Towards transdisciplinary design research as a delicate dance

References

• Ahearn, L. M. (2001). Language and agency. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30(1), 109–137.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aiello, J., & Nero, S. J. (2019). Discursive dances: Narratives of insider/outsider researcher tensions. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 18(4), 251–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2019.1623035
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alvesson, M. (2010). Self-doubters, strugglers, storytellers, surfers and others: Images of self-identities in organization studies. Human Relations, 63(2), 193–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709350372
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrade, A. D., & Doolin, B. (2016). Information and communication technology and the social inclusion of refugees. Mis Quarterly, 40(2), 405–416. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2016/40.2.06
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashmore, R. D., Deaux, K., & McLaughlin-Volpe, T. (2004). An organizing framework for collective identity: Articulation and significance of multidimensionality. Psychological Bulletin, 130(1), 80. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.1.80
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Avital, M., Mathiassen, L., & Schultze, U. (2017). Alternative genres in information systems research. European Journal of Information Systems, 26(3), 240–247. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41303-017-0051-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker, K. S., & Millerand, F. (2007). Articulation work supporting information infrastructure design: Coordination, categorization, and assessment in practice. In 2007 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’07) (pp. 242a–242a). IEEE. Big Island, Hawaii.
   Google Scholar
• Baskerville, R. L., & Myers, M. D. (2015). Design ethnography in information systems. Information Systems Journal, 25(1), 23–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12055
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baskerville, R. L., Myers, M. D., & Youngjin, Y. (2020). Digital first: The ontological reversal and new challenges for information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 44(2), 509–523. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2020/14418
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bietti, L. M., Baker, M. J., & Détienne, F. (2016). Joint remembering in collaborative design: A multimodal approach in the case of a video design studio. CoDesign, 12(4), 221–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2015.1103752
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bilandzic, M., & Venable, J. (2011). Towards participatory action design research: Adapting action research and design science research methods for urban informatics. The Journal of Community Informatics, 7(3), 3. https://doi.org/10.15353/joci.v7i3.2592
   Google Scholar
• Birch, J., Parnell, R., Patsarika, M., & Šorn, M. (2017). Creativity, play and transgression: Children transforming spatial design. CoDesign, 13(4), 245–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2016.1169300
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bødker, M., & Chamberlain, A. (2016). Affect theory and autoethnography in ordinary information systems. Proc. ECIS2016.
   Google Scholar
• Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Buckingham, D. (2008). Introducing identity. MacArthur Foundation Digital Media and Learning Initiative.
   Google Scholar
• Carillo, K., Cachat-Rosset, G., Marsan, J., Saba, T., & Klarsfeld, A. (2021). Adjusting to epidemic-induced telework: Empirical insights from teleworkers in France. European Journal of Information Systems, 30(1), 69–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2020.1829512
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carter, M., & Grover, V. (2015). Me, my self, and I (T). MIS Quarterly, 39(4), 931–958. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2015/39.4.9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. (2011). Doing critical information systems research–arguments for a critical research methodology. European Journal of Information Systems, 20(4), 440–455. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2010.67
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., Davison, R. M., Fernandez, W., Finnegan, P., Pan, S. L., & Sarker, S. (2020). Advancing qualitative is research methodologies: Expanding horizons and seeking new paths. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 21(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00599
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., Kautz, K., & Abrahall, R. (2014). Reframing success and failure of information systems. Mis Quarterly, 38(2), 561–588. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2014/38.2.11
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi, B. C., & Pak, A. W. (2006). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: 1. Definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness. Clinical and Investigative Medicine, 29(6), 351.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chu, T. H., & Robey, D. (2008). Explaining changes in learning and work practice following the adoption of online learning: A human agency perspective. European Journal of Information Systems, 17(1), 79–98. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000731
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science. Design Issues, 17(3), 49–55. https://doi.org/10.1162/074793601750357196
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cummings, J., & Kiesler, S. (2003). Coordination and success in multidisciplinary scientific collaborations. Proc. ICIS2003. Seattle, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, B., & Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20(1), 43–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.1990.tb00174.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davison, R. M., Martinsons, M. G., & Malaurent, J. (2021). Research perspectives: Improving action research by integrating methods. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 22(3), 1. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00682
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Vaujany, F. X., Walsh, I., & Mitev, N. (2011). An historically grounded critical analysis of research articles in is. European Journal of Information Systems, 20(4), 395–417. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.13
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolata, M., & Aleya, K. B. (2022). Morphological Analysis for Design Science Research: The Case of Human-drone Collaboration in Emergencies. In International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (pp. 17–29). Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Donovan, J., Heinemann, T., Matthews, B., & Buur, J. (2011). Getting the point: The role of gesture in managing intersubjectivity in a design activity. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 25(3), 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890060411000059
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2013). Speculative everything: Design, fiction, and social dreaming. MIT press.
   Google Scholar
• Elliot, S. (2011). Transdisciplinary perspectives on environmental sustainability: A resource base and framework for IT-Enabled business transformation. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 197–236. https://doi.org/10.2307/23043495
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023. https://doi.org/10.1086/231294
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farhoomand, A., & Drury, D. H. (2001). Diversity and scientific progress in the information systems discipline. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 5, 1. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.00512
   Google Scholar
• Franklin, B. J. (2001). Discourses of design: Perspectives on the meaning of housing quality and ‘good’ housing design. Housing Theory & Society, 18(1/2), 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/14036090120584
   Google Scholar
• Ghita, C. (2019). In defence of subjectivity: Autoethnography and studying technology non-use. Proc. ECIS2019. Stockholm, Sweden.
   Google Scholar
• Giampapa, F. (2011). The politics of “being and becoming” a researcher: Identity, power, and negotiating the field. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 10(3), 132–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2011.585304
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. University of Pennsylvania Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1983). The interaction order: American Sociological Association, 1982 presidential address. American Sociological Review, 48(1), 1–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gregor, S. (2006). The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 611–642. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148742
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gregor, S., & Hevner, A. R. (2013). Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 337–355. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.2.01
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hafermalz, E., & Riemer, K. (2021). Productive and connected while working from home: What client-facing remote workers can learn from telenurses about ‘belonging through technology’. European Journal of Information Systems, 30(1), 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2020.1841572
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haj-Bolouri, A., Bernhardsson, L., & Rossi, M. (2016). PADRE: A method for participatory action design research. Proc. DESRIST2016.
   Google Scholar
• Handford, M. & Gee, J. P. (Eds.). (2013). The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis. routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hassan, N. R., Mathiassen, L., & Lowry, P. B. (2019). The process of information systems theorizing as a discursive practice. Journal of Information Technology, 34(3), 198–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268396219832004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hassan, N. R., Mingers, J., & Stahl, B. (2018). Philosophy and information systems: Where are we and where should we go? European Journal of Information Systems, 27(3), 263–277.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heidegger, M. (1927/2011). Being and Time. (J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson, Trans.). Harper & Row.
   Google Scholar
• Heinemann, T., & Landgrebe, J. M. (2012). Collaborating to restrict: a conversation analytic perspective on collaboration in design. CoDesign, 8(4), 200–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2012.734827
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hevner, A. R., Drechsler, A., & Gerber, A. J. (2022). Preface. In A. Drechsler, A. J. Gerber, & A. R. Hevner, Eds. The transdisciplinary reach of design science research: 17th international conference on design science research in Information Systems and technology, DESRIST 2022. June 1–3, 2022, Vol. 13229, Springer Nature
   Google Scholar
• Hevner, A., March, S., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148625
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horrigan-Kelly, M., Millar, M., & Dowling, M. (2016). Understanding the key tenets of Heidegger’s philosophy for interpretive phenomenological research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 15(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406916680634
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hur, I., Cousins, K. C., & Stahl, B. C. (2019). A critical perspective of engagement in online health communities. European Journal of Information Systems, 28(5), 523–548.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iivari, N. (2018). Using member checking in interpretive research practice. Information Technology & People, 31(1), 111–133. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-07-2016-0168
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kajamaa, A., & Kumpulainen, K. (2019). Agency in the making: Analyzing students’ transformative agency in a school-based makerspace. Mind Culture and Activity, 26(3), 266–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2019.1647547
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 67–93. https://doi.org/10.2307/249410
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhlmeier, F. O., Gnewuch, U., Lüttke, S., Brakemeier, E. L., & Mädche, A. (2022, May). A personalized conversational agent to treat depression in youth and young adults–A transdisciplinary design science research project. In The Transdisciplinary Reach of Design Science Research: 17th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology, DESRIST 2022, St Petersburg, FL, USA, June 1–3, 2022, (pp. 30–41). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Lang, M. (2003). Hypermedia systems development: A comparative study of software engineers and graphic designers. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 12. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.01216
   Google Scholar
• Lee, C. (2007). Boundary negotiating artifacts: Unbinding the routine of boundary objects and embracing chaos in collaborative work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 16(3), 307–339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-007-9044-5
   Google Scholar
• Legner, C., Purao, S., & Rosemann, M. (2022). Introduction to the theme track: Transdisciplinary Research and DSR. In A. Drechsler, A. J. Gerber, & A. R. Hevner, Eds. The transdisciplinary reach of design science research: 17th international conference on design science research in Information Systems and technology, DESRIST 2022. June 1–3, 2022 , (Vol. 13229, pp. 2–3), Springer Nature.
   Google Scholar
• Leonardi, P. M. (2011). When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: Affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 147–167. https://doi.org/10.2307/23043493
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levina, N. (2006). Collaborating on multiparty information systems development projects: A collective reflection-in-action view. Information Systems Research, 16(2), 109–130. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1050.0055
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148682
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lier, L. V. (2007). Action-based teaching, autonomy and identity. International Journal of Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 46–65.
   Google Scholar
• Light, A. (2011). HCI as heterodoxy: Technologies of identity and the queering of interaction with computers✩. Interacting with Computers, 23(5), 430–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2011.02.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luck, R. (2013). Articulating (mis)understanding across design discipline interfaces at a design team meeting. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 27(2), 155–166. https://doi.org/10.1017/S089006041300005X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lustig, C. (2019). Intersecting imaginaries: Visions of decentralized autonomous systems. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 3(CSCW), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359312
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• March, S. T., & Smith, G. F. (1995). Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems, 15(4), 251–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-9236(94)00041-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markus, M. L., & Mao, J. Y. (2004). Participation in development and implementation-updating an old, tired concept for today’s is contexts. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 5(11), 514–544. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00057
   Google Scholar
• Mathiassen, L. (2002). Collaborative practice research. Information Technology & People, 15(4), 321–345. https://doi.org/10.1108/09593840210453115
   Google Scholar
• Mathiassen, L., & Nielsen, P. A. (2008). Engaged scholarship in is research. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 20(2), 1.
   Google Scholar
• Matthews, B., & Heinemann, T. (2012). Analysing conversation: Studying design as social action. Design Studies, 33(6), 649–672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2012.06.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonnell, J. (2009). Collaborative negotiation in design: A study of design conversations between architect and building users. CoDesign, 5(1), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880802492862
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Möller, F., Chandra Kruse, L., Schoormann, T., & Otto, B. (2022, May). Design principles for boundary spanning in transdisciplinary design science research. In The Transdisciplinary Reach of Design Science Research: 17th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology, DESRIST 2022, St Petersburg, FL, USA June 1–3, 2022, (pp. 42–54). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Monson, M. (2023). Socially responsible design science in information systems for sustainable development: A critical research methodology. European Journal of Information Systems 32(2) , 207–237.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muhammad, M., Wallerstein, N., Sussman, A. L., Avila, M., Belone, L., & Duran, B. (2015). Reflections on researcher identity and power: The impact of positionality on community based participatory research (CBPR) processes and outcomes. Critical Sociology, 41(7–8), 1045–1063. https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920513516025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mullarkey, M. T., Hevner, A. R., & Ågerfalk, P. (2019). An elaborated action design research process model. European Journal of Information Systems, 28(1), 6–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2018.1451811
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myers, M. D., & Klein, H. K. (2011). A set of principles for conducting critical research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 17–36. https://doi.org/10.2307/23043487
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newell, S., & Galliers, R. D. (2000). “More than a footnote: The perils of multidisciplinary research collaboration”. Proc. AMCIS2000. Long Beach, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Nishida, K. ( Trans.). (1958). Intelligibility and the philosophy of nothingness: Three philosophical essays, Robert Shinzinger. East-West Center Press.
   Google Scholar
• Norris, S. (2011). Identity in (inter)action: Introducing multimodal (inter)action analysis. deGruyter Mouton.
   Google Scholar
• Oak, A. (2009). Performing architecture: Talking ‘architect’ and ‘client’ into being. CoDesign, 5(1), 51–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880802518054
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oulasvirta, A., & Blom, J. (2008). Motivations in personalisation behaviour. Interacting with Computers, 20(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2007.06.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., & Niehaves, B. (2018). Design science research genres: Introduction to the special issue on exemplars and criteria for applicable design science research. European Journal of Information Systems, 27(2), 129–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2018.1458066
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., & Chatterjee, S. (2007). A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3), 45–77. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Purao, S., Baldwin, C. Y., Hevner, A., Storey, V. C., Pries-Heje, J., Smith, B., & Zhu, Y. (2008). The sciences of design: Observations on an emerging field. Harvard Business School Finance Working Paper, 09–056.
   Google Scholar
• Rainio, A. P. (2010). Lionhearts of the playworld: An ethnographic case study of the development of agency in play pedagogy. University of Helsinki, Institute of Behavioural Sciences Studies in Educational Sciences. 233
   Google Scholar
• Rajala, A., Hilppö, J., Lipponen, L., & Kumpulainen, K. (2013). Expanding the chronotopes of schooling for the promotion of students’ agency. Identity, Community, and Learning Lives in the Digital Age, 107–125. http://www.cambridge.org/aus/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9781107005914
   Google Scholar
• Rajamany, V., van Biljon, J. A., & van Staden, C. J. (2022). User experience requirements of digital moderation systems in South Africa: Using participatory design within design science research. In The Transdisciplinary Reach of Design Science Research: 17th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology, DESRIST 2022, St Petersburg, FL, USA, June 1–3, 2022, Cham: Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Raman, R., & McClelland, L. (2019). Bringing compassion into information systems research: A research agenda and call to action. Journal of Information Technology, 34(1), 2–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268396218815989
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riemenschneider, C. K., & Armstrong, D. J. (2021). The development of the perceived distinctiveness antecedent of Information Systems professional identity. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1149–1186. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2021/14626
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riordan, N. (2014). Autoethnography: Proposing a new research method for information systems research. Proc. ECIS2014.
   Google Scholar
• Sack, W., Détienne, F., Ducheneaut, N., Burkhardt, J., Mahendran, D., & Barcellini, F. (2006). A methodological framework for socio-cognitive analyses of collaborative design of open source software. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 15(2), 229–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-006-9020-5
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, L., & Stappers, P. J. (2014). From designing to co-designing to collective dreaming: Three slices in time. Interactions, 21(6), 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1145/2670616
   Google Scholar
• Schatzki, T. (2012). A primer on practices: Theory and research. In J. Higgs, R. Barnett, S. Billett, M. Hutchings, & F. Trede (Eds.), Practice-based education: Perspectives and strategies (pp. 13–26). Sense Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, K. (2008). Taking cscw seriously: Supporting articulation work (1992). In Cooperative work and coordinative practices (pp. 45–71). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Schultze, U. (2000). A confessional account of an ethnography about knowledge work. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 3–41. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250978
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schultze, U. (2014). Performing embodied identity in virtual worlds. European Journal of Information Systems, 23(1), 84–95. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2012.52
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schultze, U., & Brooks, J. A. M. (2019). An interactional view of social presence: Making the virtual other “real”. Information Systems Journal, 29(3), 707–737. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12230
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scollon, R. (2001). Action and text: Towards an integrated understanding of the place of text in social (inter) action, mediated discourse analysis and the problem of social action. W. Ruth, & M. Michael (Eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (Vol. 113, pp. 139–183).
   Google Scholar
• Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2004). Nexus analysis: Discourse and the emerging internet. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Sedera, D., Lokuge, S., Tushi, B., & Tan, F. (2017). Multi-disciplinary green IT archival analysis: A pathway for future studies. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 41(1), 28. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.04128
   Google Scholar
• Sein, M. K., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., & Lindgren, R. (2011). Action design research. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 37–56. https://doi.org/10.2307/23043488
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stahl, B., Tremblay, M., & LeRouge, C. (2011). Focus groups and critical social is research: How the choice of method can promote emancipation of respondents and researchers. European Journal of Information Systems, 20(4), 378–394. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.21
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stock, P., & Burton, R. J. (2011). Defining terms for integrated (multi-inter-trans-disciplinary) sustainability research. Sustainability, 3(8), 1090–1113. https://doi.org/10.3390/su3081090
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stryker, S. (2008). From Mead to a structural symbolic interactionism and beyond. Annual Review of Sociology, 34(1), 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.34.040507.134649
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stuhlfauth, S., Foss, C., & Knutsen, I. R. (2019). Coming from two different worlds – a qualitative, exploratory study of the collaboration between patient representatives and researchers. Health Expectations, 22(3), 496–503. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12875
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suchman, L. A. (1996). Supporting articulation work. In R. Kling (Ed.), Computerization and controversy: Value conflicts and social choices (pp. 407–423). Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Tarafdar, M., & Davison, R. (2018). Research in information systems: Intra-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary approaches. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 19(6), 523–551. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00500
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomson, P., & Gunter, H. (2011). Inside, outside, upside down: The fluidity of academic researcher ‘identity’ in working with/in school. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 34(1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2011.552309
   Google Scholar
• Van Leeuwen, T. (2004). Ten Reasons why linguists should pay attention to visual communication. In P. LeVine & R. Scollon (Eds.), Discourse and technology: Multimodal discourse analysis (pp. 7–19). Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Waizenegger, L., McKenna, B., Cai, W., & Bendz, T. (2020). An affordance perspective of team collaboration and enforced working from home during COVID-19. European Journal of Information Systems, 29(4), 429–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2020.1800417
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walsham, G. (1995). Interpretive case studies in is research: Nature and method. European Journal of Information Systems, 4(2), 74–81. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.1995.9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walsham, G. (2012). Are we making a better world with ICTs? Reflections on a future agenda for the is field. Journal of Information Technology, 27(2), 87–93. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2012.4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weedman, J. (2008). Client as designer in collaborative design science research projects: What does social science design theory tell us? European Journal of Information Systems, 17(5), 476–488. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2008.46
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weedon, C. (1987). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory. Oxford, Basil Blackwell Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Weedon, C. (2004). Identity and culture: Narratives of difference and belonging. Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, P. (2008). Motivational affordances: Reasons for ICT design and use. Communications of the ACM, 51(11), 145–147. https://doi.org/10.1145/1400214.1400244
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar