Need and justification for Constructive Research

Both   Constructive   and   Design   Science   research   deals   with   “real   world”   practical   problems  as  well  as  considering  its  theoretical  contributions;  it  links  the  research  

and  academic  world  with  the  industrial  issues  (Lukka,  2003;  Hevner,  2004).  Hence,   the   relevance   of   topic   (in   other   words   quality   of   research   problem)   improves   significantly   when   using   constructive   research   methodology   in   certain   research   fields.    

In   research   areas   dealing   with   practical   problems   or   issues   that   are   close   to   the   industry,   using   other   research   methods   exclusively   (i.e.   surveys,   observation,   interviews)   leads   to   unsatisfactory   and   low   results.   This   is   due   to   increasing   frustration  of  organisations  being  asked  to  participate  in  surveys  or  interviews,  as   they  feel  that  they  don’t  get  much  in  return  for  their  effort  (Lukka,  2003).  Instead,   in   constructive   research,   emphasis   is   on   two-­‐way   communication   as   the   researcher  works  very  closely  with  organisations  imparting  valuable  knowledge  in   the  process.  

Lukka  (2003)  also  mentions  that  to  validate  the  research,  and  identify  whether  a   certain  solution/hypothesis/framework  really  works,  is  to  actually  test  the  idea  in   the  field  with  practitioners.  It  is  extremely  difficult  to  validate  such  research  just   by   asking   questions   or   distributing   questionnaires   or   collecting   data   through   surveys.  The  constructive  approach  advocates  the  practice  of  testing  the  “truth”  by   finding   out   what   works   in   practice   through   direct   intervention   of   the   researcher(s).  

Figure  3  illustrates  the  key  elements  of  the  constructive  research  approach  (Lukka,   2003).  

  Figure  3.  Elements  of  constructive  research  (Lukka,  2003).  

Research   scholars   in   management   and   information   science   argue   that   whilst   rigorous   research   is   paramount   to   create   new   knowledge,   it   should   also   deliver   application  and  relevant  results  for  practical  use  (Holmström  et  al.,  2009;  van  Aken  

2

of this approach, the (novel) construction, is an abstract notion with great, in fact infinite, number of potential realisations. All human artefacts - such as models, diagrams, plans, organisation structures, commercial products, and information system designs - are constructions. It is characteristic of them that they are invented and developed, not discovered. By developing a construction, something that differs profoundly from anything, which existed before, is created: novel constructions bring forth, by definition, new reality.

Mathematical algorithms and new mathematical entities provide theoretical examples of constructions. In philosophy, the application of constructive research can be found in those cases where the world is constructed, step by step, from supposedly basic elements like objects, time-space slices, observations, thoughts, or logical relations. Creating an artificial language - such as Morse alphabet, Braille's alphabet, or computer languages - is an example of developing a construction at its purest. In medicine we can find the constructive approach in the development of new pharmaceuticals, or in the creation of a new treatment (Kasanen et al., 1993).

The core features of the constructive research approach require that it • focuses on real-world problems felt relevant to be solved in practice,

• produces an innovative construction meant to solve the initial real-world problem, • includes an attempt for implementing the developed construction and thereby a test for

its practical applicability,

• implies a very close involvement and co-operation between the researcher and practitioners in a team-like manner, in which experiential learning is expected to take place,

• is explicitly linked to prior theoretical knowledge, and

• pays particular attention to reflecting the empirical findings back to theory (Lukka, 2000).

Figure 1 illustrates the key elements of the constructive research approach.

Figure 1: The central elements of the constructive research approach2

It is characteristic to a constructive study that the researcher’s empirical intervention is explicit and strong. As an opposite to the typical objective of a conducting research with minimal empirical obtrusion in mind, here having an impact is one part of the method itself

2 _{Slightly adapted from Kasanen et al. (1993) and Lukka & Tuomela (1998).}

Connection to prior theory Practical relevance of the problem and the solution Practical functioning of the solution Theoretical contribution of the study Construction (Solution to the initial problem)

2004).  This  demand  has  earlier  been  satisfied  through  the  development  of  action   research   approach,   and   later   through   the   use   of   constructive   research   approach   and   Design   Science   research   approach   (Piirainen   and   Gonzalez,   2013).   Both,   Constructive  Research  Approach  and  Design  Science  aim  to  increase  the  relevance   of  management  and  information  science  research  by  putting  the  theory  to  practice   through  designing  and/or  constructing  “constructions”  (Kasanen  et  al.,  1993).   According   to   Hevner   et   al.   (2004),   two   paradigms   characterise   majority   of   the   research   in   Information   Systems,   that   of   behavioural   science   and   design   science.   Whereas  the  behaviour  science  view  develops  or  verifies  theories  that  explain  or   predict  human  or  organisational  behaviour,  design  science  paradigm  extends  the   human/organisational   boundaries   of   understanding   by   creating   new   and   innovative   artefacts.   In   information   science   the   importance   of   design   is   emphasised   and   researchers   have   argued   that   the   realm   of   information   science   research  is  directly  related  to  design  (Glass,  1999;  Winograd,  1997).    

Hevner   (2004)   explains   that   unlike   behaviour   science   research,   which   seeks   to   predict   or   explain   phenomena   that   occur   with   respect   to   artefact’s   use,   design   science  creates  and  evaluates  Information  Technology  artefacts  intended  to  solve   identified  organisational  problems.    

Hevner  et  al.  (2004)  also  define  a  design  process  as  a  “sequence  of  expert  activities   that   produces   an   innovative   product   (i.e.   the   design   artefact).   The   authors   also   explain  the  dichotomy  of  design  science  paradigm,  as  design  is  considered  both  as   a  process  and  a  product.  The  process  is  explained  as  a  sequence  of  expert  activities   through   which   an   innovative   product   (i.e.   the   design   artefact)   is   produced.   Subsequently,  the  evaluation  of  the  artefact  provides  a  better  understanding  of  the   problem  (and  a  solution)  in  order  to  improve  the  quality  of  both  the  design  process   and   the   designed   artefact.   This   activity   of   building   an   artefact   and   evaluation   is   carried  out  in  a  loop  a  number  of  times  before  the  final  artefact  is  generated.  From   the  perspective  of  this  research,  this  particular  aspect  of  having  an  iteration  cycle   between   artefact   design   and   evaluation   can   be   considered   significant   and   has   a   potential  to  play  a  central  role  in  the  research.    

Hevner  et  al.  (2004)  provide  a  framework  for  Information  Science  research  based   on  the  design  science  method.  Table  1  (Research  Process  followed  for  VisiLean)  is   based   on   this   framework   and   explains   each   step   taken   in   the   research   in   the   context  of  this  framework.