Secondary design: A case of behavioral design science research

Journal of the Association for Information Systems

Volumn 12, Issue 10, 2011, Pages 662-683

  Germonprez, Matt ^a   Hovorka, Dirk ^b   Gal, Uri ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN EAU CLAIRE   (United States)

^b BOND UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Design theory; Duality; Embodied interaction; Qualitative methods; Secondary design; Systems; Tailorable technology

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SYSTEMS; HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION; INFORMATION SYSTEMS; INFORMATION USE; INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SYSTEMS; PRODUCT DESIGN;

DESIGN THEORY; DESIGN-SCIENCE RESEARCHES; DUALITY; EMBODIED INTERACTION; EMERGENT BEHAVIORS; INTERACTIVE SYSTEM; PARTICIPATORY DESIGN; QUALITATIVE METHOD;

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH;

EID: 82355187777     PISSN: 15583457     EISSN: 15369323     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.17705/1jais.00278     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Alexander, C. (1979). The timeless way of building. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
2. Bangerter, A., & Heath, C. (2004). The Mozart effect: Tracking the evolution of a scientific legend. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43(4), 605-623.
3. Boland, R. (1978). The process and product of system design. Management Science, 24(9), 887-898.
4. Bunge, M. (1967). Scientific research II: The search for truth. Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag.
5. Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press
6. Ciborra, C. (2002). The labyrinths of information. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
7. Ciborra, C. (2004). Encountering information systems as a phenomenon. In C. Avgerou, C. Ciborra, & F. Land (Eds.), The social study of information and communication technology: Innovation, actors and context (pp.17-37). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
8. Dafermos, G. N. (2001). Management and virtual decentralised networks: The Linux project. First Monday, 6(11).
9. thAmericas Conference on Information Systems. San Francisco, CA.
10. Dourish, P. (2001). Where the action is: The foundations of embodied interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11. Fensel, D., Bussler, C., Ding, Y., Kartseva, V., Klein, M., Korotkiy, M., Omelayenko, B., & Siebes, R. (2002). Semantic web application areas. Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Applications of Natural Language to Information Systems, Stockholm, Sweden.
12. Ferneley, E. & Sobreperez, P. (2006). Resist, comply or workaround? An examination of different facets of user engagement with information systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(4), 345-356.
13. thAmericas Conference on Information Systems, Detroit, MI.
14. Germonprez, M., Hovorka, D. & Collopy, F. (2007). A theory of tailorable technology design. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(6), 351-367.
15. Germonprez, M. & Zigurs, I. (2009). Task, technology, and tailoring in communicative action: An in-depth analysis of group communication. Information and Organization, 19(1), 22-46.
16. thInternational Conference on Information Systems, Phoenix, AZ.
17. ndInternational Conference on Action in Language, Organizations and Information Systems, Linköping University, Sweden.
18. Heidegger, M. (1971). Poetry, language, thought. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
19. Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
20. Henderson, A. & Kyng, M. (1991). There is no place like home: Continuing design in use. In M. K. Greenbaum & M. Kyng (Eds.), Design at Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems, (pp. 219-240). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
21. Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J, & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in IS research. MIS Quarterly 28(1), 75-105.
22. Hirschheim, R. & Klein, H. K. (1989). Four paradigms for information systems development. Communication of the Association for Information Systems, 32(10), 1199-1216.
23. Introna, L. & Whittaker, L. (2002). The phenomenology of information systems evaluation: Overcoming the subject object dualism. Proceedings of IFIP WG 8.2 Conference, Barcelona, Spain.
24. Introna, L. (2007). Thoughts on becoming (or being) technological. In A. Huizing & E. J. de Vries (Eds.), Information management: Setting the scene, (pp. 129-134). Bradford, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.
25. Iivari, J. (2007). A paradigmatic analysis of information systems as a design science. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 19(2), 39-64.
26. Joo, J. & Lee, S. (2009). Adoption of the semantic web for overcoming technical limitations of knowledge management systems. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(3), 7318-7327.
27. Kallinikos, J. (2004). Farewell to constructivism: Technology and context-embedded action. In C. Avgerou, C. Ciborra, & F. Land (Eds.), The Social Study of Information and Communication Technology: Innovation, Actors, and Contexts, (pp. 140-161). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
28. Kendall, J. & Kendall, K. (1993). Metaphors and methodologies: Living beyond the systems machine. MIS Quarterly, 17(2), 149-171.
29. Kennedy, M. (1978). Generalization of findings from single case studies. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Toronto, Canada.
30. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
31. Lee, A. & Baskerville, R. L. (2003). Generalizing generalizability in information systems research. Information Systems Research, 14(3), 221-243.
32. Lerner, J. & Schankerman, M. (2010). The comingled code: Open source and economic development. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
33. Lyytinen K. (1985). Implications of theories of language for information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 9(1), 61-74.
34. Madsen, K. H. (1989). Breakthrough by breakdown: Metaphors and structured domains. In H. Klein, & K. Kumar (Eds.), Systems Development for Human Progress, (pp. 41-53). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland Publishing Company.
35. thInternational Conference on Information Systems, Paris, France.
36. Moscovici, S. (2001). The phenomenon of social representations. In R. Farr & S. Moscovici (Eds.), Social Representations: Explorations in Social Psychology, (pp. 3-69) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
37. Nicolajsen, H. W. & Scheepers, R. (2008). Communicating content through configurable media. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 20(1), 41-68.
38. thInternational Conference for Information Systems, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
39. Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398-427.
40. Orlikowski, W. J. & Scott S. V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work, and organization. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433-474.
41. Pierson, P. (2000). The limits of design: Explaining institutional origins and change. Governance, 13(4), 475-499.
42. Riggs, W., & von Hippel, E. (1994). The impact of scientific and commercial values on the sources of scientific instrument innovation. Research Policy, 23(4), 459-469.
43. rdEuropean Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Milan, Italy.
44. Romme, A.G.L. (2003). Making a difference: Organization as design. Organization Science, 14(5), 558-573.
45. Shirky, C. (2010). Cognitive surplus: Creativity and generosity in a connected age. New York, NY: Penguin Press.
46. Suchman, L. (1999). Working relations of technology production and use. In D. MacKenzie & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The Social Shaping of Technology, (pp. 258-265), Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
47. van Aken, J. (2004). Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences: The quest for field-tested and grounded technological rules. Journal of Management Studies, 41(2), 219-246.
48. Voelklein, C. & Howarth, C. (2005). A review of controversies about social representations theory: A British debate. Culture and Psychology, 11(4). 431-454.
49. von Hippel, E. (1988). The sources of innovation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
50. von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
51. Walls, J. G., Widmeyer, G. R. & El Sawy, O. A. (1992). Building a system design theory for vigilant EIS. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 36-59.
52. Weick, K. (1995). What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 385-390.
53. Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
54. Winograd, T. (1987). A language/action perspective on the design of cooperative work. Human-Computer Interaction, 3(1), 3-30.
55. Winograd, T. & Flores, F. (1986). Understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for design. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
56. Yoo, Y. (2010). Computing in everyday life: A call for research on experiential computing. MIS Quarterly, 34(2), 213-231.