-------- Forwarded Message --------
Call for Papers
AIS SIGPRAG Pre-ICIS 6th workshop on
”Practice-based Design and Innovation of Digital Artifacts”
December 12, 2018, San Francisco
Workshop focus
This AIS SIGPRAG Pre-ICIS workshop has a general orientation
towards pragmatic perspectives on IS. 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-based Design and
Innovation of Digital Artifacts”. 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
many 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.
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 engineering
* 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 28, 2018
Notification: October 31, 2018
Final manuscripts: November 30, 2018
Workshop: December 12, 2018
The workshop website is
http://SIGPrag.net/<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=practdid2018). A format
template can be found at the workshop website
(
http://SIGPrag.net/<http://sigprag.net/>). Workshop
proceedings will be digitally published and distributed. There
will be a small workshop fee covering catering.
Workshop co-chairs
Jonas Sjöström, Uppsala University, Sweden
(
jonas.sjostrom@im.uu.se<mailto:jonas.sjostrom@im.uu.se>)
Göran Goldkuhl, Linköping University & Uppsala University,
Sweden (
goran.goldkuhl@liu.se<mailto:goran.goldkuhl@liu.se>)
Markus Helfert, Dublin City University, Ireland
(
Markus.Helfert@dcu.ie<mailto:Markus.Helfert@dcu.ie>)
Amir Haj-Bolouri, University West, Sweden
(
amir.haj-bolouri@hv.se<mailto:amir.haj-bolouri@hv.se>)
Organisers
AIS Special interest group on Pragmatic IS research (AIS SIGPrag),
http://SIGPrag.net/<http://sigprag.net/>
Programme Committee
Mark Aakhus, USA
Stephan Aier, Switzerland
Steven Alter, USA
Lars Bækgaard, Denmark
Rodney Clarke, Australia
Kieran Conboy, Ireland
Gabriel Costello, Ireland
Stefan Cronholm, Sweden
Brian Donnellan, Ireland
Ulrich Frank, Germany
Matt Germonprez, USA
Rob Gleasure, Ireland
Shirley Gregor, Australia
Anders Hjalmarsson, Sweden
Paul Johannesson, Sweden
Gustaf Juell-Skielse, Sweden
Jenny Lagsten, Sweden
Ulrika Lundh Snis, Sweden
Ulf Melin, Sweden
Matthew Mullarkey, USA
Peter Axel Nielsen, Denmark
Réka Pétercsák, Ireland
Matti Rossi, Finland
Hannes Rothe, Germany
Mareike Schoop, Germany
Hans Weigand, the Netherlands
Mikael Wiberg, Sweden
Robert Winter, Switzerland
More members to be announced.
Pragmatist Information Systems Research
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),
language action perspective (Winograd & Flores, 1986) and work
systems theory (Alter, 2013). 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).
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
Alter S (2013) Is Work System Theory a Practical Theory of
Practice?, Systems, Signs & Actions, Vol. 7 (1), pp. 22–48
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
_______________________________________________
AISWorld mailing list
AISWorld@lists.aisnet.org