Design Theories in Information Systems - A Need for Multi-Grounding

Within the information systems community there is growing interest in design theories. These theories are aimed to give knowledge support to design activities. Design theories are considered as theorized practical knowledge. This paper is an inquiry into the epistemology of design theories. It is an inquiry in how to justify such knowledge; the need to ground and how to ground a design theory. A distinction is made between empirical, theoretical and internal grounding. The empirical grounding has to do with the effectiveness of the application of knowledge. External theoretical grounding relates design theory to other theories. One part of this is the grounding of the design knowledge in general explanatory theories. Internal grounding means an investigation of internal warrants (e.g. as values and categories) and internal cohesion of the knowledge. Together, these different grounding processes form a coherent approach for the multi-grounding of design theory (MGDT). As illustrations some examples of design theories in IS are discussed. These are design theories concerning business interaction which are based on language action theories

Practical Inquiry as Action Research and Beyond

Action research is now a well established research approach within information systems. Action research is defined as having dual purposes; contributing to changes in a local practice and to the scientific body of knowledge. It is often seen as way to ensure practical relevance in the research. However, in the definitions of action research nothing is explicitly said about the need to develop general knowledge of practical relevance and usefulness. As an alternative and a complement to action research, another research approach is elaborated: practical inquiry. This approach relies on pragmatic philosophy. Practical inquiry shares many similarities with action research, but there are some important differences. The purpose of a practical inquiry is, through empirical study on practical matters in local practices, to contribute to general practical knowledge. This practical knowledge will be part of the scientific body of knowledge and it aims to be useful for practical affairs. In many situations, practical inquiry will also include intervention, of varying degrees, into the studied local practices. The general practical knowledge is often formulated as practical theories. Purposes and constituents of practical theories are described. An illustration of a combined practical inquiry and action research study is described in the paper

Developing eInteractions - A Framework for Business Capabilities and Exchanges

The development of e-interactions (IT supported business interaction) need to be facilitated by comprehensive frameworks for business interaction. Existing frameworks cover fragments of the important constituents of business interaction. Based on a review of existing frameworks a more comprehensive one is presented in this paper. This comprehensive framework builds upon a symmetric focus on a supplier and on a customer. Attention is directed towards both communicative and material/financial exchanges. It distinguishes between different levels (markets level and dyadic level) of business interaction and acknowledges the dynamics of business interaction as the continual development of capabilities and business relations. On the dyadic level a distinction is made between frame contracting and business transaction. The proposed framework should be and has been used for evaluating, modelling and designing e-interactions

From Action Research to Practice Research

Action research (AR) has gained more acceptance as an approach to qualitative research in information systems (IS). The complexities of organisational and technical change makes this approach a suitable one in IS research. There are, however, still some controversies and confusions about the relation between “action” and “research”. The many types of AR and similar approaches (not labelled as AR) that have emerged demands further conceptual clarification of AR. A conceptual inquiry of AR, presented in the paper, has led to the identification of several unresolved issues concerning intervention research like AR. An alternative research approach is presented: practice research. This research approach is well founded in pragmatism and it builds on the two premises: 1) to contribute to general practice through abstract and useful knowledge and 2) to study the empirical field as interconnected practices. Several important concepts of practice research are described as: local practice contribution vs. general practice contribution; theorizing vs. situational inquiry. Practice research is seen as a broader notion encompassing AR and other research approaches as e.g. design research and evaluation research. Two case examples of practice research are briefly presented and compared: one AR-based study in the social welfare sector and one evaluation study of a taxation e-service

The Empirics of Design Research: Activities, Outcomes and Functions

Design research (DR) has matured as an important research approach within information systems. It can be seen as a response to the quest of more focus on the IT artefact. Besides the IT artefact, there are other important artefacts to build and study in DR. There are models and prototypes which are produced during information systems development. This paper has investigated the empirics of design research, especially activities and outcomes. Based on a conceptual inquiry of design research literature and two cases of design research, a conceptual clarification of design research empirics has been established. Two cases of public e-service design form the empirical bases for this conceptual development. The empirics of design research (i.e. a design practice) is distinguished from the theorizing part of DR. Empirical data of DR to be used for theorizing consist of produced artefacts, embedded data collection for design and theory-required data collection

From Action Research to Practice Research

Action research (AR) has gained more acceptance as an approach to qualitative research in information systems (IS). The complexities of organisational and technical change makes this approach a suitable one in IS research. There are, however, still some controversies and confusions about the relation between “action” and “research”. The many types of AR and similar approaches (not labelled as AR) that have emerged demands further conceptual clarification of AR. A conceptual inquiry of AR, presented in the paper, has led to the identification of several unresolved issues concerning intervention research like AR. An alternative research approach is presented: practice research. This research approach is well founded in pragmatism and it builds on the two premises: 1) to contribute to general practice through abstract and useful knowledge and 2) to study the empirical field as interconnected practices. Several important concepts of practice research are described as: local practice contribution vs. general practice contribution; theorizing vs. situational inquiry. Practice research is seen as a broader notion encompassing AR and other research approaches as e.g. design research and evaluation research. Two case examples of practice research are briefly presented and compared: one AR-based study in the social welfare sector and one evaluation study of a taxation e-service

From e-ladder to e-diamond – re--conceptualising models for public e-services

There is rapid growth in the development and launching of new public e-services to citizens. In doing this, government agencies base their work on national and international programs for e-government development. Many such programs include a stage model for public e-services. Many such models comprise stages of 1) information, 2) interaction, 3) transaction and 4) interaction. The wide spread use of such stage models (e-ladders) give rise to several questions. Are the categories of a stage model well chosen? Do e-services evolve through such a series of stages? Is there a real advancement between the different stages? Should one always strive for higher stages? Are higher stages inherently better than lower stages? Is a stage model a proper yardstick for evaluation and benchmarking? The paper pursues a critical examination of such stage models (called e-ladder). A conceptual analysis of stage models is performed based on a socio-pragmatic foundation. Empirical examples are given that show weaknesses in the assumptions and conceptualisations of stage models. An alternative model - the e-diamond - is presented consisting of three polarities (informative vs performative; standardized vs individualized; separate vs coordinated)

How to Develop a Multi-Grounded Theory: the evolution of a business process theory

In the information systems field there is a great need for different theories. Theory development can be performed in different ways – deductively and/or inductively. Different approaches with their pros and cons for theory development exists. A combined approach, which builds on inductive as well as deductive thinking, has been put forward – a Multi-Grounded Theory approach. In this paper the evolution of a business process theory is regarded as the development of a multi-grounded theory. This evolution is based on empirical studies, theory-informed conceptual development and the creation of conceptual cohesion. The theoretical development has involved a dialectic approach aiming at a theoretical synthesis based on antagonistic theories. The result of this research process was a multi-grounded business process theory. Multi-grounded means that the theory is empirically, internally and theoretically founded. This business process theory can be used as an aid for business modellers to direct attention towards relevant aspects when business process determination is performed