Advertisement

A Postmodern Perspective on Socio-technical Design Science Research in Information Systems

  • Andreas DrechslerEmail author
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9073)

Abstract

This paper presents a critical account of the current state of design science research (DSR) of socio-technical artifacts in the information systems discipline as viewed through a postmodern lens. The paper offers a novel perspective to reflect on DSR and socio-technical artifacts, especially in terms of their limitations and boundaries of application. To achieve this, I critically appraise the current state of DSR practices, based on postmodern researchers’ key stances. The findings offer new perspectives on artifact effects, their application contexts, artifact utility, artifact audiences, the roles of the languages in which artifacts are specified, the design researcher’s role in the DSR process, and the political dimension of artifact design and evaluation. Design science researchers working on all types of socio-technical artifacts can use this paper’s findings to reflect on their artifacts’ limitations and potential real-world consequences before, during, and after artifact design and instantiation, and to subsequently improve these artifacts.

Keywords

Design science Socio-technical artifacts Postmodernism Postmodern 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Gregor, S., Hevner, A.R.: Positioning and Presenting Design Science Research for Maximum Impact. MIS Q. 37, 337–A6 (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gill, G., Hevner, A.R.: A Fitness-Utility Model for Design Science Research. ACM Trans. Manag. Inf. Syst. 4, 5:1–5:24 (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gregor, S., Jones, D.: The Anatomy of a Design Theory. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 8, 312–335 (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hevner, A., Chatterjee, S.: Design Research in Information Systems: Theory and Practice. Springer, New York (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hevner, A., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design Science in Information Sys-tems Research. MIS Q. 28, 75–105 (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kuechler, W., Vaishnavi, V.: A Framework for Theory Development in Design Science Research: Multiple Perspectives. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 13, 395–423 (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M., Chatterjee, S.: A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 24, 45–77 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vaishnavi, V., Kuechler, W.: Design Science Research Methods and Patterns. Auerbach, Boca Raton (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pries-Heje, J., Baskerville, R., Venable, J.: Strategies for Design Science Research Evaluation. In: Proc. ECIS 2008 Conf. Galway Irel (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    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
  11. 11.
    Venable, J., Pries-Heje, J., Baskerville, R.: FEDS: A Framework for Evaluation in Design Science Research. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee, A.S.: Integrating Positivist and Interpretive Approaches to Organizational Research. Organ. Sci. 2, 342–365 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mingers, J.: Combining IS Research Methods: Towards a Pluralist Methodology. Inf. Syst. Res. 12, 240–259 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mingers, J.: Real-izing Information Systems: Critical Realism as an Underpin-ning Philosophy for Information Systems. Inf. Organ. 14, 87–103 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wynn, D., Williams, C.: Principles for Conducting Critical Realist Case Study Research in Information Systems. Manag. Inf. Syst. Q. 36, 787–810 (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zachariadis, M., Scott, S., Barrett, M.: Methodological Implications of Critical Realism for Mixed-Methods Research. MIS Q. 37, 855–879 (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hirschheim, R., Klein, H.K.: Four paradigms of information systems develop-ment. Commun ACM 32, 1199–1216 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Venkatesh, V., Brown, S.A., Bala, H.: Bridging the Qualitative-Quantitative Divide: Guidelines for Conducting Mixed Method Research in Information Systems. MIS Q. 37, 21–54 (2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stahl, B.C.: The Ideology of Design: A Critical Appreciation of the Design Sci-ence Discourse in Information Systems and Wirtschaftsinformatik. In: Becker, J., Krcmar, H., Niehaves, B. (eds.) Wissenschaftstheorie und gestaltungsorientierte Wirtschaftsinformatik, pp. 111–132. Physica-Verlag HD, , Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Alvesson, M., Sköldberg, K.: Reflexive Methodology - New Vistas for Qualitative Research. Sage, London (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Whetten, D.A.: What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Acad. Manage. Rev. 14, 490–495 (1989)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Weber, R.: Evaluating and Developing Theories in the Information Systems Discipline. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 13 (2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chatterjee, S., Price, A.: Healthy Living with Persuasive Technologies: Frame-work, Issues, and Challenges. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. JAMIA. 16, 171–178 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Maccani, G., Donnellan, B., Helfert, M.: Action Design Research in Practice: The Case of Smart Cities. In: Tremblay, M.C., VanderMeer, D., Rothenberger, M., Gupta, A., and Yoon, V. (eds.) Advancing the Impact of Design Science: Moving from Theory to Practice, pp. 132–147. Springer International Publishing (2014)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jencks, C.: The language of post-modern architecture. Academy Editions, London (1987)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chatterjee, S., Sarker, S., Fuller, M.: Ethical Information Systems Development: A Baumanian Postmodernist Perspective. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 10, 787–815 (2009)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kreps, D.: My social networking profile: copy, resemblance, or simulacrum? A poststructuralist interpretation of social information systems. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 19, 104–115 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kroeze, J.H.: Interpretivism in Information Systems: A Postmodern Epistemology?, http://sprouts.aisnet.org/11-171/
  29. 29.
    Krupnick, M.: Introduction. In: Krupnick, M. (ed.) Displacement: Derrida and after. Indiana University Press, Bloomington (1983)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Derrida, J.: Writing and difference. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1978)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Derrida, J.: Margins of philosophy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1982)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lyotard, J.-F.: The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. University Of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis (1984)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Feyerabend, P.: Against method: outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge. New Left Books, London (1975)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Weedon, C.: Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory. B. Blackwell, Oxford (1987)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Foucault, M.: Power/knowledge: selected interviews and other writings, pp. 1972–1977. Pantheon Books, New York (1980)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Collinson, D.L.: Identities and Insecurities: Selves at Work. Organization 10, 527–547 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Willmott, H.: Bringing agency (back) into organizational analysis: responding to the crisis of (post)modernity. Postmodernism and organizations, pp. 114–131. SAGE Publications, London (1993)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Brown, R.H.: Rhetoric, textuality, and the postmodern turn in sociological theory. Sociol. Theory 8, 188–197 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rosenau, P.V.: Post-modernism and the social sciences: insights, inroads, and intrusions. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1992)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sköldberg, K.: The poetic logic of administration: styles and changes of style in the art of organizing. Routledge, London (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Richardson, J.: Writing: a method of inquiry. In: Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S. (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2000)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Linstead, S.: From Postmodern Anthropology to Deconstructive Ethnography. Hum. Relat. 46, 97–120 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Peltzman, S.: The effects of automobile safety regulation. J. Polit. Econ., 677–725 (1975)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Pandza, K., Thorpe, R.: Management as Design, but What Kind of Design? An Appraisal of the Design Science Analogy for Management. Br. J. Manag. 21, 171–186 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sein, M., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., Lindgren, R.: Action Design Research. MIS Q. 35, 17–56 (2011)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Seidel, S., Recker, J., Vom Brocke, J.: Sensemaking and sustainable practicing: functional affordances of information systems in green transformations. Mis Q. 37, 1275–1299 (2013)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Frank, U.: Die Konstruktion möglicher Welten als Chance und Herausforderung der Wirtschaftsinformatik. In: Becker, J., Krcmar, H., Niehaves, B. (eds.) Wissenschaftstheorie und gestaltungsorientierte Wirtschaftsinformatik, pp. 161–173. Physica-Verlag HD, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hevner, A.R., Webb Collins, R., Davis, C., Gill, T.G.: A NeuroDesign Model for IS Research. Informing Sci. 17 (2014)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Boland, R., Collopy, F.: Managing as designing. Stanford University Press (2004)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Bunge, M.: Scientific Research II: The Search for Truth. Springer, Berlin (1967)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Computer Science and Business Information SystemsUniversity of Duisburg-EssenEssenGermany

Personalised recommendations