Journal of Information Technology

, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp 163–179 | Cite as

Grounded Design – a praxeological IS research perspective

  • Markus Rohde
  • Peter Brödner
  • Gunnar Stevens
  • Matthias Betz
  • Volker Wulf
Research Article

Abstract

In this paper, we propose Grounded Design – a particular design research (DR) approach rooted in a practice-theoretical tradition. It assesses the quality of information technology (IT) design through evaluation of emerging changes in social practices, which result from the appropriation and use of IT artifacts. The paper starts with a systematic analysis of the reasons for persistent limitations of traditional information systems DR, specifically in coping with problems of contingency and self-referentiality. Following this critique, the principles of Grounded Design are presented. Grounded Design is applied in case studies where we reconstruct the social practices observed before and during the design and appropriation of innovative IT artifacts. We call these context-specific research endeavors ‘design case studies.’ In conducting these case studies, Grounded Design builds upon well-established research methods such as ethnographical field studies, participatory design and action research. To support the transferability of its situated findings, Grounded Design suggests documenting increasing numbers of design case studies to create an extended, comparative knowledge base. Comparing cases allows for the emergence of bottom-up concepts dealing with the design and appropriation of innovative IT artifacts in social practice.

Keywords

grounded theory IS design research socio-technical systems design case study praxeology 

References

  1. Ackerman, M.S. (2000). The Intellectual Challenge of CSCW: The gap between social requirements and technical feasibility, Human Computer Interaction 15(2): 179–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baskerville, R. and Pries-Heje, J. (1999). Grounded Action Research: A method for understanding IT in practice, Accounting, Management & Information Technology 9: 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baskerville, R., Pries-Heje, J. and Venable, J. (2009). Soft Design Science Methodology, in Proceedings of Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST '09) (Malvern, PA, USA, 7–8 May); New York: ACM Press, Article No. 9.Google Scholar
  4. Baskerville, R.L. and Wood-Harper, A.T. (1998). Diversity in Information Systems Action Research Methods, European Journal of Information Systems 7(2): 90–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Becker, J. and Niehaves, B. (2007). Epistemological Perspectives on IS Research: A framework for analysing and systematizing epistemological assumptions, Information Systems Journal 17(2): 197–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Betz, M. and Wulf, V. (2014). EmergencyMessenger: A text based communication concept for indoor firefighting. CHI ’14 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Toronto, ON, Canada, 27th April – 02nd May, 2014); New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bourdieu, P. (1992). The Logic of Practice, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  9. Braa, K. and Vidgen, R. (1999). Interpretation, Intervention, and Reduction in the Organizational Laboratory: A framework for in-context information system research, accounting, Management and Information Technologies 9: 25–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brannigan, A. (2004). The Rise and Fall of Social Psychology: The use and misuse of the experimental method, Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  11. Brödner, P. (1998). Methods for Integrated Organisation and Software Development, in W. Karwowski and R. Goonetilleke (eds.) Manufacturing Agility and Hybrid Automation II, Santa Monica, CA: IEA Press, pp. 363–366.Google Scholar
  12. Brödner, P. (2009). The Misery of Digital Organizations and the Semiotic Nature of IT, AI & Society, Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Communication 23: 331–351.Google Scholar
  13. Cole, R., Purao, S., Rossi, M. and Sein, M.K. (2005). Being Proactive: Where action research meets design research, in D. Avison, D. Galletta and J.I. DeGross (eds.) Proceedings of 24th International Conference on Information Systems, (ICIS 2005 Proceedings), AIS Electronic Library (AISeL), Paper 27, 325–336.Google Scholar
  14. Cross, N. (2001). Designerly Ways of Knowing: Design discipline versus design science, Design Issues 17(3): 49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dahlbom, B. and Mathiassen, L. (1993). Computers in Context. The Philosophy and Practice of Systems Design, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  16. Davison, R.M., Martinsons, M.G. and Kock, N. (2004). Principles of Canonical Action Research, Information Systems Journal 14: 65–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dedrick, J., Gurbaxani, V. and Kraemer, K.L. (2003). Information Technology and Economic Performance: A critical review of the empirical evidence, ACM Computing Surveys 35(1): 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Denef, S., Keyson, D. and Oppermann, R. (2011). Rigid structures, Independent Units, Monitoring, in Proceedings of the 2011 Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems – CHI ’11; New York: ACM Press, 1949–1958.Google Scholar
  19. Dittrich, Y., Floyd, C. and Klischewski, R. (eds.) (2002). Social Thinking – Software practice, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Doolin, B. and McLeod, L. (2012). Sociomateriality and Boundary Objects in Information Systems Development, European Journal of Information Systems 21: 570–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Draxler, S., Stevens, G., Stein, M., Boden, A. and Randall, D. (2012). Supporting the Social Context of Technology Appropriation: On a synthesis of sharing tools and tool knowledge, in Proceedings of CHI ‘12 (Austin, TX); New York: ACM press, 2835–2844.Google Scholar
  22. Engeström, Y. and Blackler, F. (2005). On the Life of the Object, Organization 12(3): 307–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Garfinkel, H. (1984). Studies in Ethnomethodology, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  24. Gaver, W. (2012). What Should We Expect from Research through Design? in Proceedings of CHI ’12 (Austin, TX); New York: ACM press, 937–946.Google Scholar
  25. Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society. Outline of the theory of structuration, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  26. Goldkuhl, G. (2012). Pragmatism vs. Interpretivism in Qualitative Information Systems Research, European Journal of Information Systems 21(2): 135–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Goldkuhl, G. and Lind, M. (2010). A Multi-grounded Design Research Process, in Proceedings of DESRIST ´10 Proceedings, LNCS 6105; Berlin: Springer, 45–60.Google Scholar
  28. Goles, T. and Hirschheim, R. (2000). The Paradigm is Dead, the Paradigm is Dead … Long Live the Paradigm: The legacy of Burell and Morgan, Omega 28: 249–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J. and Ram, S. (2004). Design Science in Information Systems Research, MIS Quartertly 28(1): 75–105.Google Scholar
  30. Hirschheim, R. and Klein, H.K. (2003). Crisis in the IS Field? A Critical Reflection on the State of the Discipline, Journal of the Association for Information Systems 4(5): 237–293.Google Scholar
  31. Iivari, J. and Venable, J. (2009). Action Research and Design Science Research: Seemingly similar but decidedly dissimilar, in Proceedings of 17th European Conference on Information Systems (Verona, Italy).Google Scholar
  32. ISR (2002). Editorial Statement and Policy, Information Systems Research 13(4): 3–7.Google Scholar
  33. King, J.L. and Lyytinen, K. (eds.) (2006). Information Systems, The State of the Field, Wiley Series in Information Systems, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  34. Klann, M. (2009). Tactical Navigation Support for Firefighters: The lifenet ad-hoc sensor-network and wearable system, in J. Löffler and M. Klann (eds.) Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Mobile Response, Bd. 5424, pp. 41–56.Google Scholar
  35. Kuechler, B. and Vaishnavi, V. (2012). A Framework for Theory Development in Design Science Research: Multiple perspectives, Journal of the Association for Information Systems 13(6): 395–423.Google Scholar
  36. Kuutti, K. and Bannon, L.J. (2014). The Turn to Practice in HCI: Towards a research agenda, in Proceedings of CHI 2014; New York: ACM Press, 3543–3552.Google Scholar
  37. Lee, A. (2007). Action Is an Artifact: What action research and design science offer to each other, in N. Kock (ed.) Information Systems Action Research: An applied view of emerging concepts and methods, New York: Springer, pp. 43–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lyytinen, K. (1990). Computer Supported Cooperative Work – Issues and challenges: A structurational analysis. Manuscript, Department of Computer Science, University of Jyvaskyla.Google Scholar
  39. Mathiassen, L. (2002). Collaborative Practice Research, Information Technology & People 15(4): 321–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mead, G.H. (1903). The Definition of the Psychical, Decennial Publications of the University of Chicago. First Series, Vol. III. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 77–112.Google Scholar
  41. Mead, G.H. (1934). Mind, Self and Society, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  42. Nett, B. and Stevens, G. (2008). Business Ethnography – Aktionsforschung als Beitrag zu einer reflexiven Technikgestaltung (Business Ethnography – Action research as a contribution to a reflective technology design) Science theory and design-oriented Information Science, Report of Institut für Wirtschaftsinformatik, Münster: Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität, pp. 48-68.Google Scholar
  43. Orlikowski, W.J. (2000). Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations, Organization Science 11(4): 404–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Orlikowski, W.J. (2009). The Sociomateriality of Organisational Life: Considering technology in management research, Cambridge Journal of Economics 34: 125–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Orlikowski, W.J. (2007). Sociomaterial Practices: Exploring technology at work, Organization Studies 28: 1435–1448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Orlikowski, W.J. and Iacono, C.S. (2001). Desperately Seeking the ‘IT’ in IT Research – A call to theorizing the IT artifact, Information Systems Research 12(2): 121–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Orlikowski, W.J. and Scott, S.V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization, Annals of the Academy of Management 2(1): 433–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Peirce, C.S. (1935). Lectures on Pragmatism, in C. Hartshorne and P. Weiss (eds.) Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce CP 5.141–5.212, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Pipek, V. (2005). From Tailoring to Appropriation Support: Negotiating groupware usage, in: faculty of science, department of information processing science (ACTA UNIVERSITATIS OULUENSIS A 430), Oulu, Finland: University of Oulu.Google Scholar
  50. Pipek, V. and Wulf, V. (2009). Infrastructuring: Towards an integrated perspective on the design and use of information technology, Journal of the Association of Information Systems (JAIS) 10(5): 306–332.Google Scholar
  51. Poser, H. (2001). On Structural Differences between Sciences and Engineering, in H. Lenk and M. Maring (eds.) Advances and Problems in the Philosophy of Technology, Münster: LIT.Google Scholar
  52. Ramirez, L. (2012). Practice-centered Support for Indoor Navigation: Design of a Ubicomp platform for firefighters. Fraunhofer series in Information and Communication technology Vol. 2/2012, Aachen: Shaker Verlag.Google Scholar
  53. Ramirez, L., Dyrks, T., Gerwinski, J., Betz, M., Scholz, M. and Wulf, V. (2012). Landmarke: An ad hoc deployable Ubicomp infrastructure to support indoor navigation of firefighters, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 16(8): 1025–1038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a Theory of Social Practices: A development in culturalist theorizing, European Journal of Social Theory 5(2): 243–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rittel, H.W.J. and Webber, M.M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning, Policy Sciences 4: 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rodon, J. and Sesé, F. (2008). Towards a Framework for the Transferability of Results in IS Qualitative Research, in Proceedings of the JAIS Theory Development Workshop Sprouts Working Papers on Information Systems 8(17): 8–17.Google Scholar
  57. Rohde, M. (2007). Integrated Organization and Technology Development (OTD) and the Impact of Socio-cultural Concepts – A CSCW Perspective. Datalogiske skrifter University of Roskilde: Denmark.Google Scholar
  58. Rohde, M., Stevens, G., Brödner, P. and Wulf, V. (2009). Towards a Paradigmatic Shift in IS: Designing for social practice, in Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST 2009); New York: ACM-Press, Article 15.Google Scholar
  59. Royal Academy of Engineering (ed.) (2004). The Challenges of Complex IT Projects, The Report from a Working Group of the Royal Academy of Engineering and the British Computer Society, London: The Royal Academy of Engineering.Google Scholar
  60. Schmidt, K. (2011). Cooperative Work and Coordinative Practices, London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schuler, D. and Namioka, A. (eds.) (1993). Participatory Design, Principles and Practices, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  62. Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How professionals think in action, London: Temple Smith.Google Scholar
  63. Sein, M.K., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M. and Lindgren, R. (2012). Action Design Research, MIS Quarterly 35(1): 37–56.Google Scholar
  64. Simon, H.A. (1969). The Sciences of the Artificial, Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  65. Smith, G.F. and Browne, G.J. (1993). Conceptual Foundations of Design Problem Solving, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 22(5): 1209–1219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Stevens, G. (2009). Understanding and Designing Appropriation Infrastructures: Artifacts as boundary objects in continuous software development, PhD Thesis, University of Siegen.Google Scholar
  67. Stevens, G. and Nett, B. (2009). Business Ethnography as a Research Method to Support Evolutionary Design, Navigationen 9(2): 18–26.Google Scholar
  68. Stevens, G., Pipek, V. and Wulf, V. (2012). Appropriation Infrastructure: Mediating appropriation and production work, special issue on end user development, Journal of Organizational and End User Computing 22(2): 58–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Suchman, L. (2007). Human-machine Reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions, 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Suh, N.P. (1990). The Principles of Design, New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Walls, J.G., Widmeyer, G.R. and El Sawy, O.A. (1992). Building an Information System Design Theory for Vigilant EIS, Information Systems Research 3(1): 36–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Walsham, G. (2006). Doing Interpretive Research, European Journal of Information Systems 15: 320–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Weiser, M. (1995). The Computer for the 21st Century, Scientific American 272(3): 78–89.Google Scholar
  74. Wulf, V., Müller, C., Pipek, V., Randall, D., Rohde, M. and Stevens, G. (2015). Practice-based Computing: Empirically-grounded conceptualizations derived from design case studies, in V. Wulf, K. Schmidt and D. Randall (eds.) Designing Socially Embedded Technologies in the Real-world, Springer: London, pp. 111–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wulf, V., Rohde, M., Pipek, V. and Stevens, G. (2011). Engaging with Practices: Design case studies as a research framework in CSCW, In Proceedings of ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW 2011); New York: ACM-Press, 505–512.Google Scholar
  76. Wulf, V. (1999). Evolving Cooperation when Introducing Groupware – A self-organization perspective, Cybernetics and Human Knowing 6(2): 55–75.Google Scholar
  77. Wulf, V. (2000). Exploration Environments: Supporting users to learn groupware functions, Interacting with Computers 13(2): 265–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wulf, V. and Rohde, M. (1995). Towards an Integrated Organization and Technology Development, in Proceedings of the Symposium on Designing Interactive Systems; New York: ACM Press, 55–64.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Information Technology Trust 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Markus Rohde
    • 1
    • 2
  • Peter Brödner
    • 1
  • Gunnar Stevens
    • 1
    • 2
  • Matthias Betz
    • 1
  • Volker Wulf
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.University of SiegenSiegenGermany
  2. 2.International Institute for Socio-Informatics (IISI)BonnGermany

Personalised recommendations