Technical Action Research as a Validation Method in Information Systems Design Science
Current proposals for combining action research and design science start with a concrete problem in an organization, then apply an artifact to improve the problem, and finally reflect on lessons learned. The aim of these combinations is to reduce the tension between relevance and rigor. This paper proposes another way of using action research in design science, which starts with an artifact, and then tests it under conditions of practice by solving concrete problems with them. The aim of this way of using action research in design science is to bridge the gap between the idealizations made when designing the artifact and the concrete conditions of practice that occur in real-world problems.
The paper analyzes the role of idealization in design science and compares it with the requirements of rigor and relevance. It then proposes a way of bridging the gap between idealization and practice by means of action research, called technical action research (TAR) in this paper. The core of TAR is that the researcher plays three roles, which must be kept logically separate, namely of artifact developer, artifact investigator, and client helper. Finally, TAR is compared to other approaches of using action research in design science, and with canonical action research.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Hevner, A., March, S., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design science in information system research. MIS Quarterly 28(1), 75–105 (2004)Google Scholar
- 6.Lee, A.: Action is an artifact: What action research and design science offer to each other. In: Kock, N. (ed.) Information Systems Action Research: An Applied View of Emerging Concepts and Methods, pp. 43–60. Springer (2007)Google Scholar
- 8.Baskerville, R., Pries-Heje, J., Venable, J.: Soft design science methodology. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology, DESRIST 2009, pp. 9:1–9:11. ACM Press (2009)Google Scholar
- 9.Sein, M., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., Lindgren, R.: Action design research. MIS Quarterly 35(2), 37–56 (2011)Google Scholar
- 10.Schön, D.: The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Arena (1983)Google Scholar
- 11.Cartwright, N.: How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford University Press (1983)Google Scholar
- 12.Cartwright, N.: The Dappled World. A Study of the Boundaries of Science. Cambridge University Press (1999)Google Scholar
- 16.Küppers, G.: On the relation between technology and science—goals of knowledge and dynamics of theories. The example of combustion technology, thermodynamics and fluid dynamics. In: Krohn, W., Layton, E., Weingart, P. (eds.) The Dynamics of Science and Technology. Sociology of the Sciences, II, pp. 113–133. Reidel (1978)Google Scholar
- 18.Vincenti, W.: What Engineers Know and How They Know It. Analytical Studies from Aeronautical History. Johns Hopkins (1990)Google Scholar
- 19.Wieringa, R.J.: Design science as nested problem solving. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology, pp. 1–12. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
- 21.Morali, A., Wieringa, R.J.: Risk-based confidentiality requirements specification for outsourced it systems. In: Proceedings of the 18th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE 2010), Sydney, Australia, Los Alamitos, California, pp. 199–208. IEEE Computer Society (September 2010)Google Scholar
- 23.Seddon, P., Scheepers, R.: Other-settings generalizability in IS research. In: International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), pp. 1141–1158 (2006)Google Scholar
- 24.Seddon, P., Scheepers, R.: Towards the improved treatment of generalization from knowledge claims in IS research: drawing general conclusions from samples. European Journal of Information Systems, 1–16 (2011), doi:10.1057/ejis.2011.9Google Scholar