Researcher-Practitioner Collaboration in Action Design Research
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3127/ajis.v28.4281Keywords:
Researcher-practitioner collaboration, Action design research, ADR projects, Design science research, Academy-industry collaborationAbstract
Action Design Research (ADR) is a well-known research method within Design Science Research (DSR). An essential characteristic of the ADR method is the need for researcher-practitioner collaboration (RPC). While there is abundant research on RPC regarding information systems projects in general concerning explanatory and normative knowledge, there is very limited prescriptive knowledge on how to execute RPC in ADR projects. Successful collaboration in ADR projects is imperative since the development of socio-technical IT artefacts requires frequent interaction in organisational contexts. However, RPC can be hard to manage due to competing interests. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to present prescriptive knowledge for how to manage RPC. We have analysed a collaborative ADR project consisting of several researchers and practitioners. Based on a grounded theory approach, we have developed theoretical models based on challenges identified in an ADR project. The models provide prescriptive knowledge regarding: shape the IT artefact based on organisational intervention, exploit the mutual dependency between developing design principles and IT artefacts, and contextualise and generalise learning. Each model involves logical relationships between: conditions for the challenges, actions taken to address the challenges and consequences of the actions taken. The guidelines were deducted from the models and consist of recommendations that could be considered in future ADR projects.
References
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1989). Participatory action research and action science compared: A commentary. American Behavioral Scientist, 32(5), 612-623. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412985383.n6
Avison, D., Baskerville, R., & Myers, M. (2001). Controlling action research projects. Information Technology & People, 14(1), 28-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09593840110384762 Baskerville, R., & Pries-Heje, J. (2019). Projectability in design science research. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application (JITTA), 20(1), 3.
Bilandzic, M., & Venable, J. R. (2011). Towards Participatory Action Design Research: Adapting action research and design science research methods for urban informatics. Journal of Community Informatics, 7(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.15353/joci.v7i3.2592
Blaha M. & Rumbaugh J. (1991). Object-Oriented Modeling and Design With UML. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall.
Cambridge Dictionary (n.d.). Guideline. Retrieved May 14, 2024. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/guideline.
Chandra Kruse, L., & Seidel, S. (2017). Tensions in Design Principle Formulation and Reuse. In Proceedings of Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology. Chandra, L., Seidel, S., & Gregor, S. (2015). Prescriptive knowledge in IS research: Conceptualizing design principles in terms of materiality, action, and boundary conditions. In Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2015.485 Charmaz, K. (2017). The power of constructivist grounded theory for critical inquiry. Qualitative inquiry, 23(1), 34-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077800416657105 Chun Tie, Y., Birks, M., & Francis, K. (2019). Grounded theory research: A design framework for novice researchers. SAGE open medicine, 7, 1-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2050312118822927
Collatto, D. C., Dresch, A., Lacerda, D. P., & Bentz, I. G. (2018). Is action design research indeed necessary? Analysis and synergies between action research and design science research. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 31(3), 239-267.
Conboy, K. (2009). Agility from first principles: Reconstructing the concept of agility in information systems development. Information systems research, 20(3), 329- 354.
Cronholm S, & Göbel H. (2018). Guidelines Supporting the Formulation of Design Principles. In Proceedings of the 29th Australasian Conference on Information Systems. Sydney, Australia, Dec 3-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.5130/acis2018.ak
Cronholm, S. & Göbel, H. (2019). Evaluation of Action Design Research. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 31(2), 35-82. Cronholm, S., & Göbel, H. (2022). Action Design Research–Models for Researcher-Practitioner Collaboration. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology, pp. 393-404. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06516-3_29 Cronholm, S., & Goldkuhl, G. (2004). Conceptualising participatory action research–Three different practices. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 2(2), 47-58.
Date, C. J. (2006). An introduction to database systems. Pearson Education. Dey, A. K. (2001). Understanding and using context. Personal and ubiquitous computing, 5, 4-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s007790170019
Fitzgerald, B., Russo, N., & Stolterman, E. (2002). Information Systems Development: Methods in Action. London: McGraw-Hill. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203793206
Goldkuhl, G. (2004). Design Theories in Information Systems – A Need for Multi-Grounding, Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 6(2), 59-72.
Goldkuhl G & Cronholm S. (2019). Grounded Theory in Information Systems Research – from Themes in IS Discourse to Possible Developments. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems, Dec 15-18, Munich Germany.
Gregor, S. (2009). Building theory in the sciences of the artificial. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology, pp. 1-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1555619.1555625 Gregor, S., & Hevner, A. R. (2013). Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS quarterly, 37(2), 337-355. http://dx.doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.2.01 Haj-Bolouri, A., Bernhardsson, L., & Rossi, M. (2016). PADRE: A method for participatory action design research. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Design Science Research in Information System and Technology (pp. 19-36). Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39294-3_2 Haj-Bolouri, A., Purao, S., Rossi, M., & Bernhardsson, L. (2018). Action Design Research in Practice: Lessons and Concerns. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS).
Henriques, T.A. & O’Neill, H. (2021), Design science research with focus groups – a pragmatic meta-model, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 16(1), 119-140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-01-2020-0015 Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS quarterly, 28(1), 75-105. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/25148625 Hollnagel, E. (2012). Task analysis: Why, what, and how. Handbook of human factors and ergonomics, 383-396. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118131350.ch13
Iivari, J., & Maansaari. J., (1998). The usage of systems development methods: Are we stuck to old practices? Information and Software Technology, 40(9), 501-510. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0950-5849(98)00077-9
Klein, H. K. & Myers. M.D. (1999). A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems, MIS Quarterly, 3(1), 67-88. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/249410
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry, Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8 Lusch, R. F., & Nambisan, S. (2015). Service innovation. MIS quarterly, 39(1), 155-176.
March S T & Smith G. (1995). Design and Natural Science Research on Information Technologies, Decision Support Systems, 15(4), 251-266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0167-9236(94)00041-2
Mathiassen, L. (2002). Collaborative Practice Research. Information Technology & People, 15(4), 321-345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09593840210453115 Matzner, M., Plenter, F., Chasin, F., Betzing, J. H., & von Hoffen, M. (2018). New service development through action design research in joint research projects. In Proceedings of the 26th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS). Naderifar, M., Goli, H., & Ghaljaie, F. (2017). Snowball sampling: A purposeful method of sampling in qualitative research. Strides in Development of Medical Education, 14(3), 1-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.5812/sdme.67670 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302
Penrose, E. T. (1959). The growth of the firm. White Plains, NY: Sharpe. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780429056604-4 Petersson, A. M., & Lundberg, J. (2016). Applying action design research (ADR) to develop concept generation and selection methods. Procedia Cirp, 50, 222-227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.05.024
Pries-Heje, Jan, John R. Venable, and Richard Baskerville (2014) Soft Design Science Methodology. In O. E. Hansen, J. Simonsen, C. Svabo, S. Malou Strandvad, K. Samson & M. Hertzum (eds.), Situated Design Methods. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9936.003.0008
Rapoport, R. N. (1970). Three dilemmas in action research: with special reference to the Tavistock experience. Human relations, 23(6), 499-513. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872677002300601 Schwaber, K., & Sutherland, J. (2011). The scrum guide. Scrum Alliance, 21(19), 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781119203278.app2
Scriven, M. (1996). Types of Evaluation and Types of Evaluator. Evaluation Practice, 17(2), 151-162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109821409601700207 Segal T. (2022, Dec 31). What is Prescriptive Analytics? Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/prescriptive-analytics.asp
Sein, M.K., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., & Lindgren, R. (2011). Action Design Research. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 37-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/23043488 Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Sage publications.
Susman, G., & Evered, R. (1978). An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(4), 582-603. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2392581 Te’eni, D., Seidel, S., & Brocke, J. V. (2017). Stimulating dialog between information systems research and practice. European Journal of Information Systems, 26(6), 541-545. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/s41303-017-0067-9
Urquhart, C., Lehmann, H., & Myers, M. (2010). Putting the ‘theory’ back into grounded theory: guidelines for grounded theory studies in information systems. Information Systems Journal, 20(4), 357–381. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2009.00328.x
van Aken, J. (2004), Management Research Based on the Paradigm of the Design Sciences: The Quest for Field-tested and Grounded Technological Rules, Journal of Management Studies, 41(2), 219-246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00430.x
van den Akker, J. (1999). Principles and methods of development research. In J. J. H. v. d. Akker, R. Branch, K. Gustafson, N. M. Nieveen, & T. Plomp, T. (Eds.), Design approaches and tools in education and training (pp. 1-14). Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4255-7_1
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036 Vaishnavi, V. K., & Kuechler, W. (2015). Design science research methods and patterns: innovating information and communication technology. CRC Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1201/b18448 Venable, J., Pries-Heje, J., & Baskerville, R. (2016). FEDS: a framework for evaluation in design science research. European journal of information systems, 25(1), 77-89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2014.36 Venable, J. R., Pries-Heje, J., & Baskerville, R. L. (2017). Choosing a design science research methodology. In Proceedings of the 28th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS). Hobart, Australia, Dec 4-6. Vom Brocke, J. V., Weber, M., & Grisold, T. (2021). Design Science Research of High Practical Relevance. In Proceedings of the Engineering the Transformation of the Enterprise (pp. 115-135). Springer, Cham. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84655-8_8
Walsham, G. (1995). Interpretive case studies in IS research: Nature and method, European Journal of Information Systems, 4(2), 74-81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/ejis.1995.9
Wilson, P. F., Dell, L. D., & Anderson, G. F. (1996). Root Cause Analysis: A Tool for Total Quality Management. The Journal for Health Care Quality, 18(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1945-1474.1996.tb00823.x
Winter, R. (2013). Towards a framework for evidence-based and inductive design in information systems research. In Proceedings of the European Design Science Symposium (pp. 1-20). Springer, Cham. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13936-4_1
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Stefan Cronholm, Hannes Göbel, Anup Shrestha
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License.
AJIS publishes open-access articles distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons Non-Commercial and Attribution License which permits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and AJIS are credited. All other rights including granting permissions beyond those in the above license remain the property of the author(s).
