Abstract
Current proposals for combining action research and design science start with a concrete problem in an organization, then apply an artifact to improve the problem, and finally reflect on lessons learned. The aim of these combinations is to reduce the tension between relevance and rigor. This paper proposes another way of using action research in design science, which starts with an artifact, and then tests it under conditions of practice by solving concrete problems with them. The aim of this way of using action research in design science is to bridge the gap between the idealizations made when designing the artifact and the concrete conditions of practice that occur in real-world problems.
The paper analyzes the role of idealization in design science and compares it with the requirements of rigor and relevance. It then proposes a way of bridging the gap between idealization and practice by means of action research, called technical action research (TAR) in this paper. The core of TAR is that the researcher plays three roles, which must be kept logically separate, namely of artifact developer, artifact investigator, and client helper. Finally, TAR is compared to other approaches of using action research in design science, and with canonical action research.
Keywords
- Enterprise Architecture
- Knowledge Question
- Problem Context
- Design Science
- Research Cycle
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Hevner, A., March, S., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design science in information system research. MIS Quarterly 28(1), 75–105 (2004)
Susman, G., Evered, R.: An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Administrative Science Quarterly 23(4), 582–603 (1978)
Lewin, K.: Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues 2, 34–46 (1946)
Baskerville, R.: What design science is not. European Journal of Information Systems 17, 441–443 (2008)
Järvinen, P.: Action research is similar to design science. Quality and Quantity 41(1), 37–54 (2007)
Lee, A.: 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, pp. 43–60. Springer (2007)
March, A., Smith, G.: Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems 15(4), 251–266 (1995)
Baskerville, R., Pries-Heje, J., Venable, J.: Soft design science methodology. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology, DESRIST 2009, pp. 9:1–9:11. ACM Press (2009)
Sein, M., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., Lindgren, R.: Action design research. MIS Quarterly 35(2), 37–56 (2011)
Schön, D.: The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Arena (1983)
Cartwright, N.: How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford University Press (1983)
Cartwright, N.: The Dappled World. A Study of the Boundaries of Science. Cambridge University Press (1999)
McMullin, E.: Galilean idealization. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 16(3), 247–273 (1985)
Boon, M.: How science is applied in technology. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 20(1), 27–47 (2006)
Laymon, R.: Applying idealized scientific theories to engineering. Synthese 81, 353–371 (1989)
Küppers, G.: On the relation between technology and science—goals of knowledge and dynamics of theories. The example of combustion technology, thermodynamics and fluid dynamics. In: Krohn, W., Layton, E., Weingart, P. (eds.) The Dynamics of Science and Technology. Sociology of the Sciences, II, pp. 113–133. Reidel (1978)
Wieringa, R.: Relevance and Problem Choice in Design Science. In: Winter, R., Zhao, J.L., Aier, S. (eds.) DESRIST 2010. LNCS, vol. 6105, pp. 61–76. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Vincenti, W.: What Engineers Know and How They Know It. Analytical Studies from Aeronautical History. Johns Hopkins (1990)
Wieringa, R.J.: Design science as nested problem solving. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology, pp. 1–12. ACM, New York (2009)
Van Strien, P.: Towards a methodology of psychological practice: The regulative cycle. Theory & Psychology 7(5), 683–700 (1997)
Morali, A., Wieringa, R.J.: Risk-based confidentiality requirements specification for outsourced it systems. In: Proceedings of the 18th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE 2010), Sydney, Australia, Los Alamitos, California, pp. 199–208. IEEE Computer Society (September 2010)
Lee, A., Baskerville, R.: Generalizing generalizability in information systems research. Information Systems Research 14(3), 221–243 (2003)
Seddon, P., Scheepers, R.: Other-settings generalizability in IS research. In: International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), pp. 1141–1158 (2006)
Seddon, P., Scheepers, R.: Towards the improved treatment of generalization from knowledge claims in IS research: drawing general conclusions from samples. European Journal of Information Systems, 1–16 (2011), doi:10.1057/ejis.2011.9
Zambon, E., Etalle, S., Wieringa, R.J., Hartel, P.H.: Model-based qualitative risk assessment for availability of IT infrastructures. Software and Systems Modeling 10(4), 553–580 (2011)
Engelsman, W., Wieringa, R.: Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering and Enterprise Architecture: Two Case Studies and Some Lessons Learned. In: Regnell, B., Damian, D. (eds.) REFSQ 2011. LNCS, vol. 7195, pp. 306–320. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Davison, R., Martinsons, M., Kock, N.: Principles of canonical action research. Information Systems Journal 14, 65–86 (2004)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Wieringa, R., Moralı, A. (2012). Technical Action Research as a Validation Method in Information Systems Design Science. In: Peffers, K., Rothenberger, M., Kuechler, B. (eds) Design Science Research in Information Systems. Advances in Theory and Practice. DESRIST 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7286. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29863-9_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29863-9_17
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-29862-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-29863-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)
