Design science research and the grounded theory method: Characteristics, differences, and complementary uses

18th European Conference on Information Systems, ECIS 2010

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages

  Gregory, Robert Wayne ^a  

^a GOETHE UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Design science research; Grounded theory method; Pluralistic research design

Indexed keywords

DESIGN SCIENCE; GROUNDED THEORY; KNOWLEDGE BASE; LOCAL PROBLEMS; REAL-WORLD PROBLEM; RESEARCH DESIGNS; RESEARCH STRATEGY;

DESIGN; KNOWLEDGE BASED SYSTEMS;

RESEARCH;

EID: 84870628821     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (36)

1. Allen, D. K., Colligan, D., Finnie, A. and Kern, T. (2000). Trust, power and interorganizational information systems: the case of the electronic trading community TransLease. Information Systems Journal, 10(1), 21-40.
2. Au, Y. A. (2001). Design Science I: The Role of Design Science in Electronic Commerce Research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 7(1), 1-17.
3. Baskerville, R. (2008). What Design Science is not. European Journal of Information Systems, 17, 441-443.
4. Baskerville, R., Pries-Heje, J. and Venable, J. (2009). Soft Design Science Methodology. Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology DESRIST.
5. Baskerville, R. and Stage, J. (2001). Accommodating emergent work practices: Ethnographic choice of method fragments. Kluwer, New York.
6. Bryant, A. and Charmaz, K. (2007). The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications, London.
7. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
8. Fernandez, W. D. (2004). The Grounded Theory Method and Case Study Data in IS Research: Issues and Design. Information Systems Foundations Workshop: Constructing and Criticising.
9. Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions. Mill Valley, USA.
10. Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical Sensitivity. Mill Valley, USA.
11. Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago, USA.
12. Goldkuhl, G. (2004). Design Theories in Information Systems - A Need for Multi-Grounding. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 6(2), 59-72.
13. Hevner, A., March, S., Park, J. and Ram, S. (2004). Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75-105.
14. Holmström, J. B., Ketokivi, M. and Hameri, A. P. (2009). Bridging Practice and Theory: A Design Science Approach. Decision Science, 40(1), 65-87.
15. Iivari, J. (2007). A Paradigmatic Analysis of Information Systems as a Design Science. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 19(2), 39-63.
16. Iivari, J. and Venable, J. (2009). Action Research and Design Science Research - Seemingly Similar But Decisively Dissimilar. 17th European Conference on Information Systems.
17. Järvinen, P. (2007). Action Research is Similar to Design Science. Quality and Quantity, 41(1), 37-54.
18. Kirsch, L. J. (2004). Deploying Common Systems Globally: The Dynamics of Control. Information Systems Research, 15(4), 374-395.
19. Kuechler, B. and Vaishnavi, V. (2008). On Theory Development in Design Science Research: Anatomy of a Research Project. European Journal of Information Systems, 17, 489-504.
20. Madill, A., Jordan, A. and Shirley, C. (2000). Objectivity and reliability in qualitative analysis: Realist, contextualist and radical constructionist epistemologies. British Journal of Psychology, 91(1), 1-20.
21. March, S. T. and Smith, G. (1995). Design and Natural Science Research on Information Technology. Decision Support Systems, 15(4), 251-266.
22. Markus, M. L., Majchrzak, A. and Gasser, L. (2002). A Design Theory for Systems that Support Emergent Knowledge Processes. MIS Quarterly, 26(3), 179-212.
23. McKay, J. and Marshall, P. (2005). A Review of Design Science in Information Systems. 16th Australasian Conference on Information Systems.
24. Merton, R. K. (1968). Social Theory and Social Structure. The Free Press, New York, USA.
25. Mingers, J. (2001). Combining IS Research Methods: Towards a Pluralist Methodology. Information Systems Research, 12(3), 240 - 259.
26. Orlikowski, W. J. (1993). CASE Tools as Organizational Change: Investigating Incremental and Radical Changes in Systems. MIS Quarterly, 17(3), 309-340.
27. Orlikowski, W. J. and Baroudi, J. (1991). Stuying Information Technology in Organizations Research Approaches and Assumptions. Information Systems Research, 2(1), 1-28.
28. Orlikowski, W. J. and Iacono, C. S. (2001). Research Commentary: Desperately Seeking the 'IT' in IT Research - A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact. Information Systems Research, 12(2), 121-134.
29. Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A. and Chatterjee, S. (2007). A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3), 45-78.
30. Simon, H. A. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial (3rd ed.). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
31. Stebbins, R. A. (2001). Exploratory Research in the Social Sciences. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, USA.
32. Suddaby, R. (2006). From the Editors: What Grounded Theory is Not. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 633-642.
33. Urquhart, C. (2007). The Evolving Nature of Grounded Theory Method: The Case of the Information Systems Discipline. SAGE Publications, London.
34. Urquhart, C. and Fernández, W. D. (2006). Grounded Theory Method: The Researcher as Blank Slate and Other Myths. Twenty-Seventh International Conference on Information Systems, 457-464.
35. Walls, J. G., Widmeyer, G. R. and El Sawy, O. A. (1992). Building an Information System Design Theory for Vigilant EIS. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 36-59.
36. Winter, R. (2008). Design Science Research in Europe. European Journal of Information Systems, 17, 470-475.