{"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}
引用次数: 0
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.