The Information Systems (IS) research discipline is undergoing a serious identity crisis, seeking its sphere of activity to be relevant in practice and rigorous in scientific considerations. One reason for this is the strengthening of the Design Science approach. This new discipline developed as a synergy from aspects of engineering, architecture, and industrial design and is employed in the design of IT artifacts and software systems. Design Science is becoming a powerful trend in IS research (Vahidov 2006). It gives the IS discipline a new and more detailed focal point as pertains to the application of software and IT artifact development which is growing in importance in IS research over the time (Weber 2003; Orlikowski and Iacono 2001; Cross 2001). IS practitioners ask for new and innovative design approaches, dealing with the evolving organizational and inter-organizational tasks. The way these tasks are executed, in close cooperation with the practical business world, seems to be insufficiently considered. The debate in IS research is carried out between traditional scientists and the knowledge-producing researchers/practitioners and “it could be argued that research aimed at developing IT systems, at improving IT practice, has been more successful and important than traditional scientific attempts to understand it” (March and Smith 1995, p. 252).
IS researchers are mainly focused on the behavioral impact of new IT solutions within a business unit. These concepts are needed to describe the relationship between the humans and the technology. However, this way of conducting research is descriptive and evaluative. Instead of telling “what is” or “what will be”, Design Science is giving guidance as to “how to do” things (Walls et al. 1992). The importance of this new approach is given through the rapid development of business needs and the increased necessity to solve business problems through the implementation of IT solutions. The knowledge base for designing new solutions has not yet been fully developed. IT consultants borrow knowledge from reference disciplines and apply this knowledge to present problems. This way of providing solutions is not compatible with Design Science as an area of research. A relevant design approach needs to give new answers to phenomena thus far unsolved. However, the IS discipline has not yet established a solid groundwork for Design Science within its discipline.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
1.1 Motivation and Research Questions
1.2 Structure
2 Theoretical Background of Design Science
2.1 Introducing the Design Concept
2.2 Design Science as an Area of Research
2.2.1 The Separation of Design Science and Natural Science
2.2.2 Theorizing in Design Science
2.3 Establishing a Philosophical Basis for Design Science
3 Developing the Design Science Discipline
3.1 Three Different Design Science Frameworks
3.1.1 Building an Information System Design Theory for Vigilant EIS
3.1.2 Design and Natural Science Research on Information Technology
3.1.3 Design Science in Information System Research
4 Identifying the Core Subject Matter of Design Science in IS research
4.1 The IT Artifact
4.2 The IT Work System
5 Conclusion and Outlook
Research Objectives & Key Themes
This paper explores the evolution and challenges of Design Science within the Information Systems (IS) research discipline, aiming to clarify the foundational role of Design Science and identify its core subject matter to help the field overcome its current identity crisis.
- Theoretical foundations and philosophical underpinnings of Design Science.
- Comparative analysis of major Design Science frameworks (Walls et al., March & Smith, Hevner et al.).
- The relationship and boundaries between Design Science and Natural Sciences.
- The debate surrounding the "IT Artifact" versus the "Work System" as the central subject of IS research.
Excerpt from the Book
2.1 Introducing the Design Concept
Design is the process of changing present situations into preferred ones. Design creates something new that does not yet exist in nature and for this reason design is not comparable to the Natural Sciences that describe the objects and phenomena of the natural world (Simon 1969; Vaishna and Kuechler 2004). The study of designing things has long been a fundamental part of art, engineering, architecture and other disciplines in the business and industrial sectors. Design plays a key role in these areas by distinguishing the practical and professional side from the sciences of this particular discipline (Simon 1969). Only the artificial processes and products in the form of newly arranged artifacts can achieve the desired outcome in the practical world.
One major task in the development of the design field was the construction of a joint view of design and science to establish a theoretical foundation for design practices. The idea of design using parts of the traditional science disciplines has continuously emerged during the early decades of the 20th century. This resulted in the use of design based on scientific knowledge in industrial sectors, i.e. the so called “scientific design”. It was not yet a synonym for Design Science but already an application of modern design practice (Cross 2001).
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: Provides the motivation for examining Design Science and outlines the core research questions regarding the discipline's identity and core subject matter.
2 Theoretical Background of Design Science: Discusses the historical and conceptual roots of design, comparing Design Science with Natural Science and examining the role of theory and philosophical paradigms.
3 Developing the Design Science Discipline: Analyzes the three most cited academic frameworks in IS literature, evaluating how each contributes to the development of design research cycles.
4 Identifying the Core Subject Matter of Design Science in IS research: Explores the ongoing debate regarding whether the IT artifact or the work system should serve as the primary focus of IS research.
5 Conclusion and Outlook: Synthesizes the findings, noting that while a definitive core subject remains elusive, Design Science remains a critical and growing component of IS research.
Keywords
Design Science, Information Systems, IT Artifact, Work System, IS Research, Research Paradigm, Natural Science, Behavioral Science, Design Theory, Identity Crisis, Socio-technologist, Framework, Methodology, Proof-of-concept, Knowledge Base.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this research paper?
The paper examines the development and challenges of the Design Science discipline within the field of Information Systems, specifically focusing on its identity, theoretical foundations, and core subject matter.
What are the central themes discussed in the work?
The central themes include the intersection of theory and practice, the relationship between Design Science and Natural Sciences, and the debate over whether the "IT artifact" or "Work System" should be the defining unit of analysis.
What is the main goal or research question?
The primary goals are to determine if Design Science requires a unique research paradigm, to identify its core subject matter, and to assess whether existing frameworks sufficiently support the discipline.
Which scientific methods are applied in the paper?
The paper employs a literature-based analytical approach, reviewing and contrasting foundational Design Science frameworks and philosophical paradigms to assess their rigor and relevance.
What topics are covered in the main section of the paper?
The main sections cover the theoretical roots of design, a detailed comparative analysis of three prominent Design Science frameworks, and a critical discussion of the IT artifact and work system as potential core subjects.
How can the paper be characterized using keywords?
Key terms include Design Science, Information Systems, IT Artifact, Work System, IS Research, Research Paradigm, and Design Theory.
Why is there an "identity crisis" in the IS discipline?
The crisis arises from the tension between maintaining scientific rigor (often borrowed from Natural Sciences) and ensuring practical relevance for organizations, leading to debates over the field's true purpose and object of study.
How does the author view the separation of Design Science and Natural Science?
The author argues that a rigid separation is counterproductive, suggesting instead that a unified approach is necessary to ensure that design efforts remain grounded in organizational reality.
- Quote paper
- Marsilius Graf von Ingelheim (Author), 2009, The Design Process in Information System Research, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/125917
