A paradigm can contribute to resolving the three dilemmas facing IS.

As for the technology vs. behavior dilemma, the concept of a paradigm tells us that it's not enough for us researchers just to go ahead and try to take a systems approach to develop new theories information systems theories.  The concept of a paradigm tells us that there's a new necessary condition for this new theorizing to be successful: we also need to cultivate a new research culture – a new set of values, rewards, and traditions – that would provide a supportive home environment for researchers to be able to create new information systems theories.

As for the “reference discipline” vs. “independent discipline” dilemma, the concept of a paradigm tells us emphatically to reject a “reference discipline” approach.  Yes, perhaps we can take a theory from another discipline, but would we be automatically accepted as full-fledged members in the reference discipline’s research culture?  Socialization doesn’t take place automatically, and there's no guarantee that we would be welcome or accepted.  And if we aren’t accepted as members of the research culture of the reference discipline, we would lack the right context for further developing and applying the reference discipline’s theory.  However, our IS field has already been successful in cultivating our own research culture – and this shows the feasibility of taking an “independent discipline” approach.

As for the rigor vs. relevance dilemma, the concept of a paradigm invites us to follow the examples of paradigms in other fields that have successfully achieved both rigor and relevance.  The research cultures of medicine, architecture, and law have welcomed both rigor and relevance in the expertise of medical, architectural, and legal scholars.  The secret is to look not only at the expertise in these other fields, but also – as the concept of paradigm tells us – at the research cultures.