Towards a paradigmatic shift in IS: designing for social practice

The paper elaborates on the theoretical foundation of Information System understood as a field of design science. Revisiting Hevner's et al. seminal paper [44], we elaborate on theoretical and conceptual shortcomings. Theoretically, we state a somehow limited perception of pragmatist thinking. Conceptually, we criticize a limited definition of the IS research field and argue in favour of an (obligatory) evaluation of IT artifacts in real world settings. To develop the design science paradigm beyond these shortcomings, we present a theoretical framework which takes the interrelation of IT artifacts and social practices as a central focus of research. Such an epistemological and ontological opening of the design science perspective leads to methodological implications. We exemplify methodological shifts by taking the Canonical Action Research (CAR) method as a problematic example. Design probes are discussed as a method which holds considerable promises under a reframed paradigm. The consequences of the theoretical and methodological reflections for a socially relevant IS design science are discussed finally

Grounded Design: A praxeological IS research perspective

In this paper, we propose Grounded Design – a particular design research (DR) approach rooted in a practice-theoretical tradition. It assesses the quality of information technology (IT) design through evaluation of emerging changes in social practices, which result from the appropriation and use of IT artifacts. The paper starts with a systematic analysis of the reasons for persistent limitations of traditional information systems DR, specifically in coping with problems of contingency and self-referentiality. Following this critique, the principles of Grounded Design are presented. Grounded Design is applied in case studies where we reconstruct the social practices observed before and during the design and appropriation of innovative IT artifacts. We call these context-specific research endeavors ‘design case studies.’ In conducting these case studies, Grounded Design builds upon well-established research methods such as ethnographical field studies, participatory design and action research. To support the transferability of its situated findings, Grounded Design suggests documenting increasing numbers of design case studies to create an extended, comparative knowledge base. Comparing cases allows for the emergence of bottom-up concepts dealing with the design and appropriation of innovative IT artifacts in social practice