1 / 16

Action Research and Design Science Research - More similar than dissimilar

Action Research and Design Science Research - More similar than dissimilar. Petter Øgland, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo NOKOBIT, Nov 23.-25. 2009. SPI strategies that fail: 1) too little focus on technical issues 2) too little focus on social issues. Research questions.

schuyler
Download Presentation

Action Research and Design Science Research - More similar than dissimilar

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Action Research and Design Science Research - More similar than dissimilar Petter Øgland, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo NOKOBIT, Nov 23.-25. 2009

  2. SPI strategies that fail:1) too little focus on technical issues2) too little focus on social issues

  3. Research questions • RQ1: As social issues and technical issues are intertwined in SPI, why not address both problems at the same time, mixing AR with DSR? • RQ2: As the logic of SPI (IDEAL, Scrum, PDCA, etc) is similar to AR and DSR, why not use the SPI methodology as research methodology rather than applying versions of AR or DSR that has developed independently of SPI?

  4. The current AR/DSR debate • AR and DSR are similar, and DSR can be used for improving AR practice (e.g. Järvinen, 2007) • AR and DSR are structurally similar but philosophically different (e.g. Iivari & Venable, 2009) • My position: I think I understand Iivari & Venable, but I do not think that makes Järvinen wrong. • SPI relevance: CMMI could be used as AR framework

  5. Ivari & Venable (2009) Action (”radical change”) AR AR/DSR DSR (4) (3) (1) Subjective Objective Natural science Humanities (2) Perception (”regulation”) Järvinen (2007) Structure of the argument

  6. 1. From DSR to Natural Science MODEL Van Frassen (1980): Science is concerned with designing models, not “understanding” reality Simon (1969): There are two types of science in the world Natural science (no purpose): RQ: Find the laws of nature Science of the artificial (purpose): RQ: Find the optimal design

  7. 2. Natural science to humanities MODEL Creager (2007): Narratives, case studies, exemplars etc can be seen as models CP Snow (1959): Two cultures Natural science: RQ: Find the laws of nature Humanities: RQ: Interpretation & meaning

  8. 3. Humanities to social science MODEL Creager (2007): Narratives, case studies, exemplars etc can be seen as models Lewin (1943) Social science (action research): RQ: Find ways to support action Humanities: RQ: Interpretation & meaning

  9. 4. All science is DSR MODEL Behavioral & social science Engineering science Van Frassen (1980): Science is concerned with designing models, not “understanding” reality Humanities Natural science

  10. If we accept that all science is DSR, what does it mean in the context of SPI?

  11. Method • Cycle 1: I worked as a SE practitioner 1991-98, trying to write all SE documentation using the IMRAD format, and handed the work in for PhD evaluation • Cycle 2: From 1999 onwards I have been working as a SPI practitioner, trying to write all SPI documentation using the IMRAD format, and plan to hand in the results for PhD evaluation

  12. Results Start of development (no formal method) Unsuccessful method (rejected by PhD committee) Current method Following AR principles that Järvinen characterize as “poor science” Doing as Järvinen suggests; applying DSR for improving AR

  13. Research question Conclusion Scientific Model Hypotheses Discussion VALIDATE DESIGN Empirical design Results IMPLEMENT Current method (”V-model”; Novak & Gowin,1984) runs SPI projects along IMRAD structure Current method: Following Järvinen’s advice in style of making the model the object of the study Failed method: Järvinen’s “poor science”-(AR with data and theory, but no model)

  14. Validation of method (sample successful publications)

  15. Discussion • By using the functionalist assumptions of conventional SPI (e.g. CMMI or ISO 9000) as hypotheses for designing improvement interventions, failure of such designs result in the development of narrative models (exemplary case studies). • Järvinen’s idea about applying DSR for improving AR designs seems to work fine when doing SPI according to suggested model.

  16. Conclusion

More Related