Betreff: | [AISWorld] Cfp AIS SIGPrag workshop on IT Artefact Design & Workpractice Improvement |
---|---|
Datum: | Tue, 4 Mar 2014 13:58:13 +0000 |
Von: | Göran Goldkuhl <goran.goldkuhl@liu.se> |
An: | AISWorld@lists.aisnet.org <AISWorld@lists.aisnet.org> |
Call for Papers
The 3rd
international SIGPrag workshop on
IT Artefact Design & Workpractice Improvement
ADWI-2014
www.vits.org/adwi2014/
June 2, 2014,
Zeppelin University, Friedrichshafen, Germany
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
emphasise 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
research that aims for the generation of new and useful
artefacts (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 conceptualisation 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 artefact (Aakhus & Jackson,
2005). This includes views of the IT artefact as
contextually embedded and carriers of those social
contexts (Orlikowski & Iacono, 2001) and such
artefacts 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 artefacts 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 artefacts, 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 site and purpose
After the success
of the two ADWI workshops in 2012 and 2013, it is now time
for a third workshop on
IT Artefact Design
& Workpractice Improvement (ADWI-2014).
ADWI-2012 (www.vits.org/adwi/) was run in Barcelona in
June 2012 and ADWI-2013 (www.vits.org/adwi2013/) was run
in Tilburg in June 2013. ADWI-2014 will take place on June
2. ADWI-2014 will take place in Friedrichshafen (Germany)
at the Zeppelin University located at the Lake Constance
in the three nation triangle consisting of Germany,
Switzerland and Austria.
ADWI-2014 intends
to bring scholars and practitioners together for a
knowledge exchange and development on research foundations
and practical contributions concerning the design and
improvement of IT artefacts and workpractices. The ADWI
workshop is intended to be a developmental arena with
thoughtful and constructive feedback from reviews and
comments on site. ADWI 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 the
last two workshops (ADWI-2012 and ADWI-2013) 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 ADWI-2014. 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. We do not try to
enumerate such fields below; we only present four broad
topic areas (as three main pragmatic orientations). We
invite papers to ADWI-2014 in the following areas:
·
The design, selection, adaptation and use of
research methods
and
approaches that emphasise improvement of,
collaboration with and intervention in IS practices (e.g.
approaches like action research, design research,
evaluation research, practice research, engaged
scholarship).
·
The generation and use of
practice, activity,
agency, action oriented theories (or other types of
knowledge) about IS
phenomena.
·
Different kinds of
knowledge (e.g.
practical theories, frameworks, models, methods)
that contribute to
the improvement of IS practices. This includes
examples of such
knowledge from improvement, which can be taken from
diverse IS fields.
·
Application of knowledge that can assist to
innovate and improve practices in enterprises (case
studies, solutions, organizational experiences).
An information
system is always an embedded part of some practice. It is
never an isolated entity without relations to social
practices. The notion IS practice, which is used in the
topics above, stands for diverse IS related practices like
e.g. strategizing, development, procurement, deployment,
use,
evaluation and service management of
IS/IT.
Dates and submission details
Submissions: March 21, 2014
Notification: May 1, 2014
Final manuscripts: May 27, 2014
Workshop: June 2, 2014, Zeppelin University,
Friedrichshafen, Germany
The workshop
website is
www.vits.org/adwi2014/. 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.
Submit your paper at https://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=adwi2014. A format
template can be found at the workshop website (www.vits.org/adwi2014/). Workshop proceedings will be
electronically published and distributed. There will be a
small workshop fee covering catering.
Program 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)
Organising co-chairs
Markus
Helfert, Dublin City University, Ireland
(Markus.Helfert@computing.dcu.ie)
Katharina Große, Zeppelin University, Germany
(Katharina.Grosse@zu.de)
Organisers
AIS Special
interest group on Pragmatist IS research (SIG Prag)
Zeppelin
University, The Open Government Institute, Germany
Business
Informatics Group, Dublin City University, Ireland
Programme Committee
Pär Ågerfalk,
Sweden
Stephan Aier,
Switzerland
Michel Avital,
Denmark
Joao Carvalho,
Portugal
Rodney Clarke,
Australia
Gabriel Costello,
Ireland
Stefan Cronholm,
Sweden
Aldo de Moor, the
Netherlands
Owen Eriksson,
Sweden
Ulrich
Frank, Germany
Matt
Germonprez, USA
Rob
Gleasure, Ireland
Ola
Henfridsson, UK
Jonny
Holmström, Sweden
Dirk
Hovorka, Australia
John
Krogstie, Norway
Jenny
Lagsten, Sweden
Susanne
Leist, Germany
Matt
Levy, USA
Mikael
Lind, Sweden
Rikard
Lindgren, Sweden
Oliver
Müller, Lichtenstein
Angela Nobre,
Portugal
Andreas Opdahl,
Norway
John Stouby
Persson, Denmark
Joan Rodon, Spain
Kurt
Sandkuhl, Germany
Mareike Schoop,
Germany
Gerhard Schwabe,
Switzerland
Mark S. Silver,
USA
Jonas
Sjöström, Sweden
Rajiv
Vashist, Australia
Roel Wieringa, the
Netherlands
Fahri Yetim,
Finland
More members to be
announced.
References
Aakhus
M (2007) Communication as Design.
Communication Monographs, Vol 74 (1), pp 112117
Aakhus
M, Jackson S (2005) Technology, Interaction and Design. In
K. Fitch & B. Sanders (Eds.),
Handbook of Language and Social Interaction (pp.
411433).
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 251256
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 318
Davison R M, Martinsons M G, Kock N (2004)
Principles of canonical action research,
Information Systems
Journal, Vol 14, p 6586
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
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 320
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 14351448
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 251274
Van de Ven A (2007)
Engaged
scholarship: A guide for organizational and social
research, Oxford University Press,
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