On Integrating Action Research and Design Research

  • Sandeep Purao
  • Matti Rossi
  • Maung K. Sein
Part of the Integrated Series in Information Systems book series (ISIS, volume 22)


IS research has been criticized for having little influence on practice. One approach to achieving more relevance is to conduct research using appropriate research methods that balance the interests of both researchers and practitioners. This chapter examines the similarities between two methods that address this mandate by adopting a proactive stance to investigating information systems in organizations. These two approaches, action research and design research, both directly intervene in “real-world” domains and effect changes in these domains. We investigate these similarities by examining exemplars of each type of research according to the criteria of the other. Our analysis reveals interesting parallels and similarities between the two suggesting that the two approaches have much to learn from each other. Based on our analysis, we propose ways to facilitate integration of the two approaches that we believe will be useful for both and for IS research in general.


Design Research International Joint Venture Software Process Improvement Functional Prototype Proactive Stance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Baskerville, R. (1999) Investigating information systems with action research, Communications of AIS 2, pp. 2–31.Google Scholar
  2. Baskerville, R. (2001) Conducting action research: high risk and high reward in theory and practice, Qualitative Research in IS: Issues and Trends E. M. Trauth. Hershey, PA, Idea Group.Google Scholar
  3. Baskerville, R. and M. D. Meyers (2004) Special issue on action research in information systems: making is research relevant to practice – forward, MIS Quarterly 28 (3), pp. 329–335.Google Scholar
  4. Benbasat, I. and R. W. Zmud (1999) Empirical research in information systems: the practice of relevance, MIS Quarterly 23 (1), pp. 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boland, R. J. and K. Lyytinen (2004) Information Systems Research as Design: Identity, Process, and Narrative, IFIP Working Group 8.2 Conference, Manchester, UK.Google Scholar
  6. Braa, J., E. Monteiro et al. (2004) Networks of action: sustainable health information systems across developing countries. MIS Quarterly 28 (3), pp. 337–362.Google Scholar
  7. Checkland, P. (1981) Systems Thinking Systems Practice, John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Clark, P. A. (1972) Action Research and Organizational Change, Harper & Row, Ltd., London.Google Scholar
  9. Cole, R., S. Purao et al. (2005) Being Rigorously Relevant: Design Research and Action Research in Information Systems, ICIS, AIS, Las Vegas, NV.Google Scholar
  10. Dasgupta, S. (1996) Technology and Creativity, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  11. Davis, M. S. (1971) That's interesting! Towards a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology. Philosophy of Social Science 47, pp. 22–43.Google Scholar
  12. Davison, R. M., M. G. Martinsons et al. (2004) Principles of canonical action research, Information Systems Journal 14 (1), pp. 65–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. de Figueiredo, A. and P. de Cunha (2007) Action research and design in information systems: two faces of a single coin, in Kock, N. (ed.), Information Systems Action Research: An Applied View of Emerging Concepts and Methods, Springer, Berlin, pp. 61–96.Google Scholar
  14. Dennis, A. (2001) Relevance in information systems research, Communications of AIS 6, Article 10.Google Scholar
  15. Haack, S. (1976) The pragmatist theory of truth, British Journal of Philosophical Science 27, pp. 231–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hevner, A. R., S. T. March et al. (2004) Design science in information systems research, MIS Quarterly 28 (1), pp. 75–105.Google Scholar
  17. Iivari, J. (2007) A paradigmatic analysis of information systems as a design science, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 19 (2), pp. 39–63.Google Scholar
  18. Iverson, J. H., L. Mathiassen et al. (2002) Risk Management in Process Action Teams, in L. Mathiassen, J. Pries-Heje, and O. Ngwenyama (eds.) Improving Software Organizations: From Principle to Practice, Addison Wesley, Upper Saddle River, NJ.Google Scholar
  19. Iverson, J. H., L. Mathiassen et al. (2004) Managing risk in software process improvement: an action research approach. MIS Quarterly 28 (3), pp. 395–433.Google Scholar
  20. Järvinen, P. (2007) Action research is similar to design science. Quality & Quantity 41, pp. 37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kock, N., P. Gray et al. (2002) IS research relevance revisited: subtle accomplishment, unfulfilled promise, or serial hypocrisy, Communications of AIS 8, Article 23.Google Scholar
  22. Lee, A. (1999) Inaugural editor's comments. MIS Quarterly 23 (1), pp. v–xi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lee, A. (2007) 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, Springer, Berlin, pp. 43–60.Google Scholar
  24. Lindgren, R., O. Henfridsson et al. (2004) Design principles for competence management systems: a synthesis of an action research study, MIS Quarterly 28 (3), pp. 435–472.Google Scholar
  25. March, S. T. and G. F. Smith (1995) Design and natural science research on information technology, Decision Support Systems 15 (4), pp. 251–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Markus, M. L., A. Majchrzak et al. (2002) A design theory for systems that support emergent knowledge processes, MIS Quarterly 26 (3), pp. 179–212.Google Scholar
  27. Mingers, J. and F. Stowell (1997) Information Systems: An Emerging Discipline? McGraw-Hill, London.Google Scholar
  28. Purao, S. (2002) Design Research in the Technology of Information Systems: Truth or Dare, School of Information Sciences and Technology, The Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania, p. 32.Google Scholar
  29. Sein, M. K., M. Rossi, and S. R. Purao (2007) Exploring the limits to the possible: a response to Iivari, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 19 (2), pp. 105–110.Google Scholar
  30. Simon, H. A. (1969) The Sciences of the Artificial, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  31. Susman, G. I. and R. D. Evered (1978) An assessment of the scientific merits of action research, Administrative Science Quarterly 23, pp. 582–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Walls, J. G., G. R. Widmeyer et al. (1992) Building an information system design theory for vigilant EIS, Information Systems Research 3 (1), pp. 36–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag US 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Information Sciences and Technology at Penn StateMcKeesportUSA
  2. 2.Helsinki School of EconomicsHelssinkiFinland
  3. 3.University of AgderGrimstadNorway

Personalised recommendations