http://www.diva-portal.org

This is the published version of a paper presented at 6th Pre-ICIS SIGPhil Workshop, Dublin, Ireland, December 11, 2016.

Citation for the original published paper:

Lakew, N., Hedström, K. (2016) In Search for a Coherent Meta-Theoretical Structure: A Literature Review of of . In: Proceedings of the Twenty-First SIGPhil Workshop, Dublin, Ireland, December 2016

N.B. When citing this work, cite the original published paper.

Permanent link to this version: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-53980 Philosophy of design – theoretical structure and review

In Search for a Coherent Meta-Theoretical Structure: A Literature Review of Philosophy of Design Completed Research Paper

Nathan Lakew Karin Hedström Mid Sweden University Örebro University [email protected] [email protected]

Abstract

This paper explores the possibility of building a coherent base for philosophy of design in IS research. After identifying and categorizing what is considered as design issues in the IS field, we propose a taxonomy of design abstractions in the form of a meta- theoretical structure. Based on the proposed hierarchical taxonomy, we have conducted a concept-centric literature review on four leading IS research journals published between January 2011 and July 2016. Our result shows that the IS field struggles with misalignment of philosophy of design issues, including constructing , research positioning, and an inconsistent knowledge base in design subject areas such as and . It is suggested that integrating philosophy of design into IS research could contribute to the development of a coherent body of . We conclude by proposing a model both to study and integrate philosophy of design into the IS research field.

Keywords : philosophy, metatheory, abstraction, taxonomy, IS design 1. Introduction

This paper aims to contribute to the research area of philosophy of design in information systems (IS). The paper proposes a meta-theoretical structure for philosophy of design as a taxonomy of abstraction. Based on the proposed taxonomy, a ‘concept-centric’ literature review is conducted for a period of more than five years (Jan 2011 – July 2016), using four leading IS research journals: MISQ, ISR, EJIS, and ISJ (Webster and Watson, 2002). There are a number of motives for conducting such an explorative literature review. Calls for philosophical research contribution continues, as the study of philosophy emerged as a place for inspiring ‘new ways of understanding’ central issues of the IS research fields (Hassan et al., 2015, Lee, 2004,Galle, 2002). Despite such recognition, the discussion of philosophy is not well integrated within mainstream research, such as IS design, IT artifacts, and organizational practices. In addition, the topic of design has witnessed a steady increase in research interest, encompassing issues that are related but not limited t0 digital technologies, ICT and societal changes, IT artifacts, personal information systems, ethical and privacy issues, , green IT, and medicine (Park et al., 2011, Lee, 2010). Such diversity of research interests present a challenge for the research community in terms of formulating an integral design knowledge base. As Tsui et al. (2010) noted, a philosophical taxonomy of design could provide a platform for a coherent research work. In line with this, the paper has a twofold contribution. First, it proposes a meta-theoretical structure of taxonomy to study philosophy of design. Second, and based on the developed taxonomy, it presents a literature review of philosophy of design in the field. The present review intends to provide an insight into the current role of philosophy of design in IS research and what contribution is sought for the future. Using the result of these two contributions, the final section concludes by proposing a multidimensional model to integrate philosophy of design into IS research.

Proceedings of the Twenty-First SIGPhil Workshop, Dublin, Ireland, December 2016 1 Philosophy of design – theoretical structure and review

We start by defining the concept philosophy of design. Unlike similarities with terms and connotations, Love (2000) stresses that philosophy of design is not design philosophy, research, design science research, design theory, or design methodology. For example, historically, design philosophy has been associated with ‘method development for design practices and hence implies a limited scope of philosophical issues of design’ (Yoshikawa, 1989). Both Love (2000) and Galle (2002) suggested that the philosophy of design can be best defined based on research questions posed by ‘design ’. Gregor (2006) also noted that such sets of questions have an obvious resemblance to questions examined by similar disciplines such as and . The following are examples of such combinations:1 1. Nature of design (ontological and epistemological) – What is design? What is a design theory? What are the valid characteristics of design theory? What are the values and ethics of design? What are the issues and definitions of philosophy of design? How is the knowledge of design obtained? How do we construct design knowledge and theory? What are the possible ways of representing design knowledge? (Gregor and Jones, 2007, Iivari, 2007) 2. Design practices (process and product) – What is the nature of an artifact? How does design present artifacts’ affordance to end uses? What are the elements of a product? Can aesthetics and sublimes be parts of artifacts’ elements? What is included in the design activities? What methods are used in the design process? (Benbasat and Zmud, 2003, Gregor and Hevner, 2013, Flusser, 2013, Fors and Stolterman, 2003, Nandhakumar and Avison, 1999) 3. Design consequences (, use and evaluation) – How do users adopt the design product? What is the impact of design products on end users’ practices? How can we evaluate the success/impact of design and its effect on social life? (Serafeimidis and Smithson, 2000, Leonardi, 2012b) In the above sample of questions, we noted that the design theme was repeated from different perspectives in a reflective manner of questioning; from conceptual abstractions to concrete representations. Kroes (2002) noted that philosophical studies, even when design processes and methods are discussed, focuses on theoretical and rational reflection discussions rather than the product-oriented discussions found in the sphere. In line with these arguments, we adopt Galle’s (2002) definition of philosophy of design, ‘the pursuit of insights about design by philosophical means’, as our working definition for the present research. The paper is organized as follows. First, we briefly present the topic of philosophy of design by discussing what constitutes ‘about design’ in IS research in section two. We also divide the design issues into set of categories based on their knowledge base or ‘theme containers’. Building on Love’s (2001) meta-theoretical formulation, we develop a meta- structure to create a coherent relationship between design themes; from abstract (i.e. ontological) to concrete (i.e. direct perception and use) levels of inquiry. This is followed by section three where we present a discussion of what constitutes as ‘philosophical means’ to limit the study of philosophy of design. Section four describes our research methodology and our manifest and latent content analysis processes. In section five we present our literature review results. Following the discussion of general findings, section six concludes by proposing a model to integrate the philosophy of design into the mainstream IS research. 2. Philosophy of design in IS research

