Knowledge Contributions in Design Science Research: A Meta-Analysis

  • Neelam Dwivedi
  • Sandeep Purao
  • Detmar W. Straub
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8463)

Abstract

This research analyzes patterns of artifact generation and knowledge contribution of design science researchers based on a meta-analysis of contemporary work. We derive these analyses based on prior classifications of design science artifacts and knowledge outcomes. Our analyses reveal a complex picture of what is produced and how by scholars in the design science community. The results allow us to characterize the evolution of design science research community, and point to possible gaps. We also show that empirical analyses of prior efforts are needed to complement the prescriptive work in the design science community. We hope that our findings will provide the research community a platform to reflect on their own work, improve the ability of individual researchers to position and communicate their work, and point to possibilities for building a cumulative knowledge base.

Keywords

design science research knowledge outcomes meta-analysis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Arnott, D., Pervan, G.: Design Science in Decision Support Systems Research. Journal of the AIS 13(1), 923–949 (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baldwin, C.Y., Clark, K.B.: Design Rules, vol. 1: The Power of Modularity, 1st edn. The MIT Press (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baskerville, R.: What design science is not. European Journal of Information Systems 17(5), 441–443 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Becker, J., Beverungen, D., Matzner, M., Müller, O., Pöppelbuß, J.: Design Science in Service Research: A Framework-Based Review of IT Artifacts in Germany. In: Jain, H., Sinha, A.P., Vitharana, P. (eds.) DESRIST 2011. LNCS, vol. 6629, pp. 366–375. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bunge, M.: Scientific Research II: The Search for Truth. Studies in the Foundations Methodology and Philosophy of Science, vol. 3/II. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. (1967)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cleven, A., et al.: Design alternatives for the evaluation of design science research artifacts. In: Proceedings of DESRIST (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen, Y., Zahedi, F(M.), Abbasi, A.: Interface design elements for anti-phishing systems. In: Jain, H., Sinha, A.P., Vitharana, P. (eds.) DESRIST 2011. LNCS, vol. 6629, pp. 253–265. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gibbons, M., et al.: The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. SAGE Publications (1994)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gill, T.G., Hevner, A.R.: A Fitness-Utility Model for Design Science Research. In: Jain, H., Sinha, A.P., Vitharana, P. (eds.) DESRIST 2011. LNCS, vol. 6629, pp. 237–252. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Glass, G.V. (ed.): Integrating Findings: The Meta-Analysis of Research. Peacock, Ithasca (1978)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gregor, S., Hevner, A.R.: Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Quarterly 37(2), 337–355 (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gregor, S., et al.: Reflection, Abstraction, and Theorizing in Design and Development Research. In: Proceedings of the ECIS, pp. 1–12 (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heß, M.: Towards a Domain-Specific Method for Multi-Perspective Hospital Modelling – Motivation and Requirements. In: vom Brocke, J., Hekkala, R., Ram, S., Rossi, M. (eds.) DESRIST 2013. LNCS, vol. 7939, pp. 369–385. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly 28(1), 75–105 (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Holmberg, N., Steen, O., Carlsson, S.: Service Orienting the Swedish Vaccination Recommendation Activity with the Business Rules Centric Digital Service VacSam. In: Jain, H., Sinha, A.P., Vitharana, P. (eds.) DESRIST 2011. LNCS, vol. 6629, pp. 376–386. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hovorka, D.S., Pries-Heje, J.: Don’t Ignore the Iceberg: Timely Revelation of Justification in DSR. In: vom Brocke, J., Hekkala, R., Ram, S., Rossi, M. (eds.) DESRIST 2013. LNCS, vol. 7939, pp. 228–241. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Krönke, B., Reinecke, A., Mayer, J.H., Tischner, G., Feistenauer, H., Hauke, J.: Self-Service Management Support Systems— There’s an App for That. In: vom Brocke, J., Hekkala, R., Ram, S., Rossi, M. (eds.) DESRIST 2013. LNCS, vol. 7939, pp. 420–424. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kuechler, B.V.: Vaishnavi, On theory development in design science research: anatomy of a research project. European Journal of Information Systems 17(5), 489–504 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lahrmann, G., Marx, F., Mettler, T., Winter, R., Wortmann, F.: Inductive Design of Maturity Models: Applying the Rasch Algorithm for Design Science Research. In: Jain, H., Sinha, A.P., Vitharana, P. (eds.) DESRIST 2011. LNCS, vol. 6629, pp. 176–191. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lakatos, I.: Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In: Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge University Press (1970)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lempinen, H., Rossi, M., Tuunainen, V.K.: Design Principles for Inter-Organizational Systems Development – Case Hansel. In: Peffers, K., Rothenberger, M., Kuechler, B. (eds.) DESRIST 2012. LNCS, vol. 7286, pp. 52–65. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lessard, L., Yu, E.: Using Design Science Research to Develop a Modeling Technique for Service Design. In: Peffers, K., Rothenberger, M., Kuechler, B. (eds.) DESRIST 2012. LNCS, vol. 7286, pp. 66–77. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lipsey, M.W., Wilson, D.B.: Practical Meta-Analysis. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2001)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Van Looy, A., De Backer, M., Poels, G.: Towards a Decision Tool for Choosing a Business Process Maturity Model. In: Peffers, K., Rothenberger, M., Kuechler, B. (eds.) DESRIST 2012. LNCS, vol. 7286, pp. 78–87. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    March, S.T., Smith, G.F.: Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems 15, 251–266 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mayer, J.H.: How Service Orientation Can Improve the Flexibility of Executive Information Systems—An Architecture Reworked from a Business Perspective. In: Jain, H., Sinha, A.P., Vitharana, P. (eds.) DESRIST 2011. LNCS, vol. 6629, pp. 306–320. Springer, Heidelberg (2011a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mayer, J.H.: Managing the Future—Six Guidelines for Designing Environmental Scanning Systems. In: Jain, H., Sinha, A.P., Vitharana, P. (eds.) DESRIST 2011. LNCS, vol. 6629, pp. 276–290. Springer, Heidelberg (2011b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mayer, J.H., Winter, R., Mohr, T.: Utilizing user-group characteristics to improve acceptance of management support systems— state of the art and six design guidelines. In: Jain, H., Sinha, A.P., Vitharana, P. (eds.) DESRIST 2011. LNCS, vol. 6629, pp. 291–305. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nichols, J., Goul, M., Dooley, K., Demirkan, H.: Reconsidering modular design rules in a dynamic service context. In: Jain, H., Sinha, A.P., Vitharana, P. (eds.) DESRIST 2011. LNCS, vol. 6629, pp. 350–365. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Offermann, P., Blom, S., Schönherr, M., Bub, U.: Artifact Types in Information Systems Design Science – A Literature Review. In: Winter, R., Zhao, J.L., Aier, S. (eds.) DESRIST 2010. LNCS, vol. 6105, pp. 77–92. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Offermann, P., Blom, S., Schönherr, M., Bub, U.: Design Range and Research Strategies in Design Science Publications. In: Jain, H., Sinha, A.P., Vitharana, P. (eds.) DESRIST 2011. LNCS, vol. 6629, pp. 77–91. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Olsen, M., Hedman, J., Vatrapu, R.: e-wallet prototypes. In: Jain, H., Sinha, A.P., Vitharana, P. (eds.) DESRIST 2011. LNCS, vol. 6629, pp. 223–236. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pedersen, R.U., Furtak, S.J., Häuser, I., Lauth, C., Van Kranenburg, R.: Mini Smart Grid @ Copenhagen Business School: Prototype Demonstration. In: vom Brocke, J., Hekkala, R., Ram, S., Rossi, M. (eds.) DESRIST 2013. LNCS, vol. 7939, pp. 446–447. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Peffers, K., et al.: A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research. Journal of Management Information Systems 24(3), 45–77 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Peffers, K., Rothenberger, M., Tuunanen, T., Vaezi, R.: Design Science Research Evaluation. In: Peffers, K., Rothenberger, M., Kuechler, B. (eds.) DESRIST 2012. LNCS, vol. 7286, pp. 398–410. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Popper, K.: The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Rouledge, London and New York (1992)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Purao, S.: Design Research in the Technology of Information Systems - Truth or Dare. Working paper (2002)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Purao, S., et al.: The Sciences of Design: Observations on an Emerging Field. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 23(29), 523–546 (2008)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Purao, S.: Truth or Dare: The Ontology Question in Design Science Research. Journal of Database Management 24(3), 51–66 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Romme, A.G.L.: Making a Difference: Organization as Design. Organization Science 14(5), 558–573 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Samuel-Ojo, O., Shimabukuro, D., Chatterjee, S., Muthui, M., Babineau, T., Prasertsilp, P., Ewais, S., Young, M.: Meta-analysis of Design Science Research within the IS Community: Trends, Patterns, and Outcomes. In: Winter, R., Zhao, J.L., Aier, S. (eds.) DESRIST 2010. LNCS, vol. 6105, pp. 124–138. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Schultz, M.: Enriching Process Models for Business Process Compliance Checking in ERP Environments. In: vom Brocke, J., Hekkala, R., Ram, S., Rossi, M. (eds.) DESRIST 2013. LNCS, vol. 7939, pp. 120–135. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sein, M., et al.: Action Design Research. MIS Quarterly 35(1), 37–56 (2011)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Simon, H.A.: The sciences of the artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Suh, N.P.: Axiomatic design theory for systems. Research in Engineering Design 10(4), 189–209 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sutton, R.I., Staw, B.M.: What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 371–384 (1995)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    van Aken, J.E.: Management Research Based on the Paradigm of the Design Sciences. Journal of Management Studies 41(2), 219–246 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Venable, J.R.: Rethinking Design Theory in Information Systems. In: vom Brocke, J., Hekkala, R., Ram, S., Rossi, M. (eds.) DESRIST 2013. LNCS, vol. 7939, pp. 136–149. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Venable, J., Pries-Heje, J., Baskerville, R.: A comprehensive framework for evaluation in design science research. In: Peffers, K., Rothenberger, M., Kuechler, B. (eds.) DESRIST 2012. LNCS, vol. 7286, pp. 423–438. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Voigt, M., Niehaves, B., Becker, J.: Towards a Unified Design Theory for Creativity Support Systems. In: Peffers, K., Rothenberger, M., Kuechler, B. (eds.) DESRIST 2012. LNCS, vol. 7286, pp. 152–173. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Walls, J.G., et al.: Building an Information System Design Theory for Vigilant EIS. Information Systems Research 3(1), 36–59 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Webster, J., Watson, R.T.: Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a Literature Review. MIS Quarterly 26(2) (2002)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Weick, K., What, E.: theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly 40(3), 385–390 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Wolf, F.M.: Meta-Analysis. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills (1986)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Neelam Dwivedi
    • 1
  • Sandeep Purao
    • 1
  • Detmar W. Straub
    • 2
  1. 1.College of Info. Sci. and Tech.Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  2. 2.College of BusinessGeorgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations