All posts by sigpragadmin

SIGPrag pre-ICIS workshop _cancelled_

The planned SIGPrag workshop, an ancillary event to ICIS 2017, has been cancelled due to the low number of submissions (N=4).

Look ahead for the upcoming SIGPrag workshop in Visby, Sweden, that will take place in early May 2018. Visby is an old coastal town, with UN world heritage status, on the island of Gotland in the Baltic sea. The workshop will be very developmental and each paper will be given plenty of time for presentation and discussion. Workshop details remain to be planned – more information will be posted here in the near future.

Best regards,
Jonas Sjöström
SIGPrag president,
on behalf of the workshop organising team

Call for papers – Pre-ICIS workshop on ”Practice-based Design and Innovation of Digital Artifacts”

December 9, 2017, Seoul, South Korea

Background – pragmatic perspectives

There have been many calls in the information systems (IS) community for a stronger pragmatic focus. This can be seen in a growing interest for research approaches and methods in IS 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). This can also be said about design science research that 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 above-mentioned approaches have also emerged, e.g. 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). 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 contributes more clearly to the improvement of IS practices.

A pragmatic orientation can also be seen in the increasing interest in the conceptualization of practices, activities, agency and actions. Practice theorizing has gained an increased attention in IS studies (Orlikowski, 2008; Leonardi, 2011). There has been an interest for agency and action oriented theories in IS for quite some time; e.g. 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). From this follows also an interest for social and pragmatic views of the IT artifact (Aakhus & Jackson, 2005). This includes views of the IT artifact as contextually embedded and carriers of those social contexts (Orlikowski & Iacono, 2001) and such artifacts being tools for action and communication (Ågerfalk, 2003; Markus & Silver, 2008). Design research practice and the contributions to practice through appropriation of knowledge and methods and the contributions to academia through knowledge artifacts has been discussed (Sjöström, Donnellan & Helfert, 2012).

This enhanced practice and action orientation follows a growing awareness within 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. It is rather the case that there is move from an implicit pragmatism to an explicit one (Goldkuhl, 2012). For a long time IS scholars have addressed practical problems with an interest for improvement. That interest has led to the extensive development of methods, models and constructive frameworks for not only the design of IT artifacts, but also related to several other IS/IT phenomena like 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 inherent 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 pragmatist foundations are also reflected in the evolving design science research discourse (Hevner et al, 2004; Sein et al, 2011; Gregor & Hevner, 2013; Iivari, 2014; Venable et al, 2016).

Workshop focus

This AIS SIGPrag Pre-ICIS workshop has a general orientation towards pragmatic perspectives on IS as described above. The focus is on “Practice-based Design and Innovation of Digital Artifacts”. This means an emphasis on digital artifacts as embedded in social practices and carriers of elements in such practices. It emphasizes also the innovative nature of designing new artifacts and new practices. The workshop acknowledges different sub-themes within this broad workshop theme:

  • Ways to research practice-based design and innovation of digital artifacts
  • Ways to conceptualize and describe practices
  • Ways to conceptualize and describe digital artifacts
  • The processes of innovation and design of digital artifacts and practices

Topics within these sub-themes are described below.

Workshop purpose

This workshop is arranged in the same spirit and a continuation of earlier successful SIGPrag workshops on “Practice research”, “IT Artifact Design & Workpractice Improvement” and “Action Research & Design Research Integrations”.

This SIGPrag workshop intends to bring scholars and practitioners together for a knowledge exchange and development on research foundations and practical contributions concerning the design and innovation of digital artifacts and practices. The SIGPrag workshop is intended to be a developmental arena with thoughtful and constructive feedback from reviews and comments on site. The workshop should be a place where you can present ideas in papers and get fruitful feedback for further development of the papers. A developmental arena means also taking responsibility for pushing contributions further to high-quality journal publications. From earlier SIGPrag workshops (ADWI-2012, ADWI-2013, ADWI-2014 and PractDID-2016) several papers have been pushed further into special issues in the open access journal Systems, Signs & Actions. At least one issue will be arranged in Systems, Signs & Actions inviting promising papers from this SIGPrag workshop. We will possibly also work with some other outlet for another special issue. This depends on the outcome of the workshop.

