Validation criteria for the outcomes of design research

Design research can be described as a form of research that involves the design of some humancreation or artefact. These artefacts are designed for some purpose, i.e., they aim at responding to some human necessity, either existing or foreseen. Although these artefacts are inescapable in design research, the actual outcome of design research is knowledge about the artefacts. The knowledge resulting from design research is named knowledge-for-a-purpose. It is contrasted with knowledge-for-understanding, the knowledge resulting from other forms of research. The article addresses the validity of knowledge-for-a-purpose. Four elements for such validity are presented, namely: success of the corresponding artefacts, generality, novelty and explanation capability. In order to attempt to clarify the view underlying the article, design research and its outcomes are contrasted with several other concepts that are common in the design research discourse: design activity, design science, and design science research.

[1]  L. Tondl.  On the Concepts of ‘Technology’ and ‘Technological Sciences’ , 1974 .

[2]  Veda C. Storey,et al.  Unpacking the Duality of Design Science , 2011, ICIS.

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

[4]  Alan R. Hevner,et al.  A Fitness-Utility Model for Design Science Research , 2011, DESRIST.

[5]  Vijay K. Vaishnavi,et al.  Formalizing Theory Development in IS Design Science Research: Learning from Qualitative Research , 2009, AMCIS.

[6]  Ryan T. Wright,et al.  IS 2010: Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in Information Systems , 2010, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[7]  Sven Widmalm,et al.  The Science-Industry Nexus: History, Policy, Implications , 2004 .

[8]  James Fleck.  The structure of technological evolutions: linear models, configurations, and systems of development , 2004 .

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

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

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

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

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

[14]  Juhani Iivari,et al.  Twelve Theses on Design Science Research in Information Systems , 2010 .

[15]  Friedrich Rapp.  Contributions to a philosophy of technology : studies in the structure of thinking in the technological sciences , 1974 .

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

[17]  A. R. Hall,et al.  Pure Science, Applied Science, Technology, Engineering: An Attempt at Definitions , 1961 .

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

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

[20]  Jonas Sjöström,et al.  A Critical Perspective on Interaction Design Patterns as Theory Representation , 2010, ECIS.

[21]  Sandra Gorka,et al.  Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in Information Technology , 2008 .

[22]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Sciences of the Artificial , 1970 .

[23]  D. Edgerton.  ‘The linear model’ did not exist: Reflections on the history and historiography of science and research in industry in the twentieth century , 2004 .