信息系统研究中的设计科学研究类型、策略和关键概念的综合观点

IF 2.8 4区 管理学 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Data Base for Advances in Information Systems Pub Date : 2022-11-15 DOI:10.1145/3571823.3571826
A. Brendel, Tim-Benjamin Lembcke, L. Kolbe
{"title":"信息系统研究中的设计科学研究类型、策略和关键概念的综合观点","authors":"A. Brendel, Tim-Benjamin Lembcke, L. Kolbe","doi":"10.1145/3571823.3571826","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Design science research (DSR) has been established as an essential part of information systems research. DSR can provide artificial solutions and prescriptive knowledge about how to solve problems relevant to our modern times. However, DSR has been reported to be in a state of \"conceptual confusion.\" Thus, an ongoing and open discourse regarding how to overcome the causes of this confusion has arisen. Several causes and solutions have been proposed, ranging from conceptualizations of contributions, publication schemas, to the formulation of research strategies and genres. Prominently, the persisting confusion frequently leads editors and reviewers to assess the same study's merit substantially differently, depending on the individual editor's and reviewer's understanding of and preferences for DSR. Consequently, publishing DSR studies is challenging. Against this background, we propose DSR focus as a two-dimensional characteristic of a DSR study, comprising the two dimensions \"contribution\" and \"research approach.\" Furthermore, we present a DSR focus matrix (DSRFM) as a framework and tool to describe the DSR focus of a study and identify relevant seminal work. Following this framework enables a grounded discussion with editors and reviewers, thus preventing diverting understandings and preferences that may skew the assessment of a study. We demonstrate this ability by positioning research strategies, genres, and seminal works within the matrix's quadrants.","PeriodicalId":46842,"journal":{"name":"Data Base for Advances in Information Systems","volume":"1 1","pages":"9 - 23"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Towards an Integrative View on Design Science Research Genres, Strategies, and Pivotal Concepts in Information Systems Research\",\"authors\":\"A. Brendel, Tim-Benjamin Lembcke, L. Kolbe\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3571823.3571826\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Design science research (DSR) has been established as an essential part of information systems research. DSR can provide artificial solutions and prescriptive knowledge about how to solve problems relevant to our modern times. However, DSR has been reported to be in a state of \\\"conceptual confusion.\\\" Thus, an ongoing and open discourse regarding how to overcome the causes of this confusion has arisen. Several causes and solutions have been proposed, ranging from conceptualizations of contributions, publication schemas, to the formulation of research strategies and genres. Prominently, the persisting confusion frequently leads editors and reviewers to assess the same study's merit substantially differently, depending on the individual editor's and reviewer's understanding of and preferences for DSR. Consequently, publishing DSR studies is challenging. Against this background, we propose DSR focus as a two-dimensional characteristic of a DSR study, comprising the two dimensions \\\"contribution\\\" and \\\"research approach.\\\" Furthermore, we present a DSR focus matrix (DSRFM) as a framework and tool to describe the DSR focus of a study and identify relevant seminal work. Following this framework enables a grounded discussion with editors and reviewers, thus preventing diverting understandings and preferences that may skew the assessment of a study. We demonstrate this ability by positioning research strategies, genres, and seminal works within the matrix's quadrants.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46842,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Data Base for Advances in Information Systems\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"9 - 23\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Data Base for Advances in Information Systems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3571823.3571826\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Data Base for Advances in Information Systems","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3571823.3571826","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

设计科学研究(DSR)已成为信息系统研究的重要组成部分。DSR可以提供关于如何解决与我们现代相关的问题的人工解决方案和规范性知识。然而,据报道,DSR处于“概念混乱”的状态。因此,关于如何克服这种混淆的原因的持续和公开的讨论已经出现。提出了几个原因和解决办法,从贡献的概念化、出版模式到研究策略和流派的制定。突出的是,这种持续的混淆经常导致编辑和审稿人对同一项研究的价值评估大相径庭,这取决于编辑和审稿人对DSR的理解和偏好。因此,发表DSR研究具有挑战性。在此背景下,我们提出DSR焦点作为DSR研究的二维特征,包括“贡献”和“研究方法”两个维度。此外,我们提出了DSR焦点矩阵(DSRFM)作为描述研究DSR焦点的框架和工具,并确定相关的开创性工作。遵循这一框架可以与编辑和审稿人进行有根据的讨论,从而防止可能歪曲研究评估的理解和偏好。我们通过在矩阵的象限内定位研究策略、类型和开创性作品来展示这种能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Towards an Integrative View on Design Science Research Genres, Strategies, and Pivotal Concepts in Information Systems Research
Design science research (DSR) has been established as an essential part of information systems research. DSR can provide artificial solutions and prescriptive knowledge about how to solve problems relevant to our modern times. However, DSR has been reported to be in a state of "conceptual confusion." Thus, an ongoing and open discourse regarding how to overcome the causes of this confusion has arisen. Several causes and solutions have been proposed, ranging from conceptualizations of contributions, publication schemas, to the formulation of research strategies and genres. Prominently, the persisting confusion frequently leads editors and reviewers to assess the same study's merit substantially differently, depending on the individual editor's and reviewer's understanding of and preferences for DSR. Consequently, publishing DSR studies is challenging. Against this background, we propose DSR focus as a two-dimensional characteristic of a DSR study, comprising the two dimensions "contribution" and "research approach." Furthermore, we present a DSR focus matrix (DSRFM) as a framework and tool to describe the DSR focus of a study and identify relevant seminal work. Following this framework enables a grounded discussion with editors and reviewers, thus preventing diverting understandings and preferences that may skew the assessment of a study. We demonstrate this ability by positioning research strategies, genres, and seminal works within the matrix's quadrants.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Data Base for Advances in Information Systems
Data Base for Advances in Information Systems INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
7.10%
发文量
18
期刊最新文献
Four Decades of Chief Information Officer Research: A Literature Review and Research Agenda Based on Main Path Analysis The Role of Social Media Analytics in Providing Product Intelligence: A Qualitative Study A Design Theory for Certification Presentations Unpacking Human and AI Complementarity: Insights from Recent Works Let's Quit Together: Exploring Textual Factors Promoting Supportive Interactions in Online Cannabis Support Forums
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1