Challenges of Critical and Emancipatory Design Science Research
The Design of ‘Possible Worlds’ as Response
J. Marcel Heusinger
Institute for Computer Science and Business Information Systems, University of Duisburg-Essen,
Universitaetsstr. 9, Essen, Germany
Keywords: Critical and Emancipatory Research, Design Science, Possible Worlds, Design Theory.
Abstract: Popper’s (1967) ’piecemeal social change’ is an approach manifesting itself in science as critical and eman-
cipatory (C&E) research. It is concerned with incrementally removing manifested inequalities to achieve a
’better’ world. Although design science research in information systems seems to be a prime candidate for
such endeavors, respective projects are clearly underrepresented. This position paper argues that this is due
to the demand of justifying research ex post by an evaluation in practical settings. From the perspective of
C&E research it is questionable if powerful actors grant access to their organization and support projects
which ultimately challenge their position. It is suggested that theory development based on a synthesis of
justificatory knowledge is a complementary approach that allows designing realizable responses to C&E
issues–the design of ’possible worlds’ (Lewis, 1986) as basis for C&E design science research.
1 INTRODUCTION
Critical and emancipatory (C&E) research projects
are one of three application areas of information
systems research (ISR) (Iivari, 2007). However,
within ISR in general and design science research in
information systems (DSRIS) in particular, there is a
clear lack of such projects (Carlsson, 2010; Myers
and Klein, 2011). This is puzzling because DSRIS
with its aim of changing existing structures and
processes (Iivari, 2007, 2010; Purao et al., 2010;
Sein et al., 2007) seems to be a prime candidate for
this endeavor. This is most obvious in the research
stream which conceptualizes information systems
(IS) as socio-technical systems (e.g., Carlsson, 2007,
2010; Carlsson et al., 2011; Hevner, 2007; Hevner,
et al., 2010; Österle et al., 2010, 2011; Venable,
2006; Walls et al., 2004). This stream conceives
information and communication technology (ICT)
applications as an element embedded in an action
system, comprising human beings and processes,
and does not, as the much narrower view, exclude
almost anything but the ICT application (e.g.,
Gregor, 2009; Kuechler and Vaishnavi, 2012a,
2012b; Nunamaker et al., 1991; Peffers et al., 2008).
Although both conceptualizations inevitably
transform action systems to IS or change existing IS,
the broader perspective not only recognizes these
changes in composition and structure, it also allows
to deliberately plan them. This can, in reference to
Lewis (1986), be called the design of ’possible
worlds’, which were introduced to ISR by Frank
(2009). As the idea of a nomologically ’possible
world’ is a prerequisite for questioning existing
structures and processes (Frank, 2009; Zelewski,
2007), it provides the basis for C&E projects
concentrating upon the identification and removal of
manifested injustices (Robson, 2002). In addition,
DSRIS has the unique potential to form the
methodological foundation for building means to
overcome the identified injustices.
Correspondingly, it seems worthwhile inves-
tigating how DSRIS can be leveraged for C&E
research. This position paper therefore sketches the
idea of an approach focusing on the design of
’possible worlds’ as a response to C&E issues. One
part of the thesis advocated in the present paper is
that a ’realist synthesis’ (Pawson, 2006) is a
theorizing technique, which allows to gather
justificatory, design-relevant knowledge from
practical, theorizing, and theoretical ISR as well as
from relevant reference disciplines and that this
body of knowledge informs the selection and devel-
opment of two mid-range design theories, viz.
information systems design theories (ISDTs) (Walls
et al., 1992) and design-relevant explanatory and
339
Marcel Heusinger J..
Challenges of Critical and Emancipatory Design Science Research - The Design of ‘Possible Worlds’ as Response.
DOI: 10.5220/0004568403390345
In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS-2013), pages 339-345
ISBN: 978-989-8565-60-0
Copyright
c
2013 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
predictive theories (DREPTs) (Kuechler and
Vaishnavi, 2012a). The second part of the thesis is
that theorized ‘possible worlds’ represent a self-
contained C&E research project.
Outlining the position underpinning the
development of a corresponding approach is highly
relevant because it reflects the methodological self-
conception of DSRIS. However, relevance is a
characteristic attributed by the target audience
(Frank, 2006), who has to pass the final judgment.
