Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Theory-generating design science research

  • Published:
Information Systems Frontiers Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A frequently mentioned challenge in design science research (DSR) is the generation of novel theory above and beyond information technology artefacts. This article analyzes the DSR process and extends established frameworks for theory generation to exemplify improvements to theory generation through methods of grounded theory development. On a conceptual base, we developed a theory-generating DSR approach which integrates methods of grounded theory development with established DSR methodology. This combination enables a design theorist to generate theoretical knowledge that extends the applicable knowledge base. We do not elaborate this combination on a meta-level, but rather provide a process model for researchers in form of an extension of a well-known DSR model to combine both methods in a pluralistic research design. With this suggested research approach, scholars can draw theoretical insights from analytical abstractions and can improve the development of IT artefacts in a structured way to avoid failure or repair loops.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aalst, W., & Kumar, A. (2003). XML-based schema definition for support of interorganizational workflow. Inform Syst Res, 14(1), 23–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abbasi, A., & Chen, H. (2008). CyberGate: a design framework and system for text analysis of computer-mediated communication. MIS Quarterly, 32(4), 811–837.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albert, T. C., Goes, P. B., & Gupta, A. (2004). GIST: a model for design and management of content and interactivity of customer-centric web sites. MIS Quarterly, 28(2), 161–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, D. K., Colligan, D., Finnie, A., et al. (2000). Trust, power and interorganizational information systems: the case of the electronic trading community TransLease. Inform Syst Res, 10(1), 21–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arazy, O., Kumar, N., & Shapira, B. (2010). A theory-driven design framework for social recommender systems. J Assoc Inform Syst Online, 11(9), 455–490.

    Google Scholar 

  • Au, Y. A. (2001). Design Science I: the role of design science in electronic commerce research. Comm Assoc Inform Syst, 7(1), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Avison, D., Lau, F., Myers, M., et al. (1999). Action research. Comm ACM, 42(1), 94–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basili VR (1996) The role of experimentation in software engineering: past, current, and future. Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), Ohio, USA.

  • Baskerville, R. (2008). What design science is not. Eur J Inform Syst, 17(5), 441–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baskerville, R., & Pries-Heje, J. (1999). Grounded action research: a method for understanding IT in practice. Account Manag Inform Tech, 9(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baskerville, R., & Pries-Heje, J. (2010). Explanatory design theory. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 2(5), 271–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baskerville, R., & Stage, J. (2001). Accommodating emergent work practices: ethnographic choice of method fragments. In B. Fitzgerald, N. Russo, & J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Realigning research and practice: the social and organizational perspectives. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baskerville R, Pries-Heje J, Venable J (2009) Soft design science methodology. Proceedings of Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST), Philadelphia, USA.

  • Benbasat, I., & Zmund, R. W. (2003). The identity crisis within the IS discipline: defining and communicating the discipline’s core properties. MIS Quarterly, 27(2), 183–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (2007a). Grounded theory in historical perspective: an epistemological account. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of grounded theory. London: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (2007b). Grounded theory research: methods and practices. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of grounded theory. London: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson SA (2006) Towards an information systems design research framework: a critical realist perspective. Proceedings of Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST), Claremont, USA.

  • Coglan, D., & Coughlan, P. (2002). Action research for operations management. Int J Oper Prod Manag, 22(2), 220–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubin, R. (1978). Theory building. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Acad Manage Rev, 14(4), 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Acad Manage J, 50(1), 25–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez WD (2004) The grounded theory method and case study data in IS research: issues and design. Proceedings of Information Systems Foundations Workshop: Constructing and Criticising, Canberra, Australia.

  • Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley: Sociology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing grounded theory: issues and discussions. Mill Valley: Sociology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G. (2007). Doing formal theory. London: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldkuhl, G. (2004). Design theories in information systems—a need for multi-grounding. J Inform Tech Theor Appl, 6(2), 59–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregor, S. (2002). Design theory in information systems. Aust J Inform Syst, 10(1), 14–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregor, S. (2006). The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 611–642.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregor, S., & Jones, D. (2007). The anatomy of a design theory. J Assoc Inform Syst Online, 8(5), 312–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, R. W., & Muntermann, J. (2011) Theorizing in design science research: inductive versus deductive approaches. In: Thirty second international conference on information systems, Shanghai, China.

  • Hevner, A. R., & March, S. T. (2003). The information systems research cycle. IT Systems Perspective, 36(11), 111–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hevner, A., March, S., Park, J., et al. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmström, J. B., Ketokivi, M., & Hameri, A. P. (2009). Bridging practice and theory: a design science approach. Decision Sci, 40(1), 65–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ketokivi, M., & Mantere, S. (2010). Two strategies for inductive reasoning in organizational research. Acad Manage Rev, 35(2), 315–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuechler, B., & Vaishnavi, V. (2008a). On theory development in design science research: anatomy of a research project. Eur J Inform Syst, 17(5), 489–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuechler B, Vaishnavi V (2008b) Theory development in design science research: anatomy of a research project. In Proceedings of Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST), Atlanta, GA.

  • Lee JS, Pries-Heje J, Baskerville R (2011) Theorizing in design science research. 6th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology, Milwaukee, WI.

  • Levina, N., & Vaast, E. (2005). The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice: implications for implementation and use of information systems. MIS Quarterly, 29(2), 335–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madill, A., Jordan, A., & Shirley, C. (2000). Objectivity and reliability in qualitative analysis: realist, contextualist and radical constructionist epistemologies. Br J Psychol, 91(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, S. T., & Smith, G. (1995). Design and natural science research on information technology. Decis Support Syst, 15(4), 251–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markus, M. L., Majchrzak, A., & Gasser, L. (2002). A design theory for systems that support emergent knowledge processes. MIS Quarterly, 26(3), 179–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKay, J., & Marshall, P. (2001). The dual imperatives of action research. Inform Tech People, 14(1), 46–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKay J, Marshall P (2005) A review of design science in information systems. Proceedings of the Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS), Sydney, Australia.

  • Mingers, J. (2001). Combining IS research methods: towards a pluralist methodology. Inform Syst Res, 12(3), 240–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, E. (1961). The structure of science. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunamaker, J. F., Chen, M., & Purdin, T. D. M. (1991). Systems development in information systems research. J Manag Inform Syst, 7(3), 89–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W. J., & Iacono, C. S. (2001). Research commentary: desperately seeking the ‘IT’ in IT research—a call to theorizing the IT artifact. Inform Syst Res, 12(2), 121–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., et al. (2008). A design science research methodology for information systems research. J Manag Inform Syst, 24(3), 45–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pries-Heje, J., & Baskerville, R. (2008). The design theory nexus. MIS Quarterly, 32(4), 731–755.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. New York City: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1992). Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation. Knowl Base Syst, 5(1), 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sein, M. K., Henfridsson, O., Puaro, S., et al. (2011). Action design research. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 37–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1969). The science of the artificial. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: what grounded theory is not. Acad Manage J, 49(4), 633–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Udo K (2005) ‘Emergence’ vs. ‘Forcing’ of empirical data? A crucial problem of ‘grounded theory’ reconsidered. Forum Qualitative Social Research, 6(2), Art. 27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Umapathy, K., Purao, S., & Barton, R. R. (2008). Designing enterprise integration solutions: effectively. Eur J Inform Syst, 17(5), 518–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urquhart, C. (2007). The evolving nature of grounded theory method: the case of the information systems discipline. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of grounded theory. London: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urquhart, C., Lehmann, H., & Myers, M. D. (2010). Putting the ‘theory’ back into grounded theory: guidelines for grounded theory studies in information systems. Inform Syst J, 20(4), 357–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaishnavi, V., & Kuechler, W. (2008). Design science research methods and patterns—innovating information and communication technology. Boca Reton: Auerbach Publications Taylor & Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walls, J. G., Widmeyer, G. R., & El Sawy, O. A. (1992). Building an information system design theory for vigilant EIS. Inform Syst Res, 3(1), 36–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, S., Beck, R., & Gregory, R. W. (2012) Combining design science and design research perspectives - Findings of three prototyping projects. In: 45 Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Wailea, Maui, HI.

  • Weedman, J. (2008). Client as designer in collaborative design science research projects: what does social science design theory tell us? Eur J Inform Syst, 17(5), 476–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, R. (2008). Design science research in Europe. Eur J Inform Syst, 17(5), 470–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yadav, M. S. (2010). The decline of conceptual articles and implications for knowledge development. J Market, 74(1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Information Systems, Goethe University Frankfurt, Grüneburgplatz 1, 60323, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

    Roman Beck & Sven Weber

  2. University of Göttingen, Platz der Göttinger Sieben 5, 37073, Göttingen, Germany

    Robert Wayne Gregory

Authors
  1. Roman Beck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sven Weber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robert Wayne Gregory
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sven Weber.

Appendix: Review of DSR Articles

Appendix: Review of DSR Articles

In the course of our literature research, we found several articles beside Weedman (2008) that offer support for various steps of our theory-generating DSR approach. Each article depicts a usage of DSR methods. Many articles present the IT artefact as an instantiation, though as Hevner et al. (2004) state: “IT artefacts can also be represented by constructs, models, methods, instantiations, or a combination thereof” (see also, March and Smith 1995). In Table 3, we list articles that discuss typical examples of DSR and that provided some basic ideas for our theory-generating DSR approach.

Table 3 Literature using DSR as a research approach
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Beck, R., Weber, S. & Gregory, R.W. Theory-generating design science research. Inf Syst Front 15, 637–651 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-012-9342-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-012-9342-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation