Skip to main content

Technical Action Research as a Validation Method in Information Systems Design Science

  • Conference paper

Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNISA,volume 7286)

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (Canada)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (Canada)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (Canada)
  • 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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Hevner, A., March, S., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design science in information system research. MIS Quarterly 28(1), 75–105 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Susman, G., Evered, R.: An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Administrative Science Quarterly 23(4), 582–603 (1978)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  3. Lewin, K.: Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues 2, 34–46 (1946)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  4. Baskerville, R.: What design science is not. European Journal of Information Systems 17, 441–443 (2008)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  5. Järvinen, P.: Action research is similar to design science. Quality and Quantity 41(1), 37–54 (2007)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  6. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  7. March, A., Smith, G.: Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems 15(4), 251–266 (1995)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  8. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Sein, M., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., Lindgren, R.: Action design research. MIS Quarterly 35(2), 37–56 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Schön, D.: The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Arena (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cartwright, N.: How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford University Press (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Cartwright, N.: The Dappled World. A Study of the Boundaries of Science. Cambridge University Press (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  13. McMullin, E.: Galilean idealization. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 16(3), 247–273 (1985)

    CrossRef  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Boon, M.: How science is applied in technology. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 20(1), 27–47 (2006)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  15. Laymon, R.: Applying idealized scientific theories to engineering. Synthese 81, 353–371 (1989)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  16. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  17. 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)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  18. Vincenti, W.: What Engineers Know and How They Know It. Analytical Studies from Aeronautical History. Johns Hopkins (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  19. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Van Strien, P.: Towards a methodology of psychological practice: The regulative cycle. Theory & Psychology 7(5), 683–700 (1997)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  21. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lee, A., Baskerville, R.: Generalizing generalizability in information systems research. Information Systems Research 14(3), 221–243 (2003)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  23. Seddon, P., Scheepers, R.: Other-settings generalizability in IS research. In: International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), pp. 1141–1158 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  24. 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

    Google Scholar 

  25. 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)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  26. 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)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  27. Davison, R., Martinsons, M., Kock, N.: Principles of canonical action research. Information Systems Journal 14, 65–86 (2004)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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)