Technical action research as a validation method in information systems design science

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 7286 LNCS, Issue , 2012, Pages 220-238

  Wieringa, Roel ^a   Morali, Ayşe ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

^b PwC   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACTION RESEARCH; DESIGN SCIENCE; REAL-WORLD PROBLEM; VALIDATION METHODS;

BRIDGES; DESIGN; INFORMATION SYSTEMS; PROBLEM SOLVING; TAR;

RESEARCH;

EID: 84861208061     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-29863-9_17     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (27)

1. Hevner, A., March, S., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design science in information system research. MIS Quarterly 28(1), 75-105 (2004)
2. Susman, G., Evered, R.: An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Administrative Science Quarterly 23(4), 582-603 (1978)
3. Lewin, K.: Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues 2, 34-46 (1946)
4. Baskerville, R.: What design science is not. European Journal of Information Systems 17, 441-443 (2008)
5. Järvinen, P.: Action research is similar to design science. Quality and Quantity 41(1), 37-54 (2007)
6. Lee, A.: Action is an artifact: What action research and design science offer to each other. In: Kock, N. (ed.) Information Systems Action Research: An Applied View of Emerging Concepts and Methods, pp. 43-60. Springer (2007)
7. March, A., Smith, G.: Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems 15(4), 251-266 (1995)
8. Baskerville, R., Pries-Heje, J., Venable, J.: Soft design science methodology. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology, DESRIST 2009, pp. 9:1-9:11. ACM Press (2009)
9. Sein, M., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., Lindgren, R.: Action design research. MIS Quarterly 35(2), 37-56 (2011)
10. Schön, D.: The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Arena (1983)
11. Cartwright, N.: How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford University Press (1983)
12. Cartwright, N.: The Dappled World. A Study of the Boundaries of Science. Cambridge University Press (1999)
13. McMullin, E.: Galilean idealization. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 16(3), 247-273 (1985)
14. Boon, M.: How science is applied in technology. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 20(1), 27-47 (2006)
15. Laymon, R.: Applying idealized scientific theories to engineering. Synthese 81, 353-371 (1989)
16. Küppers, G.: On the relation between technology and science-goals of knowledge and dynamics of theories. The example of combustion technology, thermodynamics and fluid dynamics. In: Krohn, W., Layton, E., Weingart, P. (eds.) The Dynamics of Science and Technology. Sociology of the Sciences, II, pp. 113-133. Reidel (1978)
17. Wieringa, R.: Relevance and Problem Choice in Design Science. In: Winter, R., Zhao, J.L., Aier, S. (eds.) DESRIST 2010. LNCS, vol. 6105, pp. 61-76. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
18. Vincenti, W.: What Engineers Know and How They Know It. Analytical Studies from Aeronautical History. Johns Hopkins (1990)
19. Wieringa, R.J.: Design science as nested problem solving. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology, pp. 1-12. ACM, New York (2009)
20. Van Strien, P.: Towards a methodology of psychological practice: The regulative cycle. Theory & Psychology 7(5), 683-700 (1997)
21. Morali, A., Wieringa, R.J.: Risk-based confidentiality requirements specification for outsourced it systems. In: Proceedings of the 18th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE 2010), Sydney, Australia, Los Alamitos, California, pp. 199-208. IEEE Computer Society (September 2010)
22. Lee, A., Baskerville, R.: Generalizing generalizability in information systems research. Information Systems Research 14(3), 221-243 (2003)
23. Seddon, P., Scheepers, R.: Other-settings generalizability in IS research. In: International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), pp. 1141-1158 (2006)
24. Seddon, P., Scheepers, R.: Towards the improved treatment of generalization from knowledge claims in IS research: drawing general conclusions from samples. European Journal of Information Systems, 1-16 (2011), doi:10.1057/ejis.2011.9
25. Zambon, E., Etalle, S., Wieringa, R.J., Hartel, P.H.: Model-based qualitative risk assessment for availability of IT infrastructures. Software and Systems Modeling 10(4), 553-580 (2011)
26. Engelsman, W., Wieringa, R.: Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering and Enterprise Architecture: Two Case Studies and Some Lessons Learned. In: Regnell, B., Damian, D. (eds.) REFSQ 2011. LNCS, vol. 7195, pp. 306-320. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
27. Davison, R., Martinsons, M., Kock, N.: Principles of canonical action research. Information Systems Journal 14, 65-86 (2004)