Design Science in the Field: Practice Design Research

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10844)

Abstract

There exist different types or genres of design science research (DSR) in information systems, like laboratory-oriented and practice-oriented DSR. This paper investigates arguments for a practice-oriented approach to DSR. It uses the research approach of practice research as a starting point to elaborate on a practice-oriented DSR approach we label Practice Design Research (PDR). In doing so, we address two unresolved issues in IS DSR: Theorizing and evaluation. PDR consists of two inter-related sub-activities: theorizing and situational design inquiry. The conduct of situational design inquiry is described as iterative cycles of (1) pre-evaluate, (2) plan & design, (3) test & intervene and (4) post-evaluate. We justify the foundations of these iterative sub-activities/cycles through a theoretically informed argument based on pragmatist philosophy and practice theory.

Keywords

Design science Practice research Epistemology Practice theory Evaluation Theorizing Pragmatism 

References

  1. 1.
    Baskerville, R., Myers, M.: Design ethnography in information systems. Inf. Syst. J. 25, 23–46 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dewey, J.: How We Think. D.C. Heath & Co., Boston (1910)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dewey, J.: The development of American pragmatism. In: Dewey, J. (ed.) Philosophy and Civilization. Minton, Balch & Co., New York (1931)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dewey, J.: Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. Henry Holt, New York (1938)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Feldman, M., Orlikowski, W.: Theorizing practice and practicing theory. Organ. Sci. 22, 1240–1253 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., Trow, P.: The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. Sage, London (1994)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goldkuhl, G.: The research practice of practice research: theorizing and situational inquiry. Syst. Signs Actions 5(1), 7–29 (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goldkuhl, G.: From action research to practice research. Australas. J. Inf. Syst. 17(2), 57–78 (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goldkuhl, G.: Pragmatism vs. interpretivism in qualitative information systems research. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 21(2), 135–146 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goldkuhl, G., Lind, M.: A multi-grounded design research process. In: Winter, R., Zhao, J.L., Aier, S. (eds.) DESRIST 2010. LNCS, vol. 6105, pp. 45–60. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13335-0_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gregor, S., Hevner, A.: Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Q. 37(2), 337–355 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gregor, S., Jones, D.: The anatomy of a design theory. J. AIS 8(5), 312–335 (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hevner, A.R.: A three cycle view of design science research. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 19(2), 87–92 (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design science in information systems research. MIS Q. 28(1), 75–105 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Iivari, J.: Distinguishing and contrasting two strategies for design science research. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 24, 107–115 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    James, W.: Pragmatism. A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking. Longmans, Green & Co., New York (1907)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Koskinen, I., Zimmerman, J., Binder, T., Redström, J., Wensween, S.: Design Research Through Practice. From the Lab, Field, and Showroom. Morgan Kaufmann, Amsterdam (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kuechler, B., Vaishnavi, V.: A framework for theory development in design science research: multiple perspectives. J. AIS 13(6), 395–423 (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kuutti, K., Bannon, L.: The turn to practice in HCI: towards a research agenda. In: Proceedings CHI-2014, Toronto (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lee, J.S., Pries-Heje, J., Baskerville, R.: Theorizing in design science research. In: Jain, H., Sinha, A.P., Vitharana, P. (eds.) DESRIST 2011. LNCS, vol. 6629, pp. 1–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20633-7_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Leonardi, P.: When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies. MIS Q. 35(1), 147–167 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ludema, J., Cooperrider, D., Barrett, F.: Appreciative inquiry: the power of the unconditional positive question. In: Reason, P., Bradbury, H. (eds.) Handbook of Action Research. Sage, London (2001)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mathiassen, L.: Collaborative practice research. Inf. Technol. People 15(4), 321–345 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McKay, J., Marshall, P., Hirschheim, R.: The design construct in information systems design science. J. Inf. Technol. 27, 125–139 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nicolini, D.: Practice Theory, Work, & Organization. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2012)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nilsen, P., Nordström, G., Ellström, P.-E.: Integrating research-based and practice-based knowledge through workplace reflection. J. Workplace Learn. 24(6), 403–415 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Orlikowski, W.J., Iacono, C.S.: Desperately seeking the “IT” in IT research – a call to theorizing the IT artifact. Inf. Syst. Res. 12(2), 121–134 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pain, H.: Practice research: what it is and its place in the social work profession. Eur. J. Soc. Work 14(4), 545–562 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M.A., Chatterjee, S.: A design science research methodology for information systems research. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 24(3), 45–77 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rohde, M., Stevens, G., Brödner, P., Wulf, V.: Towards a paradigmatic shift in IS: designing for social practice. In: Proceedings DESRIST-2009, Malvern (2009)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rohde, M., Brödner, P., Stevens, G., Betz, M., Wulf, V.: Grounded design – a praxeological IS research perspective. J. Inf. Technol. 32, 163–179 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Salisbury Forum Group. The Salisbury Statement. Social Work & Society, vol. 9 (2011)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schön, D.: The Reflective Practitioner - How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books, New York (1983)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Scott, S., Orlikowski, W.: Entanglements in practice: performing anonymity through social media. MIS Q. 38(3), 873–893 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sein, M., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., Lindgren, R.: Action design research. MIS Q. 35(1), 37–56 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sjöström, J., Ågerfalk, P.J.: An analytic framework for design-oriented research concepts. In: Proceedings of AMCIS-2009, San Francisco (2009)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sonnenberg, C., vom Brocke, J.: Evaluation patterns for design science research artefacts. In: Helfert, M., Donnellan, B. (eds.) EDSS 2011. CCIS, vol. 286, pp. 71–83. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33681-2_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Stevenson, C.: Practical inquiry/theory in nursing. J. Adv. Nurs. 50(2), 196–203 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Susman, G.I., Evered, R.D.: An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Adm. Sci. Q. 23(4), 582–603 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Uggerhøj, L.: What is practice research in social work - definitions, barriers and possibilities. Soc. Work Soc. 9(1), 45–59 (2011)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Van de Ven, A.: Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2007)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Venable, J.: The role of theory and theorising in design science research. In: Proceedings of DESRIST 2006, Claremont (2006)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Venable, J., Pries-Heje, J., Baskerville, R.: FEDS: a framework for evaluation in design science research. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 25, 77–89 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Watson, V.: Do we learn from planning practice?: the contribution of the practice movement to planning theory. J. Plann. Educ. Res. 22, 178–187 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Whittington, R.: Completing the practice turn in strategy research. Organ. Stud. 27(5), 613–634 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Winter, R.: Towards a framework for evidence-based and inductive design in information systems research. In: Helfert, M., Donnellan, B., Kenneally, J. (eds.) EDSS 2013. CCIS, vol. 447, pp. 1–20. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13936-4_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J.: Research through design in HCI. In: Olson, J., Kellogg, W. (eds.) Ways of Knowing in HCI. Springer, New York (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0378-8_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Mead, G.H.: Philosophy of the Act. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1938)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Lee, A., Nickerson, J.: Theory as a case of design: lessons for design from the philosophy of science. In: Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2010)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Goldkuhl, G.: Design research in search for a paradigm: pragmatism is the answer. In: Helfert, M., Donnellan, B. (eds.) EDSS 2011. CCIS, vol. 286, pp. 84–95. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33681-2_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Informatics and MediaUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden
  2. 2.Department of Management and EngineeringLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations