Aesthetics in design science research

Abstract Much research has focused on understanding design science research and providing guidelines for its successful execution. However, there is still a need for more work on the raison d’être of design science research, which is the development of artefacts that can be applied to solve real-world problems. The value of design science research thus far has been to provide practically applicable solutions, as well as a contribution to knowledge. This paper proposes aesthetics, in addition to truth and utility, as a way to advance this raison d’être. We identify the design science triad of analytics, synthetics, and aesthetics and justify why the aesthetics quality attribute should be appreciated. We then identify twelve quality criteria for articulating and assessing aesthetics in design science research. Doing so enables us to both recognise and achieve artful design so that rigour, utility, and aesthetic value can collectively justify a valuable design science research contribution.

[1]  Martin Guha,et al.  The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought (2nd edition) , 2007 .

[2]  Jan Pries-Heje,et al.  FEDS: a Framework for Evaluation in Design Science Research , 2016, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[3]  Veda C. Storey,et al.  Genres of Inquiry in Design-Science Research: Justification and Evaluation of Knowledge Production , 2015, MIS Q..

[4]  Samir Chatterjee,et al.  Writing My next Design Science Research Master-piece: But How Do I Make a Theoretical Contribution to DSR? , 2015, ECIS.

[5]  Monica Divitini,et al.  CroMAR: Mobile Augmented Reality for Supporting Reflection on Crowd Management , 2012, Int. J. Mob. Hum. Comput. Interact..

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

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

[8]  Ranulph Glanville,et al.  Re-searching Design and Designing Research , 1999 .

[9]  Gerald C. Cupchik,et al.  The Search for Meaning in Art: Interpretive Styles and Judgments of Quality , 2016 .

[10]  M. Csíkszentmihályi.  Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention , 1996 .

[11]  B. Hennessey.  The Social Psychology of Creativity , 2003, Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship.

[12]  R. Hickman.  The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure, and Human Evolution , 2010 .

[13]  Elizabeth Coleman.  Design Matters , 2010, Design Issues.

[14]  Paul Valenstein,et al.  Critical communication. , 2010, Clinical chemistry.

[15]  Gregory Currie.  IMAGINATION AND MAKE-BELIEVE , 2005 .

[16]  Susan Albers Mohrman.  Having Relevance and Impact , 2007 .

[17]  J. Glover,et al.  Handbook of creativity. , 1989 .

[18]  N. Cross.  Designerly Ways of Knowing: Design Discipline Versus Design Science , 2001, Design Issues.

[19]  Jane Cauvel,et al.  Art and Its Significance: An Anthology of Aesthetic Theory , 1985 .

[20]  Hans van der Heijden,et al.  Factors influencing the usage of websites: the case of a generic portal in The Netherlands , 2003, Inf. Manag..

[21]  John S. Gero,et al.  The Emergence of the Representation of Style in Design , 2001 .

[22]  Ramesh K. Agarwal,et al.  A MODEL OF CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN ORGANIZATIONS , 2011 .

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

[24]  Stanley Goldberg,et al.  Discovering: Inventing and Solving Problems at the Frontiers of Scientific Knowledge , 1997 .

[25]  Nick Zangwill,et al.  The Concept of the Aesthetic , 1998 .

[26]  Blake Gopnik,et al.  Aesthetic Science and Artistic Knowledge , 2011 .

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

[28]  B. Flyvbjerg.  Phronetic planning research: theoretical and methodological reflections , 2004 .

[29]  E. Hirschman,et al.  Hedonic Consumption: Emerging Concepts, Methods and Propositions , 1982 .

[30]  K. Weick.  Theory Construction as Disciplined Imagination , 1989 .

[31]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Science of Design: Creating the Artificial , 1988 .

[32]  Vijay K. Vaishnavi,et al.  Design Science Research Methods and Patterns: Innovating Information and Communication Technology, 2nd Edition , 2007 .

[33]  John Krogstie,et al.  Use of Mobile Augmented Reality for Cultural Heritage , 2015 .

[34]  J. Gingell,et al.  Art and Knowledge , 1985 .

[35]  H. Day.  Advances in intrinsic motivation and aesthetics , 1981 .

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

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

[38]  Louisa Penfold.  Art as experience , 2017 .

[39]  R. Hamel,et al.  Sketching and creative discovery , 1998 .

[40]  C. Martindale.  Personality, situation, and creativity. , 1989 .

[41]  Noam Tractinsky,et al.  Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites , 2004 .

[42]  Ralph Bathurst,et al.  Enlivening Management Practice Through Aesthetic Engagement: Vico, Baumgarten and Kant , 2009 .

[43]  Christopher Alexander,et al.  The Timeless Way of Building , 1979 .

[44]  Noam Tractinsky,et al.  Toward the Study of Aesthetics in Information Technology , 2004, ICIS.

[45]  Denis Dutton,et al.  The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure, and Human Evolution , 2008 .

[46]  H. Leder,et al.  A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. , 2004, British journal of psychology.

[47]  Charles L. Owen,et al.  Design research: building the knowledge base☆ , 1998 .

[48]  Gerald C. Cupchik,et al.  Toward an Integrated Theory of Aesthetic Perception in the Visual Arts , 1981 .

[49]  Raymond Williams.  Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society , 1976 .

[50]  Robert Winter,et al.  On the Use of Experiments in Design Science Research: A Proposition of an Evaluation Framework , 2014, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[51]  Nikhilesh Dholakia,et al.  Social behavior and brand devotion among iPhone innovators , 2010, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[52]  Woodrow Barfield.  Augmented Reality Human–Robot Interfaces toward Augmented Robotics , 2015 .

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

[54]  Wolfgang Ziegler,et al.  The Sociology Of Art , 2016 .

[55]  Stephen E. Palmer,et al.  Aesthetic science: Connecting minds, brains, and experience. , 2011 .

[56]  Julie Fisher,et al.  E-Commerce Research in Australia: Inviting a Comparative Analysis , 2007, Scand. J. Inf. Syst..

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

[58]  Robert Friedel,et al.  Possibility thinking: lessons from breakthrough engineering , 2007 .

[59]  Jan Pries-Heje,et al.  Explanatory Design Theory , 2010, Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng..

[60]  Hans van der Heijden,et al.  User Acceptance of Hedonic Information Systems , 2004, MIS Q..

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

[62]  J. Levinson,et al.  What are Aesthetic Properties , 2006 .

[63]  Allen F. Wood,et al.  Beauty , 1911, The Artist’s Reality.

[64]  C. Allen,et al.  Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , 2011 .

[65]  A. Philip McMahon,et al.  The Principles of Art , 1939 .

[66]  T. Honderich.  The Oxford Companion to Philosophy , 1995 .

[67]  P. Hekkert,et al.  'Most advanced, yet acceptable': typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in industrial design. , 2003, British journal of psychology.

[68]  Leo graf Tolstoy.  What Is Art? What Is Religion? , 2008 .

[69]  Joan Ernst van Aken,et al.  Design Science and Organization Development Interventions Aligning Business and Humanistic Values , 2007 .

[70]  S Harfield,et al.  On design ‘problematization’: Theorising differences in designed outcomes , 2007 .

[71]  J. Johnston,et al.  John Dewey and the Role of Scientific Method in Aesthetic Experience , 2002 .

[72]  John D. Murphy,et al.  A design science based evaluation framework for patterns , 2010, DATB.

[73]  George M. Kasper,et al.  A Theory of Decision Support System Design for User Calibration , 1996, Inf. Syst. Res..

[74]  Marion Kee,et al.  Analysis , 2004, Machine Translation.

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

[76]  Frederick P. Brooks,et al.  The Design of Design: Essays from a Computer Scientist , 2010 .

[77]  Linden J. Ball,et al.  Dimensions of Creative Evaluation: Distinct Design and Reasoning Strategies for Aesthetic, Functional and Originality Judgments , 2016 .

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

[79]  Yoram Reich,et al.  A model of aesthetic judgment in design , 1993, Artif. Intell. Eng..

[80]  John Krogstie,et al.  Mobile augmented reality for cultural heritage: A technology acceptance study , 2012, 2012 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR).

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

[82]  Christopher Williams,et al.  Approach to Aesthetics: Collected Papers on Philosophical Aesthetics , 2003 .

[83]  Fred L. Collopy,et al.  Design Matters for Management , 2010 .

[84]  J. Guilford.  Transformotion Abilities or Functions , 1983 .

[85]  Craig Niederberger,et al.  What Is “ART”? , 2004 .

[86]  Alan R. Hevner,et al.  The Front End of Innovation: Perspectives on Creativity, Knowledge and Design , 2015, DESRIST.

[87]  Teresa M. Amabile,et al.  Componential Theory of Creativity , 2012 .

[88]  Woodrow Barfield,et al.  Fundamentals of Wearable Computers and Augumented Reality , 2000 .