{"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":"42 1","pages":""},"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\":\"42 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"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}
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.
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.