Whither design science research?

This issue of the European Journal of Information Systems (EJIS) is a special issue on “Exemplars and criteria for applicable design science research”. Design science research (DSR) has become an important and widely accepted research approach in our field. As the guest editors, Ken Peffers, Tuure Tuunanen, and Bjoern Niehaves point out in their introduction (Peffers, Tuunanen, & Niehaves, 2018), design-oriented and constructive approaches have a long history in information systems (IS) research, not the least in Europe (Winter, 2008; Ågerfalk & Wiberg, in press). Since EJIS prides itself on providing a distinctive European perspective for a global audience, it is not surprising that design-oriented research has a special place in our journal. Over the past 25 years (1993–2017), EJIS has published 199 articles and editorials that contain the word “design” in the title, abstract or keywords (according to Thomson Reuters’ Web of Science, www.webofknowledge.com, accessed 16 March 2018). Thus, approx. 21% of the published items over the years are explicitly concerned with design in one way or another. Not poorly peed by a wooden horse, as the Swedes would say. Of these 199, 24 refer specifically to “design science”. Not surprisingly, these 24 have appeared after the publication of the landmark paper by Hevner, March, Park, and Ram (2004), which apparently helped standardise terminology in the area (for good and bad). European IS research embraces several forms of design-oriented approaches, including, for example, DSR, participatory design, Schönian reflective design practice and design thinking (Ågerfalk & Wiberg, in press; Te’eni, Rowe, Ågerfalk, & Lee, 2015). As evident from this special issue and the guest editors’ introduction, even DSR itself is far from a unified approach. To cater for this diversity, EJIS encourages submission of design-oriented research across all its submission categories. The journal editors are occasionally asked why we do not have a specific DSR submission category. The answer is since design-oriented research is so fundamental to our discipline, it should be welcomed in all genres (Te’eni et al., 2015). In EJIS parlance, empirical design research would, for instance, be considered Empirical Research, design theorising and DSR-based theory development are probably more appropriate for the Theory Development, Research Essay or Literature Review submission categories, depending on the approach taken. Thus, not having a separate DSR submission category is our way of embracing the diversity of design-oriented approaches, which include DSR but also studies with a critical perspective on DSR. We want EJIS to be perceived as a level playing field where diverse approaches can cross-fertilise to push the DSR and IS design research agenda into the future.

To stimulate a healthy discourse on design and DSR, EJIS has launched a couple of noteworthy initiatives. First, Volume 17, Issue 5 was a special issue on “Design science research in Europe” that aimed to elucidate the European perspective on DSR (Winter, 2008). Second, Volume 20, Issue 1 was devoted to the Memorandum on Design Oriented Information Systems Research (Österle et al., 2011) – a translation of a German document that reflects the importance of DSR to European IS research (Junglas et al., 2011). Third, the science-to-practice initiative described by Te’eni, Seidel, and Vom Brocke (2017), although not DSR specific, is designed to cater for practice- and design-oriented approaches that offer value and actionable advice to industry. The current issue, Vol 27, Issue 2, is a logical next step in this progression. In this issue, the guest editors and authors seek to go beyond methodological guidelines for DSR and instead present exemplars of what DSR can be. In the special issue introduction (Peffers et al., 2018), the guest editors also contribute a useful classification of DSR genres and discuss how we, as a community can be better at evaluating and appreciating different types of DSR research. The approach taken by the guest editors can be extended to cater for the full diversity of design-oriented approaches to IS research. As such, it can help stimulate a critical discussion about what contribution one can expect from articles in our journals (Ågerfalk, 2014) and how such contributions can be appropriately evaluated and disseminated.

It is comforting to know that EJIS continues advancing the design discourse in our field. In addition to this special issue, several manuscripts in review, in our publication backlog and in the “Latest articles” section at the journal website (http://www.tandfonline.com/ejis) represent design-oriented studies, including both DSR exemplars and methodological elaborations. Regarding future submissions, we expect to continue receiving manuscripts that deal with evaluation and theorising in a DSR context. DSR and the notion of the IT artefact is another topic that will likely earn further attention, including the broadening of the domain of inquiry to include also other types of artefact than strictly information technological ones (yet with a clear IS framing). The notion of the ensemble artefact and the relationship among socio-technical systems, socio-materiality and work systems are other areas to which DSR researcher are likely to make contributions. Other contemporary domains where DSR seems to offer considerable promise is in understanding the socio-technical nature of agency, information infrastructures and platforms, without the black-boxing of technology common in other disciplines (Abdelnour, Hasselbladh, & Kallinikos, 2017; Plantin, Lagoze, Edwards, & Sandvig, 2018). DSR researchers recognise platforms and algorithms are purposefully designed and seek not only to understand the implications of these on social practices and institutions but to find ways to ascertain positive outcomes.

Notwithstanding the importance of exemplars, we also need to keep exploring DSR and design theory as phenomena. Such exploration could adopt the above-mentioned critical view of DSR and call for challenging fundamental assumptions and addressing important open questions. One such assumption is the distinction between behavioural IS research and DSR – a distinction seemingly artificial, somewhat misleading and rather confusing in most practical DSR contexts. As evident from the guest editors’ introduction (Peffers et al., 2018), a significant open question regards the use of theory in design. Can DSR be considered legitimately atheoretical, emphasising other types of contribution? Can it be considered theory testing, as theory development or as an abductive process in which theory is used to make sense of and inspire formulation of both design problems and practical design outcomes? Maybe it can be all the above, which appears supported by the genre approach suggested by the guest editors? Importantly, for publication in EJIS, the editors expect a distinct contribution to knowledge (theoretical or empirical) along with a convincing discussion about theoretical implications (Ågerfalk, 2014; Te’eni et al. 2015). A potential way forward, but certainly not the only one, would be to take pragmatism seriously as the philosophical foundation of DSR and dare fully to embrace design research as an inquiry process (Baskerville, Kaul, & Storey, 2015; Sjöström, 2010). Design as inquiry has the potential to help reinterpret the notion of “design as a search process” (Hevner et al., 2004) such that neither the starting point nor the end goal is assumed to be known in advance. The truth is in the consequences, as it were, not in a teleological mapping of a search space onto a set of beliefs about utility. DSR can then deliver theoretically informed arguments that draw on subjective and intersubjective design rationale as well as objective empirical behavioural evidence, without assuming a completely rational design process (Aakhus & Jackson, 2005). Ultimately, taking pragmatism seriously is a call for mixed methods (Ågerfalk, 2013; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004) and synergy across different design traditions with the potential to understand design theorising as the formulation and use of practical theory (Aakhus, 2007; Cronen, 2001; Goldkuhl, 2007). A practical theory in an IS design context is a theory about socio-technical design that can inform socio-technical design and is developed through socio-technical design (cf. Ågerfalk, 2010). It can be “an appropriate instrument for conducting practical inquiries, but also an instrument for practitioners struggling to manage and improve their practices”. (Goldkuhl, 2007, p. 140) Of course, other philosophical orientations than pragmatism can and will be used to enrich our understanding of design and DSR in IS. Stimulating such diversity is a critical task for EJIS. Diversity is an explicit guiding principle for EJIS (Rowe, 2012) and DSR is no exception. It is, therefore, reassuring to read the guest editors’ introduction to this special issue with its sensitivity to differences across genres. We need to acknowledge such differences and appreciate how to evaluate research with varying epistemological and ontological grounding. Importantly, “the central and distinctive commitment is to successful design, not to a particular empirical method or a particular set of concepts” (Aakhus & Jackson, 2005, p. 421).

Whatever the future may bring, EJIS will continue to offer a platform for the most innovative and valuable design-oriented research in IS. We look forward to receiving your contribution.

Pär J. Ågerfalk
Uppsala University
[email protected]