The primary audiences of this position paper are
scientists, especially those who want to conduct
C&E projects as well as, but to a lesser extent, those
concerned with theory development in DSRIS.
The remainder is structured as follows: In the
succeeding section two anticipated responses to the
above-mentioned thesis are presented and discussed.
Based on this preparatory work, the third section
puts forward three arguments outlining the approach
for designing ’possible worlds’, which is currently
being developed by the author. The final section
concludes the discussion.
2 CHALLENGES OF C&E
RESEARCH
DSRIS sets out as a paradigm bridging both,
‘relevance’ and ‘rigor’. Responses to the thesis
stated in the previous section evolving from those
concerns seem to be the most serious. Therefore, this
section deals with two respective counterclaims: (1)
artifacts need to be rigorously evaluated to justify
the ’effectiveness’ or ’validity’ of the implied claim
and (2) relevant research deals with problems and
opportunities articulated in practice.
The first counterclaim seems to be the most
pressuring as almost all DSRIS approaches demand
an evaluation (e.g., Becker, 2010; Carlsson, 2010;
Hevner et al., 2004; Kuechler and Vaishnavi, 2008,
2012a; Nunamaker et al., 1991; Österle et al., 2010,
2011; Peffers et al., 2008; Venable, 2006). The goal
of an evaluation is to assess the efficacy or
consequences of the artifact’s instantiation in use
(Gregor, 2009) by either employing empirical-
quantitative (Iivari, 2010) or interpretive (Hevner
and Chatterjee, 2010) methods. Instantiation and
eval-uation are mandatory activities for a valid
research project (Riege et al., 2009). This is common
tenor of DSRIS: from more general instructions such
as Hevner et al.’s (2004) third guideline (i.e., “[t]he
utility, quality, and efficacy of a design artifact must
be rigorously demonstrated via well-executed eval-
uation methods”) to the more specific demands of
Kuechler and Vaishnavi (2012a) in theory
development (i.e., the “[v]alidation of the artifact
generates information that is used to assess the
correctness of the entire reasoning /circumscription
chain”) (see also Niehaves, 2007; Hevner, 2007;
March and Vogus, 2010; Nunamaker et al., 1991;
Venable, 2006; Österle et al., 2010).
The ultimate concern is the ’effectiveness’ or
’validity’ of the claim(s) manifested in the artifact,
that is, the evaluation is performed to justify all non-
evident or unshared assumptions embodied in the
artifact (Frank, 2010). In sum, the answer to how
novel research results are justified, the central
question of the context of justification (Ladyman,
2007), in DSRIS is verificatory, like the answer of
the empirical-quantitative tradition (Zelewski,
2007). Justification through ’post-construction eval-
uation’ is well-established, but not perfect. There is
room for complementary approaches such as a
’within-construction justification’.
An argument for this pluralistic perspective of
justification can be derived from difficulties
associated with the conventional approach. The
central challenge originates from the ’amplified
contingency’ (Frank, 2006) of DSRIS’s unit of
analysis leading to the insight that “the evaluation
process in design science is task and situation
specific” (March and Vogus, 2010). In other words,
the evaluation of the effectiveness is spatially and
temporally bound to a specific social context. This
corresponds to the second moment of the scientific
enterprise, the moment of ’open-systemic appli-
cation of theory’ (Bhaskar, 2008). In the ’moment of
theory’, the first moment, knowledge is gained in
controlled environments (i.e., closed systems such as
laboratories), which is then leveraged to measure or
predict events in uncontrollable environments (i.e.,
open systems such as organizations). As it is
impossible to control all influencing variables to
isolate the effects of specific causes within open
systems, observed events and their magnitude are
always the result of multiple amplifying and/or
curtailing influences. Because of the contingency of
the context, the ’practical/technological utility’
(Niiniluoto, 1993) ascertained in the evaluation in
one context, does not guarantee practical utility in
another. Furthermore, the suggestion to exclude
trail-and-error descriptions from research reports to
preserve the reader’s motivation (Chmielewicz,
1994) makes it impossible to reconstruct and explain
processes in open systems–a prerequisite to derive
transcontextual knowledge. This in turn has the
consequence that neither the possibility of
ICEIS2013-15thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems
340
transferring an artifact to another context nor the
effectiveness of this transfer can be explained
scientifically; they are based on experience or
’assumed rationality’ (Bhaskar, 2008). Finally,
focusing on ’practical utility’ at the expense of the
first moment’s ’epistemtic utility’ (Niiniluoto, 1993)
inhibits eliminating hypotheses from the body of
knowledge (Bunge, 1966; Chmielewicz, 1994),
because the practical application of the artifact and
its successful evaluation does not give an indication
of the truth of the embedded theoretical propo-
sitions (Bunge, 1966). For example it might be
possible that only some part of the theoretical
knowledge embedded in the artifact holds in practice
or the evaluation is successful despite false
theoretical statements (i.e., spurious correlation).
This in turn maintains the (insufficient) state of the
knowledge base which forces DSRIS to “rely on
intuition, experience, and trial-and-error methods”
(Hevner et al., 2004) or ’assumed rationality’.
Relevance in DSRIS, as the basis from which the
second counterclaim develops, is mainly concerned
with the grounding of a DSRIS project’s purpose in
practical problems and opportunities (Hevner, 2007;
Hevner et al., 2004; Österle et al., 2010; Rossi and
Sein, 2003). These practice demands articulated by
’important stakeholders’, predominantly managers
responsible for deciding if organizational resources
are committed to the construction, procurement, and
usage of artifacts (Carlsson, 2007; Hevner and
Chatterjee, 2010; Mertens, 2010), enter DSRIS
projects in form of goals or context-specific
requirements. According to the postulate of the
’absence of value judgments’, which should ensure
objectivity, justification has to be free from value
judgments (Chmielewicz, 1994). A common inter-
pretation of this demand is to be personally detached
from values and solely focus on selecting the
’objectively’ most effective means to achieve given
goals. This move is possible because values have no
binding force (Niiniluoto, 1993). In reference to
Habermas (1987) this perspective can be called
’purposive or means-end rationality’. An extension
of this type of rationality–’normative rationality’–
would discuss goals and means in reference to
commonly shared and acceptable social values.
Such an extended perspective seems reasonable,
because science in general and applied sciences in
particular have considerable societal consequences
or side-effects. North (1990), awarded with the
Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in
1993, for example, argues that introducing new
technology often leads to the “deliberate deskilling
of the labor force”, that is, highly skilled employees,
with high bargain power, are substituted with less
skilled and less powerful employees (for further ICT
related arguments see Fountain, 2001; Stahl, 2009).
Chmielewicz (1994) argues that it is hard to
accept that researchers, despite these societal
consequences, work on goals and means without a
normative position. He further argues that, because
researchers’ obligations are different from those of
politicians and managers, they should consider the
normative implications of their research. Similarly,
Niiniluoto (1993) notes that a researcher “contrib-
uting to applied science is morally responsible for”
his or her contribution. The exclusion of ’normative
rationality’, by solely focusing on ’purposive
rationality’ implies that human beings, an immanent
part of IS, are merely treated as objects. To some
degree and in special circumstances such a
perspective might be acceptable for analytical
purposes; however, it is a serious deficit if normative
considerations are completely excluded, especially
from applied disciplines. It not only makes the
discipline morally questionable, it also confines
intellectual curiosity—the source of important
scientific problems (Bunge, 1966)—to purposive
rationality; it makes demarcation of DSRIS and
consulting/design practice fuzzy; and it neglects the
duty of scientists to enlighten society (Albert, 1972).
This is not a call to fundamentally revise the
foundations of the discipline and its methodological
repertoire, but to recognize the inherent ’imperfect
obligation’. To make ISR more accountable to one
of its largest stakeholders, viz. society at large, the
issues considered in DSRIS need to be extended.
Within the next section the idea of a complementary
approach focusing on the design of ’possible worlds’
as solution to the identified issues is sketched.
3 THE DESIGN OF ‘POSSIBLE
WORLDS’ AS RESPONSE
One implication of the previous discussion is that
C&E projects in DSRIS are inevitably theorizing
efforts. Therefore, it seems vital to relate the
proposal to theory development in DSRIS, i.e., the
framework proposed by Kuechler and Vaishnavi
(2012a). In particular, two minor, closely related
extensions to address the above-mentioned issues
are suggested: a methodological and a conceptual.
Based on these extensions, the final part of this
section sketches an idea to distinguish possible and
utopian worlds, to address utopism as further
possible counterclaim.
ChallengesofCriticalandEmancipatoryDesignScienceResearch-TheDesignof`PossibleWorlds'asResponse
341
Kuechler and Vaishnavi (2012a) provide a list of
techniques used in theory development, which needs
to be complemented by an additional research
strategy that takes the peculiarities of C&E DSRIS
into account: the design of ‘possible worlds’ requires
a methodological foundation that allows justification
within construction, primarily because it seems to be
unlikely that those in power grant access to their
organization and support a project, such as a C&E
project, which ultimately challenges their position.
Within policy design and evaluation, a discipline
concerned with interventions in action systems, and
as such quite close to DSRIS, a successfully applied
research strategy is provided by Pawson (2006).
Based on earlier works (Pawson and Tilley, 1997;
Tilley, 2000), he develops a ’realist synthesis’,
which allows gathering design knowledge for social
interventions. Although this technique is mainly
concerned with policy interventions, which do not
necessarily entail ICT, there are no obstacles to
include ICT and fruitfully apply it in DSRIS (see
Carlsson, 2007, 2009, 2010; Carlsson et al., 2011). It
is suggested that this technique provides the basis
for a ‘with-construction’ justification, because it
synthesizes justificatory knowledge from practical
and theoretical research, which can be leveraged in
the design of ‘possible worlds’.
Figure 1: The Relationship between DRCT, DREPT,
ISDT, and Information Systems (modified from: Kuechler
and Vaishnavi (2012a)).
The discussion in the preceding section further
indicates that designed ICT applications do not exist
in a vacuum, but are embedded in an application
domain. This suggests two extensions of Kuechler
and Vaishnavi’s (2012a) framework: (1) a broader
view of IS, comprising people and processes in
addition to ICT applications; and (2) the inclusion of
the socio-historical context which can account for
the ’path dependency’ (David, 1985) of action and
socio-technical systems. Both these extensions are
depicted on the right side of figure 1. A second
conceptual extension is the inclusion of design-
relevant context theories (DRCTs), which capture
the results of the above-mentioned synthesizing
efforts. They are similar to what Kuechler and
Vaishnavi (2012a) define as DREPT, however,
DRCTs are not issue-centered like DREPTs, but
describe the context that specify the meta-
requirements in ISDTs (Walls et al., 1992) and
influence the selection of DREPTs for the devel-
opment of ISDTs. For example, Walls et al. (1992)
derive their “how to manage”, which enters into the
meta-requirements, from (i) “how people should
manage” and (ii) “how people manage”. Whereas (i)
indicates the connection between kernel theories and
DRCTs, (ii) refers to the connection between IS and
DRCTs. Understanding available options for
intervening with an ICT application in an IS and
assess the potential success requires identifying
relevant high-level institutional (e.g., country-
specific and international policies) and historical
influences (e.g., societal norms) as both shape the
effectiveness of ICT applications. Furthermore,
DRCTs also capture possible challenges in “how to
manage” for which DREPTs, such as the ones
discussed by Kuechler and Vaishnavi (2012a), are
selected to integrate features into ICT applications,
which allow overcoming these issues. Hence,
DRCTs not only influence the development of
ISDTs, they also connect multiple appropriate
DREPTs used in their development. This supports
the ’artifact’s mutability’ (Gregor and Jones, 2007).
Figure 2: Three Roles of Information Systems
Researchers.
These extensions provide the basis for the design
of ‘possible worlds’. Generally, ‘possible worlds’
are too complex to be achieved in a single step and
(therefore) require multiple intermediate
interventions, each creating a different context. The
various ‘context shifts’, eventually culminating in
the ‘possible world’, are captured by DRCTs. For
example, an obstacle to a ‘possible Open Access
(OA) world’ might be the concern about the review
Design-relevant
explanatory/
predictive
theory (DREPT)
Information
Systems
Design Theory
(ISDT)
Socio-historical context
Kernel
Theory
---
Tac t ic
Theory
Mid-Range Theories
Design-relevant
context theory
(DRCT)
People
Processes
ICT
application
Information System
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
Practical Information
Systems Research
working
hypotheses
context-configuration
effectiveness
design
theories
kernel
theories
Reference Disciplines
Pure Research
Theorizing Information
Systems Research
ICEIS2013-15thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems
342
quality, which causes authors to publish their articles
in closed access journals. A simple, successful
intervention is disclosing the reviewers’ names to
provide an additional incentive. Introduced into a
particular context this intervention transforms the
context to one without the quality concern; however,
it leaves other issues untouched (e.g., high costs of
OA journals), which can be addressed by ICT-based
interventions. Following Gregor (2009) and Iivari
(2010) it is argued that such theorizing projects
constitute self-contained research projects, even
without a post-construction evaluation. Instead, each
context shift is justified, as far as possible, in
reference to appropriate synthesized research results.
Propositions for which appropriate studies are not
yet available have to be labeled as ’working
hypotheses’ (Frank, 2010), the subject of further
pure or theoretical research (see figure 2). The
results of such efforts are later (re-)integrated into
DRCTs via kernel theories. Furthermore, as the
synthesized justificatory knowledge focuses on
lower-level propositions, the total effect, assumed to
lead to the desired ‘possible world’, has to be tested
and refined in practical research. The gained insights
and context-specific adaptions or case
differentiations (context-configuration effectiveness
in figure 2) are the basis for further synthesizing,
eventually leading to more robust and refined
DRCTs.
Finally, to avoid the utopism counterclaim, a
potential allegation in response to the inclusion of
working hypotheses, it has to be shown that the
’possible world’ is in fact possible. This requires to
justify that the change leading the desired ’possible
world’ is potentially realizable (Frank, 2009).
Following Chmielewicz (1994) this can be called the
realization hurdle: is the proposed alternative
realizable or possible? The synthesis needs to justify
that this hurdle can be overcome by providing
evidence for the following five questions
(Chmielewicz, 1994): is the change (1) logically, (2)
theoretically (based on natural and social laws), (3)
instrumentally (technological), (4) economically,
and (5) normatively possible? The amount of
justificatory evidence gathered to answer these
questions determines how likely it is to realize the
’possible world’. Ideally, sufficient evidence is
provided for all these issues, in a ’real’ theorizing
project, however, the effort has to be aligned with
the intention as well as the available resources, i.e.,
only conceptually possible ‘possible worlds’, as
subset of all logically possible ‘possible worlds’,
tends to be of interest to C&E DSR.
4 CONCLUSIONS
The main argument put forward in the position paper
is that the conventional conceptualization of DSRIS,
especially the demand to evaluate an instantiated
artifact in a practical setting, tends to disadvantage
C&E projects. The principal reason is that powerful
actors will not support projects endangering their
position. The accustomed response of researchers is
to detach themselves from given goals and focus on
the practical problems and opportunities articulated
by the powerful. This neglects the (imperfect)
obligation to consciously consider the social
consequences of technological interventions.
Although such a move might be acceptable in
certain circumstances, a discipline completely
excluding C&E endeavors is morally questionable.
Therefore, it was suggested to extend the
methodological foundation of DSRIS in such a way
that these issues can be addressed. It was argued that
exploring the design of ’possible worlds’ is a fruitful
direction for identifying complementary approaches.
A brief sketch of a method based on the synthesis of
justificatory knowledge from practical and
theoretical research was given. Based on the quoted
literature and the arguments put forward in this
position paper, a detailed procedure for the design of
’possible worlds’ is currently being developed by the
author.
REFERENCES
Albert, H. (1972). Konstruktion und Kritik. Hamburg, DE:
Hoffmann and Campe.
Becker, J. (2010). Prozess der gestaltungsorientierten
Wirtschaftsinformatik. In H. Österle, R. Winter & W.
Brenner (Eds.), Gestaltungsorientierte Wirtschafts-
informatik (pp. 13–17). Nuremberg, DE: Infowerk.
Bhaskar, R. (2008). A Realist Theory of Science (2nd).
Abingdon, OX, UK: Routledge.
Bunge, M. (1966). Technology as Applied Science.
Technology and Culture, 7(3), 329–347.
Carlsson, S. A. (2007). Through IS Design Science
Research: For Whom, What Type of Knowledge, and
How. SJIS, 19(2), 75–86.
Carlsson, S. A. (2009). Critical Realist Information
Systems Research. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology
(pp. 811–817). Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global.
Carlsson, S. A. (2010). Design Science in IS: A Critical
Realist Approach. In A. R. Hevner & S. Chatterjee
(Eds.), Design Research in Informat-ion Systems (pp.
209–233). New York, NY, USA: Springer.
Carlsson, S. A., Henningsson, S., Hrastinski, S., & Keller,
C. (2011). Socio-technical IS Design Science
ChallengesofCriticalandEmancipatoryDesignScienceResearch-TheDesignof`PossibleWorlds'asResponse
343
Research: Developing Design Theory for IS
Integration Management. Information Systems and E-
Business Management, 9(1), 109–131.
Chmielewicz, K. (1994). Forschungskonzeption der
Wirtschaftswissenschaft. Stuttgart, DE: Poeschel.
David, P. (1985). Clio and the Economics of QWERTY.
The American Economic Review, 75(2), 332–337.
Fountain, J. E. (2001). Building the Virtual State:
Information Technology and Institutional Change.
Washington, DC, USA: Brookings Institution Press.
Frank, U. (2006). Towards a Pluralistic Conception of
Research Methods in Information Systems Research.
ICB Research Report (No. 7).Essen, DE.
Frank, U. (2009). Die Konstruktion möglicher Welten als
Chance und Herausforderung der Wirtschaftsinfor-
matik. In J. Becker, H. Krcmar & B. Niehaves (Eds.),
Wissenschaftstheorie und gestaltungsorientierte WI
(pp. 161–173). Heidelberg: Physica.
Frank, U. (2010). Zur methodischen Fundierung der For-
schung in der Wirtschaftsinformatik. In H.Österle, R.
Winter & W. Brenner (Eds) Gestaltungsorientierte
Wirtschaftsinformatik (pp. 35-44). Nuermberg, DE:
Infowerk.
Gregor, S. (2009). Building Theory in the Sciences of the
Artifical. In Proceedings of DESRIST’09 (pp. 1–10).
New York, NY, USA: ACM Press.
Gregor, S. & Jones, D. (2007). The Anatomy of a Design
Theory. JAIS, 8(5), 312–335.
Habermas, J. (1987). Reason and the Rationalization of
Society: Theory of Communicative Action. Frankfurt
am Main, DE: Suhrkamp (German).
Hevner, A. R. (2007). The Three-Cycle View of Design
Science Research. SJIS, 19(2), 87–92.
Hevner, A. R., & Chatterjee, S. (2010). Design Research
in Information Systems: Theory and Practice. New
York, NY, USA: Springer.
Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004).
Design Science in Information System Research. MIS
Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105.
Iivari, J. (2007). A Paradigmatic Analysis of Information
Systems as a Design Science. SJIS, 19(2), 39–64.
Iivari, J. (2010). Twelve Theses on Design Science
Research in Information Systems. In A. R. Hevner &
S. Chatterjee (Eds.), Design Research in Information
Systems (pp. 43–62). New York, NY, USA: Springer.
Kuechler, W. L., & Vaishnavi, V. (2012a). A Framework
for Theory Development in Design Science Research:
Multiple Perspectives. JAIS, 13(6), 395–423.
Kuechler, W. L., & Vaishnavi, V. (2012b). Characterizing
Design Science Theories by Level of Constraint on
Design Decisions. In K. Peffers, M. A. Rothenberger
& B. Kuechler (Eds.), Proceedings DESRIST’12, Las
Vegas, NV, USA, May 14-15, 2012. (pp. 345–353).
Berlin, DE: Springer.
Ladyman, J. (2007). Ontological, Epistemological and
Methodological Positions. In T. Kuipers (Ed.),
Handbook of Philosophy of Science (pp. 303–376).
Oxford, UK: North Holland.
Lewis, D. K. (1986). On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford,
UK: Blackwell.
March, S. T., & Vogus, T. J. (2010). Design Science in the
Management Discipline. In A. R. Hevner & S.
Chatterjee (Eds.), Design Research in Information
Systems (pp. 195–208). New York: Springer.
Mertens, P. (2010). Anspruchsgruppen der gestaltungs-
orientierten WI. In H.Österle, R. Winter & W. Brenner
(Eds.) Gestaltungsorientierte Wirtschaftsinformatik
(pp. 19–25). Nuremberg: Infowerk.
Myers, M. D. & Klein, H. K. (2011). A Set of Principles
for Conducting Critical Research in Information
Systems. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 17–36.
Niehaves, B. (2007). On Epistemological Pluralism in
Design Science. SJIS, 19(2), 93–104.
Niiniluoto, I. (1993). The Aim and Structure of Applied
Research. Erkenntnis, 38(1), 1–21.
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and
Economic Performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Nunamaker, J. F., Chen, M., & Purdin, T. D. M. (1991).
Systems Development in Information Systems
Research. JMIS, 7(3), 89–106.
Österle, H., Winter, R., & Brenner, W. (Eds.). (2010).
Nuernberg, DE: Inforwerk,
Österle, H., Becker, J., Frank, U., Hess, T., ... Sinz, E. J.
(2011). Memorandum on Design-oriented Information
Systems Research. EJIS, 20(1), 7–10.
Pawson, R. (2006). Evidence-Based Policy: A Realist
Perspective. London, UK: Sage.
Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic Evaluation.
London, UK: Sage.
Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., &
Chatterjee, S. (2008). A Design Science Research
Methodology for Information Systems Research.
JMIS, 24(3), 45–77.
Popper, K. P. (1967). The Spell of Plato: The Open
Society and Its Enemies. London, UK: Routledge.
Purao, S., Rossi, M., & Sein, M. K. (2010). On Integrating
Action Research and Design Research. In A. R.
Hevner & S. Chatterjee (Eds.), Design Research in
Information Systems (pp. 179–194). New York, NY,
USA: Springer.
Riege, C., Saat, J., & Bucher, T. (2009). Systematisierung
von Evaluationsmethoden in der gestaltungs-
orientierten Wirtschaftsinformatik. In J. Becker, H.
Krcmar & B. Niehaves (Eds.), Wissenschaftstheorie
und gestaltungsorientierte Wirtschaftsinformatik (pp.
69–86). Heidelberg, DE: Physica.
Robson, C. (2002). Real World Research: A Resource for
Social Scientists and Practitioner Researchers.
Malden, MA, USA: Blackwell.
Rossi, M., & Sein, M. K. (2003). Design Research
Workshop: A Proactive Research Approach. 26th
Information Systems Research Seminar in
Scandinavia, August 9-12, 2003, Haikko, FI.
Sein, M., Rossi, M., & Purao, S. (2007). Exploring the
Limits of the Possible. SJIS, 19(2), 105–110.
Stahl, B. C. (2009). The Ideology of Design: A Critical
Appreciation of the Design Science Discourse in
Information Systems and Wirtschaftsinformatik. In J.
Becker, H. Krcmar & B. Niehaves (Eds.), Wissen-
ICEIS2013-15thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems
344
schaftstheorie und gestaltungsorientierte Wirtschafts-
informatik (pp. 111–132). Heidelberg, DE: Physica.
Tilley, N. (2000). Realistic Evaluation: An Overview.
Retrieved from http://evidence-based
management.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/
nick_tilley.pdf (last access: 2013-04-03).
Venable, J. R. (2006). A Framework for Design Science
Research Activities. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), Emer-
ging Trends and Challenges in Information Technol-
ogy Management (pp. 184–187). Hershey: Idea Group.
Walls, G. J., Widmeyer, G. R., & El Sawy, O. A. (2004).
Assessing Information System Design Theory in
Perspective: How Useful was our 1992 Initial
Rendition? JITTA, 6(2), 43–58.
Walls, J., Widmeyer, G. R., & El Sawy, O. A. (1992).
Building an Information System Design Theory for
Vigilant EIS. ISR, 3(1), 36–59.
Zelewski, S. (2007). Kann Wissenschaftstheorie behilflich
für die Publikationspraxis sein? Eine kritische Ausein-
andersetzung mit den ”Guidelines” von Hevner et al.
In F. Lehner & S. Zelewski (Eds.), Wissenschaftstheo-
retische Fundierung und wissenschaftliche Orientier-
ung der WI (pp. 71-120). Berlin: Gito.
ChallengesofCriticalandEmancipatoryDesignScienceResearch-TheDesignof`PossibleWorlds'asResponse
345
