The action research vs design science debate: reflections from an intervention in eGovernment

As Design Science (DS) establishes itself as an acceptable approach to Information Systems research, many have commented on the similarity, or otherwise, between DS and Action Research (AR). Most of the writing on this topic has been conceptual, and not grounded in practice. In this paper, we present a piece of completed research that was perceived and executed as AR, but also reflected upon as DS. The research produced a new method for diagramming electronic workflows and creating the associated digital signatures, within the domain of eGovernment. Our conclusion is that AR that produces an artefact can be quite easily, and perhaps superficially, presented as DS. Epistemologically, there is little to separate the two methodologies. However, there are some subtle differences in practice, especially with regard to the role of the artefact, the structuring of the process, the focus of evaluation of the intervention and research, and the emphasis on learning and knowledge. We provide guidance to researchers contemplating either approach, and also consider the role of pluralist attempts to combine the approaches.

[1]  David E. Gray,et al.  Doing Research in the Real World , 2004 .

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

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

[4]  Peter Checkland,et al.  A role for soft systems methodology in information systems development , 1995 .

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

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

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

[8]  Anders Hjalmarsson,et al.  When Designers Are Not in Control - Experiences from Using Action Research to Improve Researcher-Developer Collaboration in Design Science Research , 2010, DESRIST.

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

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

[11]  Sunil Hazari,et al.  Challenges of implementing public key infrastructure in Netcentric enterprises , 2002 .

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

[13]  David Brain,et al.  Process Modelling Notations for eGovernment: An Assessment of Modelling Notations for Identity Management , 2005, Bled eConference.

[14]  Michael J. Gallivan,et al.  Furthering Information Systems Action Research: A Post-Positivist Synthesis of Four Dialectics , 2008, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[15]  Jack Whitehead,et al.  Doing and writing action research , 2009 .

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

[17]  R. Revans Action learning , 1982, Action Learning and Action Research: Genres and Approaches.

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

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

[20]  Trevor Wood-Harper,et al.  A critical perspective on action research as a method for information systems research , 1996, J. Inf. Technol..

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

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

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

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

[25]  Peter Tarasewich,et al.  Electronic signatures: they're legal, now what? , 2001, Internet Res..

[26]  Richard Baskerville,et al.  Diversity in information systems action research methods , 1998 .

[27]  Marta Indulska,et al.  Design science in IS research : a literature analysis , 2008 .

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

[29]  Philip Seltsikas,et al.  Designing a Modelling Methodology for Legal Workflows , 2007, JURIX.

[30]  D. Gray Doing Research in the Real World (2nd edn) , 2009 .

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

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

[33]  J. Aken Management Research as a Design Science: Articulating the Research Products of Mode 2 Knowledge Production in Management , 2005 .

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

[35]  Robert M. O'Keefe,et al.  MS/OR Enabled Systems Design , 1995, Oper. Res..

[36]  Peter Mertens,et al.  Memorandum on design-oriented information systems research , 2011, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

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

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

[39]  Richard Baskerville,et al.  What design science is not , 2008, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..