The Research Process

This approach is not purely technology focused but also considers the impact of people and the business function on technology implementation. The Design Science Research model also enables the use of soft systems tools to organise and analyse the qualitative data. Systems thinking looks at real environments that are not laboratory-based or artificial.

This research looks at the components of Elluminate affordances suitable for the learning and teaching. The technology has affordances that provide a medium for stakeholders to use in their work. The stakeholders’ perspectives informed the researchers’ understanding of strategies and practices that ensure the technology is used to meet the objectives. This research looks at the affordances that would be useful for a particular learning and teaching activity.

Finding an adequate grounding in methodology for this research was difficult, as the goals of this research incorporate elements of mainstream management, education and Information Systems research. The outcome of this research is not intended to be just a description of Elluminate affordances implemented in university contexts, that will improve understanding of the local environment. A problem-solution finding approach was undertaken to ensure a systems artefact was generated as an outcome of the research, to offer guidance to stakeholders and as a consequence improve practice (Hevner et al. 2004).

The Design Science approach ensures the construction of an artefact whereby educators and Information Systems specialists can be given some form of guidance when choosing web interactive multimedia technology affordances to deliver learning activities. The artefact provided can provide the foundation for how web interactive multimedia technology affordances can be best used in universities (Venable 2006a).

This research process following Design Science Research in Information Systems is summarised in Table 3.2. In defining the Design Science Research objectives, the scope of the research was identified based on the purpose of the research. The purpose of the research was to understand Elluminate affordance use in learning and assessment activities and to create a

guidance artefact to be used during the subject delivery design phase. The research required a theoretically based conceptual framework to drive the collection of data during stakeholder interviews and from subject guide documents, for each case study. Findings were extracted and synthesised, inductively from the data and deductively from the research conceptual model. Conclusions underpinned the guidelines for the web interactive multimedia technology affordances implementations in higher education were drawn.

Table 3.2: The summary of this research process (adapted from Alturki, Gable & Bandara 2011a)

Research Process Explanation

Define Design Science Research objective

The scope of the research was identified based on the purpose of the research.

Determine the type of research: Design Science Research or design research or both

The type of this research is Design Science Research but the outcome is an artefact that could be used as a guide in the design stage of a subject for learning.

Define the theme of the research: construction, evaluation or both

The theme of this research consists of rigorous evaluation based on the Design Science Research framework.

Empirical work Design a theoretically based conceptual framework.

Search for and appraise the evidence. Collect data from interviews, subject guide documents and subject assignments documents. Extract and synthesise findings. Analyse data inductively and deductively from the research conceptual model.

Draw conclusions and make recommendations which become the artefact as an outcome of this research.

The Research Method

In Design Science Research, evaluation of developed artefacts, anti-positivistic epistemology is highly relevant (IIvari & Venable 2009; Niehaves 2007). This research is designed to investigate systems for implementation of Elluminate affordances in higher education blended classrooms. An interpretive method is used to evaluate the Elluminate implementations, in

situ (Venable 2006a; Venable & Travis 1999). According to Ilvari and Venable (2009), an

interview research method to collect qualitative date to complete the evaluation phase is appropriate. The method is justified when the research is attempting to understand

organisational or individual appropriation and usage of technology in real life. The Evaluation of the impact of an emerging technology does not need to be completed by the researchers who originally designed the technology or implementation (vomBrocke, Simons & Schenk 2008). The Design Science Research approach is suitable to evaluate Elluminate, affordance implementations, designed for learning and teaching (Venable 2006a). Unlike Action Research where the outcome is a description of an alternative perspective of phenomena, Design Science Research demands an artefact that will impact on or change the current situation (IIvari & Venable 2009). Evaluation includes the integration of the artefact within the technical infrastructure of the environment. The evaluation of designed artefacts typically uses methodologies in the knowledge base as summarised in Table 3.3(Hevner et al. 2004). This research used case study as the methodology to observe the Elluminate implementation systems artefacts in depth.

Table 3.3: Design evaluation methods (Hevner et al. 2004)

Category Methodology

Observational Case study – study artefact in depth Field study – monitor use of artefact

Analytical Static analysis – examine structure for static qualities e.g. complexity Architecture analysis – study fit into technical architecture

Optimisation – demonstrate optimal properties

Dynamic analysis – study for dynamic qualities e.g. performance

Experimental Controlled experiment – e.g., usability Simulation – execute with artificial data

Testing Functional (black box) testing – execute interfaces to discover failures and identify defects

Structural (white box) testing – perform coverage testing in the implementation

Descriptive Informed argument – build a convincing argument for the artefact’s utility Scenarios – to demonstrate utility