammont à qui le Roi ne parla de rien,
comme s'il n'eût pas été du nombre; ce qui donna lieu de murmurer
aux parents des exilés, qui étoient fâchés de le voir rester à Paris
pendant que les autres s'en alloient dans le fond des provinces. Mais
le Roi, sachant leur mécontentement, dit qu'ils ne devoient pas s'en
étonner; qu'il y avoit longtemps que le duc de Grammont lui étoit
devenu si méprisable, que tout ce qu'il pouvoit faire lui étoit
indifférent, de sorte que ce seroit lui faire trop d'honneur que d'avoir
quelque ressentiment contre lui. La cour étoit trop peste[286] pour
cacher au duc une réponse comme celle-là; et au lieu qu'il tiroit
vanité auparavant d'avoir été oublié, il eut tant de sujet de s'en
affliger que tout autre que lui en seroit mort de douleur.
La cabale fut dissipée par ce moyen; mais, quelque pouvoir
qu'eut le Roi, il lui fut impossible d'arracher de l'esprit de la jeunesse
la semence de débauche, qui y étoit trop fortement enracinée pour
être sitôt éteinte. Cependant les dames firent de grandes
réjouissances de ce qui venoit d'arriver, et, quelques-unes des croix
de ces chevaliers étant tombées entre leurs mains, elles les jugèrent
dignes du feu, quoique ce fût une foible vengeance pour elles. Après
cela, elles crurent que cette jeunesse seroit obligée de revenir à
elles; mais elle se jeta dans le vin, de sorte que tous les jours on ne
faisoit qu'entendre parler de ses excès.
Cependant, quelque débauche qu'elle fît[287], pas une n'approcha
de celle qui fut faite dans un honnête lieu où, après avoir traité à la
mode d'Italie celles des courtisanes qui lui parurent les plus belles,
elle en prit une par force, lui attacha les bras et les jambes aux
quenouilles du lit, puis lui ayant mis une fusée dans un endroit que
la bienséance ne me permet pas de nommer, elle y mit le feu
impitoyablement, sans être touchée des cris de cette misérable, qui
se désespéroit. Après une action si enragée, elle poussa sa brutalité
jusqu'au dernier excès: elle courut les rues toute la nuit, brisant un
nombre infini de lanternes[288] et ne s'arrêtant que sur le pont de
bois qui aboutit dans l'île[289], où, pour comble de fureur, ou pour
mieux dire d'impiété, elle arracha le crucifix qui étoit au milieu; de
quoi n'étant pas encore contente, elle tâcha de mettre le feu au
pont, dont elle ne put venir à bout.
Un excès si abominable fit grand bruit dans Paris; on l'attribua à
des laquais, ne croyant pas que des gens de qualité fussent capables
d'une chose si épouvantable; mais la femme chez qui ils avoient fait
la débauche étant venue trouver M. Colbert le lendemain, sous
prétexte de lui présenter un placet, lui dit que, s'il ne lui faisoit
justice de son fils le chevalier[290], qui étoit fourré des plus avant,
elle alloit se jeter aux pieds du Roi et lui apprendre que ceux-là qui
avoient servi de bourreaux à la fille étoient les mêmes qui avoient
arraché le crucifix; elle ajouta qu'elle les avoit suivis à la piste, dans
le dessein de les faire arrêter par le guet[291], mais que
malheureusement il s'étoit déjà retiré.
M. Colbert n'eut pas de peine à croire cela de son fils, qui lui
avoit déjà fait d'autres pièces de cette nature; et comme il
appréhendoit sur toutes choses que cela ne vînt aux oreilles du Roi,
non-seulement il prit soin de la fille, mais il empêcha encore sous
main qu'on ne fît une perquisition exacte de ce qui étoit arrivé la
nuit. Mais quelque précaution qu'il eût, la chose pensa éclater
lorsqu'il y pensoit le moins. Un laquais de ces débauchés fut pris,
deux ou trois mois après, pour vol; et étant menacé par Deffita[292],
lieutenant criminel, d'être appliqué à la question s'il ne révéloit tous
les crimes qu'il pouvoit avoir commis, il avoua de bonne foi que pas
un ne lui faisoit tant de peine que d'avoir aidé au chevalier Colbert à
arracher le crucifix dont nous avons parlé; qu'il en demandoit pardon
à Dieu, et qu'il croyoit que c'étoit pour cela qu'il le punissoit. Mais il
en arriva tout autrement, et ce fut au contraire la cause de son
salut; car Deffita, qui étoit homme à faire sa cour au préjudice de sa
conscience, s'en fut trouver au même temps M. Colbert, et lui
demanda ce qu'il vouloit qu'il fît du prisonnier, après lui avoir insinué
toutefois, auparavant, qu'il étoit dangereux qu'il ne parlât si on le
faisoit mourir. M. Colbert le remercia du soin qu'il avoit de sa famille,
et, l'ayant prié de sauver ce misérable, il le rendit blanc comme
neige, quoiqu'il méritât mille fois d'être roué.
 Le duc de Roquelaure[293], père du marquis de Biran, étoit au
désespoir de voir son fils mêlé dans toutes ces débauches; et
comme il croyoit qu'un mariage étoit capable de le retirer, il jeta les
yeux sur quelque naissance, quelque bien et beaucoup de faveur:
car, comme il n'étoit que duc à brevet[294], et que son fils après sa
mort ne devoit pas tenir le même rang[295], il vouloit tâcher, par le
moyen de la femme qu'il épouseroit, de lui procurer une si grande
marque de distinction. Il trouva tout cela dans la fille du duc
d'Aumont[296], qui étoit nièce de M. de Louvois du côté maternel, et,
en ayant parlé à son fils, il le trouva si peu disposé à lui obéir, qu'il
se mit dans une furieuse colère contre lui. Cependant il le menaça
de le déshériter, s'il ne se conformoit à ses volontés; et le marquis
de Biran lui ayant demandé quinze jours pour s'y résoudre, il
employa ce temps-là à voir ses amis, qui étoient revenus de leur exil.
Il se plaignit à eux de la dureté de son père, qui le contraignoit
de faire une chose si éloignée de son inclination. Il leur demanda s'il
ne perdroit point par là leur amitié; mais l'ayant assuré que non,
pourvu qu'il en usât si sobrement avec son épouse qu'ils n'en
fussent pas tout à fait oubliés, cette réponse le satisfit tellement qu'il
s'en fut trouver à l'heure même M. de Roquelaure, à qui il dit qu'il
pouvoit parler d'affaires quand il voudroit, et qu'il étoit tout disposé
à lui obéir. M. de Roquelaure, ayant le consentement de son fils, fut
trouver M. le chancelier[297], grand-père de mademoiselle d'Aumont,
à qui il proposa le mariage. M. le chancelier (dont la coutume étoit
de recevoir favorablement tout le monde) n'eut garde de se
démentir en cette occasion, quoique dans le fond la proposition ne
lui plût pas. Mais comme il étoit sûr que les obstacles qui se
rencontreroient dans la suite fourniroient assez de matière pour ne
pas passer plus avant, il embrassa M. de Roquelaure, lui dit qu'il
seroit au comble de la joie si, ayant toujours été amis, leur union
devenoit encore plus étroite par l'alliance de leurs maisons; et, après
lui avoir fait mille autres compliments de cette nature, il lui dit qu'il
n'avoit qu'à en parler au duc d'Aumont, lequel seroit aussi sensible
que lui à l'honneur qu'il leur faisoit.
 M. de Roquelaure, tout raffiné courtisan qu'il étoit, crut la chose
faite après un accueil si favorable. Mais M. le chancelier étoit trop
sage pour donner sa petite-fille à un homme aussi débauché qu'étoit
le marquis de Biran, et, ayant peur que le duc d'Aumont ne se laissât
surprendre par les grands biens qui sembloient ne lui pouvoir
manquer, il lui envoya dire la conversation qu'il avoit eue avec le duc
de Roquelaure, et qu'il insistât à ce que son fils fût duc avant que de
rien conclure. Le duc de Roquelaure étant allé voir le duc d'Aumont,
fut fort surpris de cette difficulté, qu'il lui mit d'abord en avant.
Toutefois, espérant que M. le chancelier l'y serviroit, il s'en fut le
trouver, et lui dit qu'il attendoit ce service de son amitié; mais M. le
chancelier, traitant la chose de bagatelle, lui dit qu'il n'avoit qu'à en
parler lui-même au Roi, qu'il la lui accorderoit en même temps; que
s'il s'excusoit de le faire, ce n'étoit qu'à cause de toutes les grâces
qu'il lui faisoit, et de peur de paroître insatiable, si, après toutes
celles qu'il avoit reçues, il lui en demandoit encore de nouvelles.
C'est ainsi que le chancelier renvoya adroitement l'éteuf au duc
de Roquelaure, lequel, pour un Gascon, donna si grossièrement dans
le panneau, qu'il s'en fut dès le lendemain au lever du Roi. Mais ce
prince, qui avoit mille sujets de ne pas vouloir de bien au marquis de
Biran, lui dit, d'abord qu'il eut ouvert la bouche, qu'il étoit fâché de
ne lui pouvoir accorder ce qu'il demandoit; que la conduite de son
fils en étoit cause; que, s'il avoit de l'esprit, il ne l'employoit qu'à
faire du mal; et qu'en un mot ce n'étoit pas pour ces sortes de gens-
là qu'une dignité si considérable étoit réservée.
Le duc de Roquelaure vit bien qu'il étoit pris pour dupe; mais la
faveur où étoit le chancelier et toute sa famille l'obligeant à
dissimuler, il fit même semblant de croire tout ce qu'il lui dit encore
d'honnête sur ce sujet, et songea à pourvoir son fils d'un autre côté.
Le marquis de Biran, qui ne faisoit guère de différence entre le
mariage et l'esclavage, fut ravi de se voir délivré d'un fardeau si
pesant, et ayant assemblé ses amis pour leur faire part de sa joie, ils
firent une débauche où rien ne manqua que les femmes. Ils s'en
étoient bien passés plusieurs fois, ce qui devoit faire croire qu'ils s'en
passeroient bien encore celle-là; mais l'inconstance de la nation leur
ayant fait faire réflexion qu'on n'étoit jamais heureux si on ne goûtoit
de toutes choses, ils se dirent, entre la poire et le fromage, qu'il
falloit qu'ils devinssent amoureux, ou du moins qu'ils feignissent de
l'être. Le marquis de Biran dit que, pour lui, il vouloit aimer madame
d'Aumont[298], pour se venger de son mari, et que, n'ayant pu
coucher avec sa fille, il coucheroit peut-être avec elle. Les autres se
choisirent des maîtresses à leur gré; mais le chevalier de Tilladet et
le comte de Roussi[299] dirent au marquis de Biran qu'étant autant
de ses amis qu'ils en étoient, ils vouloient aimer le même sang qu'il
aimeroit; que la duchesse d'Aumont avoit deux sœurs, que c'étoit à
elles qu'ils alloient donner leurs soins; et, mettant en même temps
dans un chapeau deux billets où le nom de ces deux dames étoit
écrit, ils tirèrent au sort laquelle ils serviroient.
La duchesse de la Ferté[300], cadette des trois, échut au chevalier
de Tilladet, et la duchesse de Vantadour[301] au comte de Roussi;
tellement que la fortune prit plaisir à assembler les humeurs qui
pouvoient convenir ensemble, car, si la duchesse de Vantadour fût
tombée au chevalier de Tilladet, il étoit trop brusque pour se donner
le temps de se mettre bien dans son esprit, outre qu'elle eût peut-
être fait scrupule d'en faire son ami après avoir été l'amie de son
frère[302]. De même la duchesse de la Ferté, qui se peut dire folle à
l'excès, auroit peut-être aussi déplu au comte de Roussi, dont
l'inclination est portée à la sagesse, quoiqu'on lui ait vu faire le fou
quelquefois comme les autres.
Ces trois dames sont filles de la maréchale de la Mothe[303],
gouvernante des enfants de France. Leur père[304] n'étoit qu'un
simple gentilhomme de Picardie; mais, s'étant élevé par son mérite à
la plus haute qualité où l'on puisse monter, les ducs d'Aumont, de
Vantadour et de la Ferté n'ont pas dédaigné d'épouser ses filles, et
elles sont toutes trois duchesses, quoiqu'elles n'aient pas eu
grand'chose en mariage. Leur mère, qui est demeurée veuve à un
âge peu avancé[305] et qui a été belle femme, a fait tout son possible
pour les élever dans la vertu, sachant bien que quelque soin qu'on
puisse prendre, le vice ne se glisse que trop facilement dans l'esprit.
Mais elles sont venues dans un siècle trop corrompu pour profiter
longtemps de ses leçons, et, quoiqu'elles aient mille défauts dans la
taille, comme elles ont beaucoup d'agrément dans le visage, elles
ont trouvé bientôt des gens qui ont cherché à les corrompre. En
effet, on peut dire qu'elles sont bossues, et, quoique cela ne
paroisse pas aux yeux de tout le monde, il est pourtant vrai que,
sans un corps de fer[306] à quoi elles sont accoutumées dès leur
jeunesse, il n'y auroit personne qui ne s'en aperçût. La duchesse
d'Aumont, qui est l'aînée, est sans doute la plus belle, et, quoiqu'elle
ne soit pas d'une taille si avantageuse que ses sœurs, elle ne parut
pas plus tôt à la cour que mille gens se firent une affaire agréable de
lui en conter. Mais la maréchale sa mère, qui ne songeoit qu'à lui
donner un mari, écarta si bien cette foule qui l'importunoit, que
même ceux à qui l'envie auroit pu prendre de l'épouser se retirèrent
comme les autres. Cela ne plut pas à la duchesse d'Aumont, qu'on
appeloit en ce temps-là mademoiselle de Toussi, et, comme elle
commençoit à se sentir, elle eut des besoins qui lui firent juger que,
si sa mère tardoit encore longtemps à lui chercher un mari, elle
pourroit bien en prendre un elle-même.
Elle n'osa pas cependant lui dire ses nécessités, la connoissant
trop sévère; mais, comme elle ne pouvoit résister à la tentation, elle
devint amoureuse du chevalier d'Hervieux[307], écuyer de sa mère,
homme d'environ quarante ans, laid de visage, assez bien fait de
taille, mais à qui c'étoit un grand agrément de pouvoir entrer à toute
heure dans sa chambre. Elle prit un soin extrême de lui paroître le
plus agréable qu'il lui fut possible. Pour cet effet, ayant ouï dire
plusieurs fois qu'elle n'étoit jamais si belle que quand elle avoit les
cheveux épars, elle prit plaisir à demeurer longtemps à sa toilette, le
faisant approcher, et, sous prétexte de l'entretenir des voyages qu'il
avoit faits au Levant, elle tâcha de lui donner autant d'amour qu'elle
s'en sentoit pour lui.
Il falloit être corsaire en matière d'amour pour regarder tant de
charmes sans en être touché; mais, soit qu'il eût contracté une
certaine insensibilité dans le séjour qu'il avoit fait chez les barbares,
ou qu'il se fît une règle de son devoir, il demeura dans le respect;
tellement que, la belle voyant qu'elle perdoit son temps, elle fut sur
le point mille fois de lui déclarer sa passion, à quoi elle auroit
succombé indubitablement si elle n'eût appréhendé que d'Hervieux,
qui étoit un homme sage, n'en eût averti sa mère.
Comme le peu de progrès qu'elle faisoit dans sa passion lui faisoit
passer de mauvaises heures, elle cherchoit autant qu'elle pouvoit le
moyen de charmer sa mélancolie, et, sa mère lui permettant d'aller
chez madame de Bonnelle[308], qui étoit sa tante, où tout Paris alloit
jouer, elle vit plusieurs gens qui ne manquèrent pas de lui conter
fleurette, entre autres le duc de Caderousse[309], homme de qualité
du comtat d'Avignon, qui avoit épousé la fille de M. du Plessis-
Guénegaud[310], secrétaire d'Etat. Quoique cette qualité d'homme
marié dût être fatale aux desseins de Caderousse, il avoit néanmoins
le bonheur de s'insinuer par là dans le cœur de toutes les dames. En
effet, c'étoit ce qui lui avoit acquis la réputation d'honnête homme,
et cela parce que, ayant épousé une femme extrêmement délicate, il
s'empêchoit de coucher avec elle, quoiqu'il parût l'aimer
extrêmement. En effet, les médecins avoient dit qu'elle mourroit si
elle mettoit jamais d'enfant au monde, et c'étoit pour cela qu'il ne
l'approchoit point. Elles concluoient de là que son amitié étoit d'une
autre nature que celle de la plupart des hommes, qui n'aiment les
femmes que pour le plaisir qu'elles leur donnent, et qui sans cela ne
les aimeroient point.
Il joignoit encore à cette bonne qualité celle d'être extrêmement
discret; ainsi, plaisant à tout le monde par tant d'endroits, il plut
encore à mademoiselle de Toussi, qui n'étoit pas moins susceptible
d'amour que les autres. Cette nouvelle flamme n'éteignit pas celle
qu'elle avoit pour d'Hervieux, et, étant exposée à le voir à tout
moment, elle se sentit un si grand cœur, qu'elle se crut capable de
les aimer tous deux à la fois. Ainsi, continuant de vivre toujours avec
d'Hervieux comme elle avoit commencé, elle en fit tant à la fin, qu'il
se douta qu'il étoit plus heureux qu'il ne pensoit. Toutes choses le
confirmèrent dans ses soupçons; cependant, bien loin de songer à
en profiter, il en fut plus retenu, de sorte qu'il falloit qu'elle l'envoyât
quérir par plusieurs fois devant qu'il vînt dans sa chambre. Elle se
plaignoit alors à lui du peu de considération qu'il avoit pour elle (car
elle n'osoit pas dire amitié); mais d'Hervieux faisoit comme s'il eût
été sourd, et ne lui répondoit que par de profondes révérences, qui
la faisoient enrager.
Il n'étoit pas néanmoins insensible, et, sentant que la nature
résistoit à tant de sagesse, il fit résolution de quitter plutôt la
maréchale que de s'exposer davantage à une occasion si périlleuse.
Pour cet effet, il chercha sous main une maison où il pût entrer en
sortant de la sienne; mais, comme cela ne se rencontre pas en un
jour, il arriva que la maréchale s'aperçut de la folle passion de sa
fille, à quoi elle mit ordre incontinent. Un jour donc que sa fille avoit
envoyé quérir d'Hervieux, après les minauderies ordinaires, elle lui
dit que, comme il étoit habile en tout, elle le prioit de lui vouloir aller
chercher au Palais[311] une paire de jarretières pareille à celles
qu'elle portoit. En même temps elle le fit approcher pour lui montrer
les siennes; mais, levant ses jupes jusqu'au-dessus du genou, elle lui
fit voir des choses bien plus belles que tout ce que je pourrois dire,
et il en fut si touché qu'il pensa oublier toutes les résolutions qu'il
avoit faites.
Néanmoins, comme il se représenta dans le même moment tout
ce qui pouvoit arriver s'il suivoit ses premiers mouvements; il étouffa
tout ce que le plaisir lui pouvoit promettre de plus charmant, et
feignant de n'avoir pas pris garde à ce qu'elle avoit fait, il sortit pour
aller à son emplette. Etant revenu du Palais, il prit son temps de lui
donner ce qu'il avoit acheté en présence de sa mère, afin de n'être
pas obligé d'entrer davantage dans sa chambre. Et, quoiqu'elle
l'envoyât encore quérir tous les jours, il supposa des affaires à tout
moment, qui lui firent éviter le péril qu'on lui préparoit: car,
quoiqu'on ne puisse pas dire positivement quel étoit le dessein de
mademoiselle de Toussi, après ce qui venoit d'arriver, néanmoins il
est à présumer que, sa folle passion durant toujours, elle l'eût portée
à d'étranges extrémités. Le refus que d'Hervieux faisoit de venir
dans sa chambre l'outra extraordinairement contre lui. Cependant
tout cela n'étant pas capable de la guérir de sa passion; elle
continua ses importunités, et garda si peu de mesures que sa mère
s'aperçut à la fin qu'il y avoit de l'empressement à elle de le
chercher. Elle en devina la cause aussitôt; mais, étant bien aise de
convertir ses soupçons en une assurance certaine, elle fit cacher
dans la chambre de sa fille une femme en qui elle se confioit comme
en elle-même, puis envoya d'Hervieux la trouver sous prétexte de lui
dire quelque chose de sa part. D'Hervieux fut fâché de ce
commandement; mais, ne pouvant se dispenser d'obéir, il y fut, et
auroit essuyé de mademoiselle de Toussi tous les reproches qu'une
fille prévenue de passion comme elle étoit capable de faire si, voyant
qu'elle ne demeuroit plus dans le silence, il ne l'eût interrompue en
lui disant qu'il croyoit que ce qu'elle en faisoit n'étoit que pour tenter
sa fidélité; que cependant, quoi qu'il en pût être, il alloit demander
son congé à madame la maréchale; qu'après cela elle chercheroit
sur qui rejetter ses railleries, mais que pour lui il n'en vouloit plus
être le sujet.
Cette conversation ayant été rapportée mot à mot à la maréchale
par celle qui étoit en embuscade, elle vit bien que ses soupçons
n'étoient pas mal fondés; et d'Hervieux lui ayant demandé un
moment après permission de se retirer, sous prétexte de quelques
affaires qu'il avoit en son pays: «Oui, lui dit-elle, je vous l'accorde
volontiers, mais à condition que je reconnoîtrai auparavant, non pas
comme je voudrois, mais du moins comme je pourrai, les services
que vous m'avez rendus.» A ces mots, elle lui fit connoître qu'elle
savoit la cause de sa retraite, et le pria de vouloir être toujours aussi
secret qu'il avoit été fidèle.
D'Hervieux fit le surpris à cette ouverture, et ne voulut jamais
rien lui avouer, ce qui lui donna encore plus d'estime pour lui.
Cependant elle lui procura le consulat de Tunis, avec une pension de
mille francs sur un évêché[312], et fit recevoir sa sœur femme de
chambre d'une des filles de France.
La maréchale, jugeant, après ce qui venoit de se passer, que la
garde d'une telle fille étoit dangereuse, songea à s'en défaire au plus
tôt; de sorte que, s'il fût venu quelqu'un dans ce moment, elle
n'auroit pas pris garde s'il eût eu toutes les qualités qu'elle désiroit
auparavant dans un gendre. Il y avoit peu de jours que le duc de
Caderousse s'étoit offert à mademoiselle de Toussi lorsque tout cela
arriva: elle avoit fait d'abord la réservée, et s'étoit plainte de ce
qu'étant marié il osoit songer à elle. Enfin, pour paroître ce qu'elle
n'étoit pas, elle s'étoit privée pendant quelque temps d'aller chez
madame de Bonnelle. Mais, comme elle enrageoit plus que lui, elle y
retourna bientôt, et lui dit que, s'il la voyoit, ce n'étoit que pour
savoir si ses sentiments étoient raisonnables; qu'elle avoit fait
réflexion qu'on n'étoit pas le maître de son cœur, mais que du moins
elle vouloit apprendre si sa passion n'avoit pour but que de l'épouser
en cas que sa femme vînt à mourir.
Caderousse, à qui c'étoit un grand mérite, comme j'ai déjà dit, de
paroître affectionné pour cette moribonde, lui répondit sans hésiter
qu'il aimoit une maîtresse parce qu'elle lui paroissoit aimable, mais
qu'à Dieu ne plût qu'il en souhaitât la mort de sa femme; que, si cela
arrivoit, il ne pouvoit pas répondre de ce qu'il feroit; mais que
toujours savoit-il bien qu'il en seroit au désespoir.
Mademoiselle de Toussi fut fort surprise de cette réponse: elle
crut que, pour paroître sage, il falloit du moins faire mine de s'en
fâcher; mais, faisant réflexion qu'il étoit difficile de faire dédire un
homme qui étoit en réputation d'aimer sa femme, et qui parloit de
bonne foi, elle tourna les choses d'une autre manière et lui dit qu'elle
étoit ravie de le voir dans ces sentiments; que, comme elle savoit
que sa femme ne pouvoit pas vivre encore longtemps, elle espéroit
lui donner lieu, par sa conduite, de désirer qu'elle devînt la sienne;
et que, si cela pouvoit arriver, il l'aimeroit bien autant du moins qu'il
avoit fait l'autre.
Caderousse la pria de cesser une conversation qu'il disoit
l'embarrasser, et, se trouvant plus heureux qu'il n'avoit espéré, il
tâcha de profiter de sa bonne fortune. Mademoiselle de Toussi avoit
pour le moins autant d'impatience que lui de le satisfaire, mais elle
avoit les raisons du tablier, qui est un obstacle terrible pour les
amants, c'est-à-dire qu'elle appréhendoit de devenir grosse. Hors de
cela, elle lui accorda, après deux ou trois conversations, tout ce
qu'une fille peut accorder honnêtement à un homme, et il fut maître
de ce que nous appelons en France la petite oie. Elle lui promit en
outre que, d'abord qu'elle seroit en état de faire davantage pour lui,
elle s'en acquitteroit avec la plus grande joie du monde, et elle lui
tint parole si exactement qu'il n'eut pas sujet de s'en plaindre.
Quoique ce qu'elle faisoit pour lui ne fût pas contentement pour un
amant fort passionné, néanmoins il vit et toucha des choses qui
étoient capables de faire mourir de joie: un visage fait au tour, une
bouche charmante, des dents de même, des cheveux admirables,
longs et en quantité, une gorge faite pour les amours, une peau
délicate et blanche, et par-dessus tout cela un corps qui contenoit en
raccourci tout ce qu'il y a de plus aimable. Il chercha plusieurs fois
l'accomplissement de ses désirs dans ce qui lui étoit défendu; mais,
quoiqu'elle le souhaitât tout aussi passionnément que lui, non-
seulement elle fut la maîtresse de sa passion, mais elle lui fit encore
de grands reproches de ce qu'il ne l'aimoit pas tant que sa femme.
Elle lui dit que, pour une crainte qui étoit peut-être mal fondée, il
s'empêchoit volontiers de prendre son plaisir avec elle, au lieu qu'il le
cherchoit maintenant au préjudice de son repos et de sa réputation.
Caderousse, qui, en l'état qu'il en étoit avec elle, croyoit pouvoir
lui faire confidence de ce qu'il avoit de plus particulier sur le cœur, lui
dit que, s'il y avoit quelque différence entre elle et sa femme, elle
étoit tout à son avantage; qu'il lui étoit aisé de se passer de l'une,
qu'il n'aimoit pas, mais qu'il n'en étoit pas de même de l'autre, qu'il
adoroit; que, comme tout ce qui se passoit dans le monde ne
consistoit qu'en grimaces, il lui avoit été aisé de faire accroire que ce
qu'il en faisoit n'étoit que par la considération qu'il avoit pour sa
femme; mais qu'enfin il ne pouvoit s'empêcher de lui dire qu'il seroit
ravi d'en être défait.
Elle lui sauta au cou après cette déclaration, et, quoiqu'ils ne
fissent pas tout ce qu'il falloit faire pour goûter une joie parfaite, ils
ne laissèrent pas de se pâmer sur un lit de repos où ils s'étoient
jetés l'un et l'autre.
 Comme l'on n'est pas heureux en toutes choses, Caderousse, qui
étoit grand joueur, perdit à quelques jours de là beaucoup d'argent
contre le Roi, et, ne l'ayant pas tout comptant, il donna ce qu'il avoit
et demanda du temps pour le reste. Le Roi, qui étoit ponctuel en
toutes choses et qui vouloit apprendre aux autres à le devenir, lui fit
réponse que cela étoit bien vilain de jouer sans avoir de l'argent.
C'en fut assez pour le faire résoudre à prendre la poste pour aller
tout vendre chez lui; mais auparavant il voulut prendre congé de
mademoiselle de Toussi, et la conjurer de ne le pas oublier dans son
absence.
Elle fut au désespoir quand elle sut un départ si précipité; elle lui
offrit ses bagues et ses pierreries pour rompre ce voyage, et même
de voler celles de sa mère si les siennes ne suffisoient pas. Mais
Caderousse, qui prévoyoit que cela feroit trop de bruit dans le
monde, et qui d'ailleurs de son naturel n'étoit pas si escroc que la
plupart des gens de la cour, la remercia de ses offres. Ils se
séparèrent ainsi fort satisfaits l'un de l'autre, ou, pour mieux dire,
fort contents des témoignages réciproques qu'ils s'étoient donnés de
leur amitié. Il promit de revenir bientôt, et elle n'en douta point,
sachant le sujet qui le faisoit partir. Mais elle eut la délicatesse de lui
dire qu'elle étoit fâchée de n'avoir point un peu de part dans son
retour, et que le Roi l'eût tout entière. Il lui répondit là-dessus ce que
devoit dire un homme qui avoit de l'esprit et qui étoit amoureux, et
elle eut lieu de s'en contenter. Comme l'argent est extrêmement rare
dans les provinces, il eut de la peine à trouver celui qu'il lui falloit,
et, ayant demeuré plus longtemps qu'il n'avoit cru, il arriva
cependant que le duc d'Aumont se présenta pour épouser
mademoiselle de Toussi.
C'étoit un homme non-seulement d'une ancienne maison, mais
qui étoit encore distingué par un gouvernement de province et par
une grande charge. Il étoit premier gentilhomme de la chambre,
gouverneur du Boulonnois, et duc et pair; si bien que c'eût été un
parti extrêmement avantageux, s'il n'eût eu un fils de son premier lit,
avec quelques filles[313]. Il avoit épousé en premières noces, comme
nous avons dit, la sœur du marquis de Louvois[314], qui étoit morte
bien misérablement, ce qui faisoit présumer qu'il ne se chargeroit
jamais de femme. Cette dame, à qui rien ne manquoit du côté de la
magnificence, avoit un chapelet de diamants de grand prix, et un
jour qu'il y avoit chez elle beaucoup de personnes de qualité, on le
lui prit sur une table. Ce chapelet se trouvant perdu, elle ne sut sur
qui faire tomber son soupçon; et comme elle avoit une curiosité
inconcevable de savoir qui l'avoit dérobé, elle écouta volontiers
quelques propositions qu'on lui fit d'aller au devin[315]. Elle y fut
donc, et le devin la renvoya à un prêtre de la paroisse de Saint-
Severin, qui nourrissoit des pigeons au haut de sa maison, qu'il fit
parler devant elle, après qu'elle eut fait un pacte avec lui par lequel
elle lui promit, dit-on, d'étranges choses. Ces pigeons lui dirent
qu'elle retrouveroit son chapelet à son retour; mais elle n'étoit guère
en état de se réjouir de leurs promesses: elle avoit été tellement
saisie de frayeur qu'elle se mit au lit en arrivant, et, soit que Dieu la
voulût punir de sa curiosité, ou que le mal d'enfant lui prît, comme
on le publia dans le monde pour empêcher qu'on ne glosât sur son
aventure, elle expira dans des douleurs plus aisées à concevoir qu'à
décrire.
Une catastrophe si extraordinaire fut l'entretien de tout Paris
pendant quelques semaines; mais, comme il renaît à tout moment
dans cette grande ville des choses qui font oublier celles qui se sont
passées peu auparavant, on ne s'en ressouvint plus que dans sa
famille, à qui ce malheureux accident devoit avoir fait aussi plus
d'impression. Son mari, entre autres, en fut si touché, qu'on crut
qu'il alloit renoncer au monde; mais, comme c'étoit un grand pas à
faire à un homme de sa condition, il se contenta de vivre d'une autre
manière qu'il n'avoit fait, et ce fut si exemplairement, que chacun en
fut édifié. Cela fit présumer, comme j'ai dit ci-devant, qu'il ne
songeroit point à un autre mariage, et en effet il auroit parié lui-
même qu'il n'y auroit jamais songé, principalement ayant un fils pour
soutenir sa maison; mais à peine eut-il vu mademoiselle de Toussi
que ses résolutions s'en allèrent en fumée. Il la fit demander en
mariage aussitôt, et la maréchale de La Mothe la lui accorda
volontiers, parce que la garde d'une telle marchandise est toujours
dangereuse.
Ce ne fut pas pourtant par les avantages qu'elle y trouva, car,
quoiqu'il eût toutes les charges dont nous avons parlé ci-dessus,
elles ne regardoient que son fils aîné, et point du tout ceux qui
pouvoient venir de sa fille. Mademoiselle de Toussi ne fit aucun
effort pour s'opposer à ce mariage, quoiqu'elle aimât Caderousse et
qu'elle se fût jusque-là flattée de l'épouser si sa femme venoit à
mourir. Cependant, pour lui montrer que, toute prête à changer de
condition, elle ne changeoit point de sentiment, elle lui écrivit de se
hâter de venir s'il vouloit recueillir le fruit de ses promesses.
Caderousse, qui avoit fait son argent, prit la poste aussitôt avec
ses lettres de change dans sa poche; il trouva que le mariage n'étoit
pas encore achevé, et la première chose qu'il fit fut de voir sa
maîtresse, à qui il tâcha de persuader de lui donner la préférence
par-dessus le duc d'Aumont, c'est-à-dire qu'il pût passer devant lui
quand ce viendroit le moment de la posséder. Mais, soit qu'elle eût
peur que, les vestiges étant encore si récents, le duc d'Aumont ne
vînt à s'en apercevoir, ou qu'elle fît conscience de lui ôter en même
temps et le cœur et ce que les maris sont bien aises de trouver, elle
le blâma de sa délicatesse, et lui dit qu'il devoit être plus que
content de ce qu'elle faisoit. Caderousse ne demeura pas sans
réplique pour lui prouver que ces morceaux étoient des ragoûts d'un
amant, et point du tout d'un époux; mais tout ce qu'il put dire ne fut
pas capable de la persuader, et à deux jours de là le duc d'Aumont
l'épousa[316].
Le Roi leur fit l'honneur non-seulement de signer à leur contrat
de mariage, en faveur duquel il fit un présent considérable à la
mariée, mais assista encore à la bénédiction nuptiale. Cependant,
quoique la dame eût été affamée d'homme, elle ne trouva pas avec
son mari les mêmes plaisirs qu'elle avoit goûtés, quoique
imparfaitement, avec Caderousse, ni même ceux qu'elle s'étoit
figurés de goûter avec d'Hervieux. C'est pourquoi elle ne se vit pas
plutôt en liberté, qu'elle écrivit un billet à son amant pour voir la
Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.

More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge

connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and

personal growth every day!

ebookbell.com