With few exceptions, the IS research field traditionally discusses philosophy in relation with methodological issues (Hassan, 2011b). This means that philosophical discussions are almost synonymous with the discussion of methods and paradigm approaches, alternative research genres, pluralist approaches, and causal methods of explanation (Klein and Myers, 1999, Mingers, 2001, Orlikowski and Baroudi, 1991, Burgess et al., 2013). Following the same trend, philosophy of has focused heavily on the discussion of either different methods and activities to design IT artifacts, or analyzing success/failure

1 Comparable sets of questions to study a philosophy of particular discipline can be found in the literature. For instance, after reviewing proposals on how to approach the discipline of philosophy of technology, Reydon (2012) compiled three classes of inquiry for philosophy of technology: (1) systematic clarification of the nature of technology (2) systematic reflection on the consequences of technology for human life (3) systematic investigation of the practices of engineering, invention, designing, and making of things.

Proceedings of the Twenty-First SIGPhil Workshop, Dublin, Ireland, December 2016 2 Philosophy of design – theoretical structure and review during IS adoption (March and Smith, 1995, Peffers et al., 2007, Hevner et al., 2004, Venkatesh et al., 2012). This focus is an important area for philosophy of design, and aims to contribute to the construction of epistemological knowledge. Epistemological concern, historically, has a narrow philosophical focus and a close relationship with (Love, 2000). In this section, however, we attempt to expand the philosophical discussion to a broader design issues that could be discussed using philosophical insights. Based on Galle’s (2002) broader definition, we discuss the first part of the definition which entails what issues that are considered as ‘about design’. We proceed as follows: (1) which issues in IS research can be considered as design issues? (2) How can we thematized these issues to set of categories? (3) How do we ‘organize’ design issues to both develop a coherence between the themes and the overall design practice?

2.1. The design issues in IS

In their extensive literature review to delineate ‘the focus of design in IS’, Park et al. (2011) reported that synthesizing artifacts and analyzing the process of design have occupied most of the topic of IS design work. That is, design activities (process and methods) and products (artifacts in different forms) are considered to be the main design interests of IS research. Such focus exemplifies the influence of Simon’s (1969) work that aims to distinguish the design of the ‘artificial’ from the ‘natural’. In his two of the four main features that distinguish designed artifacts from the natural world, Simon (1969, p. 5) concluded that (1) artifacts are synthesizable, and (2) they are characterized in terms of functions, goals, adaptation. Even though the general focus of IS research can be seen as -oriented, there is a broad consensus among research that the nature of IS design is interdisciplinary. Evbuomwan et al. (1996), for example, identified the word design itself as connoting different meanings in the literature such as creative processes, efficient use of scientific principles, way of mastering the environment, prescription of embodiment, decision-making process, iterative process, the application of a rational and based process, investigative research process, and an exploratory activity. Others view design as having an important role to inset political (i.e. sustainability or well-beingness) and ethical values into digital technologies (Iivari, 2007, Feenberg, 1999). In such cases, the study of design methods amounts to a secondary concern, or a ‘matter of engineering’. Delineating design is one of the main challenges we faced in compiling this paper. To capture the core elements of the design project, we turned to the study of . Our approach is consistent with Wartofsky’s (1979) method of inquiry in which he developed an expose of the nature of technology over a period of time to study philosophy of technology. The word design originates from the Latin word designare , meaning plotting, marking out or, according to Flusser (2013), an act of scheming or deceivingly plotting. Mitcham and Holbrook (2006), well-regarded technology historians, describe the etymological meaning of the word design as having both noun (i.e. mental plan or artistic shape) and verb (i.e. mark out, plan, sketch, draw) connotations. According to them, the definition of design as we know it, both as noun and verb, only appears in mid-to-late sixteenth and early seventieth century. The design project is customarily reserved for the world of theology that accounts for God or nature. The transition period between the late 17 th century and the arrival of scientific proliferation offers a glimpse of both modern and pre-modern design issues. Mitcham and Holbrook (2006) reported that societal traditional values (i.e. design for the well- of society) and aesthetics were replaced by, or rather their focus was transformed into, modern engineering methods with emphasis on efficiency, rational and structural processes, and generalizability. The modern understanding of design process has become ‘analyzing (breaking down, reducing, assessing parts) and synthesizing (re-integrating things together)’ design problems . Furthermore, previous design product evaluation and testing , such as lived , have been replaced by simulations and testing models. Another factor noted that alters the design purpose was the introduction of the industrial revolution that led to the mode of mass production and consumption. The creation of consumerism has created its own way of ‘being-in-the-world’, and as Bauman puts it, has different ‘cognitive frames and tacit assumptions’ (Wong et al., 2012, Blackshaw, 2008). As such, design had to change its purpose to favor the new way of being-human. Such changes require that focus on creating patterns for mass production (i.e. generalizability), short-lived solutions (i.e. as opposed to sustainability focus), and fast-track testing (Mitcham, 2000). The design effort shifts into developing

Proceedings of the Twenty-First SIGPhil Workshop, Dublin, Ireland, December 2016 3 Philosophy of design – theoretical structure and review function-oriented artifacts, and related design issues such as optimizing design process and methods, design frameworks and models, instantiations, design constructs, and epistemology oriented design theory became the main focus of . Design research formulates these issues clearer and in a more organized manner, perhaps as a result of the field being more “scientise” compared to the pre-modern era (Cross, 2007). In the IS research field, Simon’s (1969) The Science of the Artificial is often cited as a leading guide for the act of designing. Simon argued that IS design is primarily concerned with the ‘functioning of an artifact and whether the artifact serves its intended purpose’ (Farrell and Hooker, 2012). As such, a should focus more on the artifact’s nature while functioning within the ‘outer environment’ (including its interfacing ability or what he calls ‘a meeting point’), rather than the artifact’s inner nature per se (Simon, 1969 p. 6–7). The latter concern, he argues, is one that should be left to science whose main interest is to contemplate the nature of things (Farrell and Hooker, 2012). The heavily citied design science research (DSR) approach, for example, bases Simon’s argument on defining what constitutes design issues (Hevner et al., 2004). Table 1 illustrates expected DSR outputs in the form of different ‘artifacts – constructs, models, frameworks, , design principles, methods, and/or instantiations —and design theory’ (Kuechler & Vaishnavi, 2004, p. 12). Material (instantiations) as well as abstract artifact production focus goals identifies the primary issues of design in DSR as methodological in nature. Output Description Constructs The conceptual vocabulary of a domain Models Sets of propositions or statements expressing relationships between constructs Frameworks Real or conceptual guides to serve as support or guide Architectures High level structures of Core principles and concepts to guide design Principles Methods Sets of steps used to perform tasks — how-to knowledge Instantiations Situated implementations in certain environments that do or do not operationalize constructs, models, methods, and other abstract artifacts; in the latter case such knowledge remains tacit. Design A prescriptive set of statements on how to do something to achieve a certain Theories objective. A theory usually includes other abstract artifacts such as constructs, models, frameworks, architectures, design principles, and methods. Table 1. Example of design issues in design science oriented research (Adopted from Kuechler & Vaishnavi, 2004) Iivari (2007) saw Design Science Research (DSR) as a chance to lay to rest the debate of why IS research should be conceived as a field. He proposed four important aspects of design for DSR projects: ontological, epistemological, methodological, and ethical. Using Popper’s (1978) three worlds (nature, consciousness and mental states, theories, knowledge and problems), he elaborated that the DSR is based on the assumption that IT artifacts: (1) can have a direct impact on how the natural world can be understood (2) ‘invades’ our mind and consciousness by affecting our perception of the world, and (3) these theoretical understandings are expected to align with other theories, both in IS research and across disciplines. Epistemologically, Iivari took a different path than the notable DSR proponents (Hevner et al., 2004) who claim that DSR epistemology originates from its pragmatic nature. Instead, he claims that IT artifacts may not have a true value in their own right and proposes three types of knowledge: conceptual, descriptive, and prescriptive knowledge. Methodologically, he proposes problem relevancy, prior design knowledge, the use of metaphors, and kernel theories as major contributions to effective design methods. What makes Iivari’s DSR discussion different from other DSR works could be his aim to include ethics as an IS design issue, even though he only devoted four short paragraphs to it. DSR, Iivari argues, is a means-end oriented project, hence it has consequences and is by no means value-free. He advised DS researchers to formulate the purpose of their design as explicitly as possible. Much of DSR works follows Iivari’s focus on designing effective IT artifacts, with the exception of ethics. An example of a DSR focus was illustrated in Table 1

Proceedings of the Twenty-First SIGPhil Workshop, Dublin, Ireland, December 2016 4 Philosophy of design – theoretical structure and review

In their discussion of the ‘anatomy of design theory’ , Gregor and Jones (2007) presented a deeper analysis of design theory, where design issues are buried in the theory construction. Based on the design theory studies of Dubin (1978) and Walls et. al (1992), they identified eight design theory components: purpose and scope, constructs, principle of forms/functions, testable propositions, justificatory knowledge, artifact mutability, principles of implementation, and expository instantiations. Their emphasis on artifact conceptualization (i.e. processes, methods, instantiations, mutability, and implementation) demonstrates the influence of Simon’s design science project. Design themes Brief descriptions Direct perception of The effect of designed product s on users and the actual of artifacts. Description of objects Simple description of artifacts, their types and processes. Behavior of elements Artifacts’ optimal use situations and their characteristics. Mechanisms of choices Why some artifacts/process es of design are chosen over others. Solution evaluations. Design methods Design methodology or theories of methods ’ description level. Design process structure Theories about the underlying structure of the design process, artifact types, and the influence of the design domain, culture, and other circumstances. Theories about the internal Reasoning and cognition of individual designers, collaborators, and processes of designers and cultural effects on designers. collaborations General design theories Design theory aims to describe the activity of designing as a whole, as well as its relationship with the object designed. Epistemology of design theory The study of design knowledge including its grounds, limits, criteria and theories of object and validity. Ontology of design Human values, fundamental assumptions, nature of design and reality

Table 2. Possible issues for the design research field (Adopted from Love, 2000) Others have suggested that the actual design issues are not methodological in nature, but societal. Feng and Feenberg (2008), for example, discussed a different matter of design which can generally be seen as a non- technical issue. They argue that one of the most important design issues is to determine technology values to realize more design possibilities. The first subject they discuss is the need to conceptualize the role of designers and their ability to imprint intentionality in the products. They determine that designers are constrained as much as end users by their cultural and societal contexts. These ‘contexts’ include the discussion of power and politics, cultural and historical conditions, and democratic values. Using of technology, they argued, such non-technical issues must be investigated to be incorporated into the actual designed artifacts. Mitcham (1994) also considered ontological questions, i.e. to design from a ‘non-technical dimension of reality’ based on viewpoints such as social theory, as a non-technical dimension. In the most extended theme based discussion, Love (2000) proposed a design taxonomy with a wider range of design issues. He identified ten different design related themes in the form of abstractions (see Table 2). His level of analysis (abstraction) ranges from direct perception (low level abstraction) to ontological discussion of reality (high level abstraction). Even though the content of abstractions were not his main focus, it can serve as a way to identify different design issues within design research. Finally, we have observed two other recurring aspects of design: aesthetics and sublimes . Even though the tradition of has integrated these notions well, IS research is yet to show interest in research projects of this kind. Hassan et al. (2015) argued that the IS field of human to computer interaction,

Proceedings of the Twenty-First SIGPhil Workshop, Dublin, Ireland, December 2016 5 Philosophy of design – theoretical structure and review , simulation and animation highly depend on an aesthetics knowledge base and calls for a more robust contribution on this design issue. What we can conclude from this brief review is that design issues are fragmented and very much interdisciplinary. The IS research field, particularly after the popularization of DSR, tends to focus on design philosophy issues that relate to designing effective IT artifacts while other design disciplines seem to focus on non-technical design issues. In Appendix II, we present what we believe would be reasonably inclusive IS design issues to summarize the brief review. Logically comparable design issues raised by different researchers are listed diagonally (note that valid comparability is not the issue here) in Appendix II. The Appendix also summarizes a response to the first part of Galle’s (2002) definition of philosophy of design (i.e. what are the ‘about design’ issues ?). In the next section, we present how we have thematized sets of design issues. This effort is needed to develop a coherent understanding of design issues and to develop a theoretical knowledge from the perspective of philosophy of design.

2.2. Thematizing design issues

IS research is often identified as a bridge field between natural and social science ‘reference fields’, and its interests includes not only two sides of stories but also investigating the ‘phenomenon that emerges between the two’ (Lee, 2001, Baskerville and Myers, 2002). What should be noted here is, however, that reference fields have different interpretations of any given design issue. For example, what is seen as an ethical design issue in one reference field can be seen as a readily acceptable way of doing design for the other. Furthermore, some design issues in one reference field may not be seen as a design issue by other fields. Simon’s argument to exclude a philosophical reflection on artifacts from the design issues, for example, is in disparity with the field’s interests, where theoretical works such as ‘Thing Theory’ are seen as fundamental to understand what an artifact is in the first place (Brown, 2010). Hence, it is more beneficial and technically conceivable to identify design issues based on theme or set of classes regardless of their perspective field or field of interest (i.e. technical, non-technical, etc.). Knowledge containers Love (2002) Cross (2001) Yo o (2010) Possible design themes Human, human -object, human - People Actors Human actors context, human-human interaction

Objects, object -object, object - Product Artifacts Artifacts/objects context interaction Context x and time Design domain Interaction of human, object , and x Experience Direct experience context x Process x Design activities

Table 3. Knowledge ‘containers’ and corresponding design themes In thematizing the design issues discussed so far, we find it useful to identify what Cross (2001) termed as knowledge containers. Knowledge containers are where design issues reside/are created. Cross (2001), in his analysis of the knowledge base for design, identified three ‘containers’ for design issues: People , product , and design process . He emphasizes the investigation of human ability to design including designers’ behavior, design skill ability, and learning as a design knowledge base. The design process, for Cross, includes methods, techniques, activities, modelling, and simulations. Products (artifacts) are another main source of knowledge as they embody design attributes. While discussing what defines a general experience of computing (i.e. experiential computing), Yoo (2010) identified four plausible knowledge ‘containers’: space, time, actors, and artifact . Yoo states that the notion of embodiment and body, within the boundaries of space and time, is an important context in the design of modern computing. The spatiotemporal context shapes what is possible for ‘embodied experience’. For Yoo, modern technology users (actors) are not just end-users in the design space; they

Proceedings of the Twenty-First SIGPhil Workshop, Dublin, Ireland, December 2016 6 Philosophy of design – theoretical structure and review represent , among other things, relationships based on time, location, interest, and tool use. Artifacts are being designed not just as tools to use but to mediate our understanding and interpretation of the world. Similarly, Love (2002) identifies three elements of the design knowledge base: human, object, and context. He argues that each can develop a relationship with another, and their combination can form nine design theory knowledge bases. Even though he intends to formulate such a combination to illustrate the interdisciplinary nature of design, together with preceding authors, it illustrates the attention given to these three knowledge base areas. Based on these knowledge containers, we have identified five themes: direct experiences, artifacts/objects, design activities, design domain, and human actors (see Table 3). Direct experience ‘resides’ in the interaction between artifacts (objects) and human actors. Yoo’s (2010) space and time knowledge base and Love’s (2002) description of context/human-object interaction are examples of such themes. The artifact/object design issues focus on the actual product of digital technologies, and are located in Love’s (2002) object, Cross’s (2001) product, and Yoo’s (2010) artifact knowledge base. Design activity issues reside in what Cross (2001) called ‘process’ where the engineering parts of design such as methods and techniques can be thematized. The design domain represents the theme of a design space, which Yoo (2010) discussed as ‘space and time’, and in Love (2002) corresponds to context. End users’ environment design issues such as culture are examples of design domain issues. Finally, we find human actors in which the main design knowledge originates and resides. In addition to these five design themes, Russel (2001) stated that the ‘problems of philosophy’ discussion in any field should include metaphysical (ontology) and theoretical knowledge development (epistemology) questioning. These issues are primary philosophical concepts, and guides the ‘behavior’ of the preceding and a lesser abstract design issues. Love (2002) also argued that we find general theories as less composite but still located in the philosophical spectrum to drive the general activity of the design issues. In addition, such general theories means a unique identity for the research area at hand (in our case design) when creating a relationship with other fields of interest (p. 306). General theory can be conceived as ‘meta- theories’ as they can be used to provide ‘a way of thinking about other sub-theories’ (Gregor, 2006). Consequently, we have thematized design issues into the following eight themes: direct experiences, artifacts/objects, design activities, design domain, human actors, general theory, epistemology, and ontology.

2.3. A meta-level theoretical abstraction structure to classify design issues

The next step in the process is to create a sensible relationship between these themes, i.e. a classification that enables us to study design issues systematically. From the outset, we would say that there is no one particular best practice to achieve this task. classification of design issues is fairly common in research. Mitcham (1994), for example, has developed a notion of humanistic vs. engineering matters of design. On the one hand, design issues such as ethics, aesthetics, , and ontological questions are considered humanist issues, on the other hand design processes, methods, and artifact development are seen as engineering issues. Fitzgerald and Howcroft (1998) have demonstrated the extensive use of dichotomy classifications in IS research, and they categorized design issues as hard vs. soft research interest. Some have argued that the has its own tradition and should not be seen as either engineering or humanities. Proponents of such a position argue that design issues must clearly separate between the discipline of science and to conduct a coherent theoretical analysis. Grant (1979), for example, writes that ‘the act of designing itself is not and will not ever be a scientific activity’. Using the notion of designedly, Cross (1982) argued that design has ‘its own way of knowing, thinking, and acting’. Nelson and Stolterman (2003) have also suggested that design has its own ‘culture of inquiry’ and is not ‘merely a variant of science, art, or technology’ (p.3). They argue that the science tradition that promotes analytic (systematic categorization and division of things ‘into constitute parts’) and ‘reductive thinking’ disrupts the tradition of ‘design culture’. In this paper, we adopt Love’s (2001) hierarchical base abstraction approach to categorize and structure different design issues (see Table 2). The reasons this approach was selected are the following: 1) Hierarchy abstractions provide a wider interdisciplinary approach to design issues, as design issues will not be discarded based on specific research interest. 2) The hierarchal structure offers an easy way to create

Proceedings of the Twenty-First SIGPhil Workshop, Dublin, Ireland, December 2016 7 Philosophy of design – theoretical structure and review relationships between pre/consequent design issues. In addition, level grouping, if necessary, can easily be achieved. 3) The approach paves way for a simplified paradigm to study philosophy of design research. 4) Finally, as Purao (2002) argued, theoretical and philosophical discussions needs to involve the construction of hierarchical abstracts and conceptual schemes to describe a ‘phenomenon by means of symbolic construction’ (p. 7).

