We examined 155 information systems research articles published from 1983 to 1988 and found that although this research is not rooted in a single overarching theoretical perspective, it does exhibit a single set of philosophical assumptions regarding the nature of the phenomena studied by information systems researchers, and what constitutes valid knowledge about those phenomena. We believe that a single research perspective for studying information systems phenomena is unnecessarily restrictive, and argue that there exist other philosophical assumptions that can inform studies of the relationships between information technology, people, and organizations. In this paper, we present two additional research philosophies for consideration-the interpretive and the critical-and for each we provide empirical examples to illustrate how they are used. We conclude by suggesting that much can be gained if a plurality of research perspectives is effectively employed to investigate information systems phenomena. Philosophical assumptions—Research approaches—Positivist research—Interpretivist research—Critical research

The aim of this research essay is to examine the structural nature of theory in information systems. Despite the importance of theory, questions relating to its form and structure are neglected in comparison with questions relating to epistemology. The essay addresses issues of causality, explanation, prediction and generalization that underlie an understanding of theory. A taxonomy is proposed that classifies information systems theories with respect to the manner in which four central goals are addressed: analysis, explanation, prediction and prescription. Five interrelated types of theory are distinguished: (i) theory for analysing; (ii) theory for explaining, (iii) theory for predicting; (iv) theory for explaining and predicting; and (v) theory for design and action. Examples illustrate the nature of each theory type. The applicability of the taxonomy is demonstrated by classifying a sample of journal articles. The paper contributes by showing that multiple views of theory exist and by exposing the assumptions underlying different viewpoints. In addition, it is suggested that the type of theory under development can influence the choice of an epistemological approach. Support is given for the legitimacy and value of each theory type. The building of integrated bodies of theory that encompass all theory types is advocated.

Design work and design knowledge in Information Systems (IS) is important for both research and practice. Yet there has been comparatively little critical attention paid to the problem of specifying design theory so that it can be communicated, justified, and developed cumulatively. In this essay we focus on the structural components or anatomy of design theories in IS as a special class of theory. In doing so, we aim to extend the work of Walls, Widemeyer and El Sawy (1992) on the specification of information systems design theories (ISDT), drawing on other streams of thought on design research and theory to provide a basis for a more systematic and useable formulation of these theories. We identify eight separate components of design theories: (1) purpose and scope, (2) constructs, (3) principles of form and function, (4) artifact mutability, (5) testable propositions, (6) justificatory knowledge (kernel theories), (7) principles of implementation, and (8) an expository instantiation. This specification includes components missing in the Walls et al. adaptation of Dubin (1978) and Simon (1969) and also addresses explicitly problems associated with the role of instantiations and the specification of design theories for methodologies and interventions as well as for products and applications. The essay is significant as the unambiguous establishment of design knowledge as theory gives a sounder base for arguments for the rigor and legitimacy of IS as an applied discipline and for its continuing progress. A craft can proceed with the copying of one example of a design artifact by one artisan after another. A discipline cannot.

There has been a great deal of debate about the status of information systems (IS) as an academic discipline, its progress, and continued survival. Most of these critiques have been rather inward-looking, and have focused either on research methodology or the need to develop theoretical foundations. This paper argues that as an applied discipline, IS will not achieve legitimacy by the rigor of its methods or by its theoretical base, but by being practically useful. Its success will be measured by its contribution to the IS profession, and ultimately to society. We argue that to be effective, research must be both (1) relevant to the needs of practice and (2) disseminated and used by practitioners. We use medicine, a discipline which has a high level of integration between research and practice, as a model for radically changing IS research so that it can become more relevant and have a genuine impact in practice. 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Information Systems: An Applied Discipline ...

The main aim of this paper is to present a systemic framework of what the field of Information Systems (IS) is about; its connecting areas and its central theme. It was born out of a search for structure in providing a cohesive picture of the subject and field of IS for students and business managers. The average manager and executive has difficulty in obtaining an integrated and holistic view of information systems, and it is said that this leads to a lack of alignment between IS and the strategic aims of the enterprise. Students, particularly MBA students, have a similar problem. Using a large number of disparate data sources, including a delphic survey of leading academics, the paper adopted a grounded theory approach in developing an integrating framework of five main areas for the field: (1) IS Development,

The fast-paced development of e-commerce caused many people in business to overlook key aspects of the relevant design principles for e-commerce systems. E-commerce applications that are currently being implemented and used are not necessarily the best and the most efficient that people can design and build. The result is an opportunity for e-commerce design science researchers to make significant contributions and for business schools to create and maintain a strong e-commerce design science group of researchers. However, fulfilling this need is often difficult for business schools, because resources and design science researchers are both scarce. Partnering with the computer science school within the same university to set up an e-commerce research center that focuses on design science research may be a feasible alternative.

Abstract. Conceptual modeling is one major topic in information systems research and becomes even more important with the arising of new software engineering principles like model driven architecture (MDA) or service-oriented architectures (SOA). Research on conceptual modeling is characterized by a dilemma: Empirical research confirms that in practice conceptual modeling is often perceived as difficult and not done well. The application of reusable conceptual models is a promising approach to support model designers. At the same time, the IS research community claims for a sounder theoretical base for conceptual modeling. The design science research paradigm delivers a framework to fortify the theoretical foundation of research on conceptual models. We provide insights on how to achieve both, relevance and rigor, in conceptual modeling by identifying requirements for reusable conceptual models on the basis of the design science research paradigm. 1

Information System (IS) research can be seen as a rich tapestry of paradigms, methods, and research approaches. Amongst others, design science is an established approach in IS research and the literature provides us with a comprehensive and useful debate on the basic concepts. However, many researchers advocating the stance of design science, neglect the influence of basic philosophical and epistemological issues on design science. Here, design science is often advocated as a third paradigm that adds up to positivism and interpretivism. Instead, we argue that the understanding of such concepts as ‘research rigor’, ‘research validity ’ and ‘research quality ’ depends heavily on the underlying epistemological understanding, and this certainly applies to design science! In order to demonstrate and operationalize our argument, we analyze Hevner et al.’s guidelines for design science in IS research (2004), taking an interpretivist perspective influenced by Klein & Myers’s set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies (1999). Instead of arguing in favor of a specific epistemology, we seek to develop opportunities for epistemological diversity in design-oriented IS research and wish to

What the future holds for the IS field is not all that clear. On the one hand, it could be argued that IS could become the primary organisational and management discipline, given the primacy of IS for such critical organisational issues as computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW), business process reengineering, competitive advantage, employee empowerment, informating the workplace, the virtual organisation and telemarketing. On the other hand, just as the opportunity for IS to become a dominant discipline presents itself, there is, rather ironically, a very real threat to the future status of the field itself. This is evidenced by the fact that many IS/IT programs are being ‘downsized ’ at undergraduate and graduate level. Also, IS departments in universities are facing the threat of hostile colonisation by sister departments from other disciplines. Indeed, there is a very real risk that in the absence of an intellectual core of research questions, protocols and standards in the IS field, other disciplines may lay predatory claim to ‘traditional ’ IS research issues on the grounds that these issues do not actually require an IS research focus, but can be adequately researched within these disciplines themselves. This paper considers the

Research in IT must address the design tasks faced by practitioners. Real problems must be properly conceptual-ized and represented, appropriate techniques for their solution must be constructed, and solutions must be implemented and evaluated using appropriate criteria. If significant progress is to be made, IT research must also develop an understanding of how and why IT systems work or do not work. Such an understanding must tie together natural laws governing IT systems with natural laws governing the environments in which they operate. This paper presents a two dimensional framework for research in information technology. The first dimension is based on broad types of design and natural science research activities: build, evaluate, theorize, and justify. The second dimension is based on broad types of outputs produced by design research: representational constructs, models, methods, and