Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Primary Scientific Contribution is Hardly a Theory in Design Science Research

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
The Next Wave of Sociotechnical Design (DESRIST 2021)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 12807))

  • 2427 Accesses

Abstract

Generally, to publish a paper in a top IS journal, making a new theory contribution is, so we are told, required. Such a requirement also exists in Design Science Research (DSR) literature. We review a number of claims about the necessity of theory as it applies to DSR. We find these claims wanting. For example, medical research and engineering are both called “design science” in (Simon 1996) Sciences of the Artificial. However, most articles in the top medical, computer engineering, and network engineering journals do not develop new theories. Unless the proponents of theories, as the primary vehicle of scientific DSR knowledge, can offer a satisfactory argument for why theories are the primary scientific contribution, we do not have to regard ‘theory’ as the primary outcome of good scientific research in DSR. If we are correct, then theory is not valuable in its own right in (applied) science, as theory serves higher purposes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Avison, D., Malaurent, J.: Is theory king?: questioning the theory fetish in information systems. J. Inf. Technol. 29(4), 327–336 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avison, D., Malaurent, J.: Is theory king?: a rejoinder. J. Inf. Technol. 29(4), 358–361 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ågerfalk, P.: Insufficient theoretical contribution: a conclusive rationale for rejection? Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 23, 593–599 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bacharach, S.B.: Organizational theories: some criteria for evaluation. Acad. Manag. Rev. 14(4), 496–515 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, N.: The truth doesn’t explain much. Am. Philos. Q. 17(2), 159–163 (1980)

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregor, S.: The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Q. 30(3), 611–642 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregor, S.: Theory – still king but needing a revolution. J. Inf. Technol. 29, 337–340 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregor, S., Hevner, A.: Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Q. 37(2), 337–355 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregor, S., Jones, D.: The anatomy of a design theory. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 8(5), 312–335 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hempel, C., Oppenheim, P.: Studies in the logic of explanation. Philos. Sci. 15, 135–175 (1948)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschheim, R.: Against theory: with apologies to Feyerabend. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 20(9), 1338–1355 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoefer, C.: Causal determinism. In: Zalta, E. N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  • Iivari, J.: A critical look at theories in design science research. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 21(3), 502–519 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  • Laudan, L.: Why was the logic of discovery abandoned? In: Nickles, T. (ed.) Scientific Discovery, Logic, and Rationality, pp. 173–183. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht (1980)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Laudan, L.: The demise of the demarcation problem. In: Cohen, R.S., Laudan, L. (eds.) Physics Philosophy and Psychoanalysis: Essays in Honour of Adolf Grünbaum, pp. 111–127. D Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht (1983)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Niiniluoto, I.: Verisimilitude: the third period. Br. J. Philos. Sci. 49(1), 1–29 (1998)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Rivard, S.: The ions of theory construction. MIS Q. 38(2), iii–xiii (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H.: The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlagwein, D.: Natural sciences, philosophy of science and the orientation of the social sciences. J. Inf. Technol. 36(1), 85–89 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siponen, M., Klaavuniemi, T.: How and why “theory” is often misunderstood in information systems literature. In: Proceedings of the Fortieth International Conference on Information Systems, Munich (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  • Siponen, M., Klaavuniemi, T.: Why is the hypothetico-deductive (H-D) method in information systems not an H-D method? Inf. Organ. 30(1), 100287 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2020.100287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siponen, M., Klaavuniemi, T.: Demystifying beliefs about the natural sciences in information system. J. Inf. Technol. 36(1), 56–68 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siponen, M., Tsohou, A.: Demystifying the influential IS legends of positivism. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 19(7), 600–617 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  • Siponen, M., Tsohou, A.: Demystifying the influential IS legends of positivism: response to Lee’s commentary. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 21(6), 1653–1659 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  • Straub, D.: Why top journals accept your paper. MIS Q. 33(3), iii–x (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank professor Juhani Iivari for providing a number of counterarguments, which we have discussed in this paper. We also thank anonymous DESRIST 2021 reviewers for their comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of IT, University of Jyvaskyla, 40100, Jyvaskyla, Finland

    Mikko Siponen

  2. Oncology Department, Mikkeli Central Hospital, 50100, Mikkeli, Finland

    Tuula Klaavuniemi

Authors
  1. Mikko Siponen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tuula Klaavuniemi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mikko Siponen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Liechtenstein, Vaduz, Liechtenstein

    Leona Chandra Kruse

  2. University of Liechtenstein, Vaduz, Liechtenstein

    Stefan Seidel

  3. University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway

    Geir Inge Hausvik

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Siponen, M., Klaavuniemi, T. (2021). The Primary Scientific Contribution is Hardly a Theory in Design Science Research. In: Chandra Kruse, L., Seidel, S., Hausvik, G.I. (eds) The Next Wave of Sociotechnical Design. DESRIST 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12807. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82405-1_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82405-1_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-82404-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-82405-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation