Incommensurability and Multi-paradigm Grounding in Design Science Research: Implications for Creating Knowledge

Abstract

Abstract. The problem identification-design-build-evaluate-theorize structure of design science research has been proposed as an approach to creating knowledge in information systems and in broader organizational and social domains. Although the approach has merit, the philosophical foundations of two specific components warrant attention. First, the grounding of design theory on potentially incommensurate kernel theories may produce incoherent design theory. In addition, design theory has no strong logical connection to kernel theories, and so cannot be used to test or validate the contributing kernel theories. Second, the philosophical grounding of evaluation may inadvertently shift from functionally based measures of utility and efficiency, to evaluation based on the pragmatic fulfillment of multidimensional human actions as people encounter information systems, resulting in evaluation errors. Although design and evaluation from a single paradigm is not desirable, sufficient, or representative of design science research, multi-paradigm grounding of design and evaluation must be realized and used consciously by the research community if the design science approach is to remain a legitimate approach to knowledge creation.

Towards Sustainable IT by Teaching Governance Practices for Inter-Organizational Dependencies

“…Second, we cannot objectively prove that our approach is the single best one or the only truth to be revealed as our results are always subject to interpretation (Heriksen and Kautz 2006). Nevertheless, we believe our approach as a whole is an artifact enabling human action and being from our interpretation better than existing ones (Hovorka 2010). …”

“…Furthermore, we presented the description of how to teach the interdisciplinary topic of governance practices for inter-organizational relationships in the context of sustainable IT as a specific content description within this framework. In this sense our holistic approach as an artifact enables human action and is thereby following the DSR paradigm (Hovorka 2010).…”

Explanatory Design Theory

“…However, it is unclear exactly what kernel theories contribute, and why such separate theories should be integrated with explanatory design theories. This question has recently been discussed (Hovorka 2010) and criticized. Another reduction would involve retaining the distinction between process and product (Walls et al 1992).…”

A knowledge-based development model for primate cities of the developing world

“…Design Science Research is a well-established approach in the field of information systems (Dalsgaard, 2014;Hevner et al, 2014;Hevner & Gregor, 2012;Hovorka, 2009;Kuechler & Vaishnavi, 2012;Otto & Österle, 2012;Vaishnavi & Kuechler, 2009). Vaishnavi and Kuechler (2009) describes the ontology, epistemology, methodology and axiology of Design Science Research which given their pragmatic roots bears considerable similarity to the classical pragmatic paradigm.…”