Ontological questions 132

Gregor (2006, p 612) describes ontological questions and considerations as including

What is theory? How is this term understood in the discipline? Of what is theory composed? What forms do contributions to knowledge take? How is theory expressed? What types of claims or statements can be made? What types of questions are addressed?

It is this class of questions that has created the greatest consternation and

discussion during the course of this thesis, especially during the formative stages. As mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, this particular consternation arose from a number of factors including: uncertainty about the importance or place of design research within information systems (Gregor, 2002); early (and on-going) suggestions that theory had no part in design research (March & Smith, 1995); and questions about – if design theory was accepted – the best way to express an information systems design theory (Gregor & Jones, 2004; Venable, 2006; Walls et al., 1992).

As a consequence significant energy was expended in attempting to understand, examine critically and improve upon the many and varied perspectives embedded within these debates. As a result early publications describing this work as a design theory (Jones & Gregor, 2004, 2006; Jones, Gregor et al., 2003) used the design theory structure formulated by Walls et al. (1992, 2004). This experience and other insights led to the formulation and suggestion of an improved anatomy for information systems design theories (ISDTs) published in Gregor and Jones (2004, 2007). The improved anatomy of an ISDT is one of the contributions arising from this thesis.

This section starts by summarising some of the divergent perspectives of the role and purpose of theory in design research. It then briefly explains the improved anatomy of an information systems design theory proposed in Gregor and Jones (2007).

Theory in design research

The nature and necessity for a design theory remains a matter of debate (Baskerville, 2008). For example, March and Smith (1995) suggest that rather than posing theories, design scientists strive to create models, methods and implementations that are innovative and valuable. Lee (2000) suggests that it is still important in design science for a theory to explain a phenomenon, but it is less important than the instrumental use of a theory to build a system that is efficient and effective in the eyes of the potential users of the information system. Hevner et al. (2004) agree with March and Smith (1995) in recognising design science as a research activity that is not directly involved in the production of theory. More broadly, Vaishnavi and Kuechleer (2004) identify a lack of consensus around the precise objective and desired outputs of design research. The view adopted in this thesis agrees with the contention of a number of authors (Venable, 2006; Walls et al., 1992) that the aim of research is the creation and testing of theory. Venable (2006) suggests that design research should have theory as a primary output and that theory and theorising should play a central role in the advancement of design research. Adams and Courtney (2004) suggest that design research is a theory building technique which when combined with the

development of an instantiation can become a theory testing technique. Cole et al. (2005) argue that design research is not atheoretical tinkering, but that the

development of the artefact should incorporate theory and make a theory-building contribution. Gregor and Jones (2007) argue that design knowledge is of vital concern to industry and that improvements to design theorising should increase the relevance of information systems research. Gregor and Jones (2007) also argue that the unambiguous recognition of design knowledge as theory provides a

sounder base for the rigor and legitimacy of IS as an applied discipline and for its continuing progress.

If it is accepted that the production and testing of theory is the aim of research, and thus, that design research should seek to make contributions to theory, what type of contribution to theory can design research make? It is suggested that Gregor’s (2006) Theory Type V – theory for design and action – is generally the main, but not only, contribution to theory made by design research. Design research can make contributions of other types of theory through its formulation and testing. Kuechler and Vaishnavi (2008) show how a design research project can contribute to both design theory and inform “kernel theories” (defined below) that are typically theories of other types. This thesis has made three contributions to theory consisting of: a design theory for e-learning within universities and the two theories for analysis. The first theory for analysis is the Ps Framework (Jones et al., 2008) though it is accepted that the Ps Framework is, at best, a nascent skeleton of a theory for analysis. The second and more complete theory for analysis is the improved anatomy of a design theory (Gregor & Jones, 2007).

Representation of ISDTs

The previous section argued that design research should aim to make a contribution to theory, and that this theory, while primarily aimed at design

theory, can also include other types of theory. The aim of this section is to provide an overview of perspectives on how design theory should be represented.

It is suggested that Information Systems Design Theories (ISDT) are an example of theories for design and action, an example of Gregor’s (2006) Theory V (Table 3.1). The primary focus of design theory is on general principles that inform

practice (Gregor, 2002). Guidance about how to achieve specific goals is intrinsic to a design theory (Walls et al., 1992). Design theory provides guidance about how to build an artefact (process) and what the artefact should look like when built (product/design principles) (Gregor, 2002; Walls et al., 1992). The first representation of an ISDT and its components was developed by Walls et al. (1992) and is summarised in graphical form in Figure 3.1 below. A tabular summary appears in

Table 3.3.

Figure 3.1. Components of an Information Systems Design Theory. Adapted from “Assessing information system design theory in perspective: How useful was our 1992 initial rendition”, by J. Walls et al., 2004, Journal of Information

Technology, Theory and Application, 6(2), p. 46.

Walls et al. (1992) see an ISDT as an integrated set of prescriptions consisting of a particular class of user requirements (meta-requirements), a type of system solution with distinctive features (meta-design) and a set of effective development practices (meta-design). Each of these components of an ISDT can be informed by kernel theories, either academic or practitioner theory-in-use (Sarker & Lee, 2002), that enable the formulation of empirically testable predictions relating the

Kernel Theories Meta- requirements Meta-design Design Method

Testable Design Product and Process Hypotheses

design theory to outcomes (Markus et al., 2002). It should be noted that, Iivari (2007) questions the value and place of practitioner theory-in-use theories as kernel theories.

Table 3.3. Components of an Information System Design Theory (ISDT).

