Action research and design science research - Seemingly similar but decisively dissimilar

17th European Conference on Information Systems, ECIS 2009

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages

  Iivari, Juhani ^a   Venable, John ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OULU   (Finland)

^b CURTIN UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Action research; Design science research; Epistemology; Ethics; Ontology; Research methodology; Research paradigm

Indexed keywords

ACTION RESEARCH; DESIGN SCIENCE; EPISTEMOLOGY; ETHICS; RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES;

DESIGN; INFORMATION SYSTEMS; ONTOLOGY; PHILOSOPHICAL ASPECTS;

RESEARCH;

EID: 84870705359     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (39)

1. Argyris, C., Putnam R. and Smith, D.M. (1985). Action Science: Concepts, Methods and Skills for Research and Intervention, Jossey-Bass, San Fransisco, CA.
2. Baskerville R., Pries-Heje J., and Venable J. (2007). Soft Design Science Research: Extending the Boundaries of Evaluation in Design Science Research, In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST 2007), Pasadena, California, USA, 13- 15 May 2007.
3. Baskerville, R. and Wood-Harper, A.T. (1998). Diversity in information systems action research methods, European Journal of Information Systems, 7 (2), 90-107.
4. Burrell, G. and Morgan G. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis, Heineman, London.
5. th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (Hope, B. and Yoong, P., eds.), Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, 122-134.
6. Cassell, C. and Johnson, P. (2006). Action research: Explaining the diversity, Human Relations, 59 (6), 783-814.
7. Chandler, D. and Tvorbert, B. (2003). Transforming inquiry and action: Interweaving 27 flavors of action research, Action Research, 1 (2), 133-152.
8. Chua W.F. (1986). Radical developments in accounting thought, The Accounting Review, 61 (5), 601-632.
9. Cole, R., Purao, S., Rossi, M. and Sein, M.K. (2005). Being proactive: Where action research meets design research, In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Information Systems, Las Vegas, 325-336.
10. Davidson, R.M., Martinsons, M.G. and Kock, N. (2004). Principles of canonical action research, Information Systems Journal, 14, 65-86.
11. Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J. and Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research, MIS Quarterly, 28 (1), 75-105.
12. Iivari, J. (1983). Contributions to the theoretical foundations of systemeering research and the PIOCO model. - Acta Universitatis Ouluensis, Ser. A 150, Oulu.
13. Iivari, J. (1991). A paradigmatic analysis of contemporary schools of IS development, European Journal of Information Systems, 1 (4), 249-272.
14. Iivari, J. (2007). A paradigmatic analysis of information systems as a design science, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 19 (2), 39-63.
15. Iivari, J., Hirschheim, R. and Klein, H.K. (1998). A paradigmatic analysis contrasting information systems development approaches and methodologies, Information Systems Research, 9 (2), 164-193.
16. rd International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST 2008), Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 7-9 May 2008.
17. Järvinen, P. (2007). Action research is similar to design science, Quality & Quantity, 41, 37-54.
18. Kock N. (2004). The three threats of action research: a discussion of methodological antidotes in the context of an information systems study, Decision Support Systems, 37 (2), 265-286.
19. Lau, F. (1999). Toward a framework for action research in information systems studies, Information Technology & People, 12 (2), 148-175.
20. March, J.G. and Olsen, J. (1976). Ambiquity and Choice in Organizations, Universitetsforlaget, Bergen, Norway.
21. March, S.T. and Smith, G.F. (1995). Design and natural science research on information technology, Decision Support Systems, 15, 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. (2001). The dual imperatives of action research, Information Technology & People, 14 (1), 46-59.
24. th International Conference on Information Systems, Montreal.
25. Nunamaker J.F. Jr., Chen M., and Purdin T.D.M. (1991). Systems Development in Information Systems Research. Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 7 (3), 89-106.
26. rd International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST 2008), Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 7-9 May 2008.
27. Oquist, P. (1978). The epistemology of action research, Acta Sociologica, 21 (2), 143-163.
28. Petroski, H. (1992). To Engineer is Human: The Role of Failure in Successful Design, Vintage Books, New York.
29. Pries-Heje J., Venable, J. and Baskerville R. (2008). Risk Management Framework for Design Science Research, In Proceedings of the 31st Information Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia (IRIS 2008), Åre, Sweden, 10-13 August 2008.
30. Rapoport, R.N. (1970). Three dilemmas in action research, Human Relations, 23, 499-513.
31. Susman, G.I. and Evered, R.D. (1978). An assessment of the scientific merits of action research, Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 582-603.
32. Sutton, R.I. and Staw, B.M. (1995). What theory is not, Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 371-384.
33. van Aken, J.E. (2004). Management research based on the paradigm of design sciences: The quest for fieldtested and grounded technological rules, Journal of Management Studies, 41 (2), 219-24.
34. Venable J.R. (2006). A Framework for Design Science Research Activities, In Proceedings of the Information Resource Management Association Conference, Washington, DC, USA, 21-24 May 2006.
35. Venable J.R. (2009). Identifying and Addressing Stakeholder Interests in Design Science Research: An Analysis Using Critical Systems Heuristics, In Proceedings of the IFIP WG 8.2 Working Conference on the role of IS in leveraging the intelligence and creativity of SME's, Guimarães, Portugal, 21-24 June 2009 (forthcoming).
36. th Australasian Conference in Information Systems (Beverley Hope and Pak Yoong, eds.), Wellington, New Zealand, 1-3 December, 1999, 1105-1117.
37. Walls J., 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.
38. Weedman, J. (1998). The structure of incentive: Design and client roles in application-oriented research, Science, Technology, & Human Values, 23(3), 315-345.
39. Weedman, J. (2008), Client as designer in collaborative design science research projects: what does social science design theory tell us?, European Journal of Information Systems, 17 (5), 476-488.