Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Design Science Research Problems … Where Do They Come From?

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
The Next Wave of Sociotechnical Design (DESRIST 2021)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 12807))

Abstract

Effective and impactful design science research requires appropriate research conduct, and an appropriate research problem. Scholars in the DSR community continue to clarify the foundations for appropriate research conduct. In contrast, few guidelines or guardrails have been proposed to identify and develop research problems. Without such guidance, DSR efforts run the risk of pursuing problems that are either un-important or not-well-formulated. In this paper, I draw on writings beyond the DSR community to develop considerations that DSR scholars can use to identify and develop research problems, acknowledging their evolving ontological status. The paper describes an approach, articulates these considerations, and develops arguments that can help the identification and development of research problems for DSR efforts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    As Nielsen (2020, p. 265) points out problem analysis and problem presentation is often very brief and sometimes even missing completely.

  2. 2.

    Described as ‘importance’ in the original (Jensen 2013).

  3. 3.

    Describing it as “affirming that gravity works in my kitchen” (Rai 2017).

  4. 4.

    Refers to non-obvious-ness; too small a step will prevent granting of a patent (Moir 2013).

  5. 5.

    The former points to a desire to change the current situation; the latter, a desire to develop further understanding of the current situation.

  6. 6.

    For instance, evaluating how intelligent wearable devices can persuade diabetic patients to make necessary behavioral changes (specific version) may map to how information systems can persuade patients with chronic diseases to make behavioral changes to comply with therapy (general version) (Rai 2017).

  7. 7.

    “Almost any problem is interesting if it is studied in sufficient depth” (Medawar 1979; cited in Van de Ven 2007 and Rai 2017).

  8. 8.

    See https://grandchallenges.org/; https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/administration/eop/ostp/grand-challenges; and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Challenges.

  9. 9.

    Attributed to George Heilmeier, Director of ARPA in the 1970’s. These questions, which he expected every new research program to answer, continue to survive at DARPA. See a version here: https://john.cs.olemiss.edu/~hcc/researchMethods/notes/HeilmeierQuestions.html.

  10. 10.

    The first example he provides is how arithmetic became easier with Arabic numerals and place notations (instead of Roman numerals), and points out that there appears to be no ‘theoretical’ explanation of this.

  11. 11.

    Regli (2017) describes it by pointing to a standard exercise called the eight queens problem. A naïve represention of the problem means the solution can take hours. In contrast, a clever representation results in an instant solution for vastly larger problems.

References

  • Barrett, C.B.: Publishing and collaborations: Some Tips. Seminar. University of Melbourne, 23 April (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  • Baskerville, R.L., Kaul, M., Storey, V.C.: Genres of inquiry in design-science research. MIS Q. 39(3), 541–564 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baskerville, R.: What design science is not. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 17(5), 441–443 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2008.45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, F.P., Jr.: The computer scientist as toolsmith II. Commun. ACM 39(3), 61–68 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandra, L., Seidel, S., Gregor, S.: Prescriptive knowledge in IS research: conceptualizing design principles in terms of materiality, action, and boundary conditions. In: Proceedings of 48th HICSS, pp. 4039–4048. IEEE (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatterjee, S.: Personal communication. Differences between design science and behavioral science. Georgia State University (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J.W.: Research Design, Qualitative & Quantitative Approaches. Sage, Thousand Oaks (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregor, S., Hevner, A.R.: Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Q. 37, 337–355 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregor, S., Jones, D.: The anatomy of a design theory. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 8, 313–335 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  • Horan, C.: Research topic selection & development: suggested guidelines for the student researcher, Chapter 2. In: Hogan, J., et al. (eds.) Approaches to Qualitative Research: Theory and its Practical Application. Oak Tree Press (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  • Iivari, J.: A critical look at theories in design science research. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 21(3), 10 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, P.H.: Choosing your PhD topic (and why it is important). Aust. Econ. Rev. 46(4), 499–507 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C., Venable, J.R.: Integrating CCM4DSR into ADR to improve problem formulation. In: Hofmann, S., Müller, O., Rossi, M. (eds.) DESRIST 2020. LNCS, vol. 12388, pp. 247–258. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64823-7_23

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lanzara, G.F., Mathiassen, L.: Mapping situations within a system development project. Inf. Manag. 8, 3–20 (1985)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laudan, R.: Introduction. In: Laudan, R. (ed.) The Nature of Technological Knowledge, pp. 1–26. D. Reidel Publishing Co. Boston (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, A.S.: A scientific methodology for MIS case studies. MIS Q. 13(1), 33–50 (1989). https://doi.org/10.2307/248698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., Wyner, G.M., Pentland, B.T.: Process grammar as a tool for business process design. MIS Q. 32(4), 757–778 (2008). https://doi.org/10.2307/25148871

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lukyanenko, R., Parsons, J.: Design theory indeterminacy: what is it, how can it be reduced, and why did the polar bear drown? J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 21(5), 1 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  • Luse, A., et al.: Selecting a research topic: a framework for doctoral students. Int. J. Dr. Stud. 7, 143 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  • Maedche, A., Gregor, S., Morana, S., Feine, J.: Conceptualization of the problem space in design science research. In: Tulu, B., Djamasbi, S., Leroy, G. (eds.) DESRIST 2019. LNCS, vol. 11491, pp. 18–31. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19504-5_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Majchrzak, A., Markus, M.L., Wareham, J.: Designing for digital transformation: lessons for information systems research from the study of ICT and societal challenges. MIS Q. 40(2), 267–277 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moir, H.V.: Empirical evidence on the inventive step. European Intellectual Property Review, April (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosyjowski, E.A., et al.: Drivers of research topic selection for engineering doctoral students. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 33(4), 1283 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, M.D., Klein, H.K.: A set of principles for conducting critical research in information systems. MIS Q. 35(1), 17–36 (2011). https://doi.org/10.2307/23043487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, P.A., Persson, J.S.: Engaged problem formulation in IS research. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 38(1), 35 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, P.A.: Problematizing in IS design research. In: Hofmann, S., Müller, O., Rossi, M. (eds.) DESRIST 2020. LNCS, vol. 12388, pp. 259–271. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64823-7_24

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, J.: Personal communication about the role of DESRIST in clarifying norms of research conduct, 21–22 May, Clontarf Castle, Dublin, Ireland (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  • Pries-Heje, J., Baskerville, R.: The design theory nexus. MIS Q. 731–755 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  • Pries-Heje, J., et al.: RMF4DSR: a risk management framework for design science research. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 26(1), Article no. 3 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  • Purao, S.: Truth or dare: the ontology question in design science research. J. Database Manag. 24(3), 51–66 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Purao, S., Karunakaran, A.: Designing platforms to support knowledge-intensive organizational work. In: vom Brocke, J., Hevner, A., Maedche, A. (eds.) Design Science Research. Cases. PI, pp. 207–227. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46781-4_9

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rai, A.: Avoiding type III errors: formulating IS research problems that matter. MIS Q. 41(2), iii–vii (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  • Regli, W.: Wanted: toolsmiths. Comm. ACM 60(4), 26–28 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rittel, H., Webber, M.: Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci. 4, 155–169 (1973)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rittel, H., Webber, M.: Planning problems are wicked problems. In: Cross, N. (ed.) Developments in Design Methodology, pp. 135–144. Wiley (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  • Romme, A.G.L., Endenburg, G.: Construction principles and design rules in the case of circular design. Organ. Sci. 17, 287–297 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothe, H., Wessel, L., Barquet, A.P.: Accumulating design knowledge: a mechanisms-based approach. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 21(3), 1 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandberg, J., Alvesson, M.: Ways of constructing research questions: gap-spotting or problematization? Organization 18(1), 23–44 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarker, S., et al.: Guest editorial: qualitative studies in information systems: a critical review and some guiding principles. MIS Q. 37(4), iii–xviii (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, M.N.K., Lewis, P., Thornhill, A.: Research Methods for Business Students, 3rd edn. Pitman Publishing, London (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D.: The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidel, S., et al.: Design principles for sensemaking support systems in sustainability transformations. Eur. J. Info. Syst. 27(2), 221–247 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sein, M.K., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., Lindgren, R.: Action design research. MIS Q. 35, 37–56 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sein, M.K., Rossi, M.: Elaborating ADR while drifting away from its essence. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 28(1), 21–25 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, J.: George H. Heilmeier. IEEE Spectr. 31(6), 56–59 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shneiderman, B.: The New ABCs of Research: Achieving Breakthrough Collaborations. Oxford University Press (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  • Thuan, N., et al.: Construction of Design Science Research Questions, Communications of the Association for Information Systems (forthcoming), (2021, in press)

    Google Scholar 

  • Twomey, M.B., Sammon, D., Nagle, T.: The tango of problem formulation: a patient’s/researcher’s reflection on an action design research journey. J. Med. Internet Res. 22(7) (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, A.H.: Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research. Oxford University Press, New York (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, R.: Editor’s comment: the problem of the problem. MIS Q. 27(1), iii–ix (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venable, J., et al.: Designing TRiDS: treatments for risks in design science. Australas. J. Inf. Syst. (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster, J., Watson, R.T.: Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review. MIS Q. xiii–xxiii (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  • Welke, R.: Personal communication about problem-finding by going beyond a literature review. Georgia State University (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu, L., et al.: A decision support system for finding research topic. In: PACIS 2013 Proceedings, 190 (2013). http://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2013/190

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information and Process Management, Bentley University, Waltham, MA, USA

    Sandeep Purao

Authors
  1. Sandeep Purao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sandeep Purao .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Liechtenstein, Vaduz, Liechtenstein

    Leona Chandra Kruse

  2. University of Liechtenstein, Vaduz, Liechtenstein

    Stefan Seidel

  3. University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway

    Geir Inge Hausvik

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Purao, S. (2021). Design Science Research Problems … Where Do They Come From?. In: Chandra Kruse, L., Seidel, S., Hausvik, G.I. (eds) The Next Wave of Sociotechnical Design. DESRIST 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12807. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82405-1_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82405-1_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-82404-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-82405-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation