Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Elaborating ADR while drifting away from its essence: a commentary on Mullarkey and Hevner
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Computer Science, Electrical and Space Engineering, Computer Science. Information Systems, Universitetet i Agder, Kristiansand, Norway.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-5506-9633
Information and Service Management, Aalto-yliopisto kauppakorkeakoulu, Aalto, Finland.
2019 (English)In: European Journal of Information Systems, ISSN 0960-085X, E-ISSN 1476-9344, Vol. 28, no 1, p. 21-25Article in journal, Editorial material (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

In their insightful critique of Action Design Research, Hevner and Mullarkey (this issue) proposed an enhancement of ADR by juxtaposing concepts from a well cited framework of Design Science Research (DSR) developed by Peffers et al. (2007). In this commentary, we argue that while we agree with some of their elaborations, such as unpacking the specific stages of ADR to make them more transparent and accessible and incorporating formalization of learning in every stage, we also disagree with Hevner and Mullarkey on two key areas. The first is depicting multiple different entry points to an ADR project, which goes against the essential spirit of ADR’s single entry point, problem formulation. More importantly, in juxtaposing the Peffers et al. framework of DSR on to ADR, they are combining two approaches that are epistemologically incommensurate. Peffers et al. take a deductive design approach while ADR employs principally an inductive epistemology by giving primacy to the guided emergence of the artifact. In spite of our disagreements, we conclude that both approaches are premised upon pragmatism where researchers are guided more by utility and usefulness rather than an abstract notion of truth. Our disagreements are essential characteristics of a healthy academic discourse.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Taylor & Francis, 2019. Vol. 28, no 1, p. 21-25
National Category
Information Systems, Social aspects
Research subject
Information systems
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-71224DOI: 10.1080/0960085X.2018.1527189ISI: 000453638900003Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-8505431566OAI: oai:DiVA.org:ltu-71224DiVA, id: diva2:1256367
Available from: 2018-10-16 Created: 2018-10-16 Last updated: 2019-01-30Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records BETA

Sein, Maung

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Sein, Maung
By organisation
Computer Science
In the same journal
European Journal of Information Systems
Information Systems, Social aspects

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 55 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf