Abstract
As Design Science (DS) establishes itself as an acceptable approach to Information Systems research, many have commented on the similarity, or otherwise, between DS and Action Research (AR). Most of the writing on this topic has been conceptual, and not grounded in practice. In this paper, we present a piece of completed research that was perceived and executed as AR, but also reflected upon as DS. The research produced a new method for diagramming electronic workflows and creating the associated digital signatures, within the domain of eGovernment. Our conclusion is that AR that produces an artefact can be quite easily, and perhaps superficially, presented as DS. Epistemologically, there is little to separate the two methodologies. However, there are some subtle differences in practice, especially with regard to the role of the artefact, the structuring of the process, the focus of evaluation of the intervention and research, and the emphasis on learning and knowledge. We provide guidance to researchers contemplating either approach, and also consider the role of pluralist attempts to combine the approaches.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alamillo I, Martinez D, Seltsikas P and Papas N (2007) Designing a modelling methodology for legal workflows. In Proceedings of Jurix 2007: The Twentieth Annual Conference. (LODDER AR and MOMMERS L, Eds), pp 165–167, IOS Press, Amsterdam.
Avison D, Baskerville R and Myers M (2001) Controlling action research projects. Information Technology & People 14 (1), 28–45.
Baskerville RL (1999) Investigating IS with action research. Communications of the Association for IS 2 (19), 1–32.
Baskerville RL (2008) Editorial: what design science is not. European Journal of Information Systems 17 (5), 441–443.
Baskerville RL and Myers M (2004) Special issue on action research in Information Systems: making is research relevant to practice – foreword. MIS Quarterly 28 (3), 329–335.
Baskerville RL, Pries-Heje J and Venable J (2009) Soft design science methodology. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST ′09). New York, NY, ACM, Article 9.
Baskerville RL and Wood-Harper AT (1996) A critical perspective on action research as a method for IS research. Journal of Information Technology 11 (3), 235–246.
Baskerville RL and Wood-Harper AT (1998) Diversity in information systems action research methods. European Journal of Information Systems 7 (2), 90–107.
Broderick MA, Gibson VR and Tarasewich P (2001) Electronic signatures: they’re legal, now what? Electronic Networking Applications and Policy 11 (5), 423–434.
Chiasson M, Germonprez M and Mathiassen L (2009) Pluralist action research: a review of the information systems literature. Information Systems Journal 19 (1), 31–54.
Cole R, Purao S, Rossi M and Sein MK (2005) Being proactive: where action research meets design research. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on IS (ICIS), (AVISON DE and GALLETTA DF, Eds), pp 325–335. The Association for Information Systems, Las Vagas, USA.
Davison RM, Martinsons MG and Kock N (2004) Principles of canonical action research. Information Systems Journal 14 (1), 65–86.
Deluca D, Gallivan MJ and Kock N (2008) Furthering Information Systems action research: a post-positivist synthesis of four dialectics. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 9 (2), 48–76.
European Telecommunications Standards Institute (2002) TR 102 038:2002. Electronic Signatures and Infrastructures (ESI); XML format for signature policies.
Gray DE (2009) Doing Research in the Real World, 2nd edn, SAGE Publications, London.
Hazari S (2002) Challenges of implementing public key infrastructure in netcentric enterprises. Logistics Information Management 15 (5/6), 385–392.
Henfridsson O. (2005) IS action research: state of the art and future directions. Seminar at LSE on 04/11/05. Slides accessed at [WWW document] http://personal.lse.ac.uk/SORENSEC/download/OlaHenfridssonSlides.ppt (accessed 12 November 2009).
Hevner AR (2007) A three cycle view of design science research. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 19 (2), 87–92.
Hevner AR, March ST, Park J and RAM S (2004) Design science in IS research. MIS Quarterly 28 (1), 75–105.
Hjalmarsson A, Rudmark D and Lind M (2010) When designers are not in control – experiences from using action research to improve researcher-developer collaboration in design science research. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science 6105 (WINTER R, ZHAO J and AIER S, Eds), pp 1–15. Springer, Berlin.
Järvinen P (2007) Action research is similar to design science. Quality & Quantity 41 (1), 37–54.
Kuechler B and Vaishnavi V (2008) On theory development in design science research: anatomy of a research project. European Journal of Information Systems 17 (5), 489–504.
March ST and Smith GF (1995) Design and natural science research on Information Technology. Decision Support Systems 15 (4), 251–266.
Mathiassen L (2002) Collaborative practice research. Information Technology & People 15 (4), 321–345.
McKay J and Marshall P (2001) The dual imperatives of action research. Information Technology & People 14 (1), 46–59.
McNiff J and Whitehead J (2009) Doing and Writing Action Research. Sage, London.
Mingers J (2001) Combining IS research methods: towards a pluralist methodology. Information Systems Research 12 (3), 240–259.
Nunamaker JF, Chen M and Purdin TPM (1991) Systems development in Information Systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems 7 (3), 89–106.
O’Keefe RM (1995) MS/OR enabled systems design. Operations Research 43 (2), 199–207.
Österle H, Becker J, Frank U, Hess T, Karagiannis D, Krcmar H, Loos P, Mertens P, Oberweis A and Sinz EJ (2010) Memorandum on design-oriented information systems research. European Journal of Information Systems 20 (1), 7–10.
Peffers K, Tuunanen T, Rothenberger MA and Chatterjee S (2007) A design science research methodology for IS research. Journal of Management Information Systems 24 (3), 45–77.
Rapoport RN (1970) Three dilemmas in action research: with special reference to the Tavistock experience. Human Relations 23 (6), 499–513.
Revans RW (1983) What is action learning? Journal of Management Development 21 (1), 39–50.
Sein MK, Henfridsson O, Purao S, Rossi M and Lindgren R (2011) Action design research. MIS Quarterly 35 (1), 37–56.
Seltsikas P and Palkovits S (2006) Process modelling notations for eGovernment: an assessment of modelling notations for identity management and GUIDE's methodology in practice. In Interoperability of eGovernment Services eGovInterop ′06 Conference. Bordeaux, France.
Susman GI and Evered RD (1978) An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Administrative Science Quarterly 23 (4), 582–603.
van Aken J (2005) Management research as a design science: articulating the research products of Mode 2 knowledge production in management. British Journal of Management 16 (1), 19–36.
Winter MC, Brown DH and Checkland PB (1995) A role for soft systems methodology in information systems development. European Journal of Information Systems 4 (3), 130–142.
Winter R (2008) Editorial: doing design science in Europe. European Journal of Information Systems 17 (5), 470–475.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Ignacio Alamillo and Daniel Martinez, both of the Catalan Certification Authority (CATCert) in Barcelona, Spain, for their enthusiastic support of this research. The reviews of this paper provided outstanding suggestions for advancement of the ideas within, and also organisation of the paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Papas, N., O'Keefe, R. & Seltsikas, P. The action research vs design science debate: reflections from an intervention in eGovernment. Eur J Inf Syst 21, 147–159 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.50
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.50