Truth or Dare: The Ontology Question in Design Science Research

This essay investigates the ontology question in design science research. Writings on the philosophy of science do not fully address this concern for design science research because of the traditional emphasis on discovering truthful laws. In contrast, design science research dares to create novel IT artifacts with a view to realizing alternative futures. Taking this into account, the author articulates fundamental world-views for the canonical form of design science research, which involves instantiation of the outcomes as a software artifact. These world-views include an ontological basis and an epistemological stance that are the foundation of design science research practice. The author’s derivation of these world-views reflects shifts in the researcher’s stance through the research process, and the interconnectedness of the problem and the artifact. The author discusses implications of these proposed world-views including comparisons against other research traditions, greater clarity for design research practice, and the potential for extending the analysis to other strands of design science research.

[1]  Veda C. Storey,et al.  Design science in the information systems discipline: an introduction to the special issue on design science research , 2008 .

[2]  Allen S. Lee.  A Scientific Methodology for MIS Case Studies , 1989, MIS Q..

[3]  Ojelanki K. Ngwenyama,et al.  Communication Richness in Electronic Mail: Critical Social Theory and the Contextuality of Meaning , 1997, MIS Q..

[4]  Robert W. Blanning,et al.  A Formal Approach to Workflow Analysis , 2000, Inf. Syst. Res..

[5]  Brian T. Pentland,et al.  Process Grammar as a Tool for Business Process Design , 2008, MIS Q..

[6]  Sandeep Purao,et al.  Monitoring Service Systems from a Language-Action Perspective , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Services Computing.

[7]  Surya B. Yadav,et al.  The process of research investigations in artificial intelligence-a unified view , 1995, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

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

[9]  Maurice Landry,et al.  Can the field of MIS be disciplined? , 1989, CACM.

[10]  Sandeep Purao,et al.  Being Proactive: Where Action Research Meets Design Research , 2005, ICIS.

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

[12]  Yair Wand,et al.  Using Cognitive Principles to Guide Classification in Information Systems Modeling , 2008, MIS Q..

[13]  Sandeep Purao,et al.  Action Design Research , 2011, MIS Q..

[14]  Juhani Iivari,et al.  A Paradigmatic Analysis of Information Systems As a Design Science , 2007, Scand. J. Inf. Syst..

[15]  Hsinchun Chen,et al.  CyberGate: A Design Framework and System for Text Analysis of Computer-Mediated Communication , 2008, MIS Q..

[16]  Sandeep Purao,et al.  Exploring the Limits of the Possible , 2007 .

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

[18]  Scott A. Moore,et al.  A Foundation for Flexible Automated Electronic Communication , 2001, Inf. Syst. Res..

[19]  Keng Siau,et al.  Information Modeling Methods and Methodologies: Advanced Topics in Database Research , 2005 .

[20]  Frank F. Land,et al.  Viewpoint: choosing appropriate information systems research methodologies , 1987, CACM.

[21]  Pericles Loucopoulos,et al.  Goal Modeling in Requirements Engineering: Analysis and Critique of Current Methods , 2005, Information Modeling Methods and Methodologies.

[22]  Jan Pries-Heje,et al.  The Design Theory Nexus , 2008, MIS Q..

[23]  Eswaran Subrahmanian,et al.  Shared memory in design: A unifying theme for research and practice , 1992 .

[24]  Frada Burstein,et al.  Chapter 8 – System development in information systems research , 2002 .

[25]  Salvatore T. March,et al.  Design and natural science research on information technology , 1995, Decis. Support Syst..

[26]  W. Orlikowski.  The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations , 2014 .

[27]  Philip Powell,et al.  Furthering Distributed Participative Design Unlocking the walled gardens , 2009 .

[28]  Alan R. Hevner,et al.  Design Science in Information Systems Research , 2004, MIS Q..

[29]  David Brown,et al.  Model-driven systems development , 2006, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[30]  Ron Weber,et al.  An Ontological Model of an Information System , 1990, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

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

[32]  Philip Calvert,et al.  Encyclopedia of Database Technologies and Applications , 2005 .

[33]  John R. Vacca,et al.  Online Data Mining , 2001 .

[34]  Ali R. Hurson,et al.  Application of Mobile Agents in Mobile Data Access Systems: A Prototype , 2004, J. Database Manag..

[35]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Research Commentary: Desperately Seeking the "IT" in IT Research - A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact , 2001, Inf. Syst. Res..

[36]  Walter F. Tichy,et al.  Should Computer Scientists Experiment More? , 1998, Computer.

[37]  Ajay S. Vinze,et al.  Understanding the Philosophical Underpinnings of Software Engineering Research in Information Systems , 2001, Inf. Syst. Frontiers.

[38]  Robert J. Kauffman,et al.  Making Sense of Technology Trends in the Information Technology Landscape: A Design Science Approach , 2008, MIS Q..

[39]  Björn Niehaves,et al.  On Epistemological Pluralism in Design Science , 2007, Scand. J. Inf. Syst..

[40]  Jane Darke,et al.  The primary Generator and the Design Process , 1979 .

[41]  Richard Baskerville,et al.  Investigating Information Systems with Action Research , 1999, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..