2014Unpublished venueRequires access

Constructive Synergy in Design Science Research: A Comparative Analysis of Design Science Research and the Constructive Research Approach

Kalle Piirainen, Rafael A. González

Open publisher page 12 citations

Abstract

Information systems research is focused on creating knowledge which can be applied in organizations. Design science research, which specifically aims at applying existing knowledge to solve interesting and relevant business problems, has been steadily gaining support in information systems research. However, design science research is not the only design-oriented research framework available. Accordingly, this raises the question of whether there is something to learn between the different approaches. This paper contributes to answering this question by comparing design science research with the constructive research approach. The conclusion is that the two approaches are similar and compatible, save for details in practical requirements and partly underlying philosophical assumptions. The main finding that arises from the comparison is, however, that there is a potential problem in claiming knowledge contribution from evaluation of the utility of an artifact. That is, utility-based evaluation often builds the argument on adoption of the artifact, assuming that adoption and utility in general validates also claims to knowledge contribution. We show that this mode of evaluation has philosophical and practical problems that need addressing in further research.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Information systems research is focused on creating knowledge which can be applied in organizations. Design science research, which specifically aims at applying existing knowledge to solve interesting and relevant business problems, has been steadily gaining support in information systems research. However, design science research is not the only design-oriented research framework available. Accordingly, this raises the question of whether there is something to learn between the different approaches. This paper contributes to answering this question by comparing design science research with the constructive research approach. The conclusion is that the two approaches are similar and compatible, save for details in practical requirements and partly underlying philosophical assumptions. The main finding that arises from the comparison is, however, that there is a potential problem in claiming knowledge contribution from evaluation of the utility of an artifact. That is, utility-based evaluation often builds the argument on adoption of the artifact, assuming that adoption and utility in general validates also claims to knowledge contribution. We show that this mode of evaluation has philosophical and practical problems that need addressing in further research.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 12 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Information systems research is focused on creating knowledge which can be applied in organizations. Design science research, which specifically aims at applying existing knowledge to solve interesting and relevant business problems, has been steadily gaining support in information systems research. However, design science research is not the only design-oriented research framework available. Accordingly, this raises the question of whether there is something to learn between the different approaches. This paper contributes to answering this question by comparing design science research with the constructive research approach. The conclusion is that the two approaches are similar and compatible, save for details in practical requirements and partly underlying philosophical assumptions. The main finding that arises from the comparison is, however, that there is a potential problem in claiming knowledge contribution from evaluation of the utility of an artifact. That is, utility-based evaluation often builds the argument on adoption of the artifact, assuming that adoption and utility in general validates also claims to knowledge contribution. We show that this mode of evaluation has philosophical and practical problems that need addressing in further research.

Key concepts: Constructive, Management science, Computer science, Research design, Engineering ethics, Engineering, Sociology, Programming language

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Constructive Synergy in Design Science Research: A Comparative Analysis of Design Science Research and the Constructive Research Approach — Research Paper | ScholarLens