Reflection, Abstraction And Theorizing In Design And Development Research

Design theories have been proposed as means to capture abstract knowledge about the design and development of information technology (IT) and information systems (IS) artifacts. There is now an increasingly accepted and used body of knowledge on the processes of design research and the components of design theories. Explicit guidance is still sparse, however, as to how to extract design theories during design science research. In this paper, we focus on reflection and abstraction in design science research as distinct activities leading to design theory. We suggest an abstraction framework that recognizes different modes of causal analysis related to the discrete decisions made by designers and developers as well as to the artifact in use: creative (mental) causes, active causes, and passive causes. The first recognizes the creativity of the human mind, the second deliberate interventions and their consequences, and the third is built upon the notion of affordances that describe the potential uses of an artifact depending on its use context. We argue that these modes of causal analysis can be used to abstract from specific design processes in order to identify key components of design theory.

[1]  Shirley Gregor,et al.  Causality: the elephant in the room in information systems epistemology , 2011, ECIS.

[2]  Paul M. Leonardi,et al.  When Flexible Routines Meet Flexible Technologies: Affordance, Constraint, and the Imbrication of Human and Material Agencies , 2011, MIS Q..

[3]  Omar El Sawy,et al.  Building an Information System Design Theory for Vigilant EIS , 1992, Inf. Syst. Res..

[4]  Illtyd Trethowan Causality , 1938 .

[5]  M. Lynne Markus,et al.  A Foundation for the Study of IT Effects: A New Look at DeSanctis and Poole's Concepts of Structural Features and Spirit , 2008, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[6]  M. Daudelin Learning from experience through reflection , 1996 .

[7]  Martin Bichler,et al.  Design science in information systems research , 2006, Wirtschaftsinf..

[8]  Shirley Gregor,et al.  The Anatomy of a Design Theory , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[9]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution , 2001 .

[10]  Samir Chatterjee,et al.  A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research , 2008 .

[11]  Alok Gupta,et al.  GIST: A Model for Design and Management of Content and Interactivity of Customer-Centric Web Sites , 2004, MIS Q..

[12]  Vijay K. Vaishnavi,et al.  A Framework for Theory Development in Design Science Research: Multiple Perspectives , 2012, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[13]  Stefan Seidel,et al.  Leaving the Beaten Tracks in Creative Work - A Design Theory for Systems that Support Convergent and Divergent Thinking , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[14]  Cathy Urquhart,et al.  Putting the ‘theory’ back into grounded theory: guidelines for grounded theory studies in information systems , 2009, Inf. Syst. J..

[15]  Jaegwon Kim,et al.  Philosophy of Mind , 1996 .

[16]  Alan R. Hevner,et al.  Design Science Research , 2014, Computing Handbook, 3rd ed..

[17]  Shirley Gregor,et al.  Forms of Discovery for Design Knowledge , 2012, ECIS.

[18]  Jan Pries-Heje,et al.  Theorizing in Design Science Research , 2011, DESRIST.

[19]  Paul Guyer,et al.  Critique of the Power of Judgment , 2000 .

[20]  Göran Goldkuhl,et al.  DESIGN THEORIES IN INFORMATION SYSTEMS - A NEED FOR MULTI-GROUNDING , 2004 .

[21]  Isabelle Reymen,et al.  Improving design processes through structured reflection : a domain-independent approach , 2001 .

[22]  Jan Pries-Heje,et al.  Explanatory Design Theory , 2010, Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng..

[23]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Systems Development in Information Systems Research , 1990, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[24]  Shirley Gregor,et al.  Designing for a 'Sweet Spot' in an Intervention in a Least Developed Country: The Case of e-Government in Bangladesh , 2010 .

[25]  David H. Cropley,et al.  The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity: Functional Creativity , 2010 .