Insights into Practitioner Design Science Research

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10243)

Abstract

Building on two previous papers that focused on the concept of Practitioner Design Science Research [1, 2], this paper: (i) presents the Practitioners Design Science Research (PDSR) Canvas, a visual guide for practitioners undertaking DSR, and (ii) utilises it as a lens to analyse the insights of 48 practitioners on their DSR journey. Data is primarily gathered from 48 practitioners, of which, 34 have completed a 12-month Design Science Research study, with the other 14 in the final stages of their journey. This unique practitioner perspective further develops the novel concept of PDSR which enables practitioners to engage with the academic community and not the other way around. Key findings show that practitioners have challenges with the practical (relevance) aspects of DSR as well as the research (rigour) aspects. Nonetheless, the analysis indicates that with a clear depiction of DSR, the gap between practice and research may not be as difficult to bridge as previously thought. However, this requires the IS community to rethink their definition of engaged scholarship from one that solely focuses on the academic as the researcher to one that also includes the practitioner.

Keywords

Practitioner research Design science research PDSR canvas 

References

  1. 1.
    Nagle, T., Sammon, D., Doyle, C.: Meeting in the middle: bridging the practice research divide from both sides. Paper Presented at the European Conference of Information Systems, Istanbul, June 2016Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nagle, T., Sammon, D.: The development of a practitioner design science research canvas. Paper Presented at the Pre-ICIS Workshop on Practice-Based Design and Innovation of Digital Artifacts, Dublin (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Swanson, E.: A simple research impacts model applied to the information systems field. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 35(1), 16 (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Desouza, K.C., El Sawy, O.A., Galliers, R.D., Loebbecke, C., Watson, R.T.: Beyond rigor and relevance towards responsibility and reverberation: information systems research that really matters. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 17(1), 341–353 (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Avison, D., Lau, F., Myers, M., Nielsen, P.A.: Action research. Commun. ACM 42(1), 94–97 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baskerville, R.: What design science is not. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 17(5), 441–443 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Iivari, J.: Distinguishing and contrasting two strategies for design science research. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 24(1), 107–115 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nagle, T., Sammon, D.: The development of a design research canvas for data practitioners. J. Dec. Syst. 25(Suppl. 1), 369–380 (2016). doi: 10.1080/12460125.2016.1187386 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hevner, A., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design science in information systems research. MIS Q. 28(1), 75–105 (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goldkuhl, G.: From action research to practice research. Australas. J. Inf. Syst. 17(2), 57–78 (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mathiassen, L.: Collaborative practice research. Inf. Technol. People 15(4), 321–345 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Davison, R., Martinsons, M.G., Kock, N.: Principles of canonical action research. Inf. Syst. J. 14(1), 65–86 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McKay, J., Marshall, P.: The dual imperatives of action research. Inf. Technol. People 14(1), 46–59 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Gengler, C.E., Rossi, M., Hui, W., Virtanen, V., Bragge, J.: The design science research process: a model for producing and presenting information systems research. In: S.C., A.H. (eds.) Proceedings of the First International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST 2006), Claremont, California, CGU, pp. 83–106 (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sein, M., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., Lindgren, R.: Action design research. MIS Q. 35, 37–56 (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    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). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-29863-9_31 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Baskerville, R.L.: Investigating information systems with action research. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2(1), 2–32 (1999)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mathiassen, L., Chiasson, M., Germonprez, M.: Style composition in action research publication. MIS Q. 36(2), 347–363 (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gregor, S., Hevner, A.R.: Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Q. 37(2), 337–356 (2013)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ward, J., Daniel, E., Peppard, J.: Building better business cases for IT investments. MIS Q. Execut. 7(1), 1–15 (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Myers, M.D.: Qualitative Research in Business and Management, 2nd edn. Sage, London (2013)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Holmström, J., Ketokivi, M., Hameri, A.P.: Bridging practice and theory: a design science approach. Decis. Sci. 40(1), 65–87 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Simon, H.A.: Does scientific discovery have a logic? Philos. Sci. 40(4), 471–480 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K.M., Obstfeld, D.: Organizing for high reliability: processes of collective mindfulness. In: Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 21. pp. 81–123 (1999)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Goes, P.B.: Editor’s comments: design science research in top information systems journals. MIS Q. 38(1), iii–viii (2014)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Goldkuhl, G.: Pragmatism vs interpretivism in qualitative information systems research. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 21(2), 135–146 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mathiassen, L., Sandberg, A.: How a professionally qualified doctoral student bridged the practice-research gap: a confessional account of collaborative practice research. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 22(4), 475–492 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Peppard, J., Galliers, R.D., Thorogood, A.: Information systems strategy as practice: micro strategy and strategizing for IS. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 23(1), 1–10 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cork University Business SchoolCorkIreland
  2. 2.Victoria University of WellingtonWellingtonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations