Making Sense of Design Science in Information Systems Research: Insights from a Systematic Literature Review

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10844)

Abstract

This study presents insights from a systematic literature review of design science in IS. A lack of agreement on how to classify and demarcate design science from behavioral science research led to the iterative development of a theoretically-grounded, encompassing framework of knowledge contributions in the larger context of general scientific inquiry as well as associated coding schemata. The results of the systematic literature review support our framework and the idea that paradigmatic boundaries (e.g., design science versus behavioral science research) are difficult to uphold for contemporary information systems research.

Keywords

Conceptual framework Coding schema Systematic literature review Paradigms Design science 

References

  1. 1.
    Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design science in information systems research. MIS Q. 28, 75–105 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gregor, S., Hevner, A.R.: Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Q. 32, 337–355 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rai, A.: Diversity of design science research. Manag. Inf. Syst. Q. 41, iii–xviii (2017)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    vom Brocke, J., Hevner, A., Maedche, A.: Call for papers, issue 1/2019 - design science research and digital innovation. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 59, 309–310 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goes, P.B.: Editor’s comments: design science research in top information systems journals. MIS Q. 38, iii–viii (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    McKay, J., Marshall, P., Hirschheim, R.: The design construct in information systems design science. J. Inf. Technol. 27, 125–139 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fischer, C., Winter, R., Wortmann, F.: Design theory. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 2, 387–390 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Niederman, F., March, S.T.: Design science and the accumulation of knowledge in the information systems discipline. ACM Trans. Manage. Inf. Syst. 3, 1–15 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Iivari, J.: A paradigmatic analysis of information systems as a design science. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 19, 5 (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Baiyere, A., Hevner, A., Gregor, S., Rossi, M.: Artifact and/or theory? Publishing design science research in IS. In: ICIS 2015 Proceedings (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lee, A.S., Chiasson, M., Alter, S., Kremar, H.: Long live design science research! …. and remind me again about whether it is a new research paradigm or a rationale of last resort for worthwhile research that doesn’t fit under any other umbrella. In: ICIS 2012 Proceedings (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Purao, S., Baldwin, C., Hevner, A.R., Storey, V.C., Pries-Heje, J., Smith, B., Zhu, Y.: The sciences of design: observations on an emerging field. Commun. AIS 23, 523–546 (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hevner, A.R.: A three cycle view of design science research. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 19, 4 (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Baskerville, R., Kaul, M., Storey, V.C.: Genres of inquiry in design-science research: justification and evaluation of knowledge production. MIS Q. 39, 541–564 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Iivari, J.: Information system artefact or information system application: that is the question. Inf. Syst. J. 27, 753–774 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Qiu, L., Benbasat, I.: Evaluating anthropomorphic product recommendation agents: a social relationship perspective to designing information systems. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 25, 145–181 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Germonprez, M., Hovorka, D., Gal, U.: Secondary design: a case of behavioral design science research. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 12, 662 (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goldkuhl, G.: The empirics of design research: activities, outcomes and functions. In: International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2013), 15–18 Dec 2013, Milan, Italy. AIS eLibrary (2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Goldkuhl, G., Lind, M.: A multi-grounded design research process. In: Winter, R., Zhao, J.L., Aier, S. (eds.) DESRIST 2010. LNCS, vol. 6105, pp. 45–60. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13335-0_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Akoka, J., Comyn-Wattiau, I., Prat, N., Storey, V.C.: Evaluating knowledge types in design science research: an integrated framework. In: Maedche, A., vom Brocke, J., Hevner, A. (eds.) DESRIST 2017. LNCS, vol. 10243, pp. 201–217. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59144-5_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Barquet, A.P., Wessel, L., Rothe, H.: Knowledge accumulation in design-oriented research. In: Maedche, A., vom Brocke, J., Hevner, A. (eds.) DESRIST 2017. LNCS, vol. 10243, pp. 398–413. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59144-5_24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
  23. 23.
    Popper, K.: The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Routledge, Abingdon (2005)MATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Walls, J.G., Widmeyer, G.R., El Sawy, O.A.: Building an information system design theory for vigilant EIS. Inf. Syst. Res. 3, 36–59 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gregor, S., Jones, D.: The anatomy of a design theory. J. AIS 8, 312–335 (2007)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gregor, S.: The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Q. 30, 611–642 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sein, M.K., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., Lindgren, R.: Action design research. MIS Q. 35, 37–56 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Prat, N., Comyn-Wattiau, I., Akoka, J.: A taxonomy of evaluation methods for information systems artifacts. J. Manag. Information Syst. 32, 229–267 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bandara, W., Furtmueller, E., Gorbacheva, E., Miskon, S., Beekhuyzen, J.: Achieving rigor in literature reviews: insights from qualitative data analysis and tool-support. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 34, 154–204 (2015)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Baskerville, R., Lyytinen, K., Sambamurthy, V., Straub, D.: A response to the design-oriented information systems research memorandum. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 20, 11–15 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Österle, H., Becker, J., Frank, U., Hess, T., Karagiannis, D., Krcmar, H., Loos, P., Mertens, P., Oberweis, A., Sinz, E.J.: Memorandum on design-oriented information systems research. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 20, 7–10 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    vom Brocke, J., Simons, A., Niehaves, B.: Reconstructing the giant: on the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process, pp. 1–13 (2009)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sturm, B., Schneider, S., Sunyaev, A.: Leave no stone unturned: introducing a revolutionary meta-search tool for rigorous and efficient systematic literature searches. In: ECIS (2015)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fischer, C.: The information systems design science research body of knowledge–a citation analysis in recent top-journal publications. In: PACIS 2011 Proceedings (2011)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Simon, H.A.: Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gauch, H.G.: Scientific Method in Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Box, G.E., Hunter, W.G., Hunter, J.S.: Statistics for Experimenters (1978)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Venable, J., Baskerville, R.: Eating our own cooking: towards a design science of research methods. In: Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Research Methods in Business and management, University of Bolton, Bolton, UK, pp. 399–407 (2012)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    March, S.T., Smith, G.F.: Design and natural science research on information technology. Decis. Supp. Syst. 15, 251–266 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Iivari, J.: Distinguishing and contrasting two strategies for design science research. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 24, 107–115 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kolfschoten, G.L., de Vreede, G.-J.: A design approach for collaboration processes: a multimethod design science study in collaboration engineering. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 26, 225–256 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Nissen, M.E.: Dynamic knowledge patterns to inform design: a field study of knowledge stocks and flows in an extreme organization. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 22, 225–263 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Germonprez, M., Kendall, J.E., Kendall, K.E., Mathiassen, L., Young, B., Warner, B.: A theory of responsive design: a field study of corporate engagement with open source communities. Inf. Syst. Res. 28, 64–83 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Grover, V., Lyytinen, K.: New state of play in information systems research: the push to the edges. MIS Q. 39, 271–275 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CologneCologneGermany

Personalised recommendations