Advertisement

Norm-Based Abduction Process (NAP) in Developing Information Architecture

  • Chekfoung TanEmail author
  • Sara AbdalessEmail author
  • Kecheng LiuEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 527)

Abstract

Abduction is a logical reasoning process that allows the discovery and creation of new knowledge. However, the function of knowledge is not explicitly developed in the existing research on abduction. Developing information architecture is a scientific inquiry in a practical context as it engages multiple stakeholders. However, the current research in information architecture does not appear to be underpinned by sound theoretical foundations. This paper proposes a norm-based abduction process (NAP) where norms are seen as knowledge in developing information architecture. A case study of a UK hospital is used for illustration purposes. The key contribution of this paper is to incorporate norms in the existing abduction process, to assert abduction as the foundation of a logical reasoning process and to derive a theoretical proposition for information architecture.

Keywords

Abduction Logical reasoning Information architecture Organisational semiotics 

References

  1. 1.
    Dillon, A., Turnbull, D.: Information architecture. In: Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science. Marcel Dekker, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tan, C., Liu, K., White, E.: Information architecture for healthcare organizations: the case of a NHS hospital in UK. Paper Presented at the Thirty Fourth International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2013), Milan, Italy (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bryant, A., Maes, R.: The role of the information architect: conquering cognitive parochialism. All Sprouts Content Paper 96 (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Haverty, M.: Information architecture without internal theory: an inductive design process. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 53(10), 839–845 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    March, L.: The logic of design. In: Cross, N. (ed.) Developments in Design Methodology, pp. 265–276. Wiley, Chichester (1984)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Peirce, C.S.: Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce: Pragmaticisms and Pragnoaticism, Scientific Metaphysics, vol. 5–6. Belknap Press, Cambridge (1935)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liu, K., Li, W.: Organisational Semiotics and Business Informatics. Routledge, Abingdon (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stamper, R.K.: Information systems as a social science. In: Falkenberg, E.D., Lyytinen, K., Verrijn-Stuart, A.A. (eds.) Information System Concepts: An Integrated Discipline Emerging. ITIFIP, vol. 36, pp. 1–51. Springer, Boston (2000).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-35500-9_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stamper, R., Liu, K., Hafkamp, M., Ades, Y.: Understanding the roles of signs and norms in organizations-a semiotic approach to information systems design. Behav. Inf. Technol. 19(1), 15–27 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Braf, E.: Knowledge or information: what makes the difference? In: Liu, K., Clarke, R.J., Andersen, P.B., Stamper, R.K., Abou-Zeid, E.-S. (eds.) Organizational Semiotics: Evolving a Science of Information Systems, pp. 71–90. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hillestad, R., Bigelow, J., Bower, A., Girosi, F., Meili, R., Scoville, R., Taylor, R.: Can electronic medical record systems transform health care? Potential health benefits, savings, and costs. Health Aff. 24(5), 1103–1117 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Martin, A., Dmitriev, D., Akeroyd, J.: A resurgence of interest in information architecture. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 30(1), 6–12 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brancheau, J.C., Wetherbe, J.C.: Information architectures: methods and practice. Inf. Process. Manag. 22(6), 453–463 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Evernden, R., Evernden, E.: Information First: Integrating Knowledge and Information Architecture for Business Advantage. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tan, C., Liu, K.: An organisational semiotics inspired information architecture: pervasive healthcare as a case study. Paper presented at the 14th International Conference on Informatics and Semiotics in Organisation (ICISO), Stockholm, Sweden, 25–27 March 2013Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Liu, K.: Semiotics in Information Systems Engineering. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stamper, R.: Language and computer in organized behavior. In: Riet, R.P., Meersman, R.A. (eds.) Linguistic Instruments in Knowledge Engineering. Elsevier Science Inc., New York (1992)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stamper, R., Liu, K., Huang, K.: Organisational morphology in re-engineering, pp. 729–737 (1994)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Steen, M.W., Strating, P., Lankhorst, M.M., ter Doest, H., Iacob, M.-E.: Service-oriented enterprise architecture. In: Stojanović, Z., Dahanayake, A. (eds.) Service-oriented Software System Engineering: Challenges and Practices, pp. 132–154. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Van den Hoven, J.: Data architecture: blueprints for data. Inf. Syst. Manag. 19(4), 90–92 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kovács, G., Spens, K.M.: Abductive reasoning in logistics research. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 35(2), 132–144 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Thagard, P.: Abductive inference: from philosophical analysis to neural mechanisms. In: Feeney, A., Heit, E. (eds.) Inductive Reasoning: Experimental, Developmental, and Computational Approaches, pp. 226–247. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Minnameier, G.: The logicality of abduction, deduction, and induction. In: Ideas in Action: Proceedings of the Applying Peirce Conference 2010, pp. 239–251. Nordic Pragmatism Network Helsinki (2010)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dorst, K.: The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Des. Stud. 32(6), 521–532 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gregory, R., Muntermann, J.: Theorizing in design science research: inductive versus deductive approaches. Paper presented at the Thirty Second International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2011), Shanghai (2011)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dubois, A., Gadde, L.-E.: Systematic combining: an abductive approach to case research. J. Bus. Res. 55(7), 553–560 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pauwels, P., De Meyer, R., Van Campenhout, J.: Design thinking support: information systems versus reasoning. Des. Issues 29(2), 42–59 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fischer, C., Gregor, S., Aier, S.: Forms of discovery for design knowledge. Paper presented at the 20th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2012), Barcelona, Spain (2012)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yu, C.H.: Abduction? Deduction? Induction? Is there a logic of exploratory data analysis? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA (1994)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wirth, U.: What is abductive inference? In: Bouissac, P. (ed.) Encyclopedia of semiotics, pp. 1–3. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1998)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Staat, W.: On abduction, deduction, induction and the categories. Trans. Charles S. Peirce Soc. 29(2), 225–237 (1993)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Everaert-Desmedt, N.: Peirce’s semiotics (2010). http://www.signosemio.com/peirce/semiotics.asp. Accessed 1 Apr 2014
  33. 33.
    Burks, A.W.: Peirce’s theory of abduction. Philos. Sci. 13(4), 301–306 (1946)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    HSCIS: Hospital Episode Statistics (2013). http://www.hscic.gov.uk/hes. Accessed 1 Apr 2014
  35. 35.
    Kuhn, T.S.: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, vol. 2. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1962)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Popper, K.R.: Conjectures and Refutations, vol. 192. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London (1963)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ross, J.M.: Informatics creativity: a role for abductive reasoning? Commun. ACM 53(2), 144–148 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computing and EngineeringUniversity of West LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.School of BusinessLondon South Bank UniversityLondonUK
  3. 3.Informatics Research CentreUniversity of ReadingReadingUK
  4. 4.Wuhan CollegeWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations