No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Dialectical Tensions in Design Theorizing: Exploring the Selection, Use, and Development of Kernel Theory
Abstract
Theory is a pivotal component in Information Systems (IS) research and no less so in Design Science Research (DSR) projects, which are typically expected to select and use kernel theories to develop theoretical contributions. However, the actual application and utilization of kernel theories remain challenging and heterogeneous – from producing theoretical outcomes in each project to using theory for the justification of design activities. This is problematic since academic journals have high expectations for selecting, using, and contributing
to (kernel) theory. As a consequence, DSR researchers, especially novice ones, face challenges in navigating the high expectations of journals with a blurry research component. In this paper, we explore a set of tensions prevalent in the selection, use, and development of kernel theory to then elaborate on possible pathways to respond to them.
... Thus, recent trends in DSR highlight the importance of grounding design principles in a robust theoretical foundation to ensure their effectiveness and impact (Möller et al. 2020;Schoormann et al. 2022;Strohmann et al. 2022;Rose et al. 2019). Such theoretically grounded design principles both expand the knowledge base by integrating practical designs with theoretical insights (Gregor et al. 2020;Möller et al. 2024) and allow for a comprehensive understanding of the phenomena by expanding the theoretical discourse in the field. The approach of prioritizing theory allows for the systematic integration of established theories, providing a robust, unbiased foundation that drives innovation and ensures broad applicability across contexts Möller et al. 2024). ...
... Such theoretically grounded design principles both expand the knowledge base by integrating practical designs with theoretical insights (Gregor et al. 2020;Möller et al. 2024) and allow for a comprehensive understanding of the phenomena by expanding the theoretical discourse in the field. The approach of prioritizing theory allows for the systematic integration of established theories, providing a robust, unbiased foundation that drives innovation and ensures broad applicability across contexts Möller et al. 2024). It avoids the pitfalls of context-specific biases and promotes the development of innovative, universally applicable design principles. ...
... This approach provides a structured means for innovation within IS, enabling researchers and practitioners to solve complex problems and produce iterative research with relevance and applicability (Venable et al. 2012;Peffers et al. 2012;Vaishnavi and Kuechler 2015). The derivation of design principles is diverse, ranging from theoretical foundations to empirical data such as literature, interviews, or user reviews (Gregor et al. 2020;Möller et al. 2020;Strohmann et al. 2023;Möller et al. 2024). This eclectic approach ensures that the principles developed are not only theoretically robust but also grounded in practical realities and aligned with specific solution goals. ...
Design principles are central to Design Science Research (DSR), guiding the creation of effective artifacts and prescriptively bridging theory and practice. For early-career IS scholars, their rigorous conceptualization is crucial and necessitates a comprehensive and structured methodology. While existing research addresses the formulation and anatomy of design principles, there is a notable lack of guidance specifically tailored to assist early-career scholars with literature-based derivation. This study proposes a theoretical framework designed to systematically guide these scholars in deriving design principles from literature and theory. Based on a structured literature review and content analysis, the framework responds to calls for methodological innovation by prioritizing theoretical rigor. It offers adaptable steps for DSR theorizing and facilitates the development of theory-informed design principles. While the framework prioritizes theoretical rigor, further empirical validation is needed to confirm its robustness and replicability, to provide a solid foundation and entry point for early career IS scholars.
Today's Information Systems (IS) design research projects pursue digital innovation to conquer complex societal challenges. Many of these projects reach out beyond disciplinary and organisational boundaries, as evident in interdisciplinary consortia and academia‐industry collaboration. The design activities in each project differ based on contextual requirements and the team's underlying design logic. As diversity increases, shared understanding is essential for project success. Established design research methodologies need complementary tools to support design researchers in configuring their design activities and representing them faithfully, dimensions that contribute to a shared understanding. This article presents Baustein as an instance of such design tools. Baustein is tailorable to the contextual requirements of each design research project, comprising an ensemble of card‐deck, ready‐made configurations, and a manual. To ensure theoretical and practical relevance, the design of Baustein is based on primary empirical data (workshop and interviews with 16 IS design researchers) and a literature analysis of 99 published IS design research projects. We demonstrate its proof‐of‐value through three main evaluation episodes, altogether involving over 110 IS design researchers. With Baustein, design research teams can balance the trade‐off between creative messiness and standardised configurations of design activities.
The publication process in many academic disciplines, including in Information Systems (IS), can seem arduous and unpredictable, particularly for early career researchers. While the literature offers plentiful guidance on how to pursue a paper acceptance, this paper offers a crisp summary of common mistakes that lead to rejection and how to avoid them. We provide six actionable inversion strategies for avoiding common mistakes that often lead to paper rejection. Namely, when preparing a paper, we recommend you (1) abstain from methodological promiscuity and (2) never overclaim (but try not to underclaim either); When submitting a paper, it is a good idea to (3) steer clear of bootlicking and (3) avoid sloppiness; And, after receiving the reviews, you should (5) forego belligerence, and (6) stop flogging a dead horse. These inversion strategies can help early career researchers better navigate the review process, increasing the chances of their papers maturing, and helping to avoid mistakes that lower the chance of publishing in high quality IS journals.
Inherent properties of digital technologies offer promising possibilities such as rapid scalability and exponential growth. However, we observe that firms pursuing digital transformation (DT) initiatives face difficulties in realizing these benefits, as they face competing organizational demands (tensions) in the DT context. By considering digital technologies' unique properties and adopting a paradox theory lens, we conducted a qualitative study with 28 interviewees across three companies from which we derive six drivers of tensions and three novel paradoxical tensions within the DT context. We show how these drivers and tensions lead to firms pursuing short-term successes at the cost of strategic benefits that DT offers (what we call "local" instead of "global" optima). We provide scholars and practitioners with a fundamental understanding of how digital technologies define challenges in the DT process so that firms can proactively structure DT initiatives to reach global optima.
Theory is an essential part of design research and helps us to explain what we see or guide what we design. In the paper, we shed light on how kernel theories are used in developing design principles in Design Science Research (DSR). We do this by reporting on a systematic literature review, from which we have extracted a set of six mechanisms to operationalize kernel theory. Each mechanism consists of an activity (e.g., "transform to" or "derive from") and an application point (e.g., meta-requirements or design principles) representing wherein the chain of concepts the kernel theory was used. The paper reflects on what we have learned about the use of kernel theories and translates this into recommendations and issues for further research. We provide researchers with guidance to use kernel theories more efficiently and give a big picture of the possibilities of kernel theory operationalization.
Although dialectical inquiry has been sporadically and selectively applied in the Information Systems (IS) discipline, and premier IS journals increasingly welcome dialectical inquiries, we lack methodological guidance on its application and evaluation, hindering its adoption as an important and valid IS research method. In response, we present a critical analysis of general dialectics literature and 63 extant IS dialectical inquiry publications in 18 journals spanning three decades, revealing that there is a growing and sizeable community of IS researchers using dialectical inquiry explicitly or implicitly to examine how sociotechnical phenomena change. Based on this analysis, we synthesize six principles for dialectical inquiry that are firmly rooted in dialectical philosophy, evidenced in IS publications, clearly distinct from each other, and together comprehensive. As such, our contribution can help IS researchers, reviewers, and editors to extend and solidify their methodological repertoire.
In this exercise, participants create a fictional business based on a set of randomly generated words. This challenge requires participants to exercise creativity, while reinforcing the business concepts learned in class. The exercise has four steps: (1) generating a prompt of three random words, (2) designing a fictional business based on this prompt, (3) answering questions applying the concepts being taught, and (4) making presentations and discussion. The exercise is followed by a debrief that includes group discussions and critical thinking activities. We illustrate the exercise with examples from a strategic management course. The exercise can be applied in a variety of topics in business and organizations, student levels, and modes of instruction. Students report that the exercise is challenging, enjoyable, and effective in increasing understanding of the concepts taught.
This paper applies Simon’s (1996) sciences of the artificial to elaborate a set of structures and processes for developing design theory. Goals, kernel theory, and artifacts inform an inter-related prototyping cycle of design, evaluation, and appropriation/generation to produce strategic design theory. The paper identifies DSR project types to provide signposts for starting and ending the cycle, artifact and evaluation iteration to facilitate the process and provide a chain of evidence, a simplified format for representing design theory iterations, and stopping rules to end the cycle. We use a detailed example to illustrate the ideas, discuss related work, and identify limitations and future research opportunities. © 2015, Association for Information Systems. All rights reserved.
As organizational environments become more global, dynamic, and competitive, contradictory demands intensify. To understand and explain such tensions, academics and practitioners are increasingly adopting a paradox lens. We review the paradox literature, categorizing types and highlighting fundamental debates. We then present a dynamic equilibrium model of organizing, which depicts how cyclical responses to paradoxical tensions enable sustainability—peak performance in the present that enables success in the future. This review and the model provide the foundation of a theory of paradox.
Effective application of theory is critical to the development of new knowledge in information systems (IS) research. However, theory foundations of IS research are understudied. Using Complex Network Analysis, we analyze theory usage in IS research published in two premier journals (MIS Quarterly and Information Systems Research) from 1998 to 2006. Four principal findings emerge from our analysis. First, in contrast with prior studies which found a lack of dominant theories at an aggregate level, we find stronger dominance of theory usage within individual streams of IS research. Second, IS research draws from a diverse set of disciplines, with Psychology emerging as a consistently dominant source of theories for IS during our study period. Moreover, theories originating in IS were found to be widely used in two streams of research (“IS development” and “IT and Individuals” streams) and more sparingly used in other streams. Third, IS research tends to form clusters of theory usage, with little crossover across clusters. Moreover, streams of IS research constitute distinct clusters of theory usage. Finally, theories originating from Economics, Strategy, and Organization Science tend to be used together, whereas those originating from Psychology, Sociology, and IS tend to be used together. Taken together, our results contribute to a scholarly understanding of theory foundations of IS research and illustrate methodological innovations in the study of theory use by employing Complex Network Analysis.
The term “analysis paralysis” or “paralysis of analysis” refers to over-analyzing (or over-thinking) a situation, or citing sources, so that a decision or action is never finally taken, resulting in paralyzing the outcome. It is a general myth that when a consumer is given more choices by the vendor the sales go up. This research paper attempts to apply this principal to consumer decision making process during choosing a product. This paper presents the details of the study. It was found that consumers are known to postpone their buying decision when they are spoilt for choices, while they have closed deals quicker when there have been lesser options to choose from. It was concluded that when customers have more choices, they buy less; in decision-making people often simplify using the wrong criteria; more choices lead to greater dissatisfaction because expectations are raised. This also provides a product comparison or version comparison chart and helps to simplify the interface: prune unnecessary options or tuck them in an optional “advanced options” section.
Design science research (DSR) has staked its rightful ground as an important and legitimate Information Systems (IS) research paradigm. We contend that DSR has yet to attain its full potential impact on the development and use of information systems due to gaps in the understanding and application of DSR concepts and methods. This essay aims to help researchers (1) appreciate the levels of artifact abstractions that may be DSR contributions, (2) identify appropriate ways of consuming and producing knowledge when they are preparing journal articles or other scholarly works, (3) understand and position the knowledge contributions of their research projects, and (4) structure a DSR article so that it emphasizes significant contributions to the knowledge base. Our focal contribution is the DSR knowledge contribution framework with two dimensions based on the existing state of knowledge in both the problem and solution domains for the research opportunity under study. In addition, we propose a DSR communication schema with similarities to more conventional publication patterns, but which substitutes the description of the DSR artifact in place of a traditional results section. We evaluate the DSR contribution framework and the DSR communication schema via examinations of DSR exemplar publications.
As a commentary to Juhani Iivari's insightful essay, I briefly analyze design science research as an embodiment of three closely related cycles of activities. The Relevance Cycle inputs requirements from the contextual envi- ronment into the research and introduces the research artifacts into environ- mental field testing. The Rigor Cycle provides grounding theories and methods along with domain experience and expertise from the foundations knowledge base into the research and adds the new knowledge generated by the research to the growing knowledge base. The central Design Cycle sup- ports a tighter loop of research activity for the construction and evaluation of design artifacts and processes. The recognition of these three cycles in a research project clearly positions and differentiates design science from other research paradigms. The commentary concludes with a claim to the pragmatic nature of design science.
Social recommender systems utilize data regarding users’ social relationships in filtering relevant information to users. To date, results show that incorporating social relationship data – beyond consumption profile similarity – is beneficial only in a very limited set of cases. The main conjecture of this study is that the inconclusive results are, at least to some extent, due to an under-specification of the nature of the social relations. To date, there exist no clear guidelines for using behavioral theory to guide systems design. Our primary objective is to propose a methodology for theory-driven design. We enhance Walls et al.’s (1992) IS Design Theory by introducing the notion of “applied behavioral theory,” as a means of better linking theory and system design. Our second objective is to apply our theory-driven design methodology to social recommender systems, with the aim of improving prediction accuracy. A behavioral study found that some social relationships (e.g., competence, benevolence) are most likely to affect a recipient’s advice-taking decision. We designed, developed, and tested a recommender system based on these principles, and found that the same types of relationships yield the best recommendation accuracy. This striking correspondence highlights the importance of behavioral theory in guiding system design. We discuss implications for design science and for research on recommender systems.
Design research (DR) positions information technology artifacts at the core of the Information Systems discipline. However, dominant DR thinking takes a technological view of the IT artifact, paying scant attention to its shaping by the organizational context. Consequently, existing DR methods focus on building the artifact and relegate evaluation to a subsequent and separate phase. They value technological rigor at the cost of organizational relevance, and fail to recognize that the artifact emerges from interaction with the organizational context even when its initial design is guided by the researchers' intent. We propose action design research (ADR) as a new DR method to address this problem. ADR reflects the premise that IT artifacts are ensembles shaped by the organizational context during development and use. The method conceptualizes the research process as containing the inseparable and inherently interwoven activities of building the IT artifact, intervening in the organization, and evaluating it concurrently. The essay describes the stages of ADR and associated principles that encapsulate its underlying beliefs and values. We illustrate ADR through a case of competence management at Volvo IT.
This paper defines an information system design theory (ISDT) to be
a prescriptive theory which integrates normative and descriptive
theories into design paths intended to produce more effective information
systems. The nature of ISDTs is articulated using Dubin's concept
of theory building and Simon's idea of a science of the artificial.
An example of an ISDT is presented in the context of Executive Information
Systems (EIS). Despite the increasing awareness of the potential
of EIS for enhancing executive strategic decision-making effectiveness,
there exists little theoretical work which directly guides EIS design.
We contend that the underlying theoretical basis of EIS can be addressed
through a design theory of vigilant information systems. Vigilance
denotes the ability of an information system to help an executive
remain alertly watchful for weak signals and discontinuities in the
organizational environment relevant to emerging strategic threats
and opportunities. Research on managerial information scanning and
emerging issue tracking as well as theories of open loop control
are synthesized to generate vigilant information system design theory
propositions. Transformation of the propositions into testable empirical
hypotheses is discussed.
The paper motivates, presents, demonstrates in use, and evaluates
a methodology for conducting design science (DS) research in information
systems (IS). DS is of importance in a discipline oriented to the
creation of successful artifacts. Several researchers have pioneered
DS research in IS, yet over the past 15 years, little DS research
has been done within the discipline. The lack of a methodology to
serve as a commonly accepted framework for DS research and of a template
for its presentation may have contributed to its slow adoption. The
design science research methodology (DSRM) presented here incorporates
principles, practices, and procedures required to carry out such
research and meets three objectives: it is consistent with prior
literature, it provides a nominal process model for doing DS research,
and it provides a mental model for presenting and evaluating DS research
in IS. The DS process includes six steps: problem identification
and motivation, definition of the objectives for a solution, design
and development, demonstration, evaluation, and communication. We
demonstrate and evaluate the methodology by presenting four case
studies in terms of the DSRM, including cases that present the design
of a database to support health assessment methods, a software reuse
measure, an Internet video telephony application, and an IS planning
method. The designed methodology effectively satisfies the three
objectives and has the potential to help aid the acceptance of DS
research in the IS discipline.
The present essay discusses the ontology, epistemology, methodology and ethics of design science. It suggests that Information Systems as a design science should be based on a sound ontology, including an ontology
of IT artifacts. In the case of epistemology, the essay emphasises the irreducibility of the prescriptive knowledge of IT artifacts to theoretical descriptive knowledge. It also expresses a need for constructive research methods,
which allow disciplined, rigorous and transparent building of IT artefacts as outcomes of design science research. The relationship between action research and design science research is also briefly discussed. In the case of ethics, the essay points out that Information Systems as design science cannot be value free.
Theory has become critical in information systems (IS) research. Generally, empirical papers cannot be accepted for publication in IS journals unless the hypotheses or findings are grounded in theory. In this paper, I argue that IS has taken the role of theory too far, up to a point in which insisting on theory to explain observation may be costly to the advancement of IS research. It is suggested that the logic of discovery in scientific inquiry has been completely abandoned in favor of a logic of justification; that important accidental discoveries demonstrate the merit of discovery-oriented research; that the recent emergence of data science amplifies the value of discovery to theory development; and that the increasing length of empirical articles, partially as a consequence of the increasing importance of theory, may shift the limited attention of the community away from the phenomena of interest. Finally, a possible remedy for the overreliance on theory is offered to allow the IS community to open a door to discovery-oriented research that may yield long-term benefits and even strengthen its theoretical foundations.
Information systems research is often conducted as engaged scholarship—collaborative work with practitioners to somehow improve the world and articulate new knowledge through gained experiences and reflection. In information systems, engaged scholarship often manifests as design science research. In this chapter, we argue that the design science discourse has been biased towards theorizing with a focus on design knowledge for a particular domain of artifacts and practices. We propose that design science also offers an opportunity to theorize instrumentalities through and for inquiry. Drawing from pragmatist epistemology as well as ideas on theorizing in management research, we adopt a case view on design science. We outline a view on the theorizing process in design science and propose practical theories as instrumental and emergent tools for design inquiry and as viable and important knowledge outcomes of design science. Finally, we discuss implications for design science research cases and how this can contribute to a cumulative knowledge evolution.
Developing and evaluating scientific knowledge and its value requires a clear – or at least not too unclear – understanding of what ‘theory’ means. We argue that common definitions of theory are too restrictive, as they do not acknowledge the existence of multiple kinds of scientific knowledge, but largely recognize only one kind as ‘theory’, namely explanatory knowledge. We elaborate a typology that broadens and clarifies the meaning of ‘theory’. Consisting of five basic theory types – explaining, comprehending, ordering, enacting and provoking theories – the typology offers a framework that enables researchers to develop and assess knowledge in more varied ways and for a broader set of purposes than is typically recognized, as well as providing a more level playing field within the academic community.
This editorial critically reviews design theories, kernel theories, and substantive technological theories in design science research (DSR) within information systems (IS). The review identifies four different but interrelated interpretations of “design theory” for the design product. In the case of kernel theories, it pays attention to the softening of their scientific status that undermines the status of design theories as well. Substantive technological theories refer to intermediating theories between abstract descriptive/explanatory kernel theories and design. The editorial suggests that DSR in IS (DSRIS) has great potential to contribute design-oriented, explanatory/predictive, substantive technological theories. Overall, the review illustrates excessive use of the word “theory” in DSR. This is in line with the alleged “theory fetish” of information systems.
This paper reports on the panel discussion that took place at the European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS) in Guimarães, Portugal, on 9 June, 2017. The discussion focused on three central questions: 1) “What does research impact mean for you?”, 2) “What is your approach to making an impact with your research?”, and 3) “What advice would you give to PhD students and early-career scholars?”. While the five panelists (Samir Chatterjee, Alan R. Dennis, Shirley Gregor, Magnus Mähring, and Peter Mertens) partly differed in their views on what impactful research is and how to conduct it, they seemed to largely agree that assessing impact requires a multidimensional view, that impactful IS research requires a clear link to real-world problems (“grand challenges”), and that young scholars need to avoid the trap of confusing research gaps with research relevance. With the panel discussion and this report, we hope to initiate a discussion on the essential topic of research impact in the IS discipline and to contribute to the development of a more uniform, yet more diverse, understanding and appreciation of different approaches to making an impact with IS research.
With the rising interest in design science research (DSR), it is crucial to engage in the ongoing debate on what constitutes an acceptable contribution for publishing DSR—the design artifact, the design theory, or both. In this editorial, we provide some constructive guidance across different positioning statements with actionable recommendations for DSR authors and reviewers. We expect this editorial to serve as a foundational step toward clarifying misconceptions about DSR contributions and to pave the way for the acceptance of more DSR papers to top IS journals.
We propose the definition of genres in IS design science research (DSR). In recent years DSR has become a well-accepted research paradigm within IS; however, now the diversity of purpose, methodology, and mental models has increased to a point where reviewers and editors are unsure about which standards to apply to particular research submissions. For some researchers an artefact of value is a system or system component, while for others artefacts ought to be theories or theory components. Such differences are hard to reconcile and researchers often face criticism from diverse corners of the paradigm, where beliefs and standards are very different. We observed this diversity of views among authors, editors, and reviewers while editing this special issue. The problem continues to the current day. A solution may lie in defining genres of IS DSR, each with its model for DSR processes and outcomes. We define five prototype genres, based on selected articles, along with their typical characteristics, standards, and values. Several articles in this special issue typify various potential genres. The recognition of mutually respectful DSR genres may improve researchers' ability to publish in the highest tier IS journals, as colleagues, reviewers, and editors recognize and respect genre differences.
Choice is what enables each person to pursue precisely those objects and activities that best satisfy his or her own preferences within the limits of his or her resources. This chapter argues that choice, and with it freedom, autonomy, and self-determination, can become excessive, and that when that happens, freedom can be experienced as a kind of misery-inducing tyranny. Though one cannot be free without choice, it is arguable that choice-induced paralysis is a sign of diminished rather than enhanced freedom. Though policy initiatives can operate to minimize the negative effects of choice overload, they contain the danger that they will simultaneously undermine the positive effects of freedom of choice. The reason people can say anything and be understood is that they cannot say anything in any way they want. It is linguistic constraint, in the form of these rules, that makes linguistic freedom possible.
The purpose of this essay is to explain the main elements in the diffusion of innovations model, and to apply them to the special case of the diffusion of new telecommunications technologies like fax, E-mail, mobile telephones, INTERNET, and others.
One point of convergence in the many recent discussions on design science research in information systems (DSRIS) has been the desirability of a directive design theory (ISDT) as one of the outputs from a DSRIS project. However, the literature on theory development in DSRIS is very sparse. In this paper, we develop a framework to support theory development in DSRIS and explore its potential from multiple perspectives. The framework positions ISDT in a hierarchy of theories in IS design that includes a type of theory for describing how and why the design functions: Design-relevant explanatory/predictive theory (DREPT). DREPT formally captures the translation of general theory constructs from outside IS to the design realm. We introduce the framework from a knowledge representation perspective and then provide typological and epistemological perspectives. We begin by motivating the desirability of both directive-prescriptive theory (ISDT) and explanatory-predictive theory (DREPT) for IS design science research and practice. Since ISDT and DREPT are both, by definition, midrange theories, we examine the notion of mid-range theory in other fields and then in the specific context of DSRIS. We position both types of theory in Gregor's (2006) taxonomy of IS theory in our typological view of the framework. We then discuss design theory semantics from an epistemological view of the framework, relating it to an idealized design science research cycle. To demonstrate the potential of the framework for DSRIS, we use it to derive ISDT and DREPT from two published examples of DSRIS.
Information systems have the potential to improve societal conditions in developing countries, and yet design theory to inform interventions to encourage uptake and use of these systems is sparse. This paper reports on an action design research project that addressed the problem of limited adoption of e-Government in Bangladesh. Inadequate knowledge of the nature of e-Government systems had been identified as an underlying cause of many other problems in this ‘wicked’ problem context. The project aimed to reduce knowledge deficiencies among key decision makers through activities that included the delivery of a custom-made training program and a handbook targeted at senior government officers. The project had modest resources and yet yielded significant outcomes. Critical reflection established a number of design principles for a ‘sweet spot change strategy’ for interventions of this type, with the most important principle being to first identify a ‘sweet spot’, a point of maximum leverage, and then to act on it.
In their provocative Insights and Perspectives article ‘Is theory king?’, David Avison and Julien Malaurent identified and theorized a problem in our field and proposed a theory of how to solve it. In brief, they argued that (1) overemphasis on theory in leading IS journals has produced qualitative IS research that exhibits negative characteristics like oversimplification of complex reality, stifling of new avenues of investigation, inappropriate or misapplication of theory to empirical data, and trivial and uninteresting findings, and (2) this problem can be ameliorated by the openness of top IS journals to ‘theory light’ qualitative IS research articles, which would make other kinds of contributions than theoretical ones. Importantly, they argued that ‘theory light’ articles should complement, rather than replace, articles that make significant contributions to theory. In addition, they asserted that acceptable ‘theory light’ articles must be well executed, which they acknowledge will require strong editorial guidance of authors. In this commentary, I first explain why I’m predisposed to agree with Avison and Malaurent’s solution.
This paper suggests that there is too much emphasis on the requirement for theory use and theory building in qualitative research published in our leading journals. We discuss six concerns that we have that relate to this high status of theory in such papers. We argue for what we refer to as ‘theory light’ papers where theory plays no significant part in the paper and the contribution lies elsewhere, for example, new arguments, facts, patterns or relationships. Some examples of theory light papers (and research) are provided from other disciplines and one exemplar information systems paper is studied in depth. We see these papers as equally worthy as those which demonstrate the applicability and predictive qualities of theory use as well as the potential of theory building. We propose a list of 10 questions that authors and reviewers might ask themselves when writing or reviewing such theory light papers. The more demanding role of the reader is also discussed along with the requirement for editorial teams to adapt. We suggest that the requirement for a contribution to theory would be replaced with the requirement that any journal paper has a high potential for stimulating research that will impact on information systems theory and/or practice.
The common understanding of design science research in information systems (DSRIS) continues to evolve. Only in the broadest terms has there been consensus: that DSRIS involves, in some way, learning through the act of building. However, what is to be built – the definition of the DSRIS artifact – and how it is to be built – the methodology of DSRIS – has drawn increasing discussion in recent years. The relationship of DSRIS to theory continues to make up a significant part of the discussion: how theory should inform DSRIS and whether or not DSRIS can or should be instrumental in developing and refining theory. In this paper, we present the exegesis of a DSRIS research project in which creating a (prescriptive) design theory through the process of developing and testing an information systems artifact is inextricably bound to the testing and refinement of its kernel theory.
One of the most welcome recent developments in Information Systems scholarship has been the growing interest in individuals' continuing use of information technology well after initial adoption, known in the literature as IT usage, IT continuance, and ...
Two paradigms characterize much of the research in the Information Systems discipline: behavioral science and design science. The behavioral-science paradigm seeks to develop and verify theories that explain or predict human or organizational behavior. The design-science paradigm seeks to extend the boundaries of human and organizational capabilities by creating new and innovative artifacts. Both paradigms are foundational to the IS discipline, positioned as it is at the confluence of people, organizations, and technology. Our objective is to describe the performance of design-science research in Information Systems via a concise conceptual framework and clear guidelines for understanding, executing, and evaluating the research. In the design-science paradigm, knowledge and understanding of a problem domain and its solution are achieved in the building and application of the designed artifact. Three recent exemplars in the research literature are used to demonstrate the application of these guidelines. We conclude with an analysis of the challenges of performing high-quality design-science research in the context of the broader IS community.
The dynamic capabilities framework analyzes the sources and methods of wealth creation and capture by private enterprise firms operating in environments of rapid technological change. The competitive advantage of firms is seen as resting on distinctive processes (ways of coordinating and combining), shaped by the firm's (specific) asset positions (such as the firm's portfolio of difftcult-to- trade knowledge assets and complementary assets), and the evolution path(s) it has aflopted or inherited. The importance of path dependencies is amplified where conditions of increasing retums exist. Whether and how a firm's competitive advantage is eroded depends on the stability of market demand, and the ease of replicability (expanding intemally) and imitatability (replication by competitors). If correct, the framework suggests that private wealth creation in regimes of rapid technological change depends in large measure on honing intemal technological, organizational, and managerial processes inside the firm. In short, identifying new opportunities and organizing effectively and efficiently to embrace them are generally more fundamental to private wealth creation than is strategizing, if by strategizing one means engaging in business conduct that keeps competitors off balance, raises rival's costs, and excludes new entrants. © 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Based on findings from previous interviews with 900 5–17 yr old children and adolescents and other research, a situational perspective of privacy is developed. Situations affecting an individual's perception and experience of privacy and invasions of privacy are described in terms of 3 dimensions: (a) self-ego (i.e., a developmental process that focuses on individuation and personal dignity); (b) environmental, which includes cultural, sociophysical, and life cycle elements; and (c) interpersonal, which involves interaction management and information management elements. The issue of control/choice is conceptualized as a mediating variable in the privacy system. (23 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
The analytical methods of information theory are applied to the data obtained in certain choice-reaction-time experiments. Two types of experiment were performed: (a) a conventional choice-reaction experiment, with various numbers of alternatives up to ten, and with a negligible proportion of errors, and (b) a ten-choice experiment in which the subjects deliberately reduced their reaction time by allowing themselves various proportions of errors.
The principal finding is that the rate of gain of information is, on the average, constant with respect to time, within the duration of one perceptual-motor act, and has a value of the order of five “bits” per second.
The distribution of reaction times among the ten stimuli in the second experiment is shown to be related to the objective uncertainty as to which response will be given to each stimulus. The distribution of reaction times among the responses is also related to the same uncertainty. This is further evidence that information is intimately concerned with reaction time.
Some possible conceptual models of the process are considered, but tests against the data are inconclusive.
Design work and design knowledge in Information Systems (IS) is important
for both research and practice. Yet there has been comparatively
little critical attention paid to the problem of specifying design
theory so that it can be communicated, justified, and developed cumulatively.
In this essay we focus on the structural components or anatomy of
design theories in IS as a special class of theory. In doing so,
we aim to extend the work of Walls, Widemeyer and El Sawy (1992)
on the specification of information systems design theories (ISDT),
drawing on other streams of thought on design research and theory
to provide a basis for a more systematic and useable formulation
of these theories. We identify eight separate components of design
theories: (1) purpose and scope, (2) constructs, (3) principles of
form and function, (4) artifact mutability, (5) testable propositions,
(6) justificatory knowledge (kernel theories), (7) principles of
implementation, and (8) an expository instantiation. This specification
includes components missing in the Walls et al. adaptation of Dubin
(1978) and Simon (1969) and also addresses explicitly problems associated
with the role of instantiations and the specification of design theories
for methodologies and interventions as well as for products and applications.
The essay is significant as the unambiguous establishment of design
knowledge as theory gives a sounder base for arguments for the rigor
and legitimacy of IS as an applied discipline and for its continuing
progress. A craft can proceed with the copying of one example of
a design artifact by one artisan after another. A discipline cannot.