Design Science in business administration
the intellectual structure of the paradigm
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5585/2024.25650Keywords:
design science, business administration, bibliometrics, artifacts, maturityAbstract
Objective of the study: This article aims to analyse the intellectual structure of Design Science in Business Administration. It Identifies the most influential works and journals, the theoretical approaches for the generation of artifacts, and discusses the intellectual structure of the emerging literature on Design Science.
Methodology: The research used bibliographic coupling and citation analyses in the Scopus and Web of Science databases.
Originality/relevance: This research contributes to a better understanding of the design science in Business Administration.
Main results: The articles are, in the main, theoretical, demonstrating that Design Science is still in an initial maturity phase. As for the empirical and theoretical (illustrated) articles, their respective authors indicate as artifacts: framework, method, and instantiation, in addition to Design Propositions, Design Principles, and Technological Rules. The articles that constitute DS's intellectual structure are predominantly in the Systems Information area and, to a lesser degree, in Service Design and Operations Management.
Theoretical/methodological contributions: The article contributes to the scientific discussion on design science by identifying the main areas that use the paradigm to conduct research in Business Administration.
Downloads
References
Abbasi, A., Zhang, Z., Zimbra, D., & Chen, H. (2010). Detecting Fake Websites: The Contribution of Statistical Learning Theory. MIS Quarterly, 34(3), 435–461, doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/25750686
Aier, S., & Fischer, C. (2011). Criteria of Progress for Information Systems Design Theories. Information Systems and EBusiness Management, 9(1), 133–172, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-010-0130-8
Arnott, D., & Pervan, G. (2005). A Critical Analysis of Decision Support Systems Research. Journal of Information Technology, 20(2), 67–87, doi: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000035
Avenier, M. J. (2010). Shaping a Constructivist View of Organizational Design Science. Organization Studies, 31(9-10), 1229–1255, doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840610374395
Baskerville, R. L., Kaul, M., & Storey, V. C. (2015). Genres of Inquiry in Design Science Research: Justification and Evaluation. MIS Quarterly, 39(3), 541–564.
Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). Ucinet for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.
Buchanan, R. A. (2006). Accuracy of Cited References: The Role of Citation Databases. College & Research Libraries, 67(4), 292-303.
Burgoyne, J., & James, K. T. (2006). Towards Best or Better Practice in Corporate Leadership Development: Operational Issues in Mode 2 and Design Science Research. British Journal of Management, 17(4), 303–316, doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2005.00468.x
Carcary, M. (2011). Design Science Research: The Case of the It Capability Maturity Framework (IT CMF). Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 9(2), 109–118.
Carlsson, S. A., Henningsson, S., Hrastinski, S., & Keller, C. (2011). Socio-Technical is Design Science Research: Developing Design Theory for is Integration Management. Information Systems and E-Business Management, 9(1), 109–131, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-010-0140-6
Carton, G., & Mouricou, P. (2017). Is Management Research Relevant? A Systematic Analysis of the Rigor-Relevance Debate in Top-Tier Journals (1994-2013). Management (France), 20(2), 166–203, doi: https://doi.org/10.3917/mana.202.0166
Dellermann, D., Lipusch, N., Ebel, P., & Leimeister, J. M. (2019). Design Principles for a Hybrid Intelligence Decision Support System for Business Model Validation. Electronic Markets, 29(3), 423–441, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-018-0309-2
Denyer, D., Tranfield, D., & van Aken, J. E. (2008). Developing Design Propositions Through Research Synthesis. Organization Studies, 29(3), 393–413, doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607088020
Donaldson, L. (2002). Damned by Our Own Theories: Contradictions Between Theories and Management Education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1(1), 96–106, doi: https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2002.7373701
Dresch, A., Lacerda, D. P., & Miguel, P. A. C. (2015). Uma Análise Distintiva Entre o Estudo de Caso, a Pesquisa-Ação e a Design Science Research. Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios, 17(56), 1116–1133, doi: https://doi.org/10.7819/rbgn.v17i56.2069
Fendt, J., & Kaminska-Labbé, R. (2011). Relevance and Creativity Through Design-Driven Action Research: Introducing Pragmatic Adequacy. European Management Journal, 29(3), 217–233, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2010.10.004
Garfield, E. (1979). Is Citation Analysis a Legitimate Evaluation Tool? Scientometrics,1(4), 359-375.
Glänzel, W., & Thijs, B. (2012). Using ‘Core Documents’ for Detecting and Labelling New Emerging Topics. Scientometrics, 91(2), 399-416.
Gregor, S. (2006). The Nature of Theory in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 611–642, doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/25148742
Gregor, S., & Hevner, A. R. (2013). Positioning and Presenting Design Science Research for Maximum Impact. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 337-355.
Gregor, S., & Jones, D. (2007). The Anatomy of a Design Theory. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(5), 312–335, doi: https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00129
Gregory, R. W., & Muntermann, J. (2014). Heuristic Theorizing: Proactively Generating Design Theories. Information Systems Research, 25(3), 639–653, doi: https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2014.0533
Guerci, M., Radaelli, G., & Shani, A. B. (2019). Conducting Mode 2 Research in HRM: A Phase-based Framework. Human Resource Management, 58(1), 5–20, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21919
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2009). Multivariate data analysis, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hamlin, R. G., & Bassi, N. (2008). Behavioural Indicators of Manager and Managerial Leader Effectiveness: An Example of Mode 2 Knowledge Production in Management to Support Evidence-Based Practice. International Journal of Management Practice, 3(2), 115–130, doi: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMP.2008.018366
Hevner, A. R. (2007). A Three Cycle View of Design Science Research. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 19(2), 87–92. https://aisel.aisnet.org/sjis/vol19/iss2/4
Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design Science in Information System Research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105.
Hevner, A., Brocke, J. vom, & Maedche, A. (2019). Roles of Digital Innovation in Design Science Research. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 61, 3–8, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-018-0571-z
Hodgkinson, G. P., & Starkey, K. (2011). Not Simply Returning to the Same Answer Over and Over Again: Reframing Relevance. British Journal of Management, 22(3), 355–369, doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00757.x
Hodgkinson, G. P., & Starkey, K. (2012). Extending the Foundations and Reach of Design Science: Further Reflections on the Role of Critical Realism. British Journal of Management, 23(4), 605–610, doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12001
Holmström, J., Främling, K., & Ala-Risku, T. (2010). The Uses of Tracking in Operations Management: Synthesis of a Research Program. International Journal of Production Economics, 126(2), 267–275, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.03.017
Holmström, J., Ketokivi, M., & Hameri, A. P. (2009). Bridging Practice and Theory: A Design Science Approach. Decision Sciences, 40(1), 65–87, doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00221.x
Huff, A., Tranfield, D., & van Aken, J. E. (2006). Management as a Design Science Mindful of Art and Surprise - A Conversation Between Anne Huff, David Tranfield, and Joan Ernst van Aken. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15(4), 413–424, doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492606295900
Jelinek, M., Romme, A. G. L., & Boland, R. J. (2008). Introduction to The Special Issue Organization Studies as a Science for Design: Creating Collaborative Artifacts and Research. Organization Studies, 29(3), 317–329, doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607088016
Kaparthi, S. (2012). A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Decision Systems, 14(1-2), 157-177.
Kieser, A., Nicolai, A. T., & Seidl, D. (2015). The Practical Relevance of Management Research. The Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 143–233.
Kuechler, W.L., & Vaishnavi, V.K. (2008). The emergence of design research in information systems in North America. Journal Design Research, 7(1), 1–16.
Lacerda, D. P., Dresch, A. (2020). Impact beyond Impact Factor: The Design-Science Way. BAR – Brazilian Administration Review, 17(1): doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-7692bar2020200054
Lacerda, D. P., Dresch, A., Proença, A., & Antunes Júnior, J. A. V. (2013). Design Science Research: Método De Pesquisa para a Engenharia de Produção. Gestão e Produção, 20(4), 741–761, doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-530X2013005000014
Löhe, J., & Legner, C. (2014). Overcoming Implementation Challenges in Enterprise Architecture Management: A Design Theory for Architecture-Driven It Management (ADRIMA). Information Systems and E-Business Management, 12(1), 101–137, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-012-0211-y
MacRoberts, M., & MacRoberts, B. (1996). Problems of Citation Analysis. Scientometrics, 36(3), 435-444.
March, S. T., & Smith, G. F. (1995). Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems, 15, 251-266.
Marcos, J., & Denyer, D. (2012). Crossing the Sea from They to we? The Unfolding of Knowing and Practising in Collaborative Research. Management Learning, 43(4), 443–459, doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507612440232
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Design qualitative research, 4th ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Martin, B. (1996). The Use of Multiple Indicators in The Assessment of Basic Research. Scientometrics, 36(3), 343-362.
Mesny, A., & Mailhot, C. (2012). Control and Traceability of Research Impact on Practice: Reframing The ‘Relevance Gap’ Debate in Management. Management (France), 15(2), 180–207.
Miah, S. J., & Gammack, J. G. (2014). Ensemble Artifact Design for Context Sensitive Decision Support. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 18(3), 5–20.
Miah, S. J., Debuse, J., & Kerr, D. (2012). A Development-Oriented DSS Evaluation Approach: A Case Demonstration for Conceptual Assessment. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 17(2), 43–55, doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Pandza, K., & Thorpe, R. (2010). Management as Design, But What Kind of Design? An Appraisal of the Design Science Analogy for Management. British Journal of Management, 21(1), 171–186, doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2008.00623.x
Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., & Chatterjee, S. (2007). A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3), 45–77, doi: https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302
Pislyakov, V. (2009). Comparing Two ‘Thermometers’: Impact Factors of 20 Leading Economic Journals According to Journal Citation Reports and Scopus. Scientometrics, 79(3), 541-550.
Raan, A. van (1996). Advanced Bibliometric Methods as Quantitative Core of Peer Review Based Evaluation and Foresight Exercises. Scientometrics, 36(3), 397-420.
Romme, A. G. L. (2003). Making a Difference: Organization as Design. Organization Science, 14(5), 558–573, doi: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.5.558.16769
Romme, A. G. L., Avenier, M. J., Denyer, D., Hodgkinson, G. P., Pandza, K., Starkey, K., & Worren, N. (2015). Towards Common Ground and Trading Zones in Management Research and Practice. British Journal of Management, 26(3), 544–559, doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12110
Sealy, R., Doldor, E., Vinnicombe, S., Terjesen, S., Anderson, D., & Atewologun, D. (2017). Expanding the Notion of Dialogic Trading Zones for Impactful Research: The Case of Women on Boards Research. British Journal of Management, 28(1), 64–83, doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12203
Shiau, W. L., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Yang, H. S. (2017). Co-citation and Cluster Analyses of Extant Literature on Social Networks. International Journal of Information Management, 37(5), 390-399.
Simon, H. A. (1996). The science of design: creating the artificial, MIT Press, London.
Singh, V., Verma, S., & Chaurasia, S. S. (2020). Mapping the Themes and Intellectual Structure of Corporate University: Co-citation and Cluster Analyses. Scientometrics, 122(3), 1275-1302.
Sudbury-Riley, L., Hunter-Jones, P., Al-Abdin, A., Lewin, D., & Naraine, M. V. (2019). The Trajectory Touchpoint Technique: A Deep Dive Methodology for Service Innovation. Journal of Service Research, 23(2), 229-251, doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670519894642
Teixeira, J. G., Patrício, L., & Tuunanen, T. (2019). Advancing Service Design Research with Design Science Research. Journal of Service Management, 30(5), 577–592, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-05-2019-0131
van Aken, J. E. (2005). Management Research as a Design Science: Articulating the Research Products of Mode 2 Knowledge Production in Management. British Journal of Management, 16(1), 19–36, doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2005.00437.x
van Aken, J. E. (2004). Management Research Based on the Paradigm of the Design Sciences: The Quest for Field-Tested and Grounded Technological Rules. Journal of Management Studies, 41(2), 219–246, doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00430.x
van Aken, J. E., & Romme, A. G. L. (2009). Reinventing the Future: Adding Design Science to the Repertoire of Organization and Management Studies. Organisation Management Journal, 6(1), 5–12, doi: https://doi.org/10.1057/omj.2009.1
Venable, J. (2011). Incorporating Design Science Research and Critical Research into an Introductory Business Research Methods Course. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 9(2), 119–129.
Venable, J., & Baskerville, R. (2012). Eating our own Cooking: Toward a More Rigorous Design Science of Research Methods. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 10(2), 141–153.
Vo, L. C., & Kelemen, M. (2017). Collaborating Across the Researcher-Practitioner Divide: Introducing John Dewey’s Democratic Experimentalism. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 30 (6), 858–871, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-03-2016-0054
Walls, J. G., Widmeyer, G. R., & El Sawy, O. A. (1992). Building an information system design theory for vigilant EIS. Information Systems Research, 3, 36-59.
Wells, P., & Nieuwenhuis, P. (2017). Operationalizing Deep Structural Sustainability in Business: Longitudinal Immersion as Extensive Engaged Scholarship. British Journal of Management, 28(1), 45–63, doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12201
Yassaee, M., Mettler, T., & Winter, R. (2019). Principles for the Design of Digital Occupational Health Systems. Information and Organization, 29(2), 77–90, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2019.04.005
Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric Methods in Management and Organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429-472.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Autores
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The author (s) authorize the publication of the manuscript in the journal;
The author (s) guarantee that the contribution is original and unpublished and that it is not being evaluated in another journal (s);
The journal is not responsible for the opinions, ideas and concepts emitted in the texts, as they are the sole responsibility of its author (s);
Editors reserve the right to make textual adjustments and adapt to the publication's rules.
Authors retain the copyright and grant the journal the right to first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License - 4.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) that allows the sharing of the work with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this magazine.
Authors are authorized to assume additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (eg, publishing in institutional repository or as a book chapter), with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are allowed and encouraged to publish and distribute their work online (eg in institutional repositories or on their personal page) at any point before or during the editorial process, as this can generate productive changes, as well as increase impact and citation of the published work (see “The Effect of Open Access” at http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html).
Authors can use ORCID for identification. An ORCID identifier is unique to an individual and acts as a persistent digital identifier to ensure that authors (particularly those with relatively common names) can be distinguished and their work appropriately assigned.
