The development of a Design Research Canvas for data practitioners

References

• Benbasat, I., & Zmud, R. W. (1999). Empirical research in information systems: The practice of relevance. MIS Quarterly, 23, 3–16. 10.2307/249403
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 5–21. 10.2307/1511637
   Google Scholar
• Davison, R., Martinsons, M. G., & Kock, N. (2004). Principles of canonical action research. Information Systems Journal, 14, 65–86. 10.1111/isj.2004.14.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desouza, K. C., El Sawy, O. A., Galliers, R. D., Loebbecke, C., & Watson, R. T. (2006). Beyond rigor and relevance towards responsibility and reverberation: Information systems research that really matters. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 17, 341–353.
   Google Scholar
• Fitzgerald, B., & Howcroft, D. (1998). Towards dissolution of the is research debate: From polarization to polarity. Journal of Information Technology, 13, 313–326. 10.1057/jit.1998.9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldkuhl, G. (2012). From action research to practice research. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 17(2), 57–58.
   Google Scholar
• Gregor, S., & Hevner, A. R. (2013). Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS quarterly, 37, 337–356.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helfert, M., Donnellan, B., & Ostrowski, L. (2012). The case for design science utility and quality-Evaluation of design science artifact within the. Systems, Signs & Actions, 6, 46–66.
   Google Scholar
• Hevner, A., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28, 75–105.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, A. S., & Hubona, G. S. (2009). A scientific basis for rigor in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 237–262.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• March, S. T., & Smith, G. F. (1995). Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems, 15, 251–266. 10.1016/0167-9236(94)00041-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• March, S. T., & Storey, V. C. (2008). Design science in the information systems discipline: An introduction to the special issue on design science research. MIS Quarterly, 32, 725–730.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mathiassen, L., & Sandberg, A. (2013). How a professionally qualified doctoral student bridged the practice-research gap: A confessional account of Collaborative Practice Research. European Journal of Information Systems, 22, 475–492. 10.1057/ejis.2012.35
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation: A handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers. New Jersey, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Gengler, C. E., Rossi, M., Hui, W., Virtanen, V., & Bragge, J. (2006). The design science research process: A model for producing and presenting information systems research. In Proceedings of the first international conference on design science research in information systems and technology (DESRIST 2006) (pp. 83–106). Claremont, CA: CGU.
   Google Scholar
• Rosemann, M., & Vessey, I. (2008). Toward improving the relevance of information systems research to practice: The role of applicability checks. MIS Quarterly, 32(1), 1–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sein, M., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., & Lindgren, R. (2011). Action design research. MIS Quarterly, 35, 37–56.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Susman, G. I., & Evered, R. D. (1978). An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 582–603. 10.2307/2392581
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, H., Artman, E., & Woelfer, J. P. (2012). Information technology project risk management: bridging the gap between research and practice. Journal of Information Technology, 27, 17–34. 10.1057/jit.2011.29
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change. Organization Science, 13, 567–582. 10.1287/orsc.13.5.567.7810
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ware, C. (2010). Visual thinking: For design. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann.
   Google Scholar
• Weber, R. (2004). The rhetoric of positivism versus interpretivism. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), iii–xii.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar