The development of a Design Research Canvas for data practitioners

Journal of Decision Systems

Volumn 25, Issue , 2016, Pages 369-380

  Nagle, Tadhg ^a   Sammon, David ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CORK   (Ireland)

Author keywords

Design research; Design Research Canvas; Practitioner researcher

Indexed keywords

DECISION SUPPORTS; DESIGN RESEARCH; DIRECT RESPONSE; EXECUTIVE EDUCATION; PRACTICE RESEARCHES; PRACTITIONER-RESEARCHER;

DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS;

EID: 84976515085     PISSN: 12460125     EISSN: 21167052     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/12460125.2016.1187386     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. I.Benbasat,, & R.W.Zmud, (1999). Empirical research in information systems: The practice of relevance. MIS Quarterly, 23, 3–16. 10.2307/249403
2. R.Buchanan, (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 5–21. 10.2307/1511637
3. R.Davison,, M.G.Martinsons,, & N.Kock, (2004). Principles of canonical action research. Information Systems Journal, 14, 65–86. 10.1111/isj.2004.14.issue-1
4. K.C.Desouza,, O.A.El Sawy,, R.D.Galliers,, C.Loebbecke,, & R.T.Watson, (2006). Beyond rigor and relevance towards responsibility and reverberation: Information systems research that really matters. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 17, 341–353.
5. B.Fitzgerald,, & D.Howcroft, (1998). Towards dissolution of the is research debate: From polarization to polarity. Journal of Information Technology, 13, 313–326. 10.1057/jit.1998.9
6. G.Goldkuhl, (2012). From action research to practice research. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 17(2), 57–58.
7. S.Gregor,, & A.R.Hevner, (2013). Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS quarterly, 37, 337–356.
8. M.Helfert,, B.Donnellan,, & L.Ostrowski, (2012). The case for design science utility and quality-Evaluation of design science artifact within the. Systems, Signs & Actions, 6, 46–66.
9. A.Hevner,, S.T.March,, J.Park,, & S.Ram, (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28, 75–105.
10. A.S.Lee,, & G.S.Hubona, (2009). A scientific basis for rigor in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 237–262.
11. S.T.March,, & G.F.Smith, (1995). Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems, 15, 251–266. 10.1016/0167-9236(94)00041-2
12. S.T.March,, & V.C.Storey, (2008). Design science in the information systems discipline: An introduction to the special issue on design science research. MIS Quarterly, 32, 725–730.
13. L.Mathiassen,, & A.Sandberg, (2013). How a professionally qualified doctoral student bridged the practice-research gap: A confessional account of Collaborative Practice Research. European Journal of Information Systems, 22, 475–492. 10.1057/ejis.2012.35
14. A.Osterwalder,, & Y.Pigneur, (2010). Business model generation: A handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers. New Jersey, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
15. K.Peffers,, T.Tuunanen,, C.E.Gengler,, M.Rossi,, W.Hui,, V.Virtanen,, & J.Bragge, (2006). The design science research process: A model for producing and presenting information systems research. In Proceedings of the first international conference on design science research in information systems and technology (DESRIST 2006) (pp. 83–106). Claremont, CA: CGU.
16. M.Rosemann,, & I.Vessey, (2008). Toward improving the relevance of information systems research to practice: The role of applicability checks. MIS Quarterly, 32(1), 1–22.
17. M.Sein,, O.Henfridsson,, S.Purao,, M.Rossi,, & R.Lindgren, (2011). Action design research. MIS Quarterly, 35, 37–56.
18. G.I.Susman,, & R.D.Evered, (1978). An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 582–603. 10.2307/2392581
19. H.Taylor,, E.Artman,, & J.P.Woelfer, (2012). Information technology project risk management: bridging the gap between research and practice. Journal of Information Technology, 27, 17–34. 10.1057/jit.2011.29
20. H.Tsoukas,, & R.Chia, (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change. Organization Science, 13, 567–582. 10.1287/orsc.13.5.567.7810
21. C.Ware, (2010). Visual thinking: For design. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann.
22. R.Weber, (2004). The rhetoric of positivism versus interpretivism. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), iii–xii.