Gregor (2006, p. 612) describes social-political questions as including consideration of:
How is the disciplinary knowledge understood by stakeholders against the backdrop of human affairs? Where and by whom has theory been developed? What are the history and sociology of theory evolution? Are scholars in the discipline in general agreement about current theories or do profound differences of opinion exist? How is knowledge applied? Is the knowledge expected to be relevant and useful in a practical sense? Are there social, ethical or political issues associated with the use of the disciplinary knowledge?
This section limits itself to briefly re-stating a consistent theme throughout this section (Section 3.3) that discipline level knowledge of design theory and design research is an on-going process yet to reach broad consensus. It then examines the views of axiology so far presented within that literature and identifies this work as taking an increasingly interpretive ethical perspective as defined by Iivari (2007).
Understanding of design research and design theory
As previously discussed, there remains some significant level of diversity in opinion around the nature of design research as well as how questions relating to domain, ontology, epistemology and socio-political questions are answered. Such diversity of opinion suggests that information systems as a field is still coming to terms with questions of design research and design theory. As such it is beyond
the scope of this chapter to offer a summary. Previous sections in this chapter, however, have identified the perspectives adopted in this work and shown that all are based on perspectives that have some level of acceptance within the discipline. Where appropriate, the previous sections have pointed to some of the literature in which further diversity of opinion around these questions has been expressed (Baskerville, 2008; Hevner et al., 2004; Iivari, 2007; Jarvinen, 2007; McKay & Marshall, 2005; Niehaves, 2007; Venable, 2006). Previous sections have also indicated where this thesis has contributed potential answers to these questions (Gregor & Jones, 2004, 2007).
Axiology and ethics
Iivari (2007, p. 39) argues that “Information Systems as design science” cannot be value-free, in particular because design research embodies a change in purpose from describing and explaining the world to a purpose of shaping it. Based on this perspective, it is important to express as explicitly as possible the basic values of research (Iivari, 2007). Cole et al. (2005) suggest that the axiology of both design research and action research is evident in the way both value the relevance of the research problem as well as a simultaneous emphasis on practical utility and theoretical knowledge. Kuechler and Vaishnavi (2008) suggest that design research has an implicit axiology that is utilitarian and pragmatic. Iivari (2007) drawing on earlier work (Chua, 1986; Iivari, 1991) identifies three ethical
positions for design research: means-end oriented, interpretive, and critical. These are summarised in Table 3.7.
Table 3.7. Three ethical positions for design research.
Position Description
Means-end oriented
Aim to achieve given ends with specific means
Interpretive The ends are not so clear, suggesting a need to focus on unintended consequences
Critical The ends need to be examined critically to enable the identification and removal of domination and ideological practice
Note: Adapted from “A paradigmatic analysis of Information Systems as a design science”, by J. Iivari, 2007, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 19(2). Much of the discussion around design research follows an implicit (Niehaves, 2007), or more or less (McKay & Marshall, 2005), positivist epistemology. The often acknowledged origins of design research in architecture and engineering influence the perspective that design research is about the technical side of artefacts (McKay & Marshall, 2005). Hevner et al. (2004, pp. 82-83) use a definition of the IT artefacts produced by design research that does not include people or elements of organisations nor the processes by which these artefacts evolve over time. Such a view of the artefact suggests a perspective on design research that concerns itself with the building of artefacts, which Iivari (2007) sees as naturally means-end oriented. McKay and Marshall (2005) argue that if the information systems discipline is seen as a sociotechnical discipline then the artefact of interest should encompass the people and contexts in which the IT artefact operates. Designers are not objective or value-free (McKay & Marshall, 2007b).
The values underpinning the current work have shifted over time due to increased experience with what works within a specific context. At the same time there have also been increasing advances in knowledge concerning alternative perspectives summarised by Iivari (2007) and in Table 3.7. Evident in early writings (Jones &
Buchanan, 1996) is a mainly means-end oriented – and from the viewpoint of today, a somewhat naïve – perspective focusing on the question “How do we build a tool that enables e-learning?”. Later writings (Jones, Jamieson et al., 2003; Jones & Lynch, 1999; Jones, Lynch et al., 2003) show greater recognition of the value and importance of the interpretive position. Iivari and Venable (2009, p. 7) describe how action research, the method employed here to formulate the ISDT, can be interpretive when it focuses on “rich understandings of the meanings attached to the executed action and its intended and unintended consequences.” This view is especially important in the phase of this work that is described in Chapter 5. This is the view, which led to the formulation of the final ISDT for emergent university e-learning systems. A particular focus of this ISDT is on having a system (process and product) that engages with and responds to the diversity of interpretations associated with university e-learning. To some extent, a focus on intended and unintended consequences can also be seen in the
importance placed on the mutability of the artefact in the anatomy of a design theory proposed by Gregor and Jones (2007).