The action research vs design science debate: reflections from an intervention in eGovernmentdi

As Design Science (DS) establishes itself as an acceptable approach to Information Systems research, many have commented on the similarity, or otherwise, between DS and Action Research (AR). Most of the writing on this topic has been conceptual, and not grounded in practice. In this paper, we presen...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European journal of information systems 2012-03, Vol.21 (2), p.147
Hauptverfasser: Papas, Nikolaos, O'keefe, Robert M, Seltsikas, Philip
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 2
container_start_page 147
container_title European journal of information systems
container_volume 21
creator Papas, Nikolaos
O'keefe, Robert M
Seltsikas, Philip
description As Design Science (DS) establishes itself as an acceptable approach to Information Systems research, many have commented on the similarity, or otherwise, between DS and Action Research (AR). Most of the writing on this topic has been conceptual, and not grounded in practice. In this paper, we present a piece of completed research that was perceived and executed as AR, but also reflected upon as DS. The research produced a new method for diagramming electronic workflows and creating the associated digital signatures, within the domain of eGovernment. Our conclusion is that AR that produces an artefact can be quite easily, and perhaps superficially, presented as DS. Epistemologically, there is little to separate the two methodologies. However, there are some subtle differences in practice, especially with regard to the role of the artefact, the structuring of the process, the focus of evaluation of the intervention and research, and the emphasis on learning and knowledge. We provide guidance to researchers contemplating either approach, and also consider the role of pluralist attempts to combine the approaches. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]
doi_str_mv 10.1057/ejis.2011.50
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_926222226</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2602358871</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_journals_9262222263</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNjM1OwzAQhK2KSg2UWx9gxT1hnb8SrhWlD9ADt8i4G-IoWRdvmudvqPoAzGU0M59GqY3GRGOxfaXOSZKi1kmBCxXpfFvGVZbnDyrCqsQY34qvlXoU6RBTrHIdqfrYEhg7Os8QSMgE28IkcCJxPwxiHbGlOX6bkd5npOnpRgs0wQ9gGByPFCbi24djoE8_UeBhbk5urZaN6YWe7_6kXvYfx90hPgf_eyEZ685fAs9TXaVl-qcy-xd0BeLASrk</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>926222226</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The action research vs design science debate: reflections from an intervention in eGovernmentdi</title><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Papas, Nikolaos ; O'keefe, Robert M ; Seltsikas, Philip</creator><creatorcontrib>Papas, Nikolaos ; O'keefe, Robert M ; Seltsikas, Philip</creatorcontrib><description>As Design Science (DS) establishes itself as an acceptable approach to Information Systems research, many have commented on the similarity, or otherwise, between DS and Action Research (AR). Most of the writing on this topic has been conceptual, and not grounded in practice. In this paper, we present a piece of completed research that was perceived and executed as AR, but also reflected upon as DS. The research produced a new method for diagramming electronic workflows and creating the associated digital signatures, within the domain of eGovernment. Our conclusion is that AR that produces an artefact can be quite easily, and perhaps superficially, presented as DS. Epistemologically, there is little to separate the two methodologies. However, there are some subtle differences in practice, especially with regard to the role of the artefact, the structuring of the process, the focus of evaluation of the intervention and research, and the emphasis on learning and knowledge. We provide guidance to researchers contemplating either approach, and also consider the role of pluralist attempts to combine the approaches. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]</description><identifier>ISSN: 0960-085X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1476-9344</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1057/ejis.2011.50</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Abingdon: Taylor &amp; Francis Ltd</publisher><subject>Action research ; Digital signatures ; Electronic government ; Hypothesis testing ; Information systems ; Intervention ; Ontology ; Research methodology ; Researchers ; Science ; Studies</subject><ispartof>European journal of information systems, 2012-03, Vol.21 (2), p.147</ispartof><rights>Operational Research Society 2012</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Papas, Nikolaos</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O'keefe, Robert M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Seltsikas, Philip</creatorcontrib><title>The action research vs design science debate: reflections from an intervention in eGovernmentdi</title><title>European journal of information systems</title><description>As Design Science (DS) establishes itself as an acceptable approach to Information Systems research, many have commented on the similarity, or otherwise, between DS and Action Research (AR). Most of the writing on this topic has been conceptual, and not grounded in practice. In this paper, we present a piece of completed research that was perceived and executed as AR, but also reflected upon as DS. The research produced a new method for diagramming electronic workflows and creating the associated digital signatures, within the domain of eGovernment. Our conclusion is that AR that produces an artefact can be quite easily, and perhaps superficially, presented as DS. Epistemologically, there is little to separate the two methodologies. However, there are some subtle differences in practice, especially with regard to the role of the artefact, the structuring of the process, the focus of evaluation of the intervention and research, and the emphasis on learning and knowledge. We provide guidance to researchers contemplating either approach, and also consider the role of pluralist attempts to combine the approaches. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]</description><subject>Action research</subject><subject>Digital signatures</subject><subject>Electronic government</subject><subject>Hypothesis testing</subject><subject>Information systems</subject><subject>Intervention</subject><subject>Ontology</subject><subject>Research methodology</subject><subject>Researchers</subject><subject>Science</subject><subject>Studies</subject><issn>0960-085X</issn><issn>1476-9344</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqNjM1OwzAQhK2KSg2UWx9gxT1hnb8SrhWlD9ADt8i4G-IoWRdvmudvqPoAzGU0M59GqY3GRGOxfaXOSZKi1kmBCxXpfFvGVZbnDyrCqsQY34qvlXoU6RBTrHIdqfrYEhg7Os8QSMgE28IkcCJxPwxiHbGlOX6bkd5npOnpRgs0wQ9gGByPFCbi24djoE8_UeBhbk5urZaN6YWe7_6kXvYfx90hPgf_eyEZ685fAs9TXaVl-qcy-xd0BeLASrk</recordid><startdate>20120301</startdate><enddate>20120301</enddate><creator>Papas, Nikolaos</creator><creator>O'keefe, Robert M</creator><creator>Seltsikas, Philip</creator><general>Taylor &amp; Francis Ltd</general><scope>0U~</scope><scope>1-H</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>8AL</scope><scope>8BF</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AXJJW</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CNYFK</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>E3H</scope><scope>F2A</scope><scope>FREBS</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K7-</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L.0</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0N</scope><scope>M0Q</scope><scope>M1O</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20120301</creationdate><title>The action research vs design science debate: reflections from an intervention in eGovernmentdi</title><author>Papas, Nikolaos ; O'keefe, Robert M ; Seltsikas, Philip</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_9262222263</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Action research</topic><topic>Digital signatures</topic><topic>Electronic government</topic><topic>Hypothesis testing</topic><topic>Information systems</topic><topic>Intervention</topic><topic>Ontology</topic><topic>Research methodology</topic><topic>Researchers</topic><topic>Science</topic><topic>Studies</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Papas, Nikolaos</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O'keefe, Robert M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Seltsikas, Philip</creatorcontrib><collection>Global News &amp; ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>Trade PRO</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Computing Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>European Business Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Asian &amp; European Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Library &amp; Information Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Library &amp; Information Sciences Abstracts (LISA)</collection><collection>Library &amp; Information Science Abstracts (LISA)</collection><collection>Asian &amp; European Business Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>Computer Science Database</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Standard</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Computing Database</collection><collection>European Business Database</collection><collection>Library Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>European journal of information systems</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Papas, Nikolaos</au><au>O'keefe, Robert M</au><au>Seltsikas, Philip</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The action research vs design science debate: reflections from an intervention in eGovernmentdi</atitle><jtitle>European journal of information systems</jtitle><date>2012-03-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>21</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>147</spage><pages>147-</pages><issn>0960-085X</issn><eissn>1476-9344</eissn><abstract>As Design Science (DS) establishes itself as an acceptable approach to Information Systems research, many have commented on the similarity, or otherwise, between DS and Action Research (AR). Most of the writing on this topic has been conceptual, and not grounded in practice. In this paper, we present a piece of completed research that was perceived and executed as AR, but also reflected upon as DS. The research produced a new method for diagramming electronic workflows and creating the associated digital signatures, within the domain of eGovernment. Our conclusion is that AR that produces an artefact can be quite easily, and perhaps superficially, presented as DS. Epistemologically, there is little to separate the two methodologies. However, there are some subtle differences in practice, especially with regard to the role of the artefact, the structuring of the process, the focus of evaluation of the intervention and research, and the emphasis on learning and knowledge. We provide guidance to researchers contemplating either approach, and also consider the role of pluralist attempts to combine the approaches. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]</abstract><cop>Abingdon</cop><pub>Taylor &amp; Francis Ltd</pub><doi>10.1057/ejis.2011.50</doi></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0960-085X
ispartof European journal of information systems, 2012-03, Vol.21 (2), p.147
issn 0960-085X
1476-9344
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_926222226
source Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Action research
Digital signatures
Electronic government
Hypothesis testing
Information systems
Intervention
Ontology
Research methodology
Researchers
Science
Studies
title The action research vs design science debate: reflections from an intervention in eGovernmentdi
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-01T19%3A56%3A04IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20action%20research%20vs%20design%20science%20debate:%20reflections%20from%20an%20intervention%20in%20eGovernmentdi&rft.jtitle=European%20journal%20of%20information%20systems&rft.au=Papas,%20Nikolaos&rft.date=2012-03-01&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=147&rft.pages=147-&rft.issn=0960-085X&rft.eissn=1476-9344&rft_id=info:doi/10.1057/ejis.2011.50&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E2602358871%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=926222226&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true