Information Systems Frontiers

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 637–651 | Cite as

Theory-generating design science research

Article

Abstract

A frequently mentioned challenge in design science research (DSR) is the generation of novel theory above and beyond information technology artefacts. This article analyzes the DSR process and extends established frameworks for theory generation to exemplify improvements to theory generation through methods of grounded theory development. On a conceptual base, we developed a theory-generating DSR approach which integrates methods of grounded theory development with established DSR methodology. This combination enables a design theorist to generate theoretical knowledge that extends the applicable knowledge base. We do not elaborate this combination on a meta-level, but rather provide a process model for researchers in form of an extension of a well-known DSR model to combine both methods in a pluralistic research design. With this suggested research approach, scholars can draw theoretical insights from analytical abstractions and can improve the development of IT artefacts in a structured way to avoid failure or repair loops.

Keywords

Design science research Behavioural science research Grounded theory method Pluralistic research method 

References

  1. Aalst, W., & Kumar, A. (2003). XML-based schema definition for support of interorganizational workflow. Inform Syst Res, 14(1), 23–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abbasi, A., & Chen, H. (2008). CyberGate: a design framework and system for text analysis of computer-mediated communication. MIS Quarterly, 32(4), 811–837.Google Scholar
  3. Albert, T. C., Goes, P. B., & Gupta, A. (2004). GIST: a model for design and management of content and interactivity of customer-centric web sites. MIS Quarterly, 28(2), 161–182.Google Scholar
  4. Allen, D. K., Colligan, D., Finnie, A., et al. (2000). Trust, power and interorganizational information systems: the case of the electronic trading community TransLease. Inform Syst Res, 10(1), 21–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arazy, O., Kumar, N., & Shapira, B. (2010). A theory-driven design framework for social recommender systems. J Assoc Inform Syst Online, 11(9), 455–490.Google Scholar
  6. Au, Y. A. (2001). Design Science I: the role of design science in electronic commerce research. Comm Assoc Inform Syst, 7(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
  7. Avison, D., Lau, F., Myers, M., et al. (1999). Action research. Comm ACM, 42(1), 94–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Basili VR (1996) The role of experimentation in software engineering: past, current, and future. Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), Ohio, USA.Google Scholar
  9. Baskerville, R. (2008). What design science is not. Eur J Inform Syst, 17(5), 441–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Baskerville, R., & Pries-Heje, J. (1999). Grounded action research: a method for understanding IT in practice. Account Manag Inform Tech, 9(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Baskerville, R., & Pries-Heje, J. (2010). Explanatory design theory. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 2(5), 271–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Baskerville, R., & Stage, J. (2001). Accommodating emergent work practices: ethnographic choice of method fragments. In B. Fitzgerald, N. Russo, & J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Realigning research and practice: the social and organizational perspectives. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Baskerville R, Pries-Heje J, Venable J (2009) Soft design science methodology. Proceedings of Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST), Philadelphia, USA.Google Scholar
  14. Benbasat, I., & Zmund, R. W. (2003). The identity crisis within the IS discipline: defining and communicating the discipline’s core properties. MIS Quarterly, 27(2), 183–194.Google Scholar
  15. Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (2007a). Grounded theory in historical perspective: an epistemological account. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of grounded theory. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  16. Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (2007b). Grounded theory research: methods and practices. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of grounded theory. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  17. Carlsson SA (2006) Towards an information systems design research framework: a critical realist perspective. Proceedings of Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST), Claremont, USA.Google Scholar
  18. Coglan, D., & Coughlan, P. (2002). Action research for operations management. Int J Oper Prod Manag, 22(2), 220–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dubin, R. (1978). Theory building. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  20. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Acad Manage Rev, 14(4), 532–550.Google Scholar
  21. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Acad Manage J, 50(1), 25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fernandez WD (2004) The grounded theory method and case study data in IS research: issues and design. Proceedings of Information Systems Foundations Workshop: Constructing and Criticising, Canberra, Australia.Google Scholar
  23. Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley: Sociology Press.Google Scholar
  24. Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing grounded theory: issues and discussions. Mill Valley: Sociology Press.Google Scholar
  25. Glaser, B. G. (2007). Doing formal theory. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  26. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  27. Goldkuhl, G. (2004). Design theories in information systems—a need for multi-grounding. J Inform Tech Theor Appl, 6(2), 59–72.Google Scholar
  28. Gregor, S. (2002). Design theory in information systems. Aust J Inform Syst, 10(1), 14–22.Google Scholar
  29. Gregor, S. (2006). The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 611–642.Google Scholar
  30. Gregor, S., & Jones, D. (2007). The anatomy of a design theory. J Assoc Inform Syst Online, 8(5), 312–335.Google Scholar
  31. Gregory, R. W., & Muntermann, J. (2011) Theorizing in design science research: inductive versus deductive approaches. In: Thirty second international conference on information systems, Shanghai, China.Google Scholar
  32. Hevner, A. R., & March, S. T. (2003). The information systems research cycle. IT Systems Perspective, 36(11), 111–113.Google Scholar
  33. Hevner, A., March, S., Park, J., et al. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105.Google Scholar
  34. Holmström, J. B., Ketokivi, M., & Hameri, A. P. (2009). Bridging practice and theory: a design science approach. Decision Sci, 40(1), 65–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ketokivi, M., & Mantere, S. (2010). Two strategies for inductive reasoning in organizational research. Acad Manage Rev, 35(2), 315–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kuechler, B., & Vaishnavi, V. (2008a). On theory development in design science research: anatomy of a research project. Eur J Inform Syst, 17(5), 489–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kuechler B, Vaishnavi V (2008b) Theory development in design science research: anatomy of a research project. In Proceedings of Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST), Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  38. Lee JS, Pries-Heje J, Baskerville R (2011) Theorizing in design science research. 6th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology, Milwaukee, WI.Google Scholar
  39. Levina, N., & Vaast, E. (2005). The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice: implications for implementation and use of information systems. MIS Quarterly, 29(2), 335–363.Google Scholar
  40. Madill, A., Jordan, A., & Shirley, C. (2000). Objectivity and reliability in qualitative analysis: realist, contextualist and radical constructionist epistemologies. Br J Psychol, 91(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. March, S. T., & Smith, G. (1995). Design and natural science research on information technology. Decis Support Syst, 15(4), 251–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Markus, M. L., Majchrzak, A., & Gasser, L. (2002). A design theory for systems that support emergent knowledge processes. MIS Quarterly, 26(3), 179–212.Google Scholar
  43. McKay, J., & Marshall, P. (2001). The dual imperatives of action research. Inform Tech People, 14(1), 46–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McKay J, Marshall P (2005) A review of design science in information systems. Proceedings of the Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS), Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
  45. Mingers, J. (2001). Combining IS research methods: towards a pluralist methodology. Inform Syst Res, 12(3), 240–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nagel, E. (1961). The structure of science. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
  47. Nunamaker, J. F., Chen, M., & Purdin, T. D. M. (1991). Systems development in information systems research. J Manag Inform Syst, 7(3), 89–106.Google Scholar
  48. Orlikowski, W. J., & Iacono, C. S. (2001). Research commentary: desperately seeking the ‘IT’ in IT research—a call to theorizing the IT artifact. Inform Syst Res, 12(2), 121–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., et al. (2008). A design science research methodology for information systems research. J Manag Inform Syst, 24(3), 45–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pries-Heje, J., & Baskerville, R. (2008). The design theory nexus. MIS Quarterly, 32(4), 731–755.Google Scholar
  51. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. New York City: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  52. Schön, D. A. (1992). Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation. Knowl Base Syst, 5(1), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sein, M. K., Henfridsson, O., Puaro, S., et al. (2011). Action design research. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 37–56.Google Scholar
  54. Simon, H. A. (1969). The science of the artificial. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  55. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  56. Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: what grounded theory is not. Acad Manage J, 49(4), 633–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Udo K (2005) ‘Emergence’ vs. ‘Forcing’ of empirical data? A crucial problem of ‘grounded theory’ reconsidered. Forum Qualitative Social Research, 6(2), Art. 27.Google Scholar
  58. Umapathy, K., Purao, S., & Barton, R. R. (2008). Designing enterprise integration solutions: effectively. Eur J Inform Syst, 17(5), 518–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Urquhart, C. (2007). The evolving nature of grounded theory method: the case of the information systems discipline. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of grounded theory. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  60. Urquhart, C., Lehmann, H., & Myers, M. D. (2010). Putting the ‘theory’ back into grounded theory: guidelines for grounded theory studies in information systems. Inform Syst J, 20(4), 357–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vaishnavi, V., & Kuechler, W. (2008). Design science research methods and patterns—innovating information and communication technology. Boca Reton: Auerbach Publications Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  62. Walls, J. G., Widmeyer, G. R., & El Sawy, O. A. (1992). Building an information system design theory for vigilant EIS. Inform Syst Res, 3(1), 36–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Weber, S., Beck, R., & Gregory, R. W. (2012) Combining design science and design research perspectives - Findings of three prototyping projects. In: 45 Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Wailea, Maui, HI.Google Scholar
  64. Weedman, J. (2008). Client as designer in collaborative design science research projects: what does social science design theory tell us? Eur J Inform Syst, 17(5), 476–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Winter, R. (2008). Design science research in Europe. Eur J Inform Syst, 17(5), 470–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Yadav, M. S. (2010). The decline of conceptual articles and implications for knowledge development. J Market, 74(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Information SystemsGoethe University FrankfurtFrankfurt am MainGermany
  2. 2.University of GöttingenGöttingenGermany

Personalised recommendations