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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | European journal of information systems 2012-03, Vol.21 (2), p.147 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Asian & 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 & Information Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Library & Information Sciences Abstracts (LISA)</collection><collection>Library & Information Science Abstracts (LISA)</collection><collection>Asian & 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 & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & 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 & 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 |