The Primary Scientific Contribution is Hardly a Theory in Design Science Research

Abstract

Generally, to publish a paper in a top IS journal, making a new theory contribution is, so we are told, required. Such a requirement also exists in Design Science Research (DSR) literature. We review a number of claims about the necessity of theory as it applies to DSR. We find these claims wanting. For example, medical research and engineering are both called "design science" in Simon's (1996) Sciences of the Artificial. However, most articles in the top medical, computer engineering, and network engineering journals do not develop new theories. Unless the proponents of theories, as the primary vehicle of scientific DSR knowledge, can offer a satisfactory argument for why theories are the primary scientific contribution, we do not have to regard 'theory' as the primary outcome of good scientific research in DSR. If we are correct, then theory is not valuable in its own right in (applied) science, as theory serves higher purposes.