通过反思性实践提高设计科学研究知识生成的模式

Q3 Business, Management and Accounting Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods Pub Date : 2019-12-01 DOI:10.34190/jbrm.17.4.001
J. J. van Rensburg, R. Goede
{"title":"通过反思性实践提高设计科学研究知识生成的模式","authors":"J. J. van Rensburg, R. Goede","doi":"10.34190/jbrm.17.4.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Epistemology refers to the philosophy of knowledge and aims\n to address central questions of how we create new knowledge. All\n research paradigms can be distinguished in terms of epistemological\n assumptions, that is, assumptions of how knowledge is produced in\n the respective paradigms. Design science research (DSR) is a\n research paradigm often used in technical disciplines for the\n creation of artefacts. DSR has roots in pragmatism, where beliefs\n and theories are evaluated based on the success of its practical\n application. New knowledge is produced in DSR when original\n artefacts are created to solve a problem. The epistemological\n assumption of DSR can then shortly be defined as ‘knowledge through\n making’. At its core, DSR is goal‑orientated and its practical\n approaches are focused on delivering the product according to\n straight‑forward processes ‑ without being affected by human\n factors. This process of acquiring new knowledge is efficient but\n not necessarily effective in terms of capturing all aspects of the\n experience of the practitioner. Frameworks exist for the creation of\n artefacts in DSR, but the process of knowledge generation is not\n explicit. The aim of the paper is to guide explicit knowledge\n generation in DSR. The research question is “How can we make the\n process of obtaining knowledge in DSR more explicit?” DSR Frameworks\n are iterative in nature and focus on the creation and evaluation of\n artefacts. There is an implicit assumption that reflection takes\n place in these iterations. Schön, author of The Reflective\n Practitioner, writes that new knowledge is produced through\n reflection during and after an event has occurred. He also states\n that you can only have a complete understanding of a problem through\n the dual process of reflection‑in‑action and reflection‑on‑action.\n We argue that this also holds true for artefact design and\n development in DSR. A reflective DSR practitioner can explicitly\n indicate how knowledge is produced in the design science research\n cycle. The effective use of reflective practice changes each\n individual phase of a DSR framework from goal‑orientated to\n problem‑orientated. Epistemologically, knowledge is then produced\n through ‘learning by doing’, which gives DSR a worldview that\n supports reflective practice. The paper promotes the incorporation\n of reflective practice in DSR and provides a demonstration thereof\n in an example on the preparation of IT students for their chosen\n career.","PeriodicalId":38532,"journal":{"name":"Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Model for Improving Knowledge Generation in Design Science\\n Research through Reflective Practice\",\"authors\":\"J. J. van Rensburg, R. Goede\",\"doi\":\"10.34190/jbrm.17.4.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Epistemology refers to the philosophy of knowledge and aims\\n to address central questions of how we create new knowledge. All\\n research paradigms can be distinguished in terms of epistemological\\n assumptions, that is, assumptions of how knowledge is produced in\\n the respective paradigms. Design science research (DSR) is a\\n research paradigm often used in technical disciplines for the\\n creation of artefacts. DSR has roots in pragmatism, where beliefs\\n and theories are evaluated based on the success of its practical\\n application. New knowledge is produced in DSR when original\\n artefacts are created to solve a problem. The epistemological\\n assumption of DSR can then shortly be defined as ‘knowledge through\\n making’. At its core, DSR is goal‑orientated and its practical\\n approaches are focused on delivering the product according to\\n straight‑forward processes ‑ without being affected by human\\n factors. This process of acquiring new knowledge is efficient but\\n not necessarily effective in terms of capturing all aspects of the\\n experience of the practitioner. Frameworks exist for the creation of\\n artefacts in DSR, but the process of knowledge generation is not\\n explicit. The aim of the paper is to guide explicit knowledge\\n generation in DSR. The research question is “How can we make the\\n process of obtaining knowledge in DSR more explicit?” DSR Frameworks\\n are iterative in nature and focus on the creation and evaluation of\\n artefacts. There is an implicit assumption that reflection takes\\n place in these iterations. Schön, author of The Reflective\\n Practitioner, writes that new knowledge is produced through\\n reflection during and after an event has occurred. He also states\\n that you can only have a complete understanding of a problem through\\n the dual process of reflection‑in‑action and reflection‑on‑action.\\n We argue that this also holds true for artefact design and\\n development in DSR. A reflective DSR practitioner can explicitly\\n indicate how knowledge is produced in the design science research\\n cycle. The effective use of reflective practice changes each\\n individual phase of a DSR framework from goal‑orientated to\\n problem‑orientated. Epistemologically, knowledge is then produced\\n through ‘learning by doing’, which gives DSR a worldview that\\n supports reflective practice. The paper promotes the incorporation\\n of reflective practice in DSR and provides a demonstration thereof\\n in an example on the preparation of IT students for their chosen\\n career.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38532,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.34190/jbrm.17.4.001\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Business, Management and Accounting\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34190/jbrm.17.4.001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Business, Management and Accounting","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

认识论指的是知识哲学,旨在解决我们如何创造新知识的核心问题。所有的研究范式都可以根据认识论假设来区分,也就是说,假设知识是如何在各自的范式中产生的。设计科学研究(DSR)是一种研究范式,通常用于人工制品创造的技术学科。DSR源于实用主义,在实用主义中,信念和理论是根据其实际应用的成功来评估的。在DSR中,当为解决问题而创建原始工件时,就会产生新的知识。因此,DSR的认识论假设可以简单地定义为“通过制造的知识”。DSR的核心是以目标为导向的,其实际方法侧重于根据直接的流程交付产品,而不受人为因素的影响。这种获取新知识的过程是有效的,但就从业者的所有经验而言,不一定是有效的。DSR中存在构件生成的框架,但知识生成的过程并不明确。本文的目的是指导DSR中的显式知识生成。研究的问题是“如何使DSR中获取知识的过程更加明确?”DSR框架本质上是迭代的,关注于工件的创建和评估。这里有一个隐含的假设,即在这些迭代中发生了反射。《反思实践者》(The Reflective Practitioner)一书的作者Schön写道,新知识是在事件发生期间和之后通过反思产生的。他还指出,只有通过行动中反思和行动中反思的双重过程,你才能对问题有一个完整的理解。我们认为这也适用于DSR中的人工制品设计和开发。一个反思性的DSR实践者可以明确地指出知识是如何在设计科学研究周期中产生的。反思性实践的有效使用将DSR框架的每个单独阶段从目标导向转变为问题导向。在认识论上,知识是通过“边做边学”产生的,这给了DSR一种支持反思性实践的世界观。本文提倡将反思性实践纳入DSR,并以IT学生为其选择的职业做准备为例进行了演示。
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
A Model for Improving Knowledge Generation in Design Science Research through Reflective Practice
Epistemology refers to the philosophy of knowledge and aims to address central questions of how we create new knowledge. All research paradigms can be distinguished in terms of epistemological assumptions, that is, assumptions of how knowledge is produced in the respective paradigms. Design science research (DSR) is a research paradigm often used in technical disciplines for the creation of artefacts. DSR has roots in pragmatism, where beliefs and theories are evaluated based on the success of its practical application. New knowledge is produced in DSR when original artefacts are created to solve a problem. The epistemological assumption of DSR can then shortly be defined as ‘knowledge through making’. At its core, DSR is goal‑orientated and its practical approaches are focused on delivering the product according to straight‑forward processes ‑ without being affected by human factors. This process of acquiring new knowledge is efficient but not necessarily effective in terms of capturing all aspects of the experience of the practitioner. Frameworks exist for the creation of artefacts in DSR, but the process of knowledge generation is not explicit. The aim of the paper is to guide explicit knowledge generation in DSR. The research question is “How can we make the process of obtaining knowledge in DSR more explicit?” DSR Frameworks are iterative in nature and focus on the creation and evaluation of artefacts. There is an implicit assumption that reflection takes place in these iterations. Schön, author of The Reflective Practitioner, writes that new knowledge is produced through reflection during and after an event has occurred. He also states that you can only have a complete understanding of a problem through the dual process of reflection‑in‑action and reflection‑on‑action. We argue that this also holds true for artefact design and development in DSR. A reflective DSR practitioner can explicitly indicate how knowledge is produced in the design science research cycle. The effective use of reflective practice changes each individual phase of a DSR framework from goal‑orientated to problem‑orientated. Epistemologically, knowledge is then produced through ‘learning by doing’, which gives DSR a worldview that supports reflective practice. The paper promotes the incorporation of reflective practice in DSR and provides a demonstration thereof in an example on the preparation of IT students for their chosen career.
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
Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods
Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods Business, Management and Accounting-Business and International Management
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
审稿时长
26 weeks
期刊介绍: The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods (EJBRM) provides perspectives on topics relevant to research methods applied in the field of business and management. Through its publication the journal contributes to the development of theory and practice. The journal accepts academically robust papers that contribute to the area of research methods applied in business and management research. Papers submitted to the journal are double-blind reviewed by members of the reviewer committee or other suitably qualified readers. The Editor reserves the right to reject papers that, in the view of the editorial board, are either of insufficient quality, or are not relevant enough to the subject area. The editor is happy to discuss contributions before submission. The journal publishes work in the categories described below. Research Papers: These may be qualitative or quantitative, empirical or theoretical in nature and can discuss completed research findings or work in progress. Case Studies: Case studies are welcomed illustrating business and management research methods in practise. View Points: View points are less academically rigorous articles usually in areas of controversy which will fuel some interesting debate. Conference Reports and Book Reviews: Anyone who attends a conference or reads a book that they feel contributes to the area of Business Research Methods is encouraged to submit a review for publication.
期刊最新文献
Unraveling Endogeneity: A Systematic Review of Methodologies in Digital Leadership and Remote Work Research Double Bias of Mistakes: Essence, Consequences, and Measurement Method Statistically Validating a Theory Represented by a Venn Diagram How Cognitive Biases Influence Problematic Research Methods Practices Using Mixed Methods to Understand Tax Compliance Behaviour
×
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