Empirical Evaluation of Action Design Research

There has been a growing interest in information systems (IS) research as design research. One popular methodology is Action Design Research (ADR). Despite the popularity, ADR lacks proper evaluation based on primary data. We claim that the existing empirical evidence justifying ADR is either fragmented or based on reconstructions of prior studies conducted for other purposes. Our claim is supported by the authors of ADR who state that “ ... because the VIP project was not conducted explicitly as ADR, it cannot be viewed as an exemplar of its application”. The purpose of this study is to provide empirical evidence. Examples of empirical evidence show that ADR is highly relevant for an applied discipline such as IS, it creates a bridge between user-oriented perspectives of the IT artefact and technological perspectives and it supports a conceptual movement from a specific instance to a search for a class of problems.

[1]  Stefan Cronholm,et al.  Nascent Design Principles Enabling Digital Service Platforms , 2016, DESRIST.

[2]  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..

[3]  Alan R. Hevner,et al.  POSITIONING AND PRESENTING DESIGN SCIENCE RESEARCH FOR MAXIMUM IMPACT 1 , 2013 .

[4]  Richard Baskerville,et al.  Eating Our Own Cooking: Toward a More Rigorous Design Science of Research Methods , 2012 .

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

[6]  J. Heaton.  Secondary analysis of qualitative data: an overview , 2008 .

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

[8]  P. Draper.  Reflexive methodology - new vistas for qualitative research: Media Reviews , 2008 .

[9]  T MarchSalvatore,et al.  Design and natural science research on information technology , 1995 .

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

[11]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations , 2000, Theory in CSCW.

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

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

[14]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  Theory Building From Cases: Opportunities And Challenges , 2007 .

[15]  S. Thorne.  Ethical and representational issues in qualitative secondary analysis. , 1998, Qualitative health research.

[16]  Richard Baskerville,et al.  Generalizing Generalizability in Information Systems Research , 2003, Inf. Syst. Res..

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

[18]  Mary Tate,et al.  Service Development as Action Design Research: Reporting on a Servitized E-Recruiting Portal , 2013 .

[19]  Jan Pries-Heje,et al.  Soft design science methodology , 2009, DESRIST.

[20]  Robert Winter,et al.  Design science research in Europe , 2008 .

[21]  R. Brent Gallupe,et al.  The tyranny of methodologies in information systems research1 , 2007, DATB.

[22]  Elsje Scott,et al.  Motivating an action design research approach to implementing online training in an organisational context , 2014, Interact. Technol. Smart Educ..

[23]  Vijay K. Vaishnavi,et al.  Design Science Research Methods and Patterns: Innovating Information and Communication Technology , 2007 .

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

[25]  Matti Rossi,et al.  PADRE: A Method for Participatory Action Design Research , 2016, DESRIST.

[26]  G. Glass.  Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research1 , 1976 .

[27]  Stefan Cronholm,et al.  Action Design Research: Expanding the Scope , 2013 .

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

[29]  Markus Helfert,et al.  Action design research: a comparison with canonical action research and design science , 2015 .

[30]  V Szabo,et al.  Secondary analysis of qualitative data. , 1997, ANS. Advances in nursing science.

[31]  Matti Rossi,et al.  Design Principles for Inter-Organizational Systems Development - Case Hansel , 2012, DESRIST.

[32]  Louise Corti,et al.  Strategies in Teaching Secondary Analysis of Qualitative Data , 2005 .

[33]  Les Gasser,et al.  A Design Theory for Systems That Support Emergent Knowledge Processes , 2002, MIS Q..

[34]  Markus Helfert,et al.  Action Design Research in Practice: The Case of Smart Cities , 2014, DESRIST.

[35]  Mark Bilandzic,et al.  Towards Participatory Action Design Research: Adapting Action Research and Design Science Research Methods for Urban Informatics , 2011, J. Community Informatics.

[36]  Jonas Sjöström,et al.  Design Principles for Research Data Export: Lessons Learned in e-Health Design Research , 2013, DESRIST.

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

[38]  P. Hinds,et al.  The Possibilities and Pitfalls of Doing a Secondary Analysis of a Qualitative Data Set , 1997 .

[39]  Dan Harnesk,et al.  A Framework for Classifying Design Research Methods , 2013, DESRIST.

[40]  Alan R. Hevner,et al.  Entering Action Design Research , 2015, DESRIST.

[41]  Stefan Cronholm,et al.  Empirical Grounding of Design Science Research Methodology , 2015, DESRIST.