May 3-4, 2018, Visby, Gotland, Sweden
The Special Interest Group on Pragmatist IS Research (SIGPrag) facilitates idea exchange around information technology in the context of practice. The spring workshop, co-organized with Digital Innovation Gotland and partially funded by the Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional Growth, brings scholars and practitioners together for focused discussions about practice-based research on design and innovation of digital artifacts, and how to organize collaborative work between practice and academia. The workshop unfolds over two days as shown in Table 1.
Table 1 – Schedule
9:00 – 12:00
|E30, Campus Gotland||Workshop: Elaborated Action Design Science Research
Matthew Mullarkey, researcher at the University of South Florida, presents an approach to methodological innovation in collaboration between academia and practice.
13:00 – 17:00
|E22, Campus Gotland||Presentations and Panel discussion: Collaboration between Academia and Practice (CAP)
Invited guests from academia and practice share their experiences and views on collaborative work.
09:00 – 17:00
|E30, Campus Gotland||Day 2 – Research Review & Recommendations (R3) session
Invited scholars meet up to discuss and develop ongoing research.
Each activity is described in detailed below.
Thursday, May 3, 09:00 – 12:00
An Elaborated Action Design Science Research approach to the conduct of Data Science Projects
This workshop, hosted by Matthew Mullarkey from University of South Florida, introduces Elaborated Action Design Science Research (eADR) – an exceptional approach to the iterative art and science of identifying competitive intelligence for business in big data. Conducting Data Science (DS) projects is much more than merely deploying DS tools or visualization techniques. It is also much more than data cleansing and warehousing. A robust DS project approach requires a methodical progression from diagnosing to designing to implementation of automated systems for mining and sharing insights for dynamic databases. This workshop will share the evolution and definition of an eADR for DS method that’s gone through four cohorts iteration at a Fortune 100 global contract manufacturer with over 24 DS projects and more than 125 deliverables. The workshop is open to invited guests only.
Thursday, May 3, 13:00 – 17:00
Collaboration between Academia and Practice (CAP) session
The session is a series of presentations from practitioners and researchers as shown in Table 2. The presentations revolve around benefits of – and potential obstacles for – innovation in collaboration between practice and academia. The day concludes with a panel discussion including all presenters.
Table 2 – Presenters/panelists from practice and academia
|Peter Andersson||IT Strategist and reflective practitioner at Svenska Spel, a gaming company fully owned by the Swedish government, with the dual task to provide gaming as well as to counter gaming problems.|
|Kieran Conboy||Professor in Business Information Systems in the School of Business & Economics at the National University of Ireland, Galway. Co-Principal Investigator in the Lero Irish software research center.|
|Shirley Gregor||Professor of Information Systems, Director CBE Innovation Hub, ANU College of Business and Economics, Sydney, Australia|
|Therése Kullåker||Business developer at Region Gotland and coordinator of the strategic collaboration between Region Gotland and Uppsala University.|
|Mikael Wiberg||Professor of Human-computer Interaction and Head of the Department of Informatics at Umeå University, Sweden.|
The CAP session is open to the public, however, a registration is required.
Friday, May 4, 09:00 – 17:00
Research Review & Recommendations (R3) Session.
The second day provides constructive scientific and editorial feedback to the authors of research articles. The aim is to promote the production of high-quality journal articles. Authors present their papers, followed by a developmental discussion where senior scholars and other authors provide developmental feedback. Each paper will have at least one designated discussant. For each paper, there will be a short presentation (max 10 minutes) and a thorough discussion (30 minutes).
Invited authors send their draft papers/extended abstracts no later than February 10 to firstname.lastname@example.org. Additional dates and submission details are found below.
This workshop emphasizes pragmatist perspectives on information systems research. The focus is on “Research in Digital Innovation,” i.e., an emphasis on digital artifacts as embedded in social practices and carriers of meaning and agency in such practices. It also emphasizes the innovative nature of designing new artifacts and inducing change in practices. The workshop acknowledges different sub-themes within this broad workshop theme:
- Processes of innovation and design of digital artifacts and practices
- Ways to conceptualize and describe practices
- Ways to conceptualize and describe digital artifacts
- Ways to research practice-based design and innovation of digital artifacts
We pay special attention to concerns in contemporary design-oriented research approaches and intervention-based research. For details, see the section “Pragmatist Information Systems Research” below.
Dates and submission details
- Indication of interest: January 10, 2018
- Extended abstract/draft paper: February 10, 2018
- Notification: February 20, 2018
- Final manuscripts: April 1, 2018
- Workshop: May 3-4, 2018
Please use the SIGPrag format example when submitting your final manuscripts.
- Jonas Sjöström, Uppsala University, Sweden (email@example.com)
- Göran Goldkuhl, Linköping University & Uppsala University, Sweden (firstname.lastname@example.org)
- Markus Helfert, Dublin City University, Ireland (Markus.Helfert@dcu.ie)
Pragmatist Information Systems Research
There have been many calls in the information systems (IS) community for a stronger pragmatic focus. An increasing number of scholars and practitioners call for research approaches and methods that emphasize contribution to practice and collaboration between the practice and academia. Action research, which aims for knowledge development through collaboration and intervention in real settings, is achieving more and more academic credibility (Baskerville & Myers, 2004; Davison et al., 2004). Similarly, design science research aims for the generation of new and useful artifacts (Hevner et al., 2004; Gregor & Jones, 2007). Research through evaluation has had a long and venerable place in IS research (Ward et, 1996; Serafeimidis & Smithson, 2003). Several approaches and frameworks that combine or integrate elements from the approaches mentioned above have also emerged. Examples include practice research (Goldkuhl, 2011), collaborative practice research (Mathiassen, 2002), practical science (Gregor, 2008), engaged scholarship (Mathiassen & Nielsen, 2008), action design research (Sein et al., 2011) and technical action research (Wieringa & Morali, 2012). Underlying these different approaches is a quest for practical relevance of the conducted research (Benbasat & Zmud, 1999; Van de Ven, 2007; Wieringa, 2010) and an interest to reach genuine impact in practice (Seidel & Watson, 2014; Nunamaker et al; 2015; Te’eni et al, 2017). It is not enough to only “mirror” the world through descriptions and explanations, but a pragmatic orientation recognizes intervention and design as a way of knowing and a means for building knowledge about social and institutional phenomena (Aakhus, 2007). There is a need for knowledge of other epistemic kinds that contribute more clearly to the improvement of IS practices.
The pragmatist approach manifests as an increasing interest in the conceptualization of practices, activities, agency, and actions. Practice theorizing has gained increased attention in IS studies (Orlikowski, 2008; Leonardi, 2011). Several authors paid interest in agency-oriented and action-oriented theories in IS for quite some time. Well-known examples include activity theory (Nardi, 1996), structuration theory (Orlikowski, 1992), social action theorizing (Hirschheim et al., 1996), human agency theorizing (Boudreau & Robey, 2005) and language action perspective (Winograd & Flores, 1986). Researchers also paid interest in social and pragmatic views of the IT artifact (Aakhus & Jackson, 2005). Such an interest includes views of the IT artifact as contextually embedded and carriers of those social contexts (Orlikowski & Iacono, 2001) and as tools for action and communication (Ågerfalk, 2003; Markus & Silver, 2008).
This enhanced practice and action orientation follows a growing awareness among IS scholars towards pragmatism as a research foundation (e.g., Goles & Hirschheim, 2000; Ågerfalk, 2010; Goldkuhl, 2012). It is not the case that IS scholars suddenly become pragmatists in their research orientation. There is move from an implicit pragmatism to an explicit one (Goldkuhl, 2012). For a long time IS scholars have addressed practical problems of interest for improvement. That interest has led to the extensive development of methods, models and useful frameworks for not only the design of IT artifacts but also related to several other IS phenomena, e.g., innovation management, business process management, project management, IT service management just to mention a few. These methods actually reveal an on-going search for knowledge of other epistemic kinds for advancing understanding of information technology, information systems, and practice. Pragmatism – and its view of inquiry as a theory of knowledge (Dewey, 1938) – is a philosophical foundation for intervention-based research (Baskerville & Myers, 2004; Sjöström, 2010). Indeed, Constantinides et al. (2012, p. 1) propose “practical questions for all IS researchers to consider in making choices about relevant topics, design and execution, and representation of findings in their research.” The evolving design science research discourse (Hevner et al., 2004; Sein et al., 2011; Gregor & Hevner, 2013; Iivari, 2014; Venable et al., 2016) are also more or less explicitly founded in a pragmatist tradition.
Aakhus M (2007) Communication as Design. Communication Monographs, Vol 74 (1), pp 112–117
Aakhus M, Jackson S (2005) Technology, Interaction and Design. In K. Fitch & B. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of Language and Social Interaction (pp. 411–433). Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ
Ågerfalk P J (2003) Information Systems Actability: Understanding Information Technology as a Tool for Business Action and Communication, Ph D diss, Department of Computer and Information Science, Linköping University
Ågerfalk P J (2010) Getting Pragmatic, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol 19 (3), pp 251–256
Baskerville R, Myers M (2004) Special issue on action research in information systems: making IS research relevant to practice – foreword, MIS Quarterly, Vol 28 (3), p 329-335
Benbasat I, Zmud R W (1999) Empirical research in information system research: The practice of relevance, MIS Quarterly, Vol 23 (1), p 3-16
Boudreau M-C, Robey D (2005) Enacting Integrated Information Technology: A Human Agency Perspective, Organization Science, Vol 16 (1), p 3–18
Constantinides P, Chiasson M, Introna L (2012) The ends of information systems research: a pragmatic framework. MIS Quarterly, Vol 36(1), p 1–10.