Topics

The workshop can include papers from diverse fields of IS. Topics following the identified workshop sub-themes are listed below.

Ways to research practice-based design and innovation of digital artifacts; empirical research approaches such as:

  • Practice research
  • Action research
  • Design science research
  • Action design research
  • Case study research
  • Evaluation research
  • Discourse analysis
  • Pragmatic inquiries
  • Practitioner – research collaborations

Ways to research practice-based design and innovation of digital artifacts; knowledge creation approaches such as:

  • Design theory development
  • Method design/refinement
  • Grounded theory development
  • Multi-grounded theory development
  • Practical theory development

Ways to conceptualize and describe practices; for example:

  • Symbolic interaction
  • Language action
  • Socio-materiality
  • Institutionalism
  • Actor-networks
  • Infrastructure evolution
  • Socio-instrumentalism
  • Distributed cognition
  • Distributed agency

Ways to conceptualize and describe digital artifacts; for example:

  • Ensemble view
  • Socio-technical view
  • Contextual view
  • Functional tool view
  • Affordance view
  • Communicative action view

The processes of innovation and design of digital artifacts and practices; for example aspects such as:

  • Innovation strategies
  • Openness in innovation
  • Design thinking
  • Collaborative design
  • Stakeholder interactions (power-playing vs. value balancing and informed consensus building)
  • Practice understanding and diagnosis
  • Wicked problems
  • Problem formulation
  • Values and goals articulation
  • Idea generation
  • Idea capture
  • Design conversations
  • Idea visualization (modeling, prototyping)
  • Strategies for testing and evaluation

Dates and submission details

Submissions: September 24, 2017
Notification: October 31, 2017
Final manuscripts: November 30, 2017
Workshop: December 9, 2017

The workshop website is http://SIGPrag.net/. The workshop will follow an ordinary scientific procedure with submission of papers and selection of papers through peer-review (pursued by an international program committee). Papers are expected to be between 5-16 pages. We welcome full research papers as well as shorter papers (work-in-progress or position papers). For submissions we use the EasyChair system (https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=practdid2017). A format template can be found here. Workshop proceedings will be electronically published and distributed on this web site. There will be a small workshop fee covering catering.

Workshop co-chairs

Jonas Sjöström, Uppsala University, Sweden (jonas.sjostrom@im.uu.se)
Göran Goldkuhl, Linköping University & Uppsala University, Sweden (goran.goldkuhl@liu.se)
Markus Helfert, Dublin City University, Ireland (Markus.Helfert@dcu.ie)
Jaehyun Park, Tokyo Institute of Technology, (park.j.ai@m.titech.ac.jp) 

Organisers

AIS Special interest group on Pragmatic IS research (AIS SIGPrag), http://SIGPrag.net/

 

Programme Committee

  • Pär Ågerfalk, Sweden
  • Stephan Aier, Switzerland
  • Steven Alter, USA
  • Patrick Brandtner, Austria
  • Rodney Clarke, Australia
  • Gabriel Costello, Ireland
  • Stefan Cronholm, Sweden
  • Brian Donnellan, Ireland
  • Matt Germonprez, USA
  • Rob Gleasure, Ireland
  • Paul Johannesson, Sweden
  • Gustaf Juell-Skielse, Sweden
  • Kalle Lyytinen, USA
  • Ulf Melin, Sweden
  • Peter Axel Nielsen, Denmark
  • Jan Pries-Heje, Denmark
  • Matti Rossi, Finland
  • Hannes Rothe, Germany
  • Gerhard Schwabe, Switzerland
  • Robert Winter, Switzerland

More members to be announced.

References

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

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

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.

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

Workshop Program – Practice-based Design and Innovation of Digital Artifacts

Pre-ICIS workshop on Practice-based Design and Innovation of Digital Artifacts

NB: Program updated on December 4 – download the papers by clicking the paper title. Scroll down for detailed info about the venue.

Workshop Program

9.00-9.10 Introduction
Theme: Design science perspectives
9.10-
9.35
The Creative Process in Design Science Research: Identifying Patterns of Creativity, Matthew Mullarkey & Alan Hevner
9.35-10.00 The Development of a Practitioner Design Science Research Canvas, Tadhg Nagle & David Sammon
Theme: Digital innovation
10.00-10.25 The Digital Innovation Design Activities Wheel, Shirley Gregor & Alan Hevner
10.35-11.00 Practices, patterns and pragmatics research: strengthening social innovation, Hans Weigand & Aldo De Moor
11.00-11.15 A Method for Designing Digital Innovation Contest Measurement Models, Workneh Ayele, Gustaf Juell-Skielse, Anders Hjalmarsson & Paul Johannesson
Theme: Design science evaluation
11.25-11.50 Software Embedded Evaluation Support in Design Science Research, Leona Chandra Kruse, Jonas Sjöström, Amir Haj-Bolouri & Per Flensburg
11.50-12.15 Evaluation of Design Artifacts – more than prototypes and case studies, Patrick Brandtner, Markus Helfert, Andreas Auinger & Kurt Gaubinger
12.15-13.15 Lunch
Theme: IS research frameworks & methods
13.15-13.40 Separation or unity? Behavioral science vs. design science, Göran Goldkuhl
13.40-14.05 Towards a Foundational Framework for Information Systems Research: A Business Process Management Research Perspective, Alexander Herwix & Christoph Rosenkranz
14.05-14.20 Towards a Design Theory for Collaborative Qualitative Data Analysis, Peter Axel Nielsen
Theme: Digital design
14.30-14.55 An engaged scholarship approach to digital service design, Lars-Olof Johansson
14.55-15.20 Entrepreneurial Assembly of Options in the Design of a Digital Health Business, Shi-Ying Lim & Sirkka Jarvenpaa
15.20-15.50 Coffee break
15.50-16.05 Creating a Boundary Practice by Co-Design, Anna Sigridur Islind, Ulrika Lundh Snis, Lena Pareto & Hans Rystedt
16.05-16.20 On the Capabilities of Digital Artifacts, Lars Bækgaard
Theme: Digital artifact evaluation
16.30-16.45 Communication Using Signs: An Empirical Study of a Manufacturing Information System using Stamper’s OS Ladder, Gabriel J. Costello
16.45-17.00 There is (too much) pragmatics in non-use – to be pragmatic about it – a short investigation of classical pragmatism from a non-use perspective, Mats Edenius, Claes Thorén & Jenny Eriksson Lundström
17.00-17.30 Closure, SIGPrag business meeting

Venue

Time: December 10th 2016, 9:00 am – 5:30 pm
Place: Dublin Docklands, Customs House Quay, Docklands, Dublin


Call for papers – Pre-ICIS workshop on Practice-based Design and Innovation of Digital Artifacts

AIS SIGPRAG and Innovation Value Institute

Pre-ICIS workshop on ”Practice-based Design and Innovation of Digital Artifacts”

December 10, 2016, Dublin, Ireland

Background – pragmatic perspectives

There have been many calls in the information systems (IS) community for a stronger pragmatic focus. This can be seen in a growing interest for research approaches and methods in IS 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). This can also be said about design science research that 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 above-mentioned approaches have also emerged, e.g. 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). 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 contributes more clearly to the improvement of IS practices.

A pragmatic orientation can also be seen in the increasing interest in the conceptualization of practices, activities, agency and actions. Practice theorizing has gained an increased attention in IS studies (Orlikowski, 2008; Leonardi, 2011). There has been an interest for agency and action oriented theories in IS for quite some time; e.g. 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). From this follows also an interest for social and pragmatic views of the IT artifact (Aakhus & Jackson, 2005). This includes views of the IT artifact as contextually embedded and carriers of those social contexts (Orlikowski & Iacono, 2001) and such artifacts being tools for action and communication (Ågerfalk, 2003; Markus & Silver, 2008). Design research practice and the contributions to practice through appropriation of knowledge and methods and the contributions to academia through knowledge artifacts has been discussed (Sjöström, Donnellan & Helfert, 2012).

This enhanced practice and action orientation follows a growing awareness within 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. It is rather the case that there is move from an implicit pragmatism to an explicit one (Goldkuhl, 2012). For a long time IS scholars have addressed practical problems with an interest for improvement. That interest has led to the extensive development of methods, models and constructive frameworks for not only the design of IT artifacts, but also related to several other IS/IT phenomena like 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.

Workshop focus

This AIS SIGPRAG Pre-ICIS workshop has a general orientation towards pragmatic perspectives on IS as described above. The focus is on “Practice-based Design and Innovation of Digital Artifacts”. This means an emphasis on digital artifacts as embedded in social practices and carriers of elements in such practices. It emphasizes also the innovative nature of designing new artifacts and new practices. The workshop acknowledges different sub-themes within this broad workshop theme:

  • Ways to research practice-based design and innovation of digital artifacts
  • Ways to conceptualize and describe practices
  • Ways to conceptualize and describe digital artifacts
  • The processes of innovation and design of digital artifacts and practices

Topics within these sub-themes are described below.

Workshop purpose

This workshop is arranged in the same spirit and a continuation of earlier successful SIGPRAG workshops on “Practice research”, “IT Artifact Design & Workpractice Improvement” and “Action Research & Design Research Integrations”.

This SIGPRAG workshop intends to bring scholars and practitioners together for a knowledge exchange and development on research foundations and practical contributions concerning the design and innovation of digital artifacts and practices. The SIGPRAG workshop is intended to be a developmental arena with thoughtful and constructive feedback from reviews and comments on site. The workshop should be a place where you can present ideas in papers and get fruitful feedback for further development of the papers. A developmental arena means also taking responsibility for pushing contributions further to high-quality journal publications. From earlier SIGPRAG workshops (ADWI-2012, ADWI-2013 and ADWI-2014) several papers have been pushed further into special issues in the open access journal Systems, Signs & Actions. At least one special issue will be arranged in Systems, Signs & Actions inviting promising papers from this SIGPRAG workshop. The theme will be decided on later. We will possibly also work with some other outlet for another special issue. This depends on the outcome of the workshop.

Topics

The workshop can include papers from diverse fields of IS. Topics following the identified workshop sub-themes are listed below.

Ways to research practice-based design and innovation of digital artifacts; empirical research approaches such as:

  • Practice research
  • Action research
  • Design science research
  • Action design research
  • Case study research
  • Evaluation research
  • Discourse analysis
  • Pragmatic inquiries
  • Practitioner – research collaborations

Ways to research practice-based design and innovation of digital artifacts; knowledge creation approaches such as:

  • Design theory development
  • Method design/refinement
  • Grounded theory development
  • Multi-grounded theory development
  • Practical theory development

Ways to conceptualize and describe practices; for example:

  • Symbolic interaction
  • Language action
  • Socio-materiality
  • Institutionalism
  • Actor-networks
  • Infrastructure evolution
  • Socio-instrumentalism
  • Distributed cognition
  • Distributed agency

Ways to conceptualize and describe digital artifacts; for example:

  • Ensemble view
  • Socio-technical view
  • Contextual view
  • Functional tool view
  • Affordance view
  • Communicative action view

The processes of innovation and design of digital artifacts and practices; for example aspects such as:

  • Innovation strategies
  • Openness in innovation
  • Design thinking
  • Collaborative design
  • Stakeholder interactions (power-playing vs. value balancing and informed consensus building)
  • Practice understanding and diagnosis
  • Wicked problems
  • Problem formulation
  • Values and goals articulation
  • Idea generation
  • Idea capture
  • Design conversations
  • Idea visualization (modeling, prototyping)
  • Strategies for testing and evaluation

Dates and submission details

Submissions: October 6, 2016

Notification: October 31, 2016

Final manuscripts: November 30, 2016

Workshop: December 10, 2016

The workshop website is http://sigprag.net/. The workshop will follow an ordinary scientific procedure with submission of papers and selection of papers through peer-review (pursued by an international program committee). Papers are expected to be between 5-16 pages. We welcome full research papers as well as shorter papers (work-in-progress or position papers). For submissions we use the EasyChair system (https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=practdid2016). A format template can be found here. Workshop proceedings will be electronically published and distributed. There will be a small workshop fee covering catering.

Workshop co-chairs

Brian Donnellan, National University of Ireland Maynooth, Ireland (Brian.Donnellan@nuim.ie)

Göran Goldkuhl, Linköping University, Sweden (goran.goldkuhl@liu.se)

Markus Helfert, Dublin City University, Ireland (Markus.Helfert@computing.dcu.ie)

Jonas Sjöström, Uppsala University, Sweden (jonas.sjostrom@im.uu.se)

Organisers

AIS Special interest group on Pragmatic IS research (AIS SIGPRAG), http://sigprag.net/

Programme Committee

Mark Aakhus, USA

Pär Ågerfalk, Sweden

Stephan Aier, Switzerland

Michel Avital, Denmark

Rodney Clarke, Australia

Stefan Cronholm, Sweden

Matt Germonprez, USA

Rob Gleasure, Ireland

Philip Huysman, Belgium

Jenny Lagsten, Sweden

Mikael Lind, Sweden

Kalle Lyytinen, USA

Ulf Melin, Sweden

Matthew Mullarkey, USA

Jan Pries-Heje, Denmark

Joan Rodon, Spain

Matti Rossi, Finland

Gerhard Schwabe, Switzerland

Hans Weigand, the Netherlands

Robert Winter, Switzerland

More members to be announced.

References

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

Davison R M, Martinsons M G, Kock N (2004) Principles of canonical action research, Information Systems Journal, Vol 14, p 65–86

Sjöström, J, Donnellan B, Helfert M (2012) Applying Product Semantics to Design Research, IFIP Working Group 8.2 Conference : Shaping the Future of ICT Research: Methods and Approaches, University of South Florida, Tampa

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, 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

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

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

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

Van de Ven A (2007) Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research, Oxford University Press, Oxford

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, pp 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, Norwoo

Proceedings of the SIGPrag 2013 workshop

Proceedings of the SIGPrag 2013 workshop at ICIS 2013.

Workshop Programme and Proceedings

AIS SIGPRAG Pre-ICIS Workshop:
Practice-based Design and Innovation of Digital Artifacts

December 12, 2015, Fort Worth, Texas, USA
Room: Texas Ballroom J Omni
Time: 9 – 17

The workshop has a general orientation towards pragmatic perspectives on information systems. The focus is on “Practice-based Design and Innovation of Digital Artifacts” – i.e. an emphasis on digital artifacts as embedded in social practices. The workshop also emphasizes the innovative nature of designing new artifacts and new practices.

09:00 – 09:15 Introduction
Theme: Researching Practice-based design and Artifact Innovation
09:15 – 10:00 Introducing PADRE – Participatory Action Design Research
Amir Haj-Bolouri, Lennarth Bernhardsson and Matti Rossi
10.00 – 10:30 Closing the Practice Loop – Practice Design Research
Göran Goldkuhl and Jonas Sjöström
10:30 – 10:45 Coffee
10:45 – 11:15 A Design Science Inspired Methodology to Critical Interpretive Research in IS – A Foucauldian Approach
Michael Monson
Theme: Perspectives on Practice and Artifacts
11:15 – 11:45 A review of the Use of Practice Theory in Information Systems Research
Asin Tavakoli and Daniel Schlagwein
11:45 – 12:15 Unpacking the ‘Thing’ in the Internet of Things
Leighton Evans and Brian Donnellan
12:15 – 13:15 Lunch
Theme: Novel Artifacts and Theoretical Propositions
13:15 – 14:00 Supporting Business Model Idea Generation through Machine-generated Ideas – Towards a design theory
Thomas John
14:00 – 14:45 Improving Online Surveys through Respondent Behavior Logging
Hafijur Rahman and Jonas Sjöström
14:45 – 15:00 Coffee
15:00 – 15:45 Novelty in Collective Design Landscapes
Harris Kyriakou and Jeffrey V. Nickerson
15:45 – 16:15 Closing Discussion and AIS SIGPRag Business meeting.

CFP: AIS SIGPRAG Pre-ICIS workshop on”Practice-based Design and Innovation of Digital Artifacts”

December 12, 2015, Fort Worth, Texas, USA

Background – pragmatic perspectives

There have been many calls in the information systems (IS) community for a stronger pragmatic focus. This can be seen in a growing interest for research approaches and methods in IS 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). This can also be said about design science research that 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 above-mentioned approaches have also emerged, e.g. 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). 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 contributes more clearly to the improvement of IS practices.

A pragmatic orientation can also be seen in the increasing interest in the conceptualization of practices, activities, agency and actions. Practice theorizing has gained an increased attention in IS studies (Orlikowski, 2008; Leonardi, 2011). There has been an interest for agency and action oriented theories in IS for quite some time; e.g. 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). From this follows also an interest for social and pragmatic views of the IT artifact (Aakhus & Jackson, 2005). This includes views of the IT artifact as contextually embedded and carriers of those social contexts (Orlikowski & Iacono, 2001) and such artifacts being tools for action and communication (Ågerfalk, 2003; Markus & Silver, 2008). Design research practice and the contributions to practice through appropriation of knowledge and methods and the contributions to academia through knowledge artifacts has been discussed (Donnellan, Sjöström, Helfert, 2012).

This enhanced practice and action orientation follows a growing awareness within 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. It is rather the case that there is move from an implicit pragmatism to an explicit one (Goldkuhl, 2012). For a long time IS scholars have addressed practical problems with an interest for improvement. That interest has led to the extensive development of methods, models and constructive frameworks for not only the design of IT artifacts, but also related to several other IS/IT phenomena like 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.

Workshop focus

This AIS SIGPRAG Pre-ICIS workshop has a general orientation towards pragmatic perspectives on IS as described above. The focus is on “Practice-based Design and Innovation of Digital Artifacts”. This means an emphasis on digital artifacts as embedded in social practices and carriers of elements in such practices. It emphasizes also the innovative nature of designing new artifacts and new practices. The workshop acknowledges different sub-themes within this broad workshop theme:

  • Ways to research practice-based design and innovation of digital artifacts
  • Ways to conceptualize and describe practices
  • Ways to conceptualize and describe digital artifacts
  • The processes of innovation and design of digital artifacts and practices

Topics within these sub-themes are described below.

Workshop purpose

This workshop is arranged in the same spirit and a continuation of earlier successful SIGPRAG workshops on “Practice research”, “IT Artifact Design & Workpractice Improvement” and “Action Research & Design Research Integrations”.

This SIGPRAG workshop intends to bring scholars and practitioners together for a knowledge exchange and development on research foundations and practical contributions concerning the design and innovation of digital artifacts and practices. The SIGPRAG workshop is intended to be a developmental arena with thoughtful and constructive feedback from reviews and comments on site. The workshop should be a place where you can present ideas in papers and get fruitful feedback for further development of the papers. A developmental arena means also taking responsibility for pushing contributions further to high-quality journal publications. From earlier SIGPRAG workshops (ADWI-2012, ADWI-2013 and ADWI-2014) several papers have been pushed further into special issues in the open access journal Systems, Signs & Actions. At least one special issue will be arranged in Systems, Signs & Actions inviting promising papers from this SIGPRAG workshop. The theme will be decided on later. We will possibly also work with some other outlet for another special issue. This depends on the outcome of the workshop

Topics

The workshop can include papers from diverse fields of IS. Topics following the identified workshop sub-themes are listed below.

Ways to research practice-based design and innovation of digital artifacts; empirical research approaches such as:

  • Practice research
  • Action research
  • Design science research
  • Action design research
  • Case study research
  • Evaluation research
  • Discourse analysis
  • Pragmatic inquiries
  • Practitioner – research collaborations

Ways to research practice-based design and innovation of digital artifacts; knowledge creation approaches such as:

  • Design theory development
  • Method design/refinement
  • Grounded theory development
  • Multi-grounded theory development
  • Practical theory development

Ways to conceptualize and describe practices; for example:

  • Symbolic interaction
  • Language action
  • Socio-materiality
  • Institutionalism
  • Actor-networks
  • Infrastructure evolution
  • Socio-instrumentalism
  • Distributed cognition
  • Distributed agency

Ways to conceptualize and describe digital artifacts; for example:

  • Ensemble view
  • Socio-technical view
  • Contextual view
  • Functional tool view
  • Affordance view
  • Communicative action view

The processes of innovation and design of digital artifacts and practices; for example aspects such as:

  • Innovation strategies
  • Openness in innovation
  • Design thinking
  • Collaborative design
  • Stakeholder interactions (power-playing vs. value balancing and informed consensus building)
  • Practice understanding and diagnosis
  • Wicked problems
  • Problem formulation
  • Values and goals articulation
  • Idea generation
  • Idea capture
  • Design conversations
  • Idea visualization (modeling, prototyping)
  • Strategies for testing and evaluation

Dates and submission details
Submissions: September 30, 2015 October 5, 2015
Notification: October 31, 2015
Final manuscripts: November 30, 2015
Workshop: December 12, 2015

The workshop will follow an ordinary scientific procedure with submission of papers and selection of papers through peer-review (pursued by an international program committee). Papers are expected to be between 5-16 pages. We welcome full research papers as well as shorter papers (work-in-progress or position papers). For submissions we use the EasyChair system (https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=sigpragws2015).

A format template can be found here.

Workshop proceedings will be electronically published and distributed. There will be a small workshop fee covering catering.

Workshop co-chairs

Brian Donnellan, National University of Ireland Maynooth, Ireland (Brian.Donnellan@nuim.ie)
Göran Goldkuhl, Linköping University, Sweden (goran.goldkuhl@liu.se)
Jonas Sjöström, Uppsala University, Sweden (jonas.sjostrom@im.uu.se)
Mark Aakhus, Rutgers University, NJ, USA
(aakhus@rci.rutgers.edu)
Markus Helfert, Dublin City University, Ireland (Markus.Helfert@computing.dcu.ie)

Organisers

AIS Special interest group on Pragmatic IS research (AIS SIGPRAG), http://sigprag.net/

Programme Committee
Michel Avital, Denmark
Richard Baskerville, USA
Mike Chiasson, UK
Rodney Clarke, Australia
Stefan Cronholm, Sweden
Eoin Cullina, Ireland
Ulrich Frank, Germany
Matt Germonprez, USA
Rob Gleasure, Ireland
Shirley Gregor, Australia
Ola Henfridsson, UK
Philip Huysman, Belgium
William Kuechler, USA
Jenny Lagsten, Sweden
Matt Levy, USA
Kalle Lyytinen, USA
Matthew Mullarkey, USA
Matti Rossi, Finland
Mareike Schoop, Germany
Gerhard Schwabe, Switzerland
Christian Tornack, Germany
Roel Wieringa, the Netherlands

References

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

Davison R M, Martinsons M G, Kock N (2004) Principles of canonical action research, Information Systems Journal, Vol 14, p 65–86

Donnellan B, Sjöström, J, Helfert M (2012) Applying Product Semantics to Design Research, IFIP Working Group 8.2 Conference : Shaping the Future of ICT Research: Methods and Approaches, University of South Florida, Tampa

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, 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

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

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

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

Van de Ven A (2007) Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research, Oxford University Press, Oxford

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, pp 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

Pragmatist Information Systems Research

The Special Interest Group on Pragmatist IS Research (SIGPrag) was approved by the Association for Information Systems (AIS) council at its June 2008 meeting in Galway. SIGPrag is a response to a growing recognition of the importance of theorizing the IT artifact and its organizational and societal context from a pragmatic and action-oriented perspective. SIGPrag’s mission is to provide facilitate exchange of ideas and further development of this area of IS scholarship.

Pragmatist IS research rests on the following set of assumptions:

  • Human life is a life of activity.
  • Humans do things that effect changes in their environment and/or within themselves.
  • Doing permeates thinking, conceptualizations and language use.
  • Human consciousness is a practical one that is in constant interplay with interventive, investigative, and evaluative actions.
  • Practical consciousness is formed by experience from previous actions and participationin social contexts.
  • IT and information systems are fundamentally symbolic language systems.
  • Linguistically expressed collective presuppositions, norms and categories (such as thoseembedded in IT and information systems) serve human activity and life.
  • The true value of IT and information systems lies in their potential to support humancommunication and collaboration central to human activity and life.