Engaged Problem Formulation in IS Research

“Is this the problem?”: the question that haunts many information systems (IS) researchers when they pursue work relevant to both practice and research. Nevertheless, a deliberate answer to this question requires more than simply asking the involved IS practitioners. Deliberately formulating problems requires a more substantial engagement with the different stakeholders, especially when their problems are ill structured and situated in complex organizational settings. On this basis, we present an engaged approach to formulating IS problems with, not for, IS practitioners. We have come to understand engaged problem formulation as joint researching and as the defining of contemporary and complex problems by researchers and those practitioners who experience and know these problems. We used this approach in investigating IS management in Danish municipalities. In this paper, we present the approach to formulating problems in an engaged way. We discuss it in relation to ideas and assumptions that underpin engaged scholarship, and we discuss the implications for IS action research, design science research, and mixed approaches.

[1]  Jungwoo Lee,et al.  Developing fully functional E-government: A four stage model , 2001, Gov. Inf. Q..

[2]  Roel Wieringa,et al.  Relevance and Problem Choice in Design Science , 2010, DESRIST.

[3]  Jerry N. Luftman,et al.  Key information technology and management issues 2011–2012: an international study , 2012, J. Inf. Technol..

[4]  Vijay K. Vaishnavi,et al.  Theory Development in Design Science Research: Anatomy of a Research Project , 2008 .

[5]  Rikard Lindgren,et al.  Design Principles for Competence Management Systems: A Synthesis of an Action Research Study , 2004, MIS Q..

[6]  Lars Mathiassen,et al.  Engaged Scholarship in IS Research , 2008, Scand. J. Inf. Syst..

[7]  Lars Mathiassen,et al.  Managing Risk in Software Process Improvement: An Action Research Approach , 2004, MIS Q..

[8]  H. Simon,et al.  The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.) , 1996 .

[9]  Shirley Gregor,et al.  The Nature of Theory in Information Systems , 2006, MIS Q..

[10]  Peter Axel Nielsen,et al.  Is Action Research and Its Criteria , 2007 .

[11]  Robert M. Davison,et al.  Principles of canonical action research , 2004, Inf. Syst. J..

[12]  Mike Chiasson,et al.  Pluralist action research: a review of the information systems literature * , 2009, Inf. Syst. J..

[13]  Peter Checkland,et al.  Soft Systems Methodology in Action , 1990 .

[14]  James R Cook Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research , 2014 .

[15]  Lars Mathiassen,et al.  Back to thinking mode: diaries for the management of information systems development projects , 1989 .

[16]  Blaize Horner Reich,et al.  IT alignment: what have we learned? , 2007, J. Inf. Technol..

[17]  Jerry N. Luftman,et al.  Key Issues for IT Executives 2011: Cautious Optimism in Uncertain Economic Times , 2011, MIS Q. Executive.

[18]  R. Rapoport Three Dilemmas in Action Research , 1970 .

[19]  Peter Axel Nielsen,et al.  IT Management in Local Government: The DISIMIT Project , 2012 .

[20]  Colin Ashurst,et al.  Improving the impact of IT development projects: the benefits realization capability model , 2008, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

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

[22]  Kristin Braa,et al.  Balancing interpretation and intervention in information systems research: the action case approach , 1997 .

[23]  Yuan Long,et al.  Synthesizing e-government stage models - a meta-synthesis based on meta-ethnography approach , 2005, Ind. Manag. Data Syst..

[24]  A. Pettigrew WHAT IS A PROCESSUAL ANALYSIS. , 1997 .

[25]  Donald A. Sch The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action , 1983 .

[26]  Michael Rosemann,et al.  Toward Improving the Relevance of Information Systems Research to Practice: The Role of Applicability Checks , 2008, MIS Q..

[27]  John Forester,et al.  The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes , 1999 .

[28]  A. Pettigrew Longitudinal Field Research on Change: Theory and Practice , 1990 .

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

[30]  Judy McKay,et al.  The dual imperatives of action research , 2001, Inf. Technol. People.

[31]  J. H. Frey,et al.  The group interview in social research , 1991 .

[32]  Jerry N. Luftman Assessing Business-IT Alignment Maturity , 2000, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[33]  Jörgen Sandberg,et al.  Generating Research Questions Through Problematization , 2011 .

[34]  Roel Wieringa,et al.  Design science as nested problem solving , 2009, DESRIST.

[35]  Elizabeth Daniel,et al.  Benefits management : delivering value from IS & IT investments , 2005 .

[36]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  Knowledge for Theory and Practice , 2006 .

[37]  Juhani Iivari,et al.  Distinguishing and contrasting two strategies for design science research , 2015, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[38]  Sue Holwell,et al.  Information, Systems and Information Systems: Making Sense of the Field , 1998 .

[39]  S. Spall,et al.  Peer Debriefing in Qualitative Research: Emerging Operational Models , 1998 .

[40]  G. Susman,et al.  An Assessment of the Scientific Merits of Action Research. , 1978 .

[41]  John Mingers,et al.  Combining IS Research Methods: Towards a Pluralist Methodology , 2001, Inf. Syst. Res..

[42]  John M. Ward,et al.  Building Better Business Cases for IT Investments , 2008, MIS Q. Executive.

[43]  M. Hult,et al.  TOWARDS A DEFINITION OF ACTION RESEARCH: A NOTE AND BIBLIOGRAPHY , 1980 .

[44]  Alan R. Hevner,et al.  The Three Cycle View of Design Science , 2007, Scand. J. Inf. Syst..

[45]  Zahir Irani,et al.  Managing e‐Government: value positions and relationships , 2015, Inf. Syst. J..

[46]  Juhani Iivari,et al.  Action research and design science research - Seemingly similar but decisively dissimilar , 2009, ECIS.

[47]  Pär Mårtensson,et al.  Dialogical Action Research at Omega Corporation , 2004, MIS Q..

[48]  P. Järvinen Action Research is Similar to Design Science , 2007 .

[49]  David E. Avison,et al.  Controlling action research projects , 2001, Inf. Technol. People.

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

[51]  Lars Mathiassen,et al.  Collaborative Practice Research , 2000, Scand. J. Inf. Syst..

[52]  Richard Baskerville,et al.  Special issue on action research in information systems: making is research relevant to practice--foreword , 2004 .

[53]  L. Diamond IT Governance : How Top Performers Manage IT Decision Rights for Superior Results , 2005 .

[54]  Ephraim R. McLean,et al.  Key Issues for IT Executives , 2004, MIS Q. Executive.