Davison R M, Martinsons M G, Kock N (2004) Principles of canonical action research, Information Systems Journal, Vol 14, p 65–86
Dewey J (1938) Logic: The theory of inquiry, Henry Holt, New York
Goles T, Hirschheim R (2000) The paradigm is dead, the paradigm is dead … long live the paradigm: the legacy of Burell and Morgan, Omega, Vol 28, p 249-268
Goldkuhl G (2011) The research practice of practice research: theorizing and situational inquiry, Systems, Signs & Actions, Vol 5 (1), p 7-29
Goldkuhl G (2012) Pragmatism vs. interpretivism in qualitative information systems research, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol 21 (2), p 135-146
Gregor S (2008) Building theory in a practical science, in Hart D, Gregor S (Eds, 2008) Information Systems Foundations: The role of design science, ANU E Press, Canberra
Gregor S, Hevner A R (2013) Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact, MIS quarterly, Vol 37 (2), p 337–355
Gregor S, Jones D (2007) The Anatomy of a Design Theory, Journal of AIS, Vol 8 (5), p 312-335
Hevner A R, March S T, Park J, Ram S (2004) Design science in information systems research, MIS Quarterly, Vol 28 (1), p 75-115
Hirschheim R, Klein H, Lyytinen K (1996) Exploring the intellectual structures of information systems development: a social action theoretic analysis, Accounting, Management & Information Technology, Vol 6 (1/2), pp. 1-64
Iivari J (2014) Distinguishing and contrasting two strategies for design science research, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol 24 (1), p 107–115
Leonardi P (2011) When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies, MIS Quarterly, Vol 35 (1), pp. 147-167
Markus L, Silver M (2008) A foundation for the study of IT effects: A new look at DeSanctis and Poole’s concepts of structural features and spirit, Journal of the AIS, Vol. 9 (10/11), pp 609-632
Mathiassen L (2002) Collaborative practice research, Information Technology & People, Vol 15 (4), p 321-345
Mathiassen L, Nielsen P A (2008) Engaged Scholarship in IS Research. The Scandinavian Case, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, Vol 20 (2), p 3–20
Nardi B A (Ed, 1996) Context and consciousness. Activity theory and human-computer interaction, MIT Press, Cambridge
Nunamaker J, Briggs R, Derrick D, Schwabe G (2015) The last research mile: achieving both rigor and relevance in information systems research, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 32, (3), pp. 10–47
Orlikowski W J (1992) The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations, Organization Science, Vol 3 (3), p 398-429
Orlikowski W J (2008) Sociomaterial Practices: Exploring Technology at Work, Organization Studies, Vol 28 (9), p 1435–1448
Orlikowski W J, Iacono C S (2001) Desperately seeking the “IT” in IT research – a call to theorizing the IT artifact, Information Systems Research, Vol 12 (2), pp 121-134
Seidel S, Watson R (2014) Improving the Societal Effectiveness of IS Research: The Pursuit of Prescriptive Accuracy, SSRN eLibrary
Sein M, Henfridsson O, Purao S, Rossi M, Lindgren R (2011) Action design research, MIS Quarterly, Vol 35 (1), p 37-56
Serafeimidis V, Smithson S (2003) Information systems evaluation as an organizational institution – experience from a case study, Information Systems Journal, Vol 13, pp 251–274
Sjöström J (2010) Designing Information Systems – a pragmatic account. PhD thesis, Uppsala University.
Te’eni D, Sedel S, vom Brocke J (2017) Stimulating dialog between information systems research and practice, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol 26, pp 541–545
Van de Ven A (2007) Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Venable J, Pries-Heje J, Baskerville R (2016) FEDS: a framework for evaluation in design science research. European Journal of Information Systems, Vol 25(1), p 77–89
Ward J, Taylor P, Bond P (1996) Evaluation and realisation of IS/IT benefits: an empirical study of current practice, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol 4, p 214–225
Wieringa R (2010) Relevance and problem choice in design science, in Winter R, Zhao J L, Aier S (Eds. 2010) Proceedings DESRIST 2010, LNCS 6105, Springer, Berlin
Wieringa R, Morali A (2012) Technical action research as a validation method in information systems design science, Proceedings DESRIST 2012, LNCS 7286, Springer, Berlin
Winograd T, Flores F (1986) Understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for design, Ablex, Norwood