IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/tjisxx/v21y2012i2p147-159.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The action research vs design science debate: reflections from an intervention in eGovernment

Author

Listed:
  • Nikolaos Papas
  • Robert M O'Keefe
  • Philip Seltsikas

Abstract

As Design Science (DS) establishes itself as an acceptable approach to Information Systems research, many have commented on the similarity, or otherwise, between DS and Action Research (AR). Most of the writing on this topic has been conceptual, and not grounded in practice. In this paper, we present a piece of completed research that was perceived and executed as AR, but also reflected upon as DS. The research produced a new method for diagramming electronic workflows and creating the associated digital signatures, within the domain of eGovernment. Our conclusion is that AR that produces an artefact can be quite easily, and perhaps superficially, presented as DS. Epistemologically, there is little to separate the two methodologies. However, there are some subtle differences in practice, especially with regard to the role of the artefact, the structuring of the process, the focus of evaluation of the intervention and research, and the emphasis on learning and knowledge. We provide guidance to researchers contemplating either approach, and also consider the role of pluralist attempts to combine the approaches.

Suggested Citation

  • Nikolaos Papas & Robert M O'Keefe & Philip Seltsikas, 2012. "The action research vs design science debate: reflections from an intervention in eGovernment," European Journal of Information Systems, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(2), pages 147-159, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:tjisxx:v:21:y:2012:i:2:p:147-159
    DOI: 10.1057/ejis.2011.50
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1057/ejis.2011.50
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/ejis.2011.50?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:tjisxx:v:21:y:2012:i:2:p:147-159. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/tjis .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.