Design Science Theorizing: The Contribution of Practical Theory

• Ågerfalk, P. J., & Karlsson, F. (2020). Theoretical, empirical and artefactual contributions in information systems research: Implications implied. This volume.

  Google Scholar 

• Barge, J. K. (2004). Articulating CMM as a practical theory. Human Systems, 15, 187–198.

  Google Scholar 

• Baskerville, R., Baiyere, A., Gregor, S., Hevner, A., & Rossi, M. (2018). Design science research contributions: Finding a balance between artifact and theory. Journal of AIS, 19(5), 358–376.

  Google Scholar 

• Baskerville, R., Kaul, M., & Storey, V. (2015). Genres of inquiry in design-science research: Justification and evaluation of knowledge production. MIS Quarterly, 39(3), 541–564.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Baskerville, R., Lyytinen, K., Sambamurthy, V., & Straub, D. (2011). A response to the design-oriented information systems research memorandum. European Journal of Information Systems, 20, 11–15.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Baskerville, R., & Pries-Heje, J. (2010). Explanatory design theory. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 5, 271–282.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Blumer, H. (1954). What is wrong with social theory? American Sociological Review, 19(1), 3–10.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Bohman, J. (2002). How to make a social science practical: Pragmatism, critical social science and multiperspectival theory. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 31(3), 499–524.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Bowen, G. (2006). Grounded theory and sensitizing concepts. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(3), 12–23.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Braa, K., & Vidgen, R. (1999). Interpretation, intervention, and reduction in the organizational laboratory: A framework for in-context information system research. Accounting, Management & Information Technology, 9, 25–47.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Corley, K., & Gioia, D. (2011). Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 12–32.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Craig, R. T., & Tracy, K. (1995). Grounded practical theory: The case of intellectual discussion. Communication Theory, 5(3), 248–272.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Cronen, V. (1995). Practical theory and the tasks ahead for social approaches to communication. In W. Leeds-Hurwitz (Ed.), Social approaches to communication. New York: Guildford Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Cronen, V. (2001). Practical theory, practical art, and the pragmatic-systemic account of inquiry. Communication Theory, 11(1), 14–35.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Dalsgaard, P. (2017). Instruments of inquiry: Understanding the nature and role of tools in design. International Journal of Design, 11(1), 21–33.

  Google Scholar 

• Davison, R. M., Martinsons, M. G., & Ou, C. (2012). The roles of theory in canonical action research. MIS Quarterly, 36(3), 763–786.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: D C Heath & Co..

  Book  Google Scholar 

• Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York: Henry Holt.

  Google Scholar 

• Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Elden, M. (1983). Democratization and participative research in developing local theory. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 4(1), 21–33.

  Google Scholar 

• Feldman, A. (2000). Decision making in the practical domain: A model of practical conceptual change. Science Education, 84(5), 606–623.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Fishman, D. (1999). The case for pragmatic psychology. New York: New York University Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Friedrichs, J., & Kratochvil, F. (2009). On acting and knowing: How pragmatism can advance international relations research and methodology. International Organization, 63, 701–731.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Goldkuhl, G. (2007). What does it mean to serve the citizen in e-services?—Towards a practical theory founded in socio-instrumental pragmatism. International Journal of Public Information Systems, 2007(3), 135–159.

  Google Scholar 

• Goldkuhl, G. (2011). Generic regulation model—The evolution of a practical theory for e-government. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 5(3), 249–267.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Goldkuhl, G., & Cronholm, S. (2010). Adding theoretical grounding to grounded theory—Towards multi-grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 9(2), 187–205.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Goldkuhl, G., & Lind, M. (2007). Grounding business interaction models: Socio-instrumental pragmatism as a theoretical foundation. In P. Rittgen (Ed.), Handbook of ontologies for business interaction (pp. 69–86). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.

  Google Scholar 

• Goldkuhl, G., & Lind, M. (2010). A multi-grounded design research process. DESRIST-2010 Proceedings, LNCS 6105, Berlin: Springer.

  Google Scholar 

• Goldkuhl, G., & Röstlinger, A. (1993). Joint elicitation of problems: An important aspect of change analysis. In D. Avison et al. (Eds.), Human, organizational and social dimensions of Information systems development. North-Holland: IFIP. wg. 8.2

  Google Scholar 

• Goldkuhl, G., & Röstlinger, A. (2003). The significance of workpractice diagnosis: Socio-pragmatic ontology and epistemology of change analysis. Proceedings of the International workshop on Action in Language, Organisations and Information Systems (ALOIS-2003), Linköping University.

  Google Scholar 

• Goldkuhl, G., & Röstlinger, A. (2007). Clarifying government—Citizen interaction: From business action to generic exchange. Proceedings of the 4th Scandinavian Workshop on e-Government, Örebro.

  Google Scholar 

• Goldkuhl, G., & Sjöström, J. (2018). Design science in the field: Practice design research. Proceedings Desrist-2018, LNCS 10844, pp. 67–81, Springer, Berlin.

  Google Scholar 

• Gregor, S., & Hevner, A. (2011). Introduction to the special issue on design science. Journal of Information Systems and e-Business Management, 9, 1–9.

  Google Scholar 

• Gregor, S., & Hevner, A. (2013). Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 337–355.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Gregor, S., & Jones, D. (2007). The anatomy of a design theory. Journal of AIS, 8(5), 312–335.

  Google Scholar 

• Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action 1. Reason and the rationalization of society. Cambridge: Polity Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Hambrick, D. (2007). The field of management’s devotion to theory: Too much of a good thing? Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1346–1352.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Henderson-Sellers, B., Ralyté, J., Ågerfalk, P., & Rossi, M. (2014). Situational method engineering. Berlin: Springer.

  Book  Google Scholar 

• Hevner, A., March, S., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75–115.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Hultgren, G., & Goldkuhl, G. (2013). How to research e-services as social interaction: Multi-grounding practice research aiming for practical theory. Systems, Signs & Actions, 7(2), 104–120.

  Google Scholar 

• Iivari, J. (2007). A paradigmatic analysis of information systems as a design science. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 19(2), 39–64.

  Google Scholar 

• Iivari, J. (2015). Distinguishing and contrasting two strategies for design science research. European Journal of Information Systems, 24, 107–115.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Iivari, J., & Lyytinen, K. (1998). Research on information systems development in Scandinavia—Unity in plurality. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 10(1 & 2), 135–186.

  Google Scholar 

• Jung, M., Sonalkar, N., Magobunje, A., Bannerjee, B., Lande, M., Han, C., et al. (2010). Designing perception-action theories: Theory-building for design practice. In The eighth Design Thinking Research Symposium (DTRS8), Sydney.

  Google Scholar 

• Kelle, U. (2005). ‘Emergence’ vs. ‘Forcing’ of empirical data? A crucial problem of ‘Grounded Theory’ reconsidered. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(2), Article 27.

  Google Scholar 

• Lee, A., & Baskerville, R. (2003). Generalizing generalizability in information systems research. Information Systems Research, 14(3), 221–243.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Lee, J. S., Pries-Heje, J., & Baskerville, R. (2011). Theorizing in design science research. Proceedings DESRIST-2011, LNCS 6629, pp. 1–16, Springer, Berlin.

  Google Scholar 

• Lewin, K. (1945). The Research Center for Group Dynamics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Sociometry, 8(2), 126–136.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Miller, H., & King, C. (1998). Practical theory. American Review of Public Administration, 8(1), 43–60.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Moore, D. B. (2004). Managing social conflict—The evolution of a practical theory. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 31(1), Article 6.

  Google Scholar 

• Niehaves, B., & Ortbach, K. (2016). The inner and the outer model in explanatory design theory: The case of designing electronic feedback systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 25, 303–316.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Österle, H., Becker, J., Frank, U., Hess, T., Karagiannis, D., Krcmar, H., et al. (2011). Memorandum on design-oriented information systems research. European Journal of Information Systems, 20(1), 7–10.

  Google Scholar 

• Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., & Niehaves, B. (2018). Design science research genres: Introduction to the special issue on exemplars and criteria for applicable design science research. European Journal of Information Systems, 20(2), 129–139.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Purao, S., Baldwin, C. I., Hevner, A. R., Storey, V. C., Pries-Heje, J., Smith, B., et al. (2008). The sciences of design: Observations on an emerging field. In Working paper 09-056. Harvard Business School.

  Google Scholar 

• Rae, D. (2004). Practical theories from entrepreneurs’ stories: Discursive approaches to entrepreneurial learning. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 11(2), 195–202.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Rogers, P., Petrosino, A., Huebner, T., & Hacsi, T. (2000). Program theory evaluation: Practice, promise, and problems. New Directions for Evaluation, 87, 5–13.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts. An essay in the philosophy of language. London: Cambridge University Press.

  Book  Google Scholar 

• Sein, M., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., & Lindgren, R. (2011). Action design research. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 37–56.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Sjöström, J. (2010). Designing information systems. A pragmatic account. PhD diss., Uppsala University.

  Google Scholar 

• Sjöström, J., & Ågerfalk, P. J. (2009). An analytic framework for design-oriented research concepts. Proceedings of AMCIS-2009, San Francisco.

  Google Scholar 

• Sjöström, J., & Goldkuhl, G. (2009). Socio-instrumental pragmatism in action. In B. Whitworth & A. De Moor (Eds.), Handbook of research on socio-technical design and social networking systems. IGI, Hershey.

  Google Scholar 

• Stevenson, C. (2005). Practical inquiry/theory in nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 50(2), 196–203.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Stewart, J., & Zediker, K. (2000). Practically theorizing theory and practice. The Practical Theory, Public Participation and Community Conference, Waco

  Google Scholar 

• Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. Techniques and procedures for developing Grounded Theory (2nd ed.). Newbury Park: Sage.

  Google Scholar 

• Sutton, R., & Staw, B. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 371–384.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Thornberg, R. (2012). Informed Grounded Theory. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 56(3), 243–259.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Van Maanen, J., Sørensen, J., & Mitchell, T. (2007). The interplay between theory and method. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1145–1154.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Van Strien, P. (1997). Towards a methodology of psychological practice: The regulative cycle. Theory & Psychology, 7, 683–700.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Venable, J. (2006). The role of theory and theorising in design science research. Proceedings DESRIST-2006, Claremont.

  Google Scholar 

• Walls, J. G., Widmeyer, G. R., & El Sawy, O. A. (1992). Building an information systems design theory for vigilant EIS. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 36–59.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society. Berkeley: University of California Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Weick, K. (1995). What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 385–390.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1986). Understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for design. Norwood: Ablex.

  Google Scholar 

• Winter, R. (2014). Towards a framework for evidence-based and inductive design in information systems research. In M. Helfert et al. (Eds.), Proceedings EDSS-2013 (CCIS 447) (pp. 1–20). Berlin: Springer.

  Google Scholar 

Download references