You are on page 1of 34

RESEARCH ESSAY

GENRES OF INQUIRY IN DESIGN-SCIENCE


RESEARCH: JUSTIFICATION AND EVALUATION
1
OF KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION

Richard L. Baskerville
Department of Computer Information Systems, Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University,
Atlanta, GA 30303 U.S.A. {baskerville@acm.org} and
School of Information Systems, Curtin Business School, Curtin University, Bentley WA 6102 AUSTRALIA

Mala Kaul
Department of Accounting and Information Systems, College of Business, University of Nevada, Reno,
1664 N. Virginia Street, Reno, NV 89557 U.S.A. {mkaul@unr.edu}

Veda C. Storey
Department of Computer Information Systems, Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University,
Atlanta, GA 30303 U.S.A. {vstorey@gsu.edu}

Recognizing that design is at the core of information systems development has led to a design-science research
paradigm where differing kinds of knowledge goals give form to differing kinds of knowledge processes within
a single study. This paper analyzes knowledge production in design-science research to explain how an
endogenous form of pluralism characterizes such studies, making it problematic to associate any design-
science study with a single view of knowledge production. Instead, a design-science research study exhibits
up to four different modes of reasoning, called genres of inquiry. These genres are derived from two dualities
that contrast differing knowledge goals and differing knowledge scope in the knowledge production process.
The first duality arises from the sometimes seemingly contradictory knowledge goals of science versus design.
The second duality reflects the contradiction between the scope of the knowledge produced, which may be
idiographic or nomothetic. The evolutionary and iterative nature of a design-science study compels different
knowledge goals and scope at different moments throughout a project. Because of this momentary nature, a
single design-science study can be associated with multiple genres of inquiry. This understanding of the variety
in the genres of inquiry advances the discourse on the nature of design-science research and the justification
and evaluation of its outcomes. Consequently, a corresponding set of criteria for knowledge justification and
evaluation is provided for each genre of inquiry.
1

Keywords: Design science research, genres of inquiry, evaluation, duality, knowledge scope, knowledge goal,
knowledge moment, centrality of knowledge, idiographic science, nomothetic science, endogenous pluralism

1
Alan Hevner was the accepting senior editor for this paper. Samir Chatterjee served as the associate editor.

An earlier version of this paper, “Unpacking the Duality of Design Science,” was presented at the 2011 International Conference on Information Systems in
Shanghai, China.

The appendices for this paper are located in the “Online Supplements” section of the MIS Quarterly’s website (http://www.misq.org).

MIS Quarterly Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 541-564/September 2015 541


Baskerville et al./Genres of Inquiry in Design-Science Research

Introduction milieu of differing ways to know. Understanding knowledge


production in design-science requires more than just the
Decades of information technological innovations have been distinction of “know-how” from “know-why” (Kogut and
changing the face of human societies; design is central to Zander 1997); in fact, episodes of both are necessary to justify
these innovations. A thriving Management Information Sys- knowledge production.
tems (MIS) design-science community can help integrate the
contributions of myriad other MIS research paradigms into By seeking the benefits from any clash between the ways in
these important and continuously earth-shaking information which knowledge is produced by design versus science, we
technology innovations (Goes 2014). This challenge to explicate the unique value of intertwining these two con-
design-science researchers is indeed daunting: rescue schol- trasting kinds of knowledge production. We do not reconcile
arly MIS research from the far edges of relevance, where it design versus science; rather, we unpack the conflation of
has been sitting for most of the past half-century. However, other important knowledge production aspects that confuse
despite its potential, design-science research continues to the design versus science duality. The results provide
struggle in its emergence into mainstream MIS research (Goes researchers confidence in the polymorphic way in which they
2014). generate new knowledge, enabling them to better refine and
justify their research questions and findings. Such justifica-
This struggle arises partly from the complexity of design- tion will help overcome the barriers that hamper the
science research methods. For scholarly readers, a design- emergence of design-science into mainstream MIS research,
science study can appear to be a methodological hodgepodge: with a specific example being an expectation that the findings
partly a practical problem case study, partly an embedded in design-science studies can be justified by a single,
ethnography, partly a creative design, partly situated practice, monolithic set of methodological criteria.
partly action research, partly a field experiment, and so forth.
It is a study that does not fit squarely into any of our existing Design-science is “a body of intellectually tough, analytic,
research pigeonholes but, from appearances, might fit partly partly formalizable, partly empirical, teachable doctrine about
into all of them. For the researcher, reporting the findings of the design process” (Simon 1988, pp. 68-69). There has been
this seeming hodgepodge is challenging. The importance of a rich discussion around the process of design-science
the practical problem must be justified, which might be research, its concomitant artifacts, and the role of theory, with
anchored to ethnography. The validity of a new theoretical frameworks and principles emerging for conducting, justi-
grounding for the design must be justified, but might be an- fying, and evaluating design-science research (Baskerville et
chored to action research. The novelty of the design must be al. 2010; Hevner et al. 2004; Kuechler and Vaishnavi 2008,
justified, but might be anchored to situated practice. Even the 2012; Lee et al. 2012; Lee et al. 2015; McKay et al. 2012;
validity of any resulting artifacts must be justified, which Österle et al. 2010; Peffers et al. 2007; Venable et al. 2014).
could be anchored to myriad empirical methods: laboratory/
field experiments, action research, case studies, surveys, This design-science paradigm embraces seemingly contra-
interviews, simulations, and others. Hence, cross-method dictory principles. Although design and science share the
frameworks become useful for planning certain key com- same subject matter (the world) and produce artifacts (e.g.,
ponents of a design-science study, such as action design theories), their aims, methods, and criteria are quite different
research (Sein et al. 2011) or design ethnography (Baskerville (Galle and Kroes 2014, p. 227). Design is concerned with
and Myers 2015). synthesis, whereas science is concerned with analysis (Simon
1996, p. 5). The artifacts that result from design are “artificial
The intent of this paper is to frame this issue concisely. The objects having desired properties,” the production of which
issue is not one of myriad different scientific methodologies; are the main objectives of a designer (Simon 1996, p. 4).
rather, it is an issue of how knowledge production proceeds Design uses knowledge to create a new world, whereas
from the marriage between design and science. In design- science studies the world to create new knowledge (Verkerke
science research, knowledge production is polymorphic. A et al. 2013). Such apparent contradictions seem to shape the
single design-science study is necessarily multiparadigmatic, essence of this newer, design-science research paradigm:
thereby requiring differing criteria to justify the knowledge developing research that makes meaningful design and
produced at differing moments that occur when conducting science contributions (in a manner that is beyond just the
the research. The creation of knowledge results from the science of design or designing with science). It involves the
interdependence and interaction of both design and science. creation of knowledge through the analysis of a given design
Design-science research is unique because the collision of problem, synthesis of solutions based upon this analysis, and
both making and knowing in a single research study creates a evaluation of the solution.

542 MIS Quarterly Vol. 39 No. 3/September 2015


Baskerville et al./Genres of Inquiry in Design-Science Research

Throughout this paper, design-science is hyphenated (as in theory with science (Fischer et al. 2010). By focusing instead
Hevner et al. 2004) to emphasize explanations of the specific on knowledge production in design-science studies, we reveal
manner in which the paradigm operates with such contradic- how the artifact is intertwined with both science and design,
tions. The notion of a design-science study broadly represents as well as how the theories are similarly intertwined. The
(1) a design-science research project, (2) an artifact design- paramount-driven views also conflate generalized knowledge
and-development (build and evaluate) project that such a with science, and specialized knowledge with design. A
research project may entail, (3) the production of new knowl- knowledge process view, as proposed in this research, enables
edge from design-and-development, and (4) the creation of us to unpack this conflation and distinguish generalized
reports or articles describing this design-science research knowledge production processes from specialized ones. This
project. position presents design-science as a rich, multifaceted
paradigm in which the need for artifacts and theories do not
If there is a central struggle between design and science simply coexist; rather, each proceeds from the other.
within this paradigm, it may be most apparent in efforts to
articulate and analyze the role of theory and its use and This research reveals and analyzes the polymorphic nature of
development throughout the various stages of design-science knowledge production in design-science research by recon-
studies (e.g., Goldkuhl 2004; Gregor and Jones 2007; Vaish- ceptualizing the relationship between design and science. We
navi and Kuechler 2007; Venable et al. 2014; Walls et al.
show how knowledge production in design-science research
1992). Much of the debate centers around whether, in
is necessarily multiparadigmatic, thereby requiring differing
addition to artifacts, a theoretical contribution is central to, or
criteria to justify the knowledge produced.
even necessary for, design-science studies (e.g., Baskerville
et al. 2010; Gregor and Hevner 2013; Österle et al. 2010).
Design-science research has dual goals of artifact develop-
Echoing the supposed contradiction between design and
ment and knowledge production. Our focus is on the produc-
science, this debate distinguishes between the research contri-
butions demonstrated by the utility and elegance of the design tion of knowledge (the centrality of knowledge production).
solution, as represented by the resulting artifact, and the During knowledge production, the investigator must work as
contrasting creation of abstract knowledge (Goldkuhl 2012; a researcher (design scientist) and as a designer to solve the
Gregor and Hevner 2013). For example, Woo et al. (2014) problem and generate new knowledge. Knowledge produc-
acknowledge both, provided new observations are enabled or tion affects, and is affected by, the goals of design and the
theory is expanded. consequent artifact. It is enveloped in an iterative, construc-
tive process that generates new knowledge that is sometimes
Significant efforts have sought to establish the foundations of quite specific to a designated context, but, at other times,
design-science as a research paradigm (e.g., Hovorka 2010; highly abstract.
Iivari 2007) and to provide its epistemological positioning
(e.g., Goldkuhl 2012; Niehaves 2007). Given its importance
and relevance to management information systems, it is Research Objectives
indeed worthwhile to understand how to conduct a good
design-science study based upon its assumptions and goals, Our work is motivated by the prevalent assumption in the
and both justify and evaluate the ensuing knowledge against design-science research community that design and science
the appropriate criteria for those assumptions and goals. can be combined and that, particularly in the MIS discipline,
exciting contributions emerge when the two come together.
Differing positions in these efforts and debates center on the The objectives of this paper are
tension between the goals of design versus the goals of
science. For some, design is paramount, with the primary (1) to analyze the different knowledge production
products of a design-science study being the valuable artifacts aspects of design-science studies, and
produced (March and Smith 1995; Nunamaker et al. 1990).
For others, science is paramount, with the primary products (2) to articulate a refined approach to justifying and
being the valuable theories produced (Gregor and Jones 2007; evaluating knowledge in design-science studies.
Walls et al. 1992). Theoretical goals often drive descriptive
research whereas pragmatic goals often drive prescriptive This refinement recognizes the manner in which a design-
research. science study spans several distinctly different ways of devel-
oping knowledge as its life cycle unfolds and consequently
Both the design-paramount view and the science-paramount such a study engages different modes of thinking, referred to
view sometimes conflate the artifact with design, and the as genres of inquiry (Hacking 2012).

MIS Quarterly Vol. 39 No. 3/September 2015 543


Baskerville et al./Genres of Inquiry in Design-Science Research

The design-science research process does not share the uni- tiations (March and Smith 1995), design patterns (Gamma et
formity of a design study, nor does it share the uniformity of al. 1995), design propositions (Romme 2003), technological
a scientific study. It is one with different episodic knowledge rules (van Aken 2004), design principles (Markus et al. 2002;
moments based upon varying assumptions and methodical Sein et al. 2011), organizational designs and management
approaches, during which a researcher pursues different practices (Niederman and March 2012), new properties of
knowledge goals, applies different methodical approaches, technical, social, and/or informational resources (Järvinen
and underpins the work with different assumptions. We 2007), and design theories (Gregor and Jones 2007; Walls et
identify, define, and illustrate four genres of inquiry that al. 1992). Given the pressure to improve the presence of
advance our understanding of how excellent design-science design-science studies in the information systems field (Goes
studies actually unfold. 2014) and the appearance of fine examples (e.g., Chau and
Xu 2012; McLaren et al. 2011), the field will be well-served
by solid means to understand, justify, and evaluate design-
Paper Organization science knowledge production.

The paper is organized as follows. First, the terminology and


concepts needed to identify and analyze the knowledge goals Centrality of Knowledge and Pluralism
and knowledge scope in design-science research are intro-
duced. Second, the two dualities that lead to the development Knowledge production affects the goals of design and influ-
of four distinctly different styles of approaching the process ences how an iterative process might at one point be focused
of inquiry in design-science research are identified and on knowledge that is quite specific with respect to its context
presented. Third, the presence of multiple styles of knowl- and, at another point, focus on knowledge that is quite
edge production is illustrated by two examples that demon- abstract. We take a pluralistic view of design-science re-
strate how different styles emerge in interdependent ways, as search (Niehaves 2007; Purao et al. 2008). Pluralism and
well as how the criteria for justifying and evaluating the diversity of research methods are already recognized in both
knowledge can change as a study evolves. The paper con- information systems research (Landry and Banville 1992;
cludes with a discussion of the research implications. Robey 1996), and action research (Baskerville and Wood-
Harper 1998).

Justification and evaluation are critical components of design-


Design-Science Research science research. According to Goes (2014, pp. v-vi), the
main concern in design-science research is “not to test or
In contrast to natural and social sciences, design-science create new theories, although the constructs and methods that
research focuses on developing improvement solutions to are created can lead to these.” Instead, the objective is to
problems that are of a particularly complex nature. These “create knowledge through meaningful solutions that survive
solutions may be manifested in a variety of forms. All rigorous validations through proof of concept, proof of use,
designers have, to some extent, a very common thread, which and proof of value.” Researchers, then, need acceptable cri-
is the design process. From the centrality of a knowledge teria to justify their dual knowledge claims. The researchers’
production viewpoint, design-science research has a dual audience also needs such criteria to evaluate the credibility of
mandate: (1) the utilization and application of knowledge for these claims.
the creation of novel or innovative artifacts that engender
change or improvement in existing situations or problem The pluralism of design-science studies creates challenges
spaces, and (2) the generation of new knowledge. This is because of the differing sets of criteria needed to evaluate the
accomplished by the ability of design-science research to differing parts of a design-science study’s knowledge produc-
produce both knowledge and change (Simon 1996). tion. We propose a refined approach to justifying and eval-
uating a design-science study by explicitly recognizing that
Design-science research is iterative and incremental. There- design-science research processes change as a study pro-
fore, knowledge production and artifact generation, while gresses. This approach, defined by a distinct set of modes of
concomitant, may not necessarily be synchronous. Different thinking (genres of inquiry), helps researchers recognize how
types of knowledge production may occur through the reuse a change in their mode of thinking during the progression of
of past artifacts, creation of new ones, reflection about the a design-science study will intrinsically demand a change in
design process or about the artifact, or even in design instruc- the way they justify any knowledge produced. A contribution
tion (Cross 1982). The artifacts generated can take several of this paper, then, is to explain the need for understanding
forms, including constructs, models, methods, and instan- when and how a researcher needs to change his or her

544 MIS Quarterly Vol. 39 No. 3/September 2015


Baskerville et al./Genres of Inquiry in Design-Science Research

research modes and how that change leads to differing justifi- pose considers the extent of such a search. Should the search
cation and evaluation criteria during the course of a design- for knowledge about solutions be bounded by the immediate
science study. Appendix A summarizes the main terms design context, or should it extend more broadly? Should it
employed in this paper and provides additional details on their be narrow, focused, and more intensive; or should it be wide,
use. broad, and more cursory? We refer to this second aspect of
design-science knowledge production as knowledge scope.
Knowledge scope captures where the knowledge is appli-
Knowledge Dualities in Design- cable, to whom it is accessible, and whose activity it supports.
Science Research Knowledge can be applicable at “an individual, group,
organization, multiple organization, or industry-wide level”
There are two important dualities found in the centrality of (Lindvall and Rus 2002).
knowledge for design-science research: knowledge goals and
knowledge scope. These dualities help to explain the plu- Design-science research must accomplish the dual challenge
ralism observed in design-science research (Niehaves 2007). of solving a problem (generating a solution) and creating new
knowledge. These different forms of knowledge production
affect the goals of design and how an iterative process might,
Duality at one point, produce knowledge that is quite specific to the
research context and, at another point, produce quite abstract
We adopt the notion of duality from Giddens’ (1979, 1984) knowledge. Design-science research, thus, engages different
structuration theory. A duality identifies two conceptually types of knowledge scope at different times.
different elements as interdependent and no longer separable.
In our framework, the two dualities influence knowledge In the discussions that follow, we suggest criteria for eval-
production processes and account for the interdependencies uating each contrasting type of knowledge in the dualities. It
among them. is beyond the scope of this paper to invent or propose new ad
hoc criteria per se, since there are authoritative and referred
works that delineate such criteria. Instead, we suggest pub-
Knowledge Goals and Knowledge Scope lished examples of such criteria that are available for
adoption. (Appendix B provides details on these quality
For Simon (1996), two key aspects dominate thinking about criteria.)
design-science: the evaluation of designs, and the search for
alternatives. Whereas Simon was centrally concerned with
the processes of evaluation, our purpose regards the nature of Duality #1: Knowledge Goals of
knowledge production in design-science. Evaluation is neces- Design Versus Science
sarily framed by the goals driving the design and research
activities. Goals are widely promoted as a dimension for The first duality is present in the very name of design-science
theorizing in design-science research (Gregor and Jones research and represents the tension between the sometimes
2007). Simon discusses the fulfillment of purpose or adapta- contradictory goals and criteria of science and design (Galle
tion to a goal as involving relationships among these terms and Kroes 2014).
and uses “purpose or goal” together. Hevner (2007) captures
the knowledge production issues in this dimension succinctly
when he asks how a research project can “effectively balance Design
goals of fundamental scientific understanding with con-
siderations of the usefulness of the resulting artifacts” (pp. There are myriad ways in which people have conceptualized
91-92). Likewise, we explicitly focus on knowledge goals design, including problem solving, product, process, inten-
that extend across both scientific knowledge and design tion, planning, communication, user experience, value,
knowledge. Most often, the knowledge goal with respect to professional practice, and service (McKay et al. 2012). For
science extends knowledge. In contrast, the frequent knowl- our focus on design-science knowledge production, we adopt
edge goal with respect to design applies knowledge. We refer the following conceptualization: Design, used as a verb,
to this first aspect of design-science knowledge production as refers to the act of planning or creating something for a speci-
knowledge goals. fic purpose and, as a noun, refers to the product of the design
process. Designing is a goal-driven human activity that com-
Simon’s (1996) second aspect, the search for alternatives, is prises inventiveness, requirements, and constraints, aiming to
mainly inhabited by the processes of such a search. Our pur- produce knowledge imbued with both analytical rigor and

MIS Quarterly Vol. 39 No. 3/September 2015 545


Baskerville et al./Genres of Inquiry in Design-Science Research

innovation. The activity of designing “devises courses of Clearly, if designs are (implicitly) hypotheses about
action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred relationships between structure and function in the
ones” (Simon 1996, p. 111). It involves understanding the real world, then creating a design generates a set of
problem requirements, utilizing the designers’ knowledge and embedded hypotheses and constructing the design
experience, evaluating design alternatives, and formulating a (building the artifact) constitutes a test of those
design solution. Design combines analytical modes of hypotheses. Thus designs are by their very nature
thinking with inventive modes to develop artifacts that solve falsifiable propositions, albeit complicated ones.
complex, multivariate problems in elegant and unique ways. Hence the creation-and-construction of designs is
Design as a process is a very practical know-how that cannot fully consistent with the scientific method as
be relegated down to a theory. described by Popper [1989] and others.

Knowledge production. “Design is the instructions based on Science knowledge criteria. Lincoln and Guba (1985) pro-
knowledge that turn things into value that people use” vide a meaningful example of an overarching criterion for
(Hevner and Chatterjee 2010, p. 1). Design knowledge can science: the trustworthiness of its knowledge. In a more
proceed from both the creation of new kinds of artifacts, and positivist view of science the predominant criterion for truth
the process of designing such artifacts. As a designer estab- is internal validity, whereas the criterion for neutrality is
lishes the goals of a design process, new knowledge can arise objectivity (Lincoln and Guba 1985). In less positivist views,
about design problems, design solutions, and methods or the criterion for truth is instead credibility, and the criterion
approaches to the design task. for neutrality is confirmability (Guba 1981). (See Appendix
B for additional details on these criteria.)
Design knowledge criteria. Petroski (2009) advances one
example of the central criterion for justifying and evaluating
design knowledge as the production of an acceptable simi- Duality
larity between expected and observed performance. The
knowledge should be useful in designing artifacts that accom- The design-science duality represents the effort to establish
plish the intended outcome. Because the knowledge is rigor in information systems design-science studies. For
functional, success or failure is paramount. Martin (2009) example, design methods and kernel theories that guide the
suggests that the highest qualities of design knowledge are design requirements and design process seek to formalize
associated with an individual designer: inventiveness, innova- design-related knowledge (Walls et al. 1992). Despite these
tiveness, and originality. (See Appendix B for additional efforts, the role of theory and its relationship to design-
details on these criteria.) science continues to draw discussion about what constitutes
scientific design knowledge (Gregor and Hevner 2013; Lee et
al. 2012). This focus on the science component may have
Science overshadowed the fundamental primacy of the designer’s
knowledge, which is widely acknowledged in the design
Science is a systematic investigation and validation resulting literature. The design process can be messy and disorderly,
in new knowledge. The notion of science has a frequent, but difficult, multidimensional, and problematic. It defies an easy
discordant, linkage to the notion of truth. Goles and Hirsch- description, so design process reviews in software engineering
hiem (2000, p. 251) argue that for something to be scientific often represent a “faked rationality” (Parnas and Clements
it must “use the agreed set of conventions—the scientific 1986).
method of inquiry.” The science-centric view generally
recognizes knowledge as collective and shared, meeting high These contradictions between design and science are epito-
standards of validity and/or reliability (Glanville 1999). mized in the failed efforts to “scientize” design with design
Information systems design-science is related to computer methods (Cross 2001, p. 53). Grant (1979, p. 46) asserts that
science and engineering, as well as to the social sciences “the act of designing itself is not and will not ever be a scien-
employed in organizations and management. Such behavioral tific activity,” suggesting that a method might be vital to
and social sciences rarely produce law-like explanations, but science, but not design. Designing is a nonscientific or
rather explanations that are contextualized in human behavior, ascientific activity that is not repeatable. The designer’s
and contingent on carefully bounded ranges of philosophy knowledge is central to the design process, regardless of
and/or probabilistic claims of causality. Any science, whether the processes are analytic or synthetic; symbolic or
including design-science, evolves over time (Hevner and real; based on theory or based on practice (Owen 1998).
Chatterjee 2010). As noted by Baldwin (in Purao et al. 2008, Experience plays a key role, as in any knowledge-based
p. 529), activity (Robillard 1999). A challenge, then, is to accom-

546 MIS Quarterly Vol. 39 No. 3/September 2015


Baskerville et al./Genres of Inquiry in Design-Science Research

modate and respect both the experiential knowledge of the abstracting general (nomothetic) knowledge from situated
designer and the efforts to produce rigorous, justifiable (idiographic) artifacts or, alternately, applying abstract knowl-
knowledge. edge to situated settings. General knowledge, however, is
different from situated knowledge, and must be evaluated
Conceptualizing design-science research as a duality high- accordingly.
lights the importance of the design and science aspects of this
research paradigm without minimizing the individual aspects The parallel distinction between the differing scopes of design
of either. It helps emphasize the interdependence and softens knowledge is found in seminal work on design theory. Walls
the tension between the seemingly opposed nature of the et al. (1992) distinguish design theories as those applying to
knowledge goals of design and science, which are quite con- a class of designs; others distinguish local versus general
trasting and somewhat contradictory. Design knowledge statements (Järvinen 2007; van Aken 2004). Likewise, it is
goals are generative and inventive, although tempered by possible to narrow a general statement to make it local, but
requirements and constraints. Scientific knowledge goals are then it ceases to be general. For the nomothetic aspect of
conventional and systematic, although novel knowledge is design, the generic aspect is “that part of the process of design
sought. Hence, design-science research is characterized by a that is indifferent to what is being designed, being applicable
duality present in the essential knowledge goals inherent in its whatever the target may be” (Friedman 2003, p. 515). In
process for making meaningful contributions.
contrast, the idiographic or specific aspect of design is “that
part of the design process that is particular to the target class”
By considering design and science as a dualism, these objects
(Warfield 1990, p. 100). In design-science research, design
appear as contestants in a struggle for primacy. Instead, the
is usually associated with build-and-evaluate activities,
dualities are interdependent and characterized by their
whereas science is usually associated with justify-and-theorize
mutually shaped emergent powers, so that any one aspect can-
activities (Hevner et al. 2004; March and Smith 1995; Pries-
not exist independently, but rather as a whole. If one views
design and science as a duality, these objects appear instead Heje et al. 2014).
as cooperating forces that, while still opposites, are inter-
dependent, intertwined, and reshaped by each other. This pluralistic viewpoint acknowledges that design-science
aims at providing general design solutions for a general class
Recognizing and understanding the duality of design and of problems. Methodologically, design-science research may
science is useful for the analysis of design-science studies and apply idiographic methods in the iterative life cycle and
the subsequent identification of appropriate criteria to apply journey toward a solution, providing due recognition for the
during the justification and evaluation phases of a design- idiographic aspects of design-science research.
science study. While appropriate, these should not be
regarded as the only criteria. An entire branch of philosophy, Given that the name of the paradigm is design-science, we
epistemology, is dedicated to the study of the general condi- must be cautious not to overload that duality with too many
tions (criteria) for knowledge production processes. The best extraneous assumptions. For example, confusion ensues
criteria will be more pragmatically dependent upon the exact when the knowledge from science is conflated with general
context of the study (Moisander and Stenfors 2009; Overton and the knowledge from design is conflated with particular.
1991). Here, we adopt the criteria frequently cited in the The distinction is important because it pertains to the scope of
information systems literature (since inventing new criteria is knowledge in both science and design. The philosophy of
beyond the scope of this paper). Specifically, Lincoln and science uses the term nomothetic with respect to knowledge
Guba (1985) provide a balanced set of criteria for both claims that consider a class of phenomena and idiographic
positivist and interpretive research. with respect to knowledge claims that pertain to particular
instances. The distinction is traced to Windelband, who “too
would recognize two classes of science the nomothetic
Duality #2: Knowledge Scope of Nomothetic (seeking general laws) and the idiographic (dealing with
Versus Idiographic structured pattern)” (Allport 1962, p. 408). Bunge (1999)
delineates the distinction as
In examining the knowledge production objectives of design-
science research, the researcher must act as both designer and the idiographic/nomothetic distinction involves the
scientist. Design knowledge is distinct from scientific knowl- differences between individuals (or particulars) and
edge and, thus, must be evaluated against a different set of universals (or general properties)….[it] is a philo-
criteria. Since the design-science research process is iterative, sophical artefact, for every science is both
the scope of design-science research knowledge can evolve, nomothetic and idiographic (pp. 21, 33).

MIS Quarterly Vol. 39 No. 3/September 2015 547


Baskerville et al./Genres of Inquiry in Design-Science Research

Nomothetic claims tend toward reductionism in theories, researcher derives idiographic knowledge through processes
valuing parsimony and limiting the number of constructs or that involve practical thinking about a specific situation. This
variables in causal statements. Idiographic claims tend highly applied mode of thinking involves deciding exactly
toward contextualizing theories, valuing richness from larger how to solve the particular problem at hand, perhaps without
numbers of constructs in causal statements (George and regard to other settings or solutions. Idiographic processes
Bennett 2005). Because this general distinction in the dif- help the designer to think inventively about a unique situation
ferent scopes of scientific knowledge is widely accepted in and to develop knowledge about new, never before encoun-
the philosophy of science (e.g., Nagel 1961), it is considered tered situations and solutions.
in discussions about the scope of scientific knowledge in
many diverse fields, including chemistry (e.g., Lamża 2010), Goldstein and Goldstein (1978) provide one example of
education (e.g., Deno 1990), geography (e.g., Fattorini 2007), idiographic knowledge criteria. They assert that the highest
history (e.g., Malewski and Topolski 2009), psychology (e.g., qualities in idiographic knowledge are derived from their
Franck 1982), and sociology (e.g., Gerring 2006). Recog- satisfactory explanations that provide an understanding of a
nizing this duality between parsimony and richness in design- phenomenon. Windelband and Oakes (1980) additionally
science, Briggs and Schwabe (2011) argue that, although a suggest that value is ascribed to the knowledge of concrete
relatively parsimonious theory with competitive explanatory and unique properties, rather than general properties. Idio-
power is preferable, increasing the explanatory power of a graphic knowledge is useful because the explanations and
theory through “the addition of more constructs, axioms, or understanding penetrate the complexity of a problem, pro-
propositions to a theory” would yield a “contribution, even if viding insights. The phenomena are not repeatable, so the
it were less parsimonious” (p. 97). quality criteria focus on how knowledge is distilled from the
phenomenon. Because repeatability is impossible with idio-
graphic knowledge, Lincoln and Guba (1985) specifically
Nomothetic recommend criteria that regard not just the knowledge itself,
but also the methods of its production, such as prolonged
Nomothetic knowledge production processes aim to produce engagements, persistent observation, and triangulation. For
general theories or concepts that cover the entire set of classes similar reasons, Klein and Myers (1999) provide other
of a given case. Allport (1962) tempers the usage of the term examples of such criteria: principles such as contextuali-
nomothetic from universal (which rarely holds under modern zation, dialogical reasoning, sensitivity to multiple interpre-
scrutiny) to “an identifiable section of the population” (p. tations, and suspicion. (See Appendix B for additional details
406). Design-science researchers derive nomothetic knowl- on these criteria.)
edge through processes which involve abstract thinking that
considers the kind of problem at hand or the kind of solution
that might be effective. Nomothetic processes also help the Duality
researcher work from previously established knowledge to
develop new knowledge. The process of design-science studies often invokes both a
nomothetic and an idiographic knowledge scope. An idio-
Guba (1981) provides meaningful examples of nomothetic graphic knowledge scope is local and confined to a particular
knowledge criteria. The highest qualities in nomothetic case or problem; a nomothetic knowledge scope is more
knowledge are applicability, generalizability, external global and applicable to a general class of cases. Knowledge
validity, transferability, consistency, reliability, and depend- scope, then, involves a separate nomothetic–idiographic
ability (Guba 1981). These criteria acknowledge that the distinction which presents a duality that inhabits the creation
knowledge should be useful, not just for a single phenom- of knowledge spanning the design-science duality.
enon, but also for similar phenomena (i.e., for a class or kind
of phenomena). (See Appendix B for more details about these
criteria.)
Four Genres of Inquiry in Design-
Idiographic Science Studies

Idiographic knowledge production processes involve the Design-science studies contrast in both knowledge goals
study of particular cases such as persons, social groups, or (design and science) and knowledge scope (idiographic and
works of art (Bullock et al. 1988). Idiographic knowledge nomothetic). These two dualities delineate four genres of
processes aim to produce specific concepts for the problem inquiry for knowledge production, each of which has its own
setting and a (potential) artifact. In a design-science study, a justification and evaluation criteria.

548 MIS Quarterly Vol. 39 No. 3/September 2015


Baskerville et al./Genres of Inquiry in Design-Science Research

Defining Genres of Inquiry Genres of Inquiry Framework

The philosophy of science offers diverse perspectives that Figure 1 represents a conceptual framework which captures
permit researchers to construct research paradigms from the four distinct genres of inquiry. The arrows indicate that
myriad ontological and epistemological positions. The com- these are not hard, but soft, categories without scales or
mon examples of positivism, interpretivism, and critical mutual exclusivity. For example, knowledge production in a
research are typical foundations upon which to define asso- study classified as Genre ND (nomothetic design) is driven
ciated modes of inquiry (Bonner 2010; Kim 2003). Such more toward design than science; and driven more toward
modes can include experimental exploration, hypothetical nomothetic than idiographic.
modeling, and taxonomy development (Hacking 2012).
Design-science research, however, is a unique paradigm that Each of these four genres of inquiry is detailed below, with
drives practices that differ from previous modes of inquiry respect to their distinctive goals and scope, nature of knowl-
(Iivari 2007). This assertion is grounded in the fundamental edge, and quality criteria. Knowledge goals and scope drive
work of Churchman (1971), who delineates five modes of the development of the framework. The nature of the knowl-
inquiry based upon the five individual philosophies of edge associated with each genre of inquiry is important for
Leibniz, Locke, Kant, Hegel, and Singer. These are sum- understanding design-science studies and how they should
marized and elaborated in Table 1 with respect to design- proceed. Quality criteria provide guidelines for justification
science research. and evaluation.

Design-science research does not fit well into any one of


Churchman’s five modes; indeed, it fits all five. It moves Genre of Inquiry: Nomothetic Design (ND)
beyond these five modes by distinctly engaging in remaking
and recreating both natural and artificial reality. It embraces Nomothetic design produces design knowledge applicable to
an element of design inventiveness in its reasoning and an identifiable section of a given population. This knowledge
integrates this material inventiveness with science. devises a class of concrete actions that will change a class of
existing situations into preferred ones (Simon 1996). Nomo-
As with other creative human activities, design-science thetic design can be expressed as more generalizable design
researchers often use a style of thinking, or a manner of theories (Walls et al. 1992) or general design principles that
finding out, which Hacking (2012) refers to as genres of are applicable to a class of problems (Markus et al. 2002).
Explanatory design theories (Baskerville and Pries-Heje
inquiry. Genres of inquiry assist in explaining the knowledge
2010), the generalized functional relationship between gener-
activities in inventive forms of scientific inquiry, such as
alized components (meta-design) and generalized require-
design-science research, because “each genre of inquiry asks
ments (meta-requirements), provide an elegant means for
different questions about lived experience and requires
representing nomothetic design knowledge. Such nomothetic
different methods of inquiry” (Hart 2000, p. 39).
representations explain why a generalized set of requirements
is satisfied by a generalized set of object features.
Different genres of inquiry not only invoke different philo-
sophical assumptions, they invoke different styles of articula-
Goal and Scope: In nomothetic design theorizing, knowledge
tion. These articulation styles subtly communicate the way in
processes aim at producing general knowledge about a class
which research is shaped differently at different times. The
of designs. Nomothetic design produces knowledge about
standards of a genre help a researcher by clarifying how a par-
design elements that are more general, higher-level require-
ticular community will receive new work (Bazerman 1988).
ments (such as meta-requirements that are more abstract).
Such general design elements also include meta-designs that
Although design-science research deals fundamentally with are more abstract, higher level designs (Walls et al. 1992).
problem solving (Hevner and Chatterjee 2010), its pluralistic This kind of design-science knowledge may also include
nature dictates that it cannot be viewed as a single approach knowledge about classes of design processes.
to knowledge production. As a result, the mode of knowledge
production can vary as a single design-science study evolves. Nature of Knowledge: Knowledge production processes
The genres of inquiry framework represents all possible devise a course of design action in a manner that is applicable
modes of design-science studies, as driven by the two to a general class of problems. Examples of the resulting
dualities of design versus science and nomothetic versus artifact are constructs, methods, models, design principles,
idiographic. technological rules, and design theory. The knowledge role

MIS Quarterly Vol. 39 No. 3/September 2015 549


Baskerville et al./Genres of Inquiry in Design-Science Research

Table 1. Churchman’s (1971) Modes of Inquiry as Elaborated with Design-Science Research


(Elaborations Italicized)
Mode of Inquiry Description Embodiment in Design-Science
Leibnizian Fact Inquiry involves a closed system construction of “Fact Relevant fact nets with respect to the
Nets Nets,” or hierarchical knowledge systems using knowl- functionality of the internal interfaces and
edge about simple matters to build up knowledge about the operability of the external interfaces
complex matters. of artifacts.
Lockean Inquiry involves an open system building consensus on Truth is contingent on artifact context that
Consensus contingent truths based on evolving knowledge store- changes in time and space.
houses of sets of fact nets.
Kantian Inquiry is constrained because new knowledge is depen- Knowledge is constrained by the feasible
Representation dent on a particular formal framework, (such as language) shapes of artifacts in the specific, current
into which it must fit in order to be acquired. context.
Hegelian Dialectic Inquiry invokes interactive observers that develop both Artifacts often affect stake-holders in
consistent and contradictory kinds of knowledge. differing ways that lead to both consistent
and contradictory knowledge.
Singerian Inquiry is ethically purposeful in leading to measurable Prescriptive knowledge aims at creating
Progress advancement of the environment. external effects of artifacts.
Simonian Artifice Inquiry involves the constructive interaction between Knowledge production proceeds from a
people, artifacts, and the natural and artificial milieu of intertwining goals and scope.
environment.

Nomothetic

Genre ND Genre NS
Nomothetic Nomothetic
Design Science

Design Science

Genre ID Genre IS
Idiographic Idiographic
Design Science

Idiographic

Figure 1. Genres of Inquiry Framework for Design-Science Studies

of such artifacts is one of materializing or embodying the knowledge. These include applicability, generalizability,
generalized knowledge developed within the nomothetic external validity, transferability, consistency, reliability,
design genre of inquiry. dependability, the production of an acceptable similarity
between expected and observed performance, inventiveness,
Quality Criteria: Examples of quality criteria for nomothetic innovativeness, and originality (Guba 1981; Jones 2009;
design knowledge include a mix of the example criteria Martin 2009; Petroski 2009). (See Appendix B for more
described earlier for nomothetic knowledge and design details on these criteria.)

550 MIS Quarterly Vol. 39 No. 3/September 2015


Baskerville et al./Genres of Inquiry in Design-Science Research

Genre of Inquiry: Nomothetic Science (NS) tiation; for example, in the form of a prototype (Järvinen
2007; Winter 2008).
Nomothetic science proceeds from a systematic and validated
study of an identifiable section of the population or a similar Goal and Scope: Knowledge processes aim at producing
class of cases. Nomothetic science can be particularly knowledge that is both design knowledge and idiographic
important in design-science research when studying require- knowledge. Researchers seek to use their design knowledge
ments for a mass-market artifact (e.g., COTS software or and methods to produce an ideal artifact for a specific
apps) or studying the behaviors that result when an artifact problem.
has been deployed across a pool of varying environments.
Nature of Knowledge: The knowledge goals do not go
Goal and Scope: In nomothetic science, knowledge processes beyond what is necessary for the research-and-development
aim at producing knowledge that is both nomothetic and of a specific product at hand. The knowledge role of the
scientific. Researchers seek to develop generalized knowl- artifact is similar to genre of inquiry nomothetic design (ND):
edge and generalized theories about natural or social settings embodying the knowledge developed within the genre. How-
and how these settings interact with classes of artifacts. ever, the scope does not go expressly beyond the particular
instance at hand.
Nature of Knowledge: The role of knowledge is to represent
truth in a law-like way that has been proven or validated. The Quality Criteria: Examples of quality criteria for knowledge
knowledge role of the artifact could be discovered through a include a mix of the criteria for idiographic knowledge and
field survey or a laboratory experiment that delivers concrete the criteria for design knowledge described earlier. These
validation (proof) of a desirable inner–outer environmental include satisfactory explanations that provide an under-
match across a pool of differing environments (inner and/or standing of the design and its setting, research employing
outer). The results may inform natural or behavioral theories prolonged engagements, persistent observation, triangulation,
as well as the relevant design theory. The objective of or principles such as contextualization, dialogical reasoning,
science is to interpret the relationships posited between sensitivity to multiple interpretations, and suspicion (Gold-
constructs that are advanced by the scientific community and stein and Goldstein 1978; Klein and Myers 1999; Lincoln and
assess whether the knowledge is supported by adequate Guba 1985; Windelband and Oakes 1980). Further criteria
validation. include the production of an acceptable similarity between
expected and observed performance, inventiveness, innova-
Quality Criteria: Examples of quality criteria include a mix tiveness, and originality (Jones 2009; Martin 2009; Petroski
of the criteria for nomothetic knowledge and scientific 2009). (See Appendix B for more details on these criteria.)
knowledge described earlier. These classic scientific criteria
include applicability, generalizability, external validity, trans-
ferability, consistency, reliability, dependability, internal Genre of Inquiry: Idiographic Science (IS)
validity, and objectivity (Guba 1981; Lincoln and Guba
1985). (See Appendix B for more details on these criteria.) The terms idiographic studies, intensive research, and con-
crete research are interchangeable (Tsoukas 1989). Idio-
graphic science ranges from the particle theory studies of
Genre of Inquiry: Idiographic Design (ID) Brownian motion in physics, to the study of the time-
dependent variation in behavior of a single individual person
Idiographic design provides knowledge that is applicable to in psychology (Molenaar 2004). “Empirically, idiographic
a particular problem setting or artifact which devises a course studies help elucidate the specific, contingent manner in
of action that changes an existing situation into a preferred which a certain mix of causal powers has been formed and
one (Simon 1996). Idiographic design primarily applies in a activated” (Tsoukas 1989, p. 559). Idiographic science is a
local context. Its value arises from three aspects. First, it systematic and validated study of a particular problem setting
provides insights from the detailed and particular considera- or a specific artifact. It can also include intervention in a
tions that can be availed through interactions or experience technical setting (e.g., action science or clinical field work;
with the designs (Hook et al. 2013). Second, idiographic see Argyris et al. 1985; Schein 1987). The role of idiographic
design insights can provide a basis for guiding design for science as a genre of inquiry in design-science research
broader usage (von Hippel 1986). Third, most commonly cannot be overstated because the empirics in design-science
seen in design-science research, idiographic design provides research often revolve around an individual artifact. Writing
a mechanism for validation of a design through an instan- about the science of psychology, Molenaar (2004) asserted

MIS Quarterly Vol. 39 No. 3/September 2015 551


Baskerville et al./Genres of Inquiry in Design-Science Research

that science “can only become complete if it includes the Knowledge Moments
idiographic point of view, alongside the nomothetic point of
view” (p. 216). Due to the pluralistic nature of design-science research, it is
problematic to assign a design-science study to a single genre
Goal and Scope: These knowledge processes aim at pro- of inquiry because a single genre will not have the requisite
ducing idiographic scientific knowledge. The goal of idio- variety in criteria or guidelines to adequately analyze and
graphic science is to examine the properties, functionality, evaluate the complete study. Rather, a single design-science
utility, or effect of an individual artifact in a particular setting. study can span multiple genres of inquiry, requiring variety in
Idiographic science can also be used to study the behavior of its justification and evaluation approaches. That is, differing
individual designers and their unique design processes and genres of inquiry in any single study produce knowledge in
activities. Design studies may draw from parallel design differing ways requiring differing kinds of criteria to properly
fields and may study the use of design methods, the actual justify and evaluate the study results (Hart 2000).
design constructs, or the implications of design by conducting
an in-depth examination of the interaction of a specific design This pluralism in knowledge production is consistent with the
artifact within a specific setting. The main research objective iterative and cyclical nature of design-science research. The
is to scientifically examine, articulate, and explicate knowl- research process is at one time a design process, at another
edge related to an individual design process or the unique time a science process; at one time a generalized process, at
artifacts it produces. Because design settings are often another time an individualized process. Even with a stepwise
unique, this genre of inquiry echoes Simon’s (1996) concep- design-science methodology, the knowledge production does
tualization of the artifact as an interface between the (unique) not always proceed in a linear (or even iterative) manner. For
“inner environment or the organization of the artifact itself” example, during the build-and-evaluate process, the design-
science researcher might discover that the solution to a speci-
and the (unique) “outer environment or the surroundings in
fic design problem is generalizable to similar situations. The
which it operates” (p. 7).
actual knowledge used in the design process might be very
specific or highly abstract, depending upon the complexity of
Nature of Knowledge: The ultimate objective is the genera-
the design and the stage of the designing process (Simon
tion of scientific knowledge. Idiographic scientific knowl-
1972). It is only after the researcher synthesizes a solution
edge goes beyond establishing patterns of events; rather, it
that it becomes possible to detect and understand important
seeks to understand the underlying causes, structures, and
issues and requirements of a problem (Suwa et al. 2000); that
generative mechanisms responsible for the observed patterns
is, analysis is enabled by synthesis (Lawson 2005).
(Tsoukas 1989). Research techniques might be similar to
change experiments, action research, case studies, ethnog- Design-science knowledge production is more episodic: typi-
raphy, and so forth. Here, the knowledge role of the artifact cally, a brief unit of knowledge generation is integral to the
is that of a vehicle for studying how individual behavior in the entire study without necessarily being part of a consistent
unique setting might shift as a result of the artifact’s intro- flow of similar modes of thinking (adapted from Merriam-
duction. The results may inform natural or behavioral Webster). Therefore, the design-science knowledge produc-
theories as well as the relevant design theory (e.g., confirming tion processes varies according to the needs of a specific point
or disconfirming such theories). in time, thus requiring different kinds of justification criteria
at different times. Moreover, design-science studies are
Quality Criteria: Examples of quality criteria include a mix situated in real-world problems that further drive this episodic
of the criteria for idiographic and scientific knowledge journey.
described earlier. These are satisfactory explanations that
provide an understanding of the design and its setting, Design-science studies occupy different genres of inquiry at
research employing prolonged engagements, persistent obser- different instances throughout their life cycle. We refer to
vation, triangulation, or principles such as contextualization, each instance as a knowledge moment. The notion of a
dialogical reasoning, sensitivity to multiple interpretations, knowledge moment is adapted from knowledge management,
and suspicion (Goldstein and Goldstein 1978; Klein and where a knowledge moment is a basic unit of knowledge
Myers 1999; Lincoln and Guba 1985; Windelband and Oakes process that encompasses a knowledge demand, a knowledge
1980). Further criteria include credibility and confirmability supply, and a communication that fulfills demand with supply
(Guba 1981; Lincoln and Guba 1985). (See Appendix B for (Herder et al. 2003, p. 107). For our purpose, we define a
more details about these criteria.) knowledge moment as a unit of knowledge processing, trig-
gered by a specific need for knowledge and addressed by the
Table 2 summarizes the knowledge goal and knowledge scope specific delivery of the knowledge in a manner that is aligned
of each genre of inquiry. with a given context.

552 MIS Quarterly Vol. 39 No. 3/September 2015


Baskerville et al./Genres of Inquiry in Design-Science Research

Table 2. Four Genres of Inquiry of Design-Science Knowledge: Nature and Dynamic Criteria for
Justification and Evaluation
Design Knowledge Scientific Knowledge

Nomothetic Design (ND) Knowledge Nomothetic Scientific (NS) Knowledge

Nature: Knowledge applicable to general classes of Nature: Generalized knowledge and generalized
design problems, general solution artifacts, and their theories about natural or social settings and how
relationiships. these settings interact with classes of artifacts.
Nomothetic

Example Nomothetic Criteria: applicability, Example Nomothetic Criteria: applicability,


generalizability, external validity, transferability, generalizability, external validity, consistency,
consistency, reliability. reliability.

Example Design Criteria: production of an accep- Example Scientific Criteria: internal validity and
table similarity between expected and observed objectivity.
Knowledge Scope

performance, inventiveness, innovativeness, and


originality.
Idiographic Design (ID) Knowledge Idiographic Scientific (IS) Knowledge

Nature: Knowledge necessary for the research and Nature: Knowledge to understand the underlying
development of an individual product. The knowl- causes, structures, and generative mechanisms
edge role of the artifact is one of materializing or responsible for observed patterns of an individual
embodying this knowledge. artifact in a unique environment.

Available Idiographic Criteria: satisfactory explana- Example Idiographic Criteria: satisfactory explana-
Idiographic

tions that provide an understanding of the design and tions that provide an understanding of the design and
its setting, prolonged engagements, persistent obser- its setting, prolonged engagements, persistent obser-
vation, triangulation, contextualization, dialogical vation, triangulation, or principles such as contextu-
reasoning, sensitivity to multiple interpretations, and alization, dialogical reasoning, sensitivity to multiple
suspicion. interpretations, and suspicion.

Available Design Criteria: the production of an Example Scientific Criteria: credibility, transferability,
acceptable similarity between expected and observed dependability, and confirmability.
performance, inventiveness, innovativeness, and
originality.

For example, at a particular moment, the context of a study because there is no one ideal knowledge category of design-
might require inventive design knowledge with more charac- science research. Instead, the knowledge contributions of the
teristics of a design aspect in its genre of inquiry; whereas, at study may involve articulating each of the genres of inquiry
another moment, the research might demand more focus on that it might occupy, with respect to the distinct knowledge
the science aspect to deliver the needed contextual criteria appropriate for those genres of inquiry.
knowledge.
It is important to visualize design-science studies as episodic
Similar to literary genres, design-science genres of inquiry are knowledge moments in different genres of inquiry, since the
not mutually exclusive; neither are they stable. This momen- method of conducting a study, justifying it, evaluating it, and
tary change between contrasting knowledge goals in design- articulating its contributions are different for different genres.
science studies is important because the criteria for validating Since these genres of inquiry proceed from the presence of the
this knowledge will differ depending upon the knowledge two dualities whose contrasting goals and scope can place
moment, and the corresponding genre of inquiry into which knowledge across one or more genres, the collective dualities
this knowledge moment falls. An entire design-science study, embody the fundamental kinds of knowledge production that
article, or report cannot be classified as one knowledge type emerge from design-science studies.

MIS Quarterly Vol. 39 No. 3/September 2015 553


Baskerville et al./Genres of Inquiry in Design-Science Research

The foundation in dualities also means that the different kinds basically, to produce scientific knowledge about the indi-
of knowledge processes are interdependent in design-science vidual context. To justify such knowledge, the researcher
studies. The science-tending knowledge moments depend on should consider such questions as: Are my activities a suffi-
the outcomes of the design-tending knowledge moments (and cient engagement with this context? Are my observations
vice versa). Similarly, the nomothetic-tending knowledge sufficiently persistent? Was my reasoning sufficiently
moments depend on the outcome of the idiographic-tending dialogical? Was there sufficient sensitivity to multiple
knowledge moments (and vice versa). The two dualities interpretations?
describe a four-way dialectic through which a design-science
research study may proceed as the study unfolds. Such questions are among those driven by the criteria for a
knowledge moment in the idiographic science genre of
The appearance of a different genre of inquiry is dependent inquiry. Such considerations provide the researcher with
upon the needs of a researcher at a particular point in the indications of the quality of the knowledge being produced in
design-science study life cycle. For example, when a design such a moment. It is also valuable to separate the knowledge
researcher is seeking to learn about the nature of a given moment from the methodological stage. For example, during
problem within a specific design context, the knowledge this awareness stage, the researcher might want to investigate
production is likely to involve idiographic science. If, at how this problem compares to other problems, perhaps using
another moment, the researcher is learning about how this a questionnaire method to survey other organizations about a
problem compares to other problems, knowledge production similar problem. Such a knowledge production moment may
is likely to involve nomothetic science. If another moment fit into a nomothetic science genre of inquiry. In order to
finds this researcher comparing and analyzing how others justify knowledge in this genre, the researcher should
have designed solutions to these other problems, knowledge consider such questions as: Will the results of the survey be
production is likely to involve nomothetic design. Should the applicable to my setting? Will the survey sample and
researcher become engaged in adapting these other designs to p-values support generalizability to a population that includes
the current problem context, knowledge production is likely my own problem context? Are the items on the survey
to involve idiographic design. measuring the constructs as expected?

It is not likely that we will find any consistent or universal Such questions are among those driven by the criteria for a
pattern of progress through these genres. It is also unlikely knowledge moment in the nomothetic science genre of
that these are capricious. Rather, the knowledge moments inquiry, providing the researcher with indications of the
occur as episodes according to the kind of thinking needed by quality of the knowledge being produced in such a moment.
the design research at a given moment. The researcher is The genres of inquiry framework is not a methodology per se,
designing to solve a problem. Science may occur or not, but but rather a framework for improving the quality of the
knowledge is still produced. The appearance of one particular knowledge produced at any particular moment during any of
knowledge moment after a different knowledge moment the stages of a design-science study’s methodology.
depends upon the knowledge product just produced, and what
kind of episode (or genre of inquiry) is needed next.

Application of the Genre of


Process and Methodology Inquiry Framework

For design-science researchers, the genre of inquiry frame- Below we review two design-science studies to illustrate how,
work suggests a variety of processes for incorporation into and when, a design-science study can appear in different
research methodologies. Consider, for example, Kuechler and genres of inquiry, and elaborate the interdependencies. The
Vaishnavi’s (2008) design-science research process: aware- intention is to demonstrate the advantages of understanding
ness, suggestion, development, evaluation, and conclusion how such episodes collectively produce the major contribu-
(with recognized opportunities for theory development and tions of the research.
refinement).

The genre of inquiry framework would be available in each of Example 1: CyberGate: A Design Framework
the reasoning activities in this methodology. For example, if and System for Text Analysis of Computer-
there are efforts to develop knowledge about an exact Mediated Communication
individual problem at hand, the researcher is likely to become
immersed in learning about this design context. Knowledge Overview: Abbasi and Chen’s (2008) CyberGate study
production could involve a moment of idiographic science: develops a design framework for text analysis for computer-

554 MIS Quarterly Vol. 39 No. 3/September 2015


Baskerville et al./Genres of Inquiry in Design-Science Research

mediated communication (CMC) systems such as e-mail, In terms of the quality criteria for genre of inquiry ID, Abbasi
discussion forums, and chat. This framework embodies a set and Chen present a complex software system and include
of general design principles for a class of systems that support satisfactory explanations that link to requirements that justify
ideational, textual, and interpersonal analysis of computer- the selection of various features for CyberGate. Testing
mediated text. The researchers also provide guidelines for the demonstrates similarity between the expected features of a
selection of the features and visualization techniques for CMC text analysis system and the software artifact. The researchers
text analysis systems. The main contribution builds upon the also provide substantial details and output demonstrating the
Walls et al. (1992) model for the formulation of an informa- functioning of the various visualization techniques that are
tion system design theory (ISDT), with the kernel theory part of the system’s features. The design exhibits inventive-
being systemic functional linguistic theory (SFLT) (Halliday ness in such features as its “writeprints” and “ink blots.” This
1994). Abbasi and Chen instantiate their design theory in a evaluation demonstrates that CyberGate’s features do, in fact,
material instance artifact (CyberGate) which they evaluate work.
using Enron’s e-mail database and multiple online discussion
forums. Genre of Inquiry Idiographic Science (IS): There is another
distinctively different knowledge moment in which Cyber
Genre of Inquiry Nomothetic Design (ND): Consistent with Gate is applied in a practical setting (the Enron database) to
their anchor in the Walls et al. concept of a design theory, the illustrate how it can be used empirically for data charac-
main knowledge goal is to produce nomothetic design knowl- terization. At that knowledge moment, the work requires a
edge in the form of meta-requirements, meta-designs, and study of CyberGate-in-use. This work involves idiographic
knowledge about design processes. The knowledge of the science because the knowledge goal is scientific (systematic
design framework and the associated guidelines are embodied generation of knowledge based on evidence) and the
in the instantiation of the CyberGate system. The field testing knowledge scope is idiographic (evaluation of a single indi-
of formally enunciated hypotheses provides concrete valida- vidual instance). To examine the actual behavior of Cyber
tion of the CMC text analysis design theory. Gate, and the implications of theory-based design of the
system, Abbasi and Chen conduct an in-depth examination of
The researchers justify the knowledge produced by showing the interaction of Cybergate (a specific design artifact) in the
it is consistent with the quality criteria of genre of inquiry context of the Enron e-mail database (a specific, unique
ND. The design knowledge from the framework is generali- setting). The research process in this knowledge moment
zable to text analysis systems using the kernel theory, SFLT. involves scientifically examining, articulating, and explicating
By designing and testing CyberGate, the researchers demon- knowledge related to the process of designing a specific
strate dependability, with similarity between the expected and instance of CMC text analysis systems based on the SFLT
observed performance. In six of the nine subhypotheses, the supported design framework.
results of the experiments comparing the performance of
CyberGate against the baseline performance of the support The quality criteria for validation of scientific knowledge in
vector machine were significant. The design delivers an inno- genre of inquiry IS is demonstrated through persistent obser-
vative application of CMC theories to novel areas displaying vation and measurement of the visualization results. Trian-
minimally incremental inventiveness. gulation occurs in the comparison of CyberGate results
against baseline results from a support vector machine
Genre of Inquiry Idiographic Design (ID): Although the through “experiments, where the write-prints or ink blots
knowledge generated by the nomothetic design process technique was compared against support vector machine
delivers the main knowledge goal, the research exhibits (SVM)” (Abbasi and Chen 2008, p. 830). The researchers
different knowledge moments at other times. For example, detail where the actual results do not match the expectations.
the guidelines of the CMC text analysis systems framework Credibility and confirmability have been ensured through a
were used to develop an instantiation of the CyberGate sys- rich description and by providing a chain of evidence linking
tem. This design of a single instance of a CMC text analysis the data and the observations to the results.
system means shifting to an idiographic design knowledge
moment. This genre of inquiry ID is the application of design Moments of Genres of Inquiry: Although there may be other
knowledge and methods to produce an ideal artifact for a knowledge moments, we have identified three that correspond
specific purpose. The role of knowledge in this CyberGate to rather important phrases in the CyberGate design-science
artifact development is to provide a rigorous basis for the study. The main knowledge goal is to produce nomothetic
fundamental principles (the design framework). Basing the design knowledge (genre of inquiry ND). This knowledge is
design of the artifact on sound design principles ensures that justified by its consistency with it kernel theory, but further
the design is well grounded and validates the fundamentals of justification drives distinctively different knowledge
the design principles. moments. To justify dependability, a knowledge moment in

MIS Quarterly Vol. 39 No. 3/September 2015 555


Baskerville et al./Genres of Inquiry in Design-Science Research

Genre ND Genre NS
Nomothetic Nomothetic
Design Science
KM1:
Using
SFLT

KM2: KM3:
CMC Text Applying CMC
Analysis to Enron
System Database

Genre ID Genre IS
Idiographic Idiographic
Design Science

Figure 2. CyberGate (Abbasi and Chen 2008): Knowledge Moments

idiographic design (genre of inquiry ID) was required. The evaluation and to extend the VSM with language views. This
development of a material artifact and the study of its process requires distinct nomothetic science knowledge
behavior in a specific environment entailed yet a different moments. For example, the VEM method was developed by
knowledge moment delivering knowledge produced under a drawing upon theoretical concepts from organization theory,
different set of criteria (genre of inquiry IS). Figure 2 illus- systems theory, and cybernetics. The motivation for doing so
trates these three knowledge moments in the CyberGate study. is to “specify and formalize the VSM,” thereby making it
“accessible for formal analysis, enhancement and critique” (p.
38). The nomothetic science knowledge moments occur
Example 2: The Variety Engineering Method: when formalizing the specification of the underlying VSM by
Analyzing and Designing Information Flows extending a language-based meta-model and by applying the
in Organizations VEM to different field studies, with and without the
prototype.
Overview: Rosenkranz and Holten’s (2011) variety engi-
neering method (VEM) reconstructs the conceptual language The quality criteria for nomothetic science are applicable to
aspects of the viable systems model (Beer 1989). The the field studies resulting in the configuration and redesign of
researchers consolidate the constructs of the conceptual VEM (Table 3 in Rosenkranz and Holten 2011, pp. 41-43).
modeling language (and their relationships) into a language- The researchers also conducted micro-evaluations by applying
based meta-model and assign the conceptual language to field studies during different stages of its development to
representational language views, providing the general steps rigorously demonstrate applicability (p. 39). The meticulous
for modeling an organization’s information flows. A running threading of VSM into VEM provides consistency and
case illustrates the steps in VEM. This case is grounded in internal validity. The scientific knowledge is generalizable to
various field studies that demonstrate the stages and iterations the mapping of organizational information flows. Transfer-
of the development process. As proof-of-concept, the ability is demonstrated by evaluating the model in field
researchers instantiate VEM as a prototype software tool: a studies in different organizational environments such as
material instance artifact that can infer the information banking, health-care supply chains, and construction. The
channels from the systems perspective model. The main field studies operated against a pool of different contexts.
knowledge goal is to extend VSM with language views.
Genre of Inquiry Nomothetic Design (ND): Although the
Genre of Inquiry Nomothetic Science (NS): The research knowledge generated by the nomothetic science process may
analyzes the interaction of the artifact (the VEM model and deliver the main knowledge goal, the research has different
prototype) in multiple field settings to conduct a rigorous knowledge moments. Rosenkranz and Holten propose a

556 MIS Quarterly Vol. 39 No. 3/September 2015


Baskerville et al./Genres of Inquiry in Design-Science Research

general method to address the problem of analyzing and In terms of the quality criteria for genre of inquiry ID,
designing information flows in organizations. “The method Rosenkranz and Holten explain and justify the construction of
consists of a modeling language providing constructs and the VEM method (see Section 5, pp. 24-38) using a running
their relationships, action guidelines and a step-for-step example. This extensive example provides persistent obser-
procedure model explicating the process of how to analyze vation, prolonged engagement, and contextualization.
and design information flows” (p. 13). Although Rosenkranz Extensive details and output show the construction and
and Holten stress that the study is aimed at producing an application of VEM, including the language notations. There
efficient artifact rather than new, general theoretical knowl- is convincing evidence that the designed features of VEM
edge, in point of fact they examine a general problem and work as expected.
propose a general process model. This knowledge was
produced in a knowledge moment where the knowledge goals Moments of Genres of Inquiry: Although there may be other
and scope align with nomothetic design. knowledge moments in this study, we have identified three
prominent ones. The main knowledge goal of the VEM paper
This knowledge is justified with respect to the quality criteria is to produce nomothetic science knowledge (genre of inquiry
for nomothetic design. By providing a meta-model, defining NS). This knowledge moment is justified by its consistency,
the constructs of VEM, and defining the relationship between internal validity, and generalizability. Claims of applicability
the constructs, the study provides a platform for nomothetic and transferability depend upon further justification, but
generalizability. To make the model transferable to other require the study to be in distinctively different knowledge
similar situations that analyze and map information flows, moments. The need to justify the models meant designing an
Rosenkranz and Holten provide detailed steps and guidelines artifact (genre of inquiry ID). This development of a design
(pp. 35-38). However, any demonstration of this transfer- for a prototype artifact demands different justification and
ability is deferred to a subsequent research project. They also evaluation criteria. The researchers justify their idiographic
state that their meta-model can be analyzed and compared design knowledge by its persistence with a prolonged running
with meta-models of other interpretations of VSM (Siau and example, suitability for a prototype development, and accept-
Rossi 1998). By applying VEM in different field studies and able similarity between expected and observed performance.
developing it further, the researchers were ultimately able to To justify applicability and transferability (genre of inquiry
arrive at a level of utility that demonstrates the similarity ND), the researchers constructed a meta-model, a method, and
between expectations and achieved performance. The Rosen- a general language for situating VEM in applied settings. By
kranz and Holten study demonstrates inventiveness in its engaging in nomothetic design, the study laid the groundwork
innovative approach in which “each field study added to and for situating VEM in an applied setting. The knowledge is
extended the method” (p. 39). justified by seeking transferability, similarity between expec-
tations and achieved performance, and inventiveness.
Genre of Inquiry Idiographic Design (ID): At a different Figure 3 shows the knowledge moments for VEM.
knowledge moment, Rosenkranz and Holten’s research in-
volved configuration of VEM in a “healthcare supply-chain”
case (p. 25). This single instance of VEM requires an idio-
graphic design. The VEM method is applied to model the Discussion
information flows in the exemplary supply chain. The scope
of knowledge in this genre of inquiry no longer addresses “the By developing the genres of inquiry framework for design-
general problem of analyzing and designing information science research, we have articulated and illustrated a refined
flows in organizations” (p. 13), but now regards the specific approach to justifying and evaluating the knowledge produced
design problem of “introducing and sketching the notation in design-science research. This framework offers novel and
components of VEM” (p. 25). The role of knowledge in this substantive ways in which to rethink how we conduct our
artifact design is to provide proof of concept and refine the research. Fundamentally, the genres of inquiry advances
model through iterations between genre of inquiry ID and previous research by clarifying the differences between
genre of inquiry ND. Basing the design of the VEM method design-science research and other, perhaps more conven-
on sound design principles not only ensures that the design is tional, approaches to scholarly research. Our central finding
well grounded, but also helps strengthen the fundamentals of is that design-science studies necessarily exhibit an endog-
the design principles through an idiographic design validation enous kind of pluralism in their knowledge production. It is
of the VSM and associated language notations. The logical endogenous because the pluralism is driven from the variety
instantiation of the VEM method provides a design found within a design-science research study (moments in
representation within the unique context of a health supply differing genres of inquiry). For more conventional MIS
chain case. The step-by-step description of the healthcare research studies, any pluralism is instead regarded as exog-
supply chain case demonstrates VEM’s functionality. enous. This is characteristic of the scholarly discipline itself,

MIS Quarterly Vol. 39 No. 3/September 2015 557


Baskerville et al./Genres of Inquiry in Design-Science Research

Genre ND Genre NS
Nomothetic Nomothetic
Design Science
KM2: KM1:
Defining VEM
Meta-Model and Specify and
Constructs Formalize VSM

KM3:
Configuring VEM
in Healthcare
Supply Chain
Case

Genre ID Genre IS
Idiographic Idiographic
Design Science

Figure 3. VEM (Rosenkranz and Holten 2011): Knowledge Moments

as one that engenders research studies from multiple research Such associations may be useful for analyzing the potential of
paradigms (MIS itself has long had this kind of pluralism; see knowledge produced in design-science studies, but are con-
Banville and Landry 1989). Exogenous pluralism means one fusing when justifying or evaluating that knowledge. They
study could be experimental, one could be action research, have led to disagreements among observers over how design
and another could be a case study (Banville and Landry can be scientific, and how science can be “designly,” and
1989). However, one design-science study could be all three whether theory ought to be considered at all (Baskerville et al.
or more: a single study’s pluralism is endogenous. 2010; Goes 2014; Hovorka 2010; Lee et al. 2012; Lee et al.
2015; Österle et al. 2010). By unpacking the issue of knowl-
What gives rise to this endogenous pluralism? Our research edge goal from knowledge scope, we reveal four kinds of
indicates that it arises from simply strange bedfellows: design knowledge production with four distinct ways of evaluating
and science. Design is often an inventive and generative or justifying the design-science research results.
mental activity, whereas science is often deductive and
analytical. Design is perceived as being “inherently non- Specifically, this elaboration allows us to recognize and value
propositional (generative design as a mode of art production) the presence of nomothetic design and idiographic science in
under the domain of a propositional activity (analytical design-science research. It also clarifies how instance design
research), resulting in logical difficulties” (Groat and Wang work can itself be scientific, not just a scientific accoutre-
2002, pp. 105-106). The result, an endogenous pluralism, is ment. It shows how Hevner’s (2007) build-and-evaluate cycle
a desirable feature of this amalgamation, with the genres of can be conducted as a scientific process, even when it
inquiry highlighting its value. For example, previous analyses involves a single, individual artifact designed for, built for,
of design-science research focus on contribution and have and being evaluated in, a single individual setting with no
privileged theory as higher level outputs. Table 3 illustrates claims about generality. It embodies not only design, but also
how three prominent viewpoints of design-science research well-recognized principles of idiographic science, as pre-
associate theory with higher level outputs and instantiated viously developed in natural sciences (such as physics) and
artifacts with lower level outputs. (Indeed, an earlier version social sciences (such as psychology) (Molenaar 2004).
of this article operated similarly; see Baskerville et al. 2011.)
Because these viewpoints regard the potential, or level of Levels of contribution, such as those in Table 3, do not neces-
contribution, and not the quality of the knowledge itself, they sarily map globally to any particular genres of inquiry. One
conflate the abstraction level of knowledge with the type of framework regards the potential of the knowledge, the other
knowledge. Science is associated with generality or abstrac- regards the justification of the knowledge. Different inquiry
tion, whereas design is associated with specific situations or genres may produce different contribution levels, depending
individual artifacts. Theorizing and science are associated, as on the nature of the study. For example, Abbasi and Chen
are designing and artifact instantiation. (2008, p. 834) declare two contributions: “a design frame-

558 MIS Quarterly Vol. 39 No. 3/September 2015


Baskerville et al./Genres of Inquiry in Design-Science Research

Table 3. Knowledge Contribution Versus Knowledge Justification


Design-Science Research Knowledge Scope Knowledge Scope
Kuechler and Gregor and Hevner Contribution Conflated with Distinguished from
Purao 2002 Vaishnavi 2012 2013 Level Knowledge Goal Knowledge Goal
Emergent theory General Well-developed design
supporting a explanatory/kernel theories about embedded
phenomenon theory phenomena including Level 3
mid-range and grand
design theories
Knowledge as Mid-range theories: Nascent design theory;
operational • Information systems operational principles or
principles design theory (ISDT) architecture including
• Design relevant constructs, models, Level 2
explanatory/ predictive methods, design
theory (DREPT) (more principles, technological
abstract that ISDT) rules
Artifact as situated Artifact Situated artifacts;
implementation instantiated software
products or implemented Level 1
processes

work for systems supporting CMC text analysis,” and “the Once design-science knowledge production is distinctly
Cybergate system.” The former fits well as a level 3 contribu- separated according to goals and scope, we can fit well-
tion in the Gregor and Hevner (2013) framework (see Table established sets of scholarly knowledge criteria into our
3), while the latter is a level 2 contribution. In our analysis framework. The endogenous pluralism explains why a single
above, we found the former is justified in genre of inquiry set of knowledge criteria cannot provide an adequate means
ND, and the latter is justified in genre of inquiry ID. to justify or evaluate design-science research findings, even
within a single study. Depending on the knowledge moment,
In a different example, Rosenkranz and Holten (2011, p. 14) scholars can justify their findings, not only with design-
also declare two contributions: “the method for the analysis science criteria, but with any of the full range of other estab-
and design of information flows” and “an elaborate formal lished scholarly criteria. It places design-science scholars on
specification of the underlying Viable System Model.” Both equal footing with scholars using more conventional research
fit well with descriptions of a level 2 contribution (see Table methods. It also serves the “imperative that papers in design
3). However, the former arises from genre of inquiry ND, science be judged by appropriate criteria, and yet provide
whereas the latter arises in genre ID. In our examples, at one tangible contribution to knowledge” (Goes 2014, p. vii).
time a level 3 contribution is justified by knowledge produced
in genre of inquiry ND; at another time, a level 2 contribution The genres of inquiry elaborate existing design-science
is justified by genre ND. It is, thus, a many-to-many methodologies. They can be used to identify, evaluate, and
relationship. justify the moments of knowledge production that occur when
following the frameworks, stages, or phases of such design-
Although the genres of inquiry framework is primarily science methodologies as those suggested by Peffers et al.
concerned with the justification and evaluation of knowledge (2007), Vaishnavi and Kuechler (2007), Sein et al. (2011),
rather than the generalizability, it can still provide useful and others. They can be similarly used within differing
pointers for distinguishing different types of design-science design-science project strategies (e.g., Iivari 2015). The
contributions. For example, Abbasi and Chen discuss their genres of inquiry also elaborate models of ideal design-
“application example” (p. 834), only within the context of science, such as Hevner’s three-cycle model by identifying
other major contributions. Had the genres of inquiry frame- exactly how moments of science/design/idiographic/
work been available to clarify the idiographic science nomothetic knowledge production can inhabit all three cycles.
involved in the empirical disquisition of the system, they In addition, the genres of inquiry extend existing principles
might have better recognized the contribution of the example (such as those for action design research; see Sein et al. 2011)
itself. and guidelines (such as those for design-science itself; see

MIS Quarterly Vol. 39 No. 3/September 2015 559


Baskerville et al./Genres of Inquiry in Design-Science Research

Hevner et al. 2004). Such principles and guidelines are some- or a population of artifacts in one or more settings. This
times used as criteria for distinguishing design-science from lacuna may be due to resource constraints for researchers, or
more conventional research studies, or for distinguishing it may be that translating a nomothetic design into a mass-
good, strong design-science from poor, weak design-science. market artifact involves transitioning to an industrial setting
The genres of inquiry supplement this guidance with detailed that is largely esoteric and incremental (Frost 1999). Further
means for justifying and evaluating the quality of the knowl- research is needed to better justify, evaluate, and intertwine
edge production: relying on the well-established knowledge nomothetic design with nomothetic science.
production criteria in both design and science. The genres of
inquiry framework also provides the means to extend these Future research is needed to explore possible elaborations of
established criteria for knowledge production in design (e.g., the genres of inquiry framework for particular settings; for
Martin 2009; Petroski 2009) and science (e.g., Klein and example, adding a dimension for theorizing concepts (such as
Myers 1999; Lincoln and Guba 1985) into the new arena of parsimony versus richness). Additional investigation is also
design-science studies. required to ascertain whether the dynamics of the genres of
inquiry operate in research paradigms other than design-
The genres of inquiry framework fills other gaps in the litera- science. Although we have used the genres of inquiry
ture around design-science studies. Much of the existing reflectively, further research could apply the framework to an
work in design-science has mainly associated justification ongoing study in order to dynamically adjust research
with foregoing or background knowledge used by design- activities based upon a continuous evaluation of the
science studies, such as kernel theories or justificatory knowl- knowledge being produced.
edge (Gregor and Jones 2007; Walls et al. 1992). Much of
this foundational work reflects a common association of In practical terms, the results of our work should be useful to
science with theories having accurate generality. Walls et researchers who are undertaking a design-science study and
al., for example, center the “class of problems” and “class of need to understand how to appropriately justify and evaluate
artifacts” (p. 43). These are fine starting points, but incom- the quality of the knowledge produced because the genres-of-
plete. The quality of scientific knowledge goes beyond the inquiry framework provides a refined approach to doing so.
“utility of constructs, variables, and relationships” (Bacharach Similarly, for a reviewer of design-science studies, this paper
1989, p. 506). The genres of inquiry framework is, instead, identifies the elements needed to assess the validity of a
concerned with justifying and evaluating the knowledge study. Recognizing the multigenre nature of design-science
produced within design-science studies, not just prior to them. research has significant usefulness for authors and reviewers
For example, idiographic science offers a wide range of engaged in publishing the results of a research effort.
clinical research methods anchored to theorizing from indi- Adopting the genre of inquiry framework enables researchers
vidual cases. This kind of science may be a more suitable to identify the appropriate justification and evaluation
approach for studying earthshaking technological changes that required for each knowledge moment a study encounters. It
tend to start small and then explode later into vast usage. also helps to divide the reporting of a complex and extensive
design-science study into logical sections (or even manu-
The genres of inquiry framework raises the possibility for a scripts). This framing should, thus, make design-science
researcher to identify whether his or her theorizing is idio- research more approachable and less confusing.
graphic or nomothetic. As with other forms of knowledge
production, theorizing is contextualized by its scope. Thus,
there are differing criteria for nomothetic or idiographic
knowledge production. Conclusion
Despite the seeming predisposition to nomothetic science and This paper has analyzed the role of knowledge production in
the lack of acknowledgement to idiographic science, much of design-science research with respect to two dualities:
the current empirical work in design-science actually engages (1) design and science and (2) nomothetic and idiographic
science in an idiographic way, often involving some form of research. An investigation of the central role of knowledge in
prototyping. That is, we design nomothetically; we evaluate terms of its goals and scope led to the distinction of four
idiographically. It is not clear that this is an ideal process. genres of inquiry of design-science studies, articulation of the
Nomothetic science often involves an engagement by design- quality criteria for each, and identification of the interdepen-
science researchers aimed at developing requirements from a dence of these genres of inquiry. Understanding the knowl-
population of settings. There is less design-science research edge goals and scope drive the identification of knowledge
that investigates artifact behavior in a population of settings, moments, within which a design-science research study might

560 MIS Quarterly Vol. 39 No. 3/September 2015


Baskerville et al./Genres of Inquiry in Design-Science Research

find itself. Knowledge production can then be justified and Baskerville, R. L., and Pries-Heje, J. 2010. “Explanatory Design
evaluated against the established quality criteria applicable to Theory,” Business & Information Systems Engineering (2:5), pp.
the relevant genres of inquiry. 271-282.
Baskerville, R. L., and Wood-Harper, A. T. 1998. “Diversity in
Information Systems Action Research Methods,” European
Understanding the dynamics of knowledge quality criteria Journal of Information Systems (7:2), pp. 90-107.
helps to explain a design-science study’s complexity and Bazerman, C. 1988. Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and
clarify the way in which the scholarly community should Activity of the Experimental Article in Science, Madison, WI:
receive such work. A good understanding of the changing University of Wisconsin Press.
knowledge criteria in a setting characterized by endogenous Beer, S. 1989. “The Viable System Model: Its Provenance, Devel-
pluralism should help avoid certain pitfalls. It would be opment, Methodology and Pathology,” in The Viable System
futile, for example, to apply the same knowledge quality Model: Interpretations and Applications of Stafford Beer’s VSM,
criteria throughout a study without realizing when there are R. Espejo and R. Hamden (eds.), Chichester, UK: Wiley, pp.
11-37.
changes in the genre of inquiry. As illustrated by two case
Bonner, N. A. 2010. “Predicting Leadership Success in Agile
studies, design-science research is remarkable because it Environments: An Inquiring Systems Approach,” Academy of
productively, and cohesively, can amalgamate multiple genres Information and Management Sciences Journal (13:2), pp.
of inquiry within a single study. 83-103.
Briggs, R., and Schwabe, G. 2011. “On Expanding the Scope of
Design Science in IS Research,” in Service-Oriented Perspectives
Acknowledgments in Design Science Research, H. Jain, A., Sinha, and P. Vitharana
(eds.), Berlin: Springer, pp. 92-106.
Bullock, A., Stallybrass, O., Trombley, S., and Eadie, B. 1988.
The researchers wish to thank the senior editor, associate editor, and
The Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought (2nd ed.), London:
four reviewers for their insightful and helpful comments on prior
Fontana Press.
versions of this paper. We also thank John Venable and Lars
Bunge, M. 1999. Social Science Under Debate: A Philosophical
Mathiassen for their comments on previous versions of our work.
Perspective, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
This research was supported by Georgia State University, the
Chau, M., and Xu, J. 2012. “Business Intelligence in Blogs:
University of Nevada at Reno, and Curtin University. Understanding Consumer Interactions and Communities,” MIS
Quarterly (36:4), pp. 1189-1216.
Churchman, C. 1971. The Design of Inquiring Systems: Basic
References Principles of Systems and Organization, New York: Basic
Books.
Abbasi, A., and Chen, H. 2008. “Cybergate: A Design Framework Cross, N. 1982. “Designerly Ways of Knowing,” Design Studies
and System for Text Analysis of Computer-Mediated Commu- (3:4), pp. 221-227.
nication,” MIS Quarterly (32:4), pp. 811-837. Cross, N. 2001. “Designerly Ways of Knowing: Design Discipline
Allport, G. W. 1962. “The General and the Unique in Psycho- Versus Design Science,” Design Issues (17:3), pp. 49-55.
logical Science,” Journal of Personality (30:3), pp. 405-422. Deno, S. L. 1990. “Individual Differences and Individual Dif-
Argyris, C., Putnam, R., and Smith, D. 1985. Action Science: ference the Essential Difference of Special Education,” The
Concepts, Methods and Skills for Research and Intervention, San Journal of Special Education (24:2), pp. 160-173.
Fattorini, S. 2007. “A Statistical Method for Idiographic Analyses
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
in Biogeographical Research,” Diversity and Distributions (13:6),
Bacharach, S. B. 1989. “Organizational Theories: Some Criteria
pp. 836-844.
for Evaluation,” Academy of management review (14:4), pp.
Fischer, C., Winter, R., and Wortmann, F. 2010. “Design Theory,”
496-515.
Business & Information Systems Engineering (2:6), pp. 387-390.
Banville, C., and Landry, M. 1989. “Can the Field of MIS Be
Franck, I. 1982. “Psychology as a Science: Resolving the
Disciplined?,” Communications of the ACM (32:1), pp. 48-61. Idiographic-Nomothetic Controversy,” Journal for the Theory of
Baskerville, R. L., Kaul, M., and Storey, V. 2011. “Unpacking the Social Behaviour (12:1), pp. 1-20.
Duality of Design Science,” in Proceedings of the 32nd Friedman, K. 2003. “Theory Construction in Design Research:
International Conference on Information Systems, Shanghai, Criteria: Approaches, and Methods,” Design studies (24:6), pp.
China, December 4-7. 507-522.
Baskerville, R. L., Lyytinen, K., Sambamurthy, V., and Straub, D. Frost, R. B. 1999. “Why Does Industry Ignore Design Science?,”
2010. “A Response to the Design-Oriented Information Systems Journal of Engineering Design (10:4), pp. 301-304.
Research Memorandum,” European Journal of Information Galle, P., and Kroes, P. 2014. “Science and Design: Identical
Systems (20:1), pp. 11-15. Twins?,” Design Studies (35:3), pp. 201-231.
Baskerville, R. L., and Myers, M. D. 2015. “Design Ethnography Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., and Vlissides, J. 1995. Design
in Information Systems,” Information Systems Journal (25:1), pp. Patterns: Elements of Reusable Software Architecture, Reading,
23-46. MA: Addison-Wesley.

MIS Quarterly Vol. 39 No. 3/September 2015 561


Baskerville et al./Genres of Inquiry in Design-Science Research

George, A. L., and Bennett, A. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Hevner, A. R., and Chatterjee, S. 2010. Design Research in
Development in the Social Sciences, Cambridge, MA: MIT Information Systems: Theory and Practice, New York: Springer
Press. Science & Business Media.
Gerring, J. 2006. “Single-Outcome Studies a Methodological Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., and Ram, S. 2004. “Design
Primer,” International Sociology (21:5), pp. 707-734. Science in Information Systems Research,” MIS Quarterly
Giddens, A. 1979. Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, (28:1), pp. 75-105.
Structure and Contradictions in Social Analysis, Berkeley, CA: Hook, J., McCarthy, J., Wright, P., and Olivier, p. 2013. “Waves:
University of California Press. Exploring Idiographic Design for Live Performance,” in
Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Introduction of the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in
Theory of Structuration, Berkeley, CA: University of California Computing Systems, New York: ACM, pp. 2969-2978.
Press. Hovorka, D. S. 2010. “Incommensurability and Multi-Paradigm
Glanville, R. 1999. “Researching Design and Designing Research,” Grounding in Design Science Research: Implications for
Design Issues (15:2), pp. 80-91. Creating Knowledge,” in Human Benefit through the Diffusion of
Goes, P. B. 2014. “Editor’s Comments: Design Science Research Information Systems Design Science Research, J. Pries-Heje, J.
in Top Information Systems Journals,” MIS Quarterly (38:1), pp. Venable, D. Bunker, N. L. Russo, and J. I. DeGross (eds.). New
iii-viii. York: Springer, pp. 13-27.
Goldkuhl, G. 2004. “Design Theories in Information Systems—A Iivari, J. 2007. “A Paradigmatic Analysis of Information Systems
Need for Multi-Grounding,” Journal of Information Technology as a Design Science,” Scandinavian Journal of Information
Theory and Application (6:2), pp. 59-72. Systems (19:2), pp. 39-64.
Goldkuhl, G. 2012. “From Action Research to Practice Research,” Iivari, J. 2015. “Distinguishing and Contrasting Two Strategies for
Australasian Journal of Information Systems (17:2), pp. 57-78. Design Science Research,” European Journal of Information
Goldstein, M., and Goldstein, I. F. 1978. How We Know: An Systems (24:1), pp. 107-115.
Exploration of the Scientific Process, New York: Plenum Järvinen, P. 2007. “Action Research Is Similar to Design Science,”
Publishing Corp. Quality and Quantity (41:1), pp. 37-54.
Goles, T., and Hirschheim, R. 2000. “The Paradigm Is Dead, the Jones, J. C. 2009. “What Is Designing?,” in Design Studies: A
Paradigm Is Dead…Long Live the Paradigm: The Legacy of Reader, H. Clark and D. Brody (eds.), New York: Berg
Burrell and Morgan,” Omega (28:3), pp. 249-268. Publishers, pp. 77-80.
Grant, D. 1979. “Design Methodology and Design Methods,” Kim, S. 2003. “Research Paradigms in Organizational Learning
Design Methods and Theories (13:1), pp. 46-47. and Performance: Competing Modes of Inquiry,” Information
Gregor, S., and Hevner, A. R. 2013. “Positioning and Presenting Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal (21:1), pp.
Design Science Research for Maximum Impact,” MIS Quarterly 9-18.
(37:2), pp. 337-355. Klein, H. K., and Myers, M. D. 1999. “A Set of Principles for
Gregor, S., and Jones, D. 2007. “The Anatomy of a Design Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in
Theory,” Journal of the Association for Information Systems Information Systems,” MIS Quarterly (23:1), pp. 67-93.
(8:5), pp. 312-335. Kogut, B., and Zander, U. 1997. “Knowledge of the Firm:
Groat, L., and Wang, D. 2002. Architectural Research Methods, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology,”
New York: John Wiley and Sons. in Knowledge in Organizations, L. Prusak (ed.), Boston:
Guba, E. G. 1981. “Criteria for Assessing the Trustworthiness of Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 17-35.
Naturalistic Inquiries,” Educational Communication and Tech- Kuechler, B., and Vaishnavi, V. 2008. “On Theory Development
nology (29:2), pp. 75-91. in Design Science Research: Anatomy of a Research Project,”
Hacking, I. 2012. “‘Language, Truth and Reason’ 30 Years Later,” European Journal of Information Systems (17:5), pp. 489-504.
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A (43:4), pp. Kuechler, W., and Vaishnavi, V. 2012. “A Framework for Theory
599-609. Development in Design Science Research: Multiple Perspec-
Halliday, M. A. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar, tives,” Journal of the Association for Information Systems (13:6),
London: Edward Arnold. pp. 395-423.
Hart, P. 2000. “Requisite Variety: The Problem with Generic Lamża, Ł. 2010. “How Much History Can Chemistry Take?,”
Guidelines for Diverse Genres of Inquiry,” Environmental HYLE–International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry (16:2),
Education Research (6:1), pp. 37-46. pp. 104-120.
Herder, P. M., Veeneman, W., Buitenhuis, M., and Schaller, A. Landry, M., and Banville, C. 1992. “A Disciplined Methodological
2003. “Follow the Rainbow: A Knowledge Management Pluralism for MIS Research,” Accounting, Management and
Framework for New Product Introduction,” Journal of Knowl- Information Technologies (2:2), pp. 77-97.
edge Management (7:3), pp. 105-115. Lawson, B. 2005. How Designers Think: The Design Process
Hevner, A. R. 2007. “A Three Cycle View of Design Science Demystified (4th ed.), Amsterdam: Architectural Press.
Research,” Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems (19:2), Lee, A., Chiasson, M., Alter, S., and Krcmar, H. 2012. “Long Live
pp. 87-92. Design Science Research!...And Remind Me Again About

562 MIS Quarterly Vol. 39 No. 3/September 2015


Baskerville et al./Genres of Inquiry in Design-Science Research

Whether it Is a New Research Paradigm or a Rationale of Last Research,” European Journal of Information Systems (20:1), pp.
Resort for Worthwhile Research That Doesn’t Fit under Any 7-10.
Other Umbrella,” in Proceedings of the 33rd International Overton, W. F. 1991. “The Structure of Developmental Theory,”
Conference on Information Systems, Orlando, Florida. Advances in Child Development and Behavior (23), pp. 1-37.
Lee, A. S., Thomas, M., and Baskerville, R. L. 2015. “Going Back Owen, C. L. 1998. “Design Research: Building the Knowledge
to Basics in Design Science: From the Information Technology Base,” Design Studies (19:1), pp. 9-20.
Artifact to the Information Systems Artifact,” Information Parnas, D., and Clements, P. 1986. “A Rational Design Process:
Systems Journal (25:1), pp. 5-21. How and Why to Fake It,” IEEE Transactions on Software
Lincoln, Y. S., and Guba, E. G. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry, Engineering (SE-12:2), pp. 251-257.
Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications. Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., and Chatterjee, S.
Lindvall, M., and Rus, I. 2002. “Knowledge Management in 2007. “A Design Science Research Methodology for Information
Software Engineering,” IEEE Software (19:3), pp. 26-38. Systems Research,” Journal of Management Information Systems
Malewski, A., and Topolski, J. 2009. “The Nomothetic Versus the (24:3), pp. 45-77.
Idiographic Approach to History,” in Idealization XIII: Modeling Petroski, H. 2009. “What Is Designing?,” in Design Studies: A
in History (Poznań Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and Reader, H. Clark and D. Brody (eds.), New York: Berg
the Humanities, V. 97), K. Brzechczyn (ed.), Amsterdam: Publishers, pp. 89-95.
Rodopi, pp. 299-309. Popper, K. 1989. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of
March, S. T., and Smith, G. F. 1995. “Design and Natural Science Scientific Knowledge (5th ed.), New York: Routledge.
Research on Information Technology,” Decision Support Systems Pries-Heje, J., Venable, J., and Baskerville, R. 2014. “Soft Design
(15:4), pp. 251-266. Science Methodology,” in Situated Design Methods, J. Simonsen,
C. Svabo, S. M. Strandvad, . Samson, M. Hertzum, and O. E.
Markus, M. L., Majchrzak, A., and Gasser, L. 2002. “A Design
Hansen (eds.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 77-95.
Theory for Systems That Support Emergent Knowledge
Purao, S. 2002. “Design Research in the Technology of Informa-
Processes,” MIS Quarterly (26:3), pp. 179-212.
tion Systems: Truth or Dare,” unpublished paper, The
Martin, R. L. 2009. The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking
Pennsylvania State University and Georgia State University.
Is the Next Competitive Advantage, Boston: Harvard Business
Purao, S., Baldwin, C. Y., Hevner, A., Storey, V. C., Pries-Heje, J.,
School Press.
Smith, B., and Zhu, Y. 2008. “The Sciences of Design:
McKay, J., Marshall, P., and Hirschheim, R. 2012. “The Design
Observations on an Emerging Field,” Communications of the
Construct in Information Systems Design Science,” Journal of
Association for Information Systems (23), pp. 523-546.
Information Technology (27:2), pp. 125-139.
Robey, D. 1996. “Research Commentary: Diversity in Information
McLaren, T. S., Head, M. M., Yuan, Y., and Chan, Y. E. 2011. “A Systems Research: Threat, Promise, and Responsibility,” Infor-
Multilevel Model for Measuring Fit Between a Firm’s mation Systems Research (7:4), pp. 400-408.
Competitive Strategies and Information Systems Capabilities,” Robillard, P. N. 1999. “The Role of Knowledge in Software
MIS Quarterly (35:4), pp. 909-929. Development,” Communications of the ACM (42:1), pp. 87-92.
Moisander, J., and Stenfors, S. 2009. “Exploring the Edges of Romme, A. G. L. 2003. “Making a Difference: Organization as
Theory-Practice Gap: Epistemic Cultures in Strategy-Tool Design,” Organization science (14:5), pp. 558-573.
Development and Use,” Organization (16:2), pp. 227-247. Rosenkranz, C., and Holten, R. 2011. “The Variety Engineering
Molenaar, P. C. M. 2004. “A Manifesto on Psychology as Method: Analyzing and Designing Information Flows in Organi-
Idiographic Science: Bringing the Person Back into Scientific zations,” Information Systems and E-Business Management (9:1),
Psychology, This Time Forever,” Measurement (2:4), pp. pp. 11-49.
201-218. Schein, E. 1987. The Clinical Perspective in Fieldwork, Newbury
Nagel, E. 1961. The Structure of Science: Problems in Scientific Park, CA: SAGE Publications.
Explanation, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Sein, M. K., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., and Lindgren, R.
Niederman, F., and March, S. T. 2012. “Design Science and the 2011. “Action Design Research,” MIS Quarterly (35:2), pp.
Accumulation of Knowledge in the Information Systems 37-56.
Discipline,” ACM Transactions on Management Information Siau, K., and Rossi, M. 1998. “Evaluation of Information Modeling
Systems (3:1), pp. 1-10. Methods—A Review,” in Proceedings of the 31st Hawaii
Niehaves, B. 2007. “On Epistemological Pluralism in Design International Conference on System Sciences, Los Alamitos, CA:
Science,” Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems (19:2), IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 314-322.
pp. 93-104. Simon, H. A. 1972. “Theories of Bounded Rationality,” in Deci-
Nunamaker, J. F., Chen, M., and Purdin, T. D. 1990. “Systems sion and Organization, C. B. McGuire and R. Radner (eds.),
Development in Information Systems Research,” Journal of Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 161-176.
Management Information Systems (7:3), pp. 89-106. Simon, H. A. 1988. “The Science of Design: Creating the Artifi-
Österle, H., Becker, J., Frank, U., Hess, T., Karagiannis, D., cial,” Design Issues (4:1/2), pp. 67-82.
Krcmar, H., Loos, P., Mertens, P., Oberweis, A., and Sinz, E. J. Simon, H. A. 1996. The Sciences of the Artificial (3rd ed.),
2010. “Memorandum on Design-Oriented Information Systems Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

MIS Quarterly Vol. 39 No. 3/September 2015 563


Baskerville et al./Genres of Inquiry in Design-Science Research

Suwa, M., Gero, J., and Purcell, T. 2000. “Unexpected Discoveries ment) in the School of Information Systems at Curtin University,
and S-Invention of Design Requirements: Important Vehicles for Perth, Australia. His research specializes in security of information
a Design Process,” Design Studies (21:6), pp. 539-567. systems, methods of information systems design and development,
Tsoukas, H. 1989. “The Validity of Idiographic Research Explana- and the interaction of information systems and organizations. His
tions,” Academy of Management Review (14:4), pp. 551-561. interest in methods extends to qualitative research methods. Richard
Vaishnavi, V. K., and Kuechler, W. 2007. Design Science is the author of Designing Information Systems Security (John
Research Methods and Patterns: Innovating Information and Wiley) and more than 200 articles in scholarly journals, professional
Communication Technology, Boca Raton, FL: Auerbach magazines, and edited books. He is editor emeritus for The Euro-
Publications. pean Journal of Information Systems and serves on the editorial
van Aken, J. E. 2004. “Management Research Based on the boards of Information Systems Journal, Journal of Information
Paradigm of the Design Sciences: The Quest for Field-Tested Systems Security, and International Journal of E-Collaboration. A
and Grounded Technological Rules,” The Journal of Manage- Chartered Engineer, Richard holds degrees from the University of
ment Studies (41:2), pp. 219-246. Maryland (B.S. summa cum laude, Management), the London
Venable, J., Pries-Heje, J., and Baskerville, R. 2014. “FEDS: A School of Economics, University of London (M.Sc., Analysis,
Framework for Evaluation in Design Science Research,” Design and Management of Information Systems, and Ph.D.,
European Journal Information Systems (doi: 10.1057/ Systems Analysis), the University of Pretoria (Ph.D. hc), and
ejis.2014.36) Roskilde University (Dr.Sc. hc).
Verkerke, G. J., van der Houwen, E. B., Broekhuis, A. A., Bursa, J.,
Catapano, G., McCullagh, P., Mottaghy, K., Niederer, P., Mala Kaul is an assistant professor of Information Systems in the
Reilly, R., Rogalewicz, V., Segers, P., and Verdonschot, N. College of Business at the University of Nevada, Reno. Her current
2013. “Science Versus Design; Comparable, Contrastive or research focuses on information systems design methodology,
Conducive?,” Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical evaluation methods, cybersecurity and privacy issues, consumeri-
Materials (21:0), pp. 195-201. zation of information technology, and health information tech-
von Hippel, E. 1986. “Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product nology. She has extensive industry experience as an Information
Concepts,” Management Science (32:7), pp. 791-805. Systems professional in a wide variety of verticals including
Walls, J. G., Widmeyer, G. R., and El Sawy, O. A. 1992. “Building manufacturing, finance, and hospitality. She received her B.Com
an Information System Design Theory for Vigilant EIS,” and M.A. in Industrial and International Economics from Kanpur
Information Systems Research (3:1), pp. 36-59. University, India. She received her MBA and Ph.D. degrees from
Warfield, J. N. 1990. “Generic Planning: Research Results and the Managerial Sciences Department and the Computer Information
Applications,” Knowledge in Society: The International Journal Systems Department, respectively, in the Robinson College of
of Knowledge Transfer (3:4), pp. 91-113. Business at Georgia State University. Her research has been
Windelband, W., and Oakes, G. 1980. “History and Natural presented at the International Conference on Information Systems,
Science,” History and Theory (19:2), pp. 165-168. the Americas Conference on Information Systems, and the
Winter, R. 2008. “Design Science Research in Europe,” European Workshop on Information Technology and Systems.
Journal of Information Systems (17:5), pp. 470-475.
Woo, C., Saghafi, A., and Rosales, A. 2014. “What Is a Contri- Veda C. Storey is the Tull Professor of Computer Information
bution to Is Design Science Knowledge?,” in Proceedings of the Systems and Professor of Computer Science at the J. Mack
35th International Conference on Information Systems, Auckland, Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University. Her
NZ, December 14-17. research interests are in conceptual modeling, intelligent information
systems, and design science research. She has published in MIS
Quarterly, Information Systems Research, ACM Transactions on
About the Authors Data Bases, and IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data
Engineering. She has served as a guest senior editor for MIS
Richard L. Baskerville is a Board of Advisors Professor in the Quarterly for special issues in design science research and business
Department of Computer Information Systems, Robinson College of intelligence and data analytics. She currently serves on the steering
Business, Georgia State University, and Professor (partial appoint- committee of the International Conference on Conceptual Modeling.

564 MIS Quarterly Vol. 39 No. 3/September 2015


RESEARCH ESSAY

GENRES OF INQUIRY IN DESIGN-SCIENCE


RESEARCH: JUSTIFICATION AND EVALUATION
OF KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION

Richard L. Baskerville
Department of Computer Information Systems, Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University,
Atlanta, GA 30303 U.S.A. {baskerville@acm.org} and
School of Information Systems, Curtin Business School, Curtin University, Bentley WA 6102 AUSTRALIA

Mala Kaul
Department of Accounting and Information Systems, College of Business, University of Nevada, Reno,
1664 N. Virginia Street, Reno, NV 89557 U.S.A. {mkaul@unr.edu}

Veda C. Storey
Department of Computer Information Systems, Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University,
Atlanta, GA 30303 U.S.A. {vstorey@gsu.edu}

Appendix A
Terms: Application and Use in Management Information Systems
Design-Science Research

Term Application and Use


Design (verb) The term design (verb) connotes the act of planning or creating something for a specific purpose
or process that is goal-oriented, where the goal is solving problems, meeting needs, improving
situations, or creating something new or useful (Friedman 2003). Design is a central activity of
information systems practitioners (Denning 1997; Niederman and March 2012). It involves
changing a given system to make improvements. A human being makes such changes by
applying the knowledge needed to develop a new artifact.
Design (noun) Design (noun) is concerned with how things ought to be in order to attain goals (Simon 1996). It
connotes the process by which one devises “courses of action aimed at changing existing situa-
tions into preferred ones” (Simon 1996, p. 7). “Design cannot proceed without (1) an articulation
of the goals of the designed artifact, (2) knowledge of the constraints imposed and affordances
provided by the inner and outer environments, (3) mechanisms to produce design alternatives,
and (4) understanding of the effects of design decisions, with respect to articulated goals”
(Niederman and March 2012, p. 19). Design is concerned with how things ought to be in order
to attain goals (Simon 1996).

MIS Quarterly Vol. 39 No. 3—Appendices/September 2015 A1


Baskerville et al./Genres of Inquiry in Design-Science Research

Term Application and Use


Design process The design process is concerned with finding a satisfactory design, rather than an optimum
design; “the shape of the design and the shape and organization of the design process are
essential components of a theory of design” (Simon 1996, pp. 130-131).
Duality Duality, according to Eastman (2004), denotes a comprehensive view similar to the notion of
holism that exists in philosophical approaches such as in systems theory (Auyang 1999; Laszlo
1972), hierarchy or complexity theory (Kauffman 1993), evolutionary worldviews (Jantsch 1980),
and varieties of holism in pragmatism and contextualism (Rescher 2000). Duality is distin-
guishable from dualism, which is “the division of an object of study into separate, paired
elements” (Jackson 1999, p. 545). In duality, interdependent elements are characterized by
emergent powers, so that any one aspect cannot exist independently but rather as a whole
(Giddens 1979, 1984).
Genre of inquiry Genres of inquiry are modes of reasoning that arise within the context of the philosophical
assumptions. The standards of a genre help a researcher by clarifying the way in which a
particular community will receive new work (Hacking 2012).
Idiographic knowledge Idiographic knowledge processes involve the study of particular cases (Bullock et al. 1988).
Knowledge A broad view of scholarly knowledge encompasses scholarly knowledge based on erklären (the
causal explanations common in positivist science), but also scholarly knowledge based on
verstehen (the shared understanding common in interpretive science) (Lee 1994). Knowledge
can be scholarly because it relates to design theories, the instrumental outcomes of design-
science, and product designs, implementation plans, and construction processes (Carlsson
2006). Knowledge establishes robust relationships in a given domain; relationships do not
change under interventions (e.g., a change of parameters in a model as in a change in an
experimental setting). Knowledge constitutes a representation of the outside world (Piaget and
Wells 1972). Knowledge is classified as descriptive or prescriptive with prescriptive belonging to
science of the artificial (Simon 1996). Knowledge captures the structure of the world, whether
the world is natural or artificial.
Knowledge claims A statement asserting original knowledge arising from the research study. The knowledge
process establishes the merit of the knowledge claim.
Knowledge creation Activities in a research study that develop or support development of original knowledge.
process Concerned with finding a satisfactory design, rather than an optimum design; “the shape of the
design and the shape and organization of the design process are essential components of a
theory of design” (Simon 1996, pp. 130-131).
Knowledge criteria Concepts regarding the quality of knowledge. Criteria are necessary for researchers to justify
their knowledge claims, and by their audience to evaluate these claims.
Knowledge goals Goal is the end toward which effort is directed (Merriam-Webster Online 2015). Design
knowledge goals are generative and inventive; scientific knowledge goals are conventional and
systematic. Design-science is characterized by a duality present in essential knowledge goals.
Knowledge moment A unit of knowledge processing, triggered by a specific need for knowledge and addressed by
the specific delivery of the knowledge in a manner that is aligned with a given context (Herder et
al. 2003).
Knowledge role The purpose or purposes served by artifacts in design-science studies in relation to the
knowledge claims of the study.
Knowledge scope Scope is the extent of treatment, activity, or influence (Merriam-Webster Online 2015).
Idiographic knowledge scope is local and pertaining to a particular case or problem; nomothetic
knowledge scope is more global and applicable to a general class of cases. Design-science is
characterized by the duality present in essential knowledge scope.
Nomothetic knowledge Nomothetic knowledge processes produce general theories or concepts that cover the entire
classes of a given case (Allport 1962).

A2 MIS Quarterly Vol. 39 No. 3—Appendices/September 2015


Baskerville et al./Genres of Inquiry in Design-Science Research

Term Application and Use


Research (noun) Research involves systematic investigation or inquiry aimed at contributing to knowledge of a
theory, topic, etc., by careful consideration, observation, or study of a subject (OED Online
2013). Research is “original investigation undertaken in order to gain knowledge and under-
standing. It includes work of direct relevance to the needs of commerce, industry, and to the
public and voluntary sectors; scholarship; the invention and generation of ideas, images,
performances, artefacts including design, where these lead to new or substantially improved
insights; and the use of existing knowledge in experimental development to produce new or
substantially improved materials, devices, products and processes, including design and
construction” (Paul 2008, p. 326).
Research (verb) To engage in research upon (a subject); to investigate or study closely (OED Online 2013).
Science Usage of the term science varies widely according to social and political contexts (Gieryn 1984;
Moisander and Stenfors 2009). In information systems, the academic term is just as subject to
the same breath of interpretation as in the fields of Philosophy of Science, Sociology of Science,
and the History of Science (Lee 2004). It is an intellectual and practical activity that incorporates
systematic methodology and knowledge based on coherent concepts that are anchored to
evidence (Lincoln and Guba 1985).
Scientific pluralism Scientific pluralism is a stance about the theories and methods of science according for which
the explanation of some natural phenomena requires multiple theories and approaches. It
values the existence of different perspectives in scientific research (Kellert et al. 2006).

References

Allport, G. W. 1962. “The General and the Unique in Psychological Science,” Journal of Personality (30:3), pp. 405-422.
Auyang, S. Y. 1999. Foundations of Complex-System Theories, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bullock, A., Stallybrass, O., Trombley, S., and Eadie, B. 1988. The Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought (2nd ed.), London: Fontana Press.
Carlsson, S. A. 2006. “Towards an Information Systems Design Research Framework: A Critical Realist Perspective,” in Proceedings of the
First International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology, Claremont, CA, pp. 192-212.
Denning, P. 1997. “A New Social Contract for Research,” Communications of the ACM (40:2), pp. 132-134.
Eastman, T. 2004. “Duality Without Dualism,” in Physics and Whitehead: Quantum, Process, and Experience, Albany, NY: State University
of New York Press, pp. 14-30.
Friedman, K. 2003. “Theory Construction in Design Research: Criteria: Approaches, and Methods,” Design Studies (24:6), pp. 507-522.
Giddens, A. 1979. Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradictions in Social Analysis, Berkeley, CA: University
of California Press.
Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Introduction of the Theory of Structuration, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Gieryn, T. F. 1984. “Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies
of Scientists,” American Sociological Review (48:6), pp. 781-795.
Hacking, I. 2012. “‘Language, Truth and Reason’ 30 Years Later,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A (43:4), pp. 599-609.
Herder, P. M., Veeneman, W., Buitenhuis, M., and Schaller, A. 2003. “Follow the Rainbow: A Knowledge Management Framework for New
Product Introduction,” Journal of Knowledge Management (7:3), pp. 105-115.
Jackson, W. A. 1999. “Dualism, Duality and the Complexity of Economic Institutions,” International Journal of Social Economics (26:4),
pp. 545-558.
Jantsch, E. 1980. The Self Organizing Universe: Scientific and Human Implications, New York: Pergamon Press.
Kauffman, S. A. 1993. The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution, New York: Oxford University Press.
Kellert, S. H., Longino, H. E., and Waters, C. K. 2006. Scientific Pluralism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Laszlo, E. 1972. Introduction to Systems Philosophy: Toward a New Paradigm of Contemporary Thought, New York: Gordon and Breach.
Lee, A. S. 1994. “Electronic Mail as a Medium for Rich Communication: An Empirical Investigation Using Hermeneutic Interpretation,”
MIS Quarterly (18:2), pp. 143-157.
Lee, A. S. 2004. “Thinking About Social Theory and Philosophy for Information Systems,” in Social Theory and Philosophy for Information
Systems, J. Mingers and L. P. Willcocks (eds.), Chichester, UK: Wiley, pp. 1-26.
Lincoln, Y. S., and Guba, E. G. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry, Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.
Merriam-Webster Online. 2015. Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, Inc.

MIS Quarterly Vol. 39 No. 3—Appendices/September 2015 A3


Baskerville et al./Genres of Inquiry in Design-Science Research

Moisander, J., and Stenfors, S. 2009. “Exploring the Edges of Theory-Practice Gap: Epistemic Cultures in Strategy-Tool Development and
Use,” Organization (16:2), pp. 227-247.
Niederman, F., and March, S. T. 2012. “Design Science and the Accumulation of Knowledge in the Information Systems Discipline,” ACM
Transactions on Management Information Systems (3:1), pp. 19-35.
OED Online. 2013. Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Paul, R. J. 2008. “Measuring Research Quality: The United Kingdom Government’s Research Assessment Exercise,” European Journal of
Information Systems (17:4), pp. 324-329.
Piaget, J., and Wells, P. 1972. Psychology and Epistemology: Towards a Theory of Knowledge, New York: Penguin Harmondsworth.
Rescher, N. 2000. Realistic Pragmatism: An Introduction to Pragmatic Philosophy, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Simon, H. A. 1996. The Sciences of the Artificial (3rd ed), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Appendix B
Quality Criteria Derived for Genres of Inquiry

Illustrative Examples of
Criteria Definition Sources Criteria Use

Prolonged Prolonged engagement includes the investment of Lincoln and Guba Creswell and Miller 2000
engagement sufficient time to achieve research purposes 1985 Erlandson et al. 1993
including learning, testing; The investigator is Onwuegbuzie and Leech
involved with the research sufficiently long to 2007
develop an appreciation of the local environment. Shenton 2004

Spending an extended period (at a site) allows Guba 1981


locals to adjust to the presence of the researcher
and also allows the researcher to evaluate his or
her own developing perceptions.
Persistent “Extended interaction with a situation or a milieu” in Guba 1981, p. 85 Travis 1999
observation order to develop “an understanding of the essential
characteristics” or pervasive qualities.

Persistent observation adds salience to the Lincoln and Guba


immersion of the researcher through prolonged 1985
engagement by helping identify those characteris-
tics and elements that are most relevant to the
problem. Thus, while prolonged engagement
provides scope, persistent observation provides
depth of understanding.

A4 MIS Quarterly Vol. 39 No. 3—Appendices/September 2015


Baskerville et al./Genres of Inquiry in Design-Science Research

Illustrative Examples of
Criteria Definition Sources Criteria Use
Triangulation Triangulation is the process of improving the Lincoln and Guba Jick 1979
probability of the findings through different means. 1985 Kaplan and Duchon 1988
This is achieved by various methods. Denzin Markus 1994
describes four different types of triangulation: data Denzin 1978 Myers 1997
triangulation, methodological triangulation,
investigator triangulation, and theoretical
triangulation.

1. Data triangulation: This may imply multiple


instances from a single source, or alternately
different sources of the same information. It
also refers to contextual validity or the
assessment of validity by comparing evidence
with other kinds of evidence on the same point.

2. Methodological triangulation: Once a


proposition has been confirmed by two or more Diesing 1972, pp.
measurement process the uncertainty of its 147-148
interpretation is greatly reduced.

3. Investigator triangulation: If a research design


is emergent, and its form depends ultimately on Webb et al. 1966
the particular interaction that the investigator
has with the phenomena, then a team
comprising multiple investigators can contribute
towards the evaluation with the objective of
establishing reliability.

4. Theoretical triangulation: The value of this


strategy is the assurance that each study will be
conducted with some theoretical perspective;
however this strategy may be most appropriate
in the absence of high theoretic coherence.
Principles The principle of contextualization “requires critical Klein and Myers 1999 Duranti and Goodwin
(e.g., reflection of the social and historical background of 1992
contextuali- the research setting, so that the intended audience Wegerif et al. 1999
zation, can see how the current situation under
dialogical investigation emerges” (p. 72). Moreover, in
reasoning, certain situations, competing explanations may
sensitivity to arise. George and Bennett (2005) discuss the
multiple importance of examining alternative and perhaps
interpretations, even conflicting explanations. They state that “the
and suspicion) plausibility of an explanation is enhanced to the
extent that alternative explanations are considered
and found to be less consistent with the data, or
less supported by available generalizations” (p. 91)
Klein and Myers (1999) described a similar notion
as dialogical reasoning, which “requires sensitivity
to possible contradictions between the theoretical
preconceptions guiding the research design and
actual findings” (p. 72).

MIS Quarterly Vol. 39 No. 3—Appendices/September 2015 A5


Baskerville et al./Genres of Inquiry in Design-Science Research

Illustrative Examples of
Criteria Definition Sources Criteria Use
Credibility Credibility is the confidence in the “truth” of the Lincoln and Guba, Baxter and Eyles 1997
findings. In more naturalistic settings, the term 1985 Onwuegbuzie and Leech
credibility is the equivalent for the conventional 2007
scientific term internal validity and denotes Patton 1999
trustworthiness of the findings. Some activities that
can increase the probability of credible findings are
prolonged engagement, persistent observation, and
triangulation.
Confirmability Confirmability is the degree of neutrality of the Guba 1981 Baxter and Eyles 1997
extent to which findings of a study are shaped by Hoepfl 1997
the respondents and not researcher bias,
motivation, or interest. Confirmability is the
naturalistic equivalent to conventional evaluation
criteria of objectivity.

The question underlying the establishment of the Lincoln and Guba


confirmability criteria is: “How can one establish 1985
the degree to which the findings of an inquiry stem
from the characteristics of the responders and the
context and not from the biases and motivations
and perspective of the researcher?” (Lincoln and
Guba 1985, p. 218).
Dependability Dependability is the process for showing that the Lincoln and Guba Avizienis et al. 2001
findings are consistent and could be repeated. The 1985 Bondavalli et al. 2001
question underlying the development of this criteria
is, how to “determine whether the findings of an
inquiry would be consistently repeated if the inquiry
were replicated in the same or similar contexts?”
(Guba 1981, p. 80).
Transferability Transferability is the characteristic of the findings in Lincoln and Guba Malterud 2001
one context or pertaining to a situation, to be 1985
applicable in other contexts. Lincoln and Guba
distinguish two different conceptualizations of
transferability: (1) The first conceptualization
(which views science from a more Kuhnian
perspective), transferability, indicates that the
findings in one case are applicable in all contexts
within the same population. (2) The second
conceptualization (which is more post-positivist or
naturalistic) views transferability to be demon-
strated when the researcher has provided ade-
quate evidence and descriptive data to support that
the original context and the transferred context are
sufficiently similar for the findings to be transferred.

A6 MIS Quarterly Vol. 39 No. 3—Appendices/September 2015


Baskerville et al./Genres of Inquiry in Design-Science Research

Illustrative Examples of
Criteria Definition Sources Criteria Use
Applicability Applicability is “how one can determine the degree Guba 1981 Green and Glasgow
to which the findings of a particular inquiry may 2006
have applicability in other contexts” (Guba 1981, p.
79).

In scientific terms, it can be referred to as


generalizability or external validity, and requires
that the inquiry is conducted in such a way that
chronological or situational variations do not impact
the findings. This will ensure that the findings are
relevant in other contexts. The truth statements
then are context-free and will hold in any given
context.
Generalizability Generalizations are assertions of enduring value Lincoln and Guba Lee and Baskerville 2003
that are context-free. However, they stress that 1985
inquiry that only sees value in generalizable
knowledge while ignoring the knowledge from the
unique, risks ignoring the alternatives that lie
between nomic (nomothetic) generalizations on the
one hand and unique, particularized knowledge on
the other.
External External validity is “the approximate validity with Bracht and Glass 1968 King and He 2005
validity which we infer the presumed causal relationship
can be generalized to and across alternate Cook and Campbell
measures of the cause and effect and across 1979
different types of persons settings and time” (Cook
and Campbell 1979, p. 37).
Reliability Reliability is synonymous with “dependability, Lincoln and Guba Morse et al. 2008
stability, consistency, predictability, accuracy” 1985
(Kerlinger 1973, p. 422). Reliability suggests that it
is reasonable “to assume that each repetition of the
application of the same or equivalent instruments to
the same units will yield similar measurements”
(Ford 1975, p. 324) and is usually tested by
replication. According to Lincoln and Guba (1985,
p. 316) “since there can be no validity without
reliability, (and thus no credibility without
dependability), a demonstration of the former is
sufficient to establish the latter.”
Consistency Consistency (along with stability and predictability) Guba 1981, p. 81 Ragin 2006
is a key concept underlying reliability. Consistency
can be interpreted as “a concept that embraces
elements both from stability (implied by reliability)
and from trackability required by explainable
changes in instrumentation.”

MIS Quarterly Vol. 39 No. 3—Appendices/September 2015 A7


Baskerville et al./Genres of Inquiry in Design-Science Research

Illustrative Examples of
Criteria Definition Sources Criteria Use
Internal validity Internal validity can be defined as the extent to Lincoln and Guba Petter et al. 2010
which variations in the outcome (dependent 1985
variable) can be attributed to controlled variation in
an independent variable.

Cook and Campbell (1979) define internal validity Cook and Campbell
as “the approximate validity [the best available 1979
approximation of the truth or falsity of a statement]
with which we infer that a relationship between two
variables is casual or that the absence of a
relationship implies the absence of a cause” (Cook
and Campbell 1979, p. 37)
Objectivity Objectivity denotes intersubjective agreement; if Lincoln and Guba Kolbe and Burnett 1991
multiple observers can agree on a phenomenon, 1985
their collective judgment is considered objective. Phillips 1990
Inventiveness “The inventiveness of the designer lies in a natural Buchanan 1992 Brumec 1997
or cultivated and artful ability to return to those
placements and apply them to a new situation,
discovering aspects of the situation that affect the
final design” (Buchanan 1992, p. 13).
Innovativeness Innovation requires “inventive leaps of generative Martin 2009b Lovelace et al. 2001
reasoning” which facilitates trial and error that is
crucial to creative resolution” (Martin 2009b, p.
147).
Originality Originality results from the “willingness to experi- Martin 2009a Pieters et al. 2002
ment, spontaneity in response to a novel situation,
and openness to trying something different than
perhaps first planned or intended” and describes
that it requires openness to the process of
experimentation, trial and error and iterative
prototyping (Martin 2009a, p. 166).

References

Avizienis, A., Laprie, J.-C., and Randell, B. 2001. Fundamental Concepts of Dependability, UCLA CSD Report No. 010028, LAAS Report
No. 01-145, Newcastle University Report No. CS-TR-739.
Baxter, J., and Eyles, J. 1997. “Evaluating Qualitative Research in Social Geography: Establishing ‘Rigour’ in Interview Analysis,”
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers (22:4), pp. 505-525.
Bondavalli, A., Dal Cin, M., Latella, D., Majzik, I., Pataricza, A., and Savoia, G. 2001. “Dependability Analysis in the Early Phases of UML-
Based System Design,” Computer Systems Science And Engineering (16:5), pp. 265-275.
Bracht, G. H., and Glass, G. V. 1968. “The External Validity of Experiments,” American Educational Research Journal (5:4), pp. 437-474.
Brumec, J. 1997. “Strategic Planning of Information Systems,” Journal of Information and Organizational Sciences (21:2), pp. 11-26.
Buchanan, R. 1992. “Wicked Problems in Design Thinking,” Design Issues (8:2), pp. 5-21.
Cook, T. D., and Campbell, D. T. 1979. Quasi-Experimentation: Design & Analysis Issues for Field Settings, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Creswell, J. W., and Miller, D. L. 2000. “Determining Validity in Qualitative Inquiry,” Theory Into Practice (39:3), pp. 124-130.
Denzin, N. K. 1978. Sociological Methods: A Sourcebook (2nd ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill.
Diesing, P. 1972. Patterns of Discovery in the Social Sciences, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Duranti, A., and Goodwin, C. 1992. Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., and Allen, S. D. 1993. Doing Naturalistic Inquiry: A Guide to Methods, Newbury Park, CA:
SAGE Publications.

A8 MIS Quarterly Vol. 39 No. 3—Appendices/September 2015


Baskerville et al./Genres of Inquiry in Design-Science Research

Ford, J. 1975. Paradigms and Fairy Tales: An Introduction to the Science of Meanings, Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
George, A. L., and Bennett, A. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Green, L. W., and Glasgow, R. E. 2006. “Evaluating the Relevance, Generalization, and Applicability of Research: Issues in External
Validation and Translation Methodology,” Evaluation & the Health Professions (29:1), pp. 126-153.
Guba, E. G. 1981a. “Criteria for Assessing the Trustworthiness of Naturalistic Inquiries,” Educational Communication and Technology (29:2),
pp. 75-91.
Hoepfl, M. C. 1997. “Choosing Qualitative Research: A Primer for Technology Education Researchers,” Journal of Technology Education
(9:1), pp. 47-63.
Jick, T. D. 1979. “Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action,” Administrative Science Quarterly (24:4), pp.
602-611.
Kaplan, B., and Duchon, D. 1988. “Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Information Systems Research: A Case Study,” MIS
Quarterly (12:4), pp. 571-586.
Kerlinger, F. N. 1973. Foundations of Behavioral Research, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
King, W. R., and He, J. 2005. “External Validity in IS Survey Research,” Communications of the Association for Information Systems (16),
pp. 880-894.
Klein, H. K., and Myers, M. D. 1999. “A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems,”
MIS Quarterly (23:1), pp. 67-93.
Kolbe, R. H., and Burnett, M. S. 1991. “Content-Analysis Research: An Examination of Applications with Directives for Improving Research
Reliability and Objectivity,” Journal of Consumer Research (18:2), pp. 243-250.
Lee, A. S., and Baskerville, R. L. 2003. “Generalizing Generalizability in Information Systems Research,” Information Systems Research
(14:3), pp. 221-243.
Lincoln, Y. S., and Guba, E. G. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry, Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.
Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D. L., and Weingart, L. R. 2001. “Maximizing Cross-Functional New Product Teams’ Innovativeness and Constraint
Adherence: A Conflict Communications Perspective,” Academy of Management Journal (44:4), pp. 779-793.
Malterud, K. 2001. “Qualitative Research: Standards, Challenges, and Guidelines,” The Lancet (358:9280), pp. 483-488.
Markus, M. L. 1994. “Electronic Mail as the Medium of Managerial Choice,” Organization Science (5:4), pp. 502-527.
Martin, R. L. 2009a. The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking Is the Next Competitive Advantage, Boston: Harvard Business School
Press.
Martin, R. L. 2009b. The Opposable Mind: Winning through Integrative Thinking, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., and Spiers, J. 2008. “Verification Strategies for Establishing Reliability and Validity in
Qualitative Research,” International Journal of Qualitative Methods (1:2), pp. 13-22.
Myers, M. D. 1997. “Qualitative Research in Information Systems,” MIS Quarterly (21:2), pp. 241-242.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., and Leech, N. L. 2007. “Validity and Qualitative Research: An Oxymoron?,” Quality & Quantity (41:2), pp. 233-249.
Patton, M. Q. 1999. “Enhancing the Quality and Credibility of Qualitative Analysis,” Health Services Research (34:5), pp. 1189-1208.
Petter, S., Khazanchi, D., and Murphy, J. D. 2010. “A Design Science Based Evaluation Framework for Patterns,” SIGMIS Database (41:3),
pp. 9-26.
Phillips, D. C. 1990. “Subjectivity and Objectivity: An Objective Inquiry,” in Qualitative Inquiry in Education: The Continuing Debate,
E. Eisner and A. Peshkin (eds.), New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 19-37.
Pieters, R., Warlop, L., and Wedel, M. 2002. “Breaking through the Clutter: Benefits of Advertisement Originality and Familiarity for Brand
Attention and Memory,” Management Science (48:6), pp. 765-781.
Ragin, C. C. 2006. “Set Relations in Social Research: Evaluating Their Consistency and Coverage,” Political Analysis (14:3), pp. 291-310.
Shenton, A. K. 2004. “Strategies for Ensuring Trustworthiness in Qualitative Research Projects,” Education for Information (22:2), pp. 63-75.
Travis, J. 1999. “Exploring the Constructs of Evaluative Criteria for Interpretivist Research,” in Proceedings of the 10th Australasian
Conference on Information Systems, Wellington, New Zealand, pp. 1037-1049.
Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D., and Sechrest, L. 1966. Unobtrusive Measures: Nonreactive Research in the Social Sciences,
Chicago: Rand McNally.
Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., and Dawes, L. 1999. “From Social Interaction to Individual Reasoning: An Empirical Investigation of a Possible
Socio-Cultural Model of Cognitive Development,” Learning and Instruction (9:6), pp. 493-516.

MIS Quarterly Vol. 39 No. 3—Appendices/September 2015 A9


Copyright of MIS Quarterly is the property of MIS Quarterly and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.

You might also like