Design Product

Meta-requirements Describes the class of goals to which the theory applies Meta-design Describes a class of artefacts hypothesised to meet the

meta-requirements

Kernel theories Theories from natural or social sciences governing design requirements

Testable design product hypotheses

Used to test whether the meta-design satisfies the meta-requirements

Design Process

Design method A description of procedure(s) for artefact construction Kernel theories Theories from natural or social sciences governing the

design process itself Testable design process

hypotheses

Used to verify whether the design method results in an artefact which is consistent with the meta-design

Adapted “Assessing information system design theory in perspective: How useful was our 1992 initial rendition”, by J. Walls et al., 2004, Journal of Information Technology, Theory and Application, 6(2), p. 46.

As described earlier, some writers (Hevner et al., 2004; March & Smith, 1995) did not regard theory as a product of design science. Hevner et al. (2004) suggest that the ISDT format described by Walls et al. (1992) is actually a combination of March and Smith’s (1995) – non-theory related – design science outputs. Table 3.4 is a summary of the mapping suggested by Hevner et al. (2004).

Table 3.4. Hevener et al.’s (2004) mapping of design science research outputs with ISDT components.

ISDT components Design Science Outputs

Kernel Theories Not specified Meta-requirements Model of design

problems Meta-design Instantiation Development

practices

Methods Hypotheses Not specified

While there is value in attempting to establish connections between these two views of design research, there appears to be some weaknesses with the mapping summarised in Table 3.4. First, the design science outputs in the table provide no equivalent to the ISDT components: kernel theories and design hypotheses. This limits the ability to build cumulatively on prior work and test design research. The ability to build cumulatively on prior work and test design research are important, even essential, requirements for research. The next potential weakness concerns the interpretation of the meta-design ISDT component as an instantiation. The original definition provided by Walls et al. (1992) for the meta-design component suggests that it should describe a class of instantiations that are able to meet the meta-requirements, not a single instantiation. van Aken (2004) suggests that rather than a specific prescription for a specific situation (an instantiation), the intent should be for a general prescription for a class of problems.

Additionally, the perceived need for this mapping may arise from definitional differences around what is theory. A broader view of theory would interpret the first three of March and Smith’s (1995) design science outputs – constructs, models and methods – as components of theory (Gregor & Jones, 2007). Alternatively, a broader view of theory may also interpret these design science outputs as examples of theory. For example, Berente and Lyytinen (2006, n.p.) seek to “reveal and refine the concept of iteration and formulate it as a

well-defined construct” upon which to base future research. Berente and Lyytinen’s (2006) work on iteration identifies and describes four levels of iterating artefacts and uses these descriptions to group and evaluate empirical research. It could be argued that rather than a construct, this work has formulated a Theory of Type I, a theory for analysis.

While initially accepting and using the Walls et al. (1992) representation of an ISDT, overtime it appeared that there were some weaknesses. It was these weaknesses that led to iterative improvements in the representation of ISDTs (Gregor & Jones, 2004, 2007). The perceived weaknesses identified by Gregor and Jones (2007) include:

 two of Dubin’s (1978) mandatory theory components – units and system states

– were missing

 an incomplete capturing of the full range of Simon’s (1996) ideas

 a lack of an explicit discussion of specifying an ISDT for methodologies

 suggestions that the depiction of design theory and its components may be too

unwieldy for use (Walls et al., 2004) and could be improved by drawing on other work.

As well as addressing these problems, the proposal by Gregor and Jones (2007) is also arguably more complete and usable. Table 3.5 describes each of the eight components of the Gregor and Jones (2007) representation of an ISDT. Figure 3.2 provides a graphical representation of the ISDT that is adapted from Lyytinen (2008). The Gregor and Jones (2007) representation adds the components of constructs, artefact mutability and an expository instantiation and merges the kernel theories for both product and process into a single component, justificatory knowledge.

Table 3.5. Eight components of an Information Systems Design Theory (ISDT).

Component Description

Core components

1. Purpose and scope (the causa finalis)

“What the system is for,” the set of meta-requirements or goals that specifies the type of artefact to which the theory applies and in conjunction also defines the scope, or boundaries, of the theory.

2. Constructs (the causa materialis) Representations of the entities of interest in the theory

3. Principle of form and function (the

causa formalis) The abstract “blueprint” or architecture that describes an IS artefact, either product or method/intervention

4. Artefact mutability The changes in state of the artefact anticipated in the theory, that is, what degree of artefact change is

encompassed by the theory 5. Testable propositions Truth statements about the design

theory.

6. Justificatory knowledge The underlying knowledge of theory from the natural or social or design sciences that gives a basis for explanation for the design (kernel theories)

Additional components

7. Principles of implementation (the causa efficiens)

A description of processes for

implementing the theory (either product or method) in specific contexts.

8. Expository instantiation A physical implementation of the artefact that can assist in representing the theory both as an expository device and for purposes of testing

Note: Adapted from “The anatomy of a design theory”, by S. Gregor and D. Jones, 2007, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(5), p. 322. Others are now adopting this new perspective on design theory. A common usage is the adoption of something like Table 3.5 to provide an overview of the

formulated design theory. Examples of this type of use can be found in Moody (2009) and Carlsson et al. (forthcoming).

Figure 3.2. Representation of Gregor and Jones (2007) anatomy of a design theory. Adapted from “Shaping in the wild”. K. Lyytinen, Keynote at DESRIST’2008 Retrieved November 10, 2008, from

http://desrist2008.cis.gsu.edu/doc/speech/LyytinenDESRIST2008.pdf