The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Action Design Research1
Abstract
Design research (DR) positions information technology artifacts at the core of the Information Systems discipline. However, dominant DR thinking takes a technological view of the IT artifact, paying scant attention to its shaping by the organizational context. Consequently, existing DR methods focus on building the artifact and relegate evaluation to a subsequent and separate phase. They value technological rigor at the cost of organizational relevance, and fail to recognize that the artifact emerges from interaction with the organizational context even when its initial design is guided by the researchers’ intent. We propose action design research (ADR) as a new DR method to address this problem. ADR reflects the premise that IT artifacts are ensembles shaped by the organizational context during development and use. The method conceptualizes the research process as containing the inseparable and inherently interwoven activities of building the IT artifact, intervening in the organization, and evaluating it concurrently. The essay describes the stages of ADR and associated principles that encapsulate its underlying beliefs and values. We illustrate ADR through a case of competence management at Volvo IT.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Design Science in Information Systems Research1
Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148625 · Cited by 10,707 · cited 9×
“This prevailing approach to DR is captured in the “build and then evaluate” cycle (italics ours) proposed by March and Smith (1995) and advocated by Nunamaker et al. (1991) and Hevner et al. (2004).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialDesign science in information systems research
(2004) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.5555/2017212.2017217 · Cited by 8,254
A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research
Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., & Chatterjee, S. (2007) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.2753/mis0742-1222240302 · Cited by 7,832 · cited 4×
“In this, ADR differs from the stage-gate models proposed in prior work (see March and Smith 1995; Peffers et al. 2008).”
MethodInfluentialOrlikowski, W. J. (2000) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.11.4.404.14600 · Cited by 4,760
The Nature of Theory in Information Systems1
Gregor, S. (2006) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148742 · Cited by 3,306 · cited 1×
“To define what constitutes a theory, we use Gregor’s (2006) criterion of “the power to generalize.”
MethodKnowing in Practice: Enacting a Collective Capability in Distributed Organizing
Orlikowski, W. J. (2002) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.13.3.249.2776 · Cited by 3,021
Information Technology and Organizational Change: Causal Structure in Theory and Research
Markus, M. L., & Robey, D. (1988) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.34.5.583 · Cited by 2,108
Diversity in information systems action research methods
Baskerville, R., & Wood-Harper, A. T. (1998) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000298 · Cited by 689
Cited by
The Digital Platform: A Research Agenda
de Reuver, M., Sørensen, C., & Basole, R. C. (2018) · Journal of Information Technology · doi:10.1057/s41265-016-0033-3 · Cited by 1,681
Pragmatism vs interpretivism in qualitative information systems research
Goldkuhl, G. (2012) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/ejis.2011.54 · Cited by 541
Design science research contributions: Finding a balance between artifact and theory
Georgia State University, Baskerville, R., Baiyere, A., University of Turku, F., Gergor, S., Australian National University, Hevner, A., University of South Florida, Rossi, M., & Aalto University (2018) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00495 · Cited by 437
Self-citationHuman-centered design for global health equity
Holeman, I., & Kane, D. (2020) · Information Technology for Development · doi:10.1080/02681102.2019.1667289 · Cited by 285
Artificial intelligence as digital agency
Ågerfalk, P. J. (2020) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1080/0960085x.2020.1721947 · Cited by 217
Metadata
- Authors
- Sein, M. K., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., & Lindgren, R.
- Venue
- MIS Quarterly
- Publisher
- MIS Quarterly
- Published
- 2011-03-01
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 37-56
- ISSN
- 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
- 2162-9730
- OpenAlex
- W3151678985
- Cited by
- 1,463
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 173.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Action Design Research1. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/23043488
- The paper
- Sein, M. K., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., & Lindgren, R. (2011). Action Design Research1. MIS Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.2307/23043488
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