2.3.1. Hierarchy, abstractions, and meta-level theory Hierarchy represents a ‘structure made up of levels’ (Purao, 2002). An example of such an hierarchical arrangement is Guba and Lincoln’s (1982) social theory paradigm where a level of hierarchy is stated as ‘ontology, epistemology, methodology, and methods’. Put simply, abstractions are a reduced or compacted sets of representations from corresponding details about a phenomenon in the world. Lee and Baskerville (2003) relates abstraction to the concept of generalization in that the latter is the process of forming a general conception ‘by the former from particular situations’. To cluster related design practices into groups, the notion of abstractions is applied in a form of spectrum in which the lowest level of design practice reflects to the concrete matters of design (i.e. perception and direct IS use studies) while the highest level presents the ontological questioning of design issues (Love, 2000). In natural science disciplines such as mathematics and logic, notations and the means of ‘Cartesian validations’ (i.e. x=y, y=z, ⇒ x=z) are applied to develop abstraction clustering (Love, 2000). Since the IS discipline has its reference field in both natural and social sciences, notational abstraction provides a possibility to develop an overall clustering for the design practice. As such, the alternative approach for humanistic oriented clustering of abstraction focuses on the ontological and epistemological understanding of the research interest. Theory building is simply a matter of creating a sensible relationship between concepts. To do so, we need to understand the nature of these concepts and their basic building blocks. For social research work, ontological and epistemological questioning accomplished just that. Ontological and epistemological questions for theory building are the equivalents of Cartesian validation or as Jung (1987) puts it, they are the sources of ‘coefficients’ for social studies in the same way variables are the coefficients of natural science studies. For example, if one wants to theorize ‘human ’, the attempt to do so begins with defining ‘human specificities (coefficients) with questions such as ‘what is the nature of being human or what is that makes us human’ (Jung, 1987). An example of such analysis can be found in Heidegger’s work where being-human is analyzed based on human existential features such as care, being-in-the-world, or being a practitioner (Heidegger, 1962). With Cartesian validation out of picture, the analysis focuses on elaborating the original setting/knowledge base that led to the particular phenomenon of interest to emerge as a subject of research. When discussing principles of abstraction based on empirical evidence, Klein and Myers (1999) stress the importance of a detailed elaboration of the context to understand how the abstracted theoretical insight emerges. The same principle can be applied here, though in our case the context can be traced back through an ontological and epistemological questioning of the subject of interest, also called a meta-level reflection. Based on their context/knowledge base, it is possible to cluster design issues according to their knowledge containers. Meta-level questions aim to find answers what knowledge base makes a subject of interest to be an object of analysis. Ontological and epistemological examples of such questions include ‘What is valid knowledge about the phenomenon of interest? What is a valid knowledge of X? How can we generate knowledge for X? What is the purpose of such knowledge? How can claimed knowledge to be evaluated?’ (Tsoukas and Knudsen, 2005). There is a pure contemplation of such knowledge and conceptual relationships at a higher theoretical level; hence the name meta-theoretical reflection. Love (2000) argued that meta-theoretical reflection is applicable to both natural and social sciences; thus making it an appropriate method of inquiry for interdisciplinary disciplines such as IS. Meta-theoretical analysis provides a means to explore the knowledge container of each design issue. It is possible that other researchers can ‘interpret’ design issues in such a way that some of them can belong to a different knowledge theme other than the one presented here. This is the nature of meta-theoretical analysis, as the researchers’ background is part of the ‘hermeneutical cycle of interpretation’ (Lakew and Lindblad-Gidlund, 2015). Together with the thematized design issues, we present eight design themes in the form of a meta- theoretical abstraction below. The choices are by no means exhaustive, but rather inclusive in nature. As

Proceedings of the Twenty-First SIGPhil Workshop, Dublin, Ireland, December 2016 8 Philosophy of design – theoretical structure and review

Lee (2004) has stated, the ‘pronouncement of any high level theoretical abstractions should not be taken as sacrosanct’, but subjected to continuous refinement. The hierarchical abstraction is listed in the form of concrete to high level abstraction order. The hieratical structure implies that the higher abstract level shapes the immediately preceding level, and at times all preceding theoretical abstractions. 1) Direct experiences – This is where most of IS ‘use practice’ related design issues are discussed, including ‘preadoption, adoption, and post adoption’ phenomena (Jasperson et al., 2005, Orlikowski, 2008). Yoo’s (2010) notion of experience and Love’s (2002) description of the interaction between human, object, and context are examples of this. The interpretative research works of IS usage studies such as socio-materiality and design, secondary designing (users as design), and design impact () can be categorized as this level of abstraction. 2) Artifacts/objects – This level includes the design structure of artifacts such as behavior of artifact, aesthetics and sublimes, instantiations, evaluations, and theorization of artifacts. In their literature review, Park et al. (2011) underline this abstraction as ‘ products’ of IS design, while Love (2002), Cross (2001), and Yoo (2010) described it as objects, products, and artifacts respectively. 3) Design activities – This level of abstraction includes design processes and methodologies. This can be discussed in the form of models, methods, techniques, UML’s, semantics, and other methods. Cross (2001), for example, presented design process as one of the main design knowledge containers where important input for further design can be found. 4) Design domain – This level discusses the design space or context such as social factors, general requirement elicitation/problem definitions, and other end user environment concerns such as organizational cultures, gender, and privacy issues. It can be compared to what can be found in Love’s knowledge container (2002) ‘context’ or Yoo’s (2010) ‘space and time’. 5) Human actors – Here the discussion focuses on designers’ states and their effect on the design at hand. This may include ‘designers’ behavior and personalities’, how designers think and develop their skills, designers’ philosophical stands and motivations (Cross, 2001). 6) General theory – Here the discussion focuses on a generalized theory of design issues for a particular design or a discussion of meta-theory about sub-theories or even a theory of design across disciplines. General theories mostly reflect on a ‘complete story of products’ design’, thus the relationship between abstractions two and three (Love, 2002). 7) Epistemology – This level is concerned with the construction of design knowledge. It entails the forms of design knowledge, authenticity of such knowledge, methods of testing, and ways of communicating this knowledge (i.e. subjective, objective or tangible form). The study of epistemology also includes whether such a knowledge can be acquired or experienced (Morgan, 1980). 8) Ontology – The study of ontology is the science of ‘what is’ – questioning the types of structures, events and processes of any area of reality (Smith, 2008). It defines forms of research questions, where researchers look for answers, and methods/approaches of a researcher. It is also at this level where design value, societal needs and well-being can be included in the discussion. Ontological crossroads are also seen a basis of ethical directions. 3. Questioning with philosophical attitude

The second part of our working definition of philosophy of design deals with the ‘pursuit of insight by philosophical means ’. That is, how do we determine if the literature under the review actually pursuit philosophical means to study a particular design abstraction? Galle (2002) confessed that since this question in itself is a philosophical question, it is an impossible task to provide a one fits all response. After reviewing nine accepted submissions of journals for a special issue of philosophy of design (Love, 2002, Houkes et al., 2002, Kroes, 2002, Bamford, 2002, Trott, 2002, Baljon, 2002, Coyne et al., 2002, Bucciarelli, 2002, Besteliu and Doevendans, 2002), he wrote: Rational reflection, and the cultivation of such argumentative power and conceptual awareness as it takes, is the business of philosophy as I understand it (2002, p. 6).

Proceedings of the Twenty-First SIGPhil Workshop, Dublin, Ireland, December 2016 9 Philosophy of design – theoretical structure and review

Thus, with minimal use of empirical evidence, most philosophical works in design involves ‘knowledge contemplation, theoretical argumentation of ideas, logical and rational reflection’; inherently a philosophical method of inquiry (Galle, 2002). Philosophical inquiries have their own way of thinking and questioning that aims to understand and critically reflect upon the ‘whatness or whyness’ of a given phenomenon itself rather than how it can be produced. In the same line of argument, Lee (2004) emphasized that philosophical research work may differ in their interest but share the same ‘form of imaginative thinking’ and critical reflection. The field of philosophy itself is not so much a discipline but rather an ‘altitude of inquiry that demands a willingness to see issues against their own background’ (Clarke, 1993). To have a philosophical attitude resembles taking the role of playing ‘devil’s advocate’ but for all the right reasons. Such attitude is what later became known as ‘Socrates’s method of inquiry’ in which he consistently questions beliefs and assumptions to lead others to think of alternative ways of practice (Phillips, 2010). As such, our understanding of ‘philosophical reflection’ does not have the form of a definition of a ‘noun’ or lists of constructs, but rather focus on ‘way of thinking and questioning’. In the beginning of this paper, we discussed examples of such ways of inquiry mostly in the ‘what’ or ‘why’ formulation. In the research world, these series of ‘why’ and ‘what’ questions can be used to understand assumptions, cross-examine validations, critical reflection, and search for an alternative knowledge base (Archie, 2012). Table 4 presents the philosophically oriented inquiry sample questions that guide both the selection and assignment of journal publications to the corresponding theoretical abstractions.

Theoretical Abstractions Abstraction focus/sample philosophical inquiry 1) Direct e xperience s What defines designed product experience? What does experienc e of IS use entail? What is the effect of design on everyday life? What part(s) of affects technology adoption? What evaluations are there to measure design impact? What does designing embodied experience entails? Why do users choose some over others? How do users’ background affects their IS experience? (Serafeimidis and Smithson, 2000, Leonardi, 2012b, Yoo, 2010) 2) Artifacts/objects What constitutes a design artifact? How do design artifacts behave during use (i.e. mediation, affordance)? What is an artifact made of? What is the role of artifacts in organizations (i.e. boundary objects, causal powers)? Can aesthetics and sublimes be a part of artifacts’ elements? What elements constitute an artifact (i.e. materiality)? (Love, 2000, Orlikowski and Iacono, 2001, Gaver, 1991) 3) Design activities How is an artifact designed ? What is included in design activities? What methods/procedures are used in the process of design? What is the nature of design activities (i.e. static or ecological)? What is the theoretical foundation of design methodologies? What are the main design activity problems? How can the success of design activities be evaluated? Which design values can be used as a basis for design activities (i.e. green IT, user-centeredness)? What design development approaches suits organizational needs (i.e. trade unionist, interactionist, SSM)? How does one decide which methodological paradigm to follow (i.e. interpretivist, phenomenology, and positivist)? (Walls et al., 1992, Nandhakumar and Avison, 1999, Hevner et al., 2004, Iivari et al., 1998, Gregor and Hevner, 2013) 4) Design domain What is the impact of the non -technical issues of user environment on design (i.e. culture)? How do we conceptualize the design domain (i.e. lifeworld, set of problems/ends)? What methods are there to capture a design domain (i.e. requirement elicitation methods, phenomenology)? Is gender an issue in design? How do we treat privacy issues in design? What geographical factors impact design? What impacts do group and individual background have on design? What is the effect of ‘formal and informal’ relationships among users and how does it dictate design? What is a user (i.e. social networks)? What does digital nativity mean for design (Orlikowski and Gash, 1994, Agarwal and Prasad, 1999)? 5) Human actors What is the impact of designers’ personal/group philosophy in general on the world of design? What mechanisms can be used to conceptualize communication among designers? How do designers’ behavior and personality affect design and use? How can we ‘evaluate design skills’?

Proceedings of the Twenty-First SIGPhil Workshop, Dublin, Ireland, December 2016 10 Philosophy of design – theoretical structure and review

What factors can affect designers’ skills in organizations (Tracey and Hutchinson, 2013 ,Yoo, 2010,Love, 2000,Love, 2002,Deng et al., 2015)? 6) General theory What is a theo ry? How do we group, classify, or subdivide theories? How do design theories handle the problem of induction? What top level Meta and kernel design theories are available? (Gregor and Jones, 2007, Gregor, 2006, Love, 2002, Walls et al., 1992, Pries-Heje and Baskerville, 2008) 7) Epistemology How is knowledge of design theory obtained? How do we construct design knowledge and theory? How can we test the validity of noted theoretical abstractions? What are the possible ways of representing design knowledge? What assumption are used as basis to develop a theory? What types of knowledge are there (i.e. conceptual, prescriptive, and descriptive)? (Gregor and Jones, 2007, Iivari, 2007, Love, 2000) 8) Ontology What is and reality? What is design? What societ al and subjective values are defined? How does conceptualization of reality impact the above design abstractions? What is ethics and ethical design? What are the problems and boundaries of philosophy of design? (Willis, 2006, Riemer and Johnston, 2013) Table 4. Meta-level theoretical abstraction for philosophy of design 4. Methodology

When writing this paper, we followed three steps. Aligned with Galle’s definition of philosophy of technology, the first two steps deal with developing an analytical framework to understand what constitutes philosophy of design. In the first step , we start by identifying design issues in the literature. The design literature review discussion of design issues in section two was used to answer this inquiry. After identifying the design themes, we have used the notion of ‘knowledge containers’ to divide design issues into a set of categories to study design in a systematic and coherent manner. Section 2.2 addresses this categorization. The final aim of the first step was to classify and create a sensible relationship between these categories. We have adopted Love’s (2001) hierarchical abstraction approach to classify and structure different design themes. Section 2.3 discusses such hierarchical approach. The second step was to address Galle’s second part of the definition of philosophy of design that concerns with what constitutes philosophical inquiry. Section 3 addressed this inquiry and developed a sample description of philosophical inquiries for the meta- theoretical abstraction of design themes. The third step deals with conducting a literature review within the area of philosophy of design. When conducting the literature review, we chose four top-tier IS journal publications where we believed quality IS research was included. We have sampled two pairs of journals each from North America and Europe to represent both traditional and nontraditional research work: MIS Quarterly (MISQ), Information Systems Research (IRS), European Journal of Information Systems (EJIS), and Information System Journal (ISJ). We exclude all editorial notes from the review as well as empirical evidence appendixes such as surveys and interviews. We have examined more than five years of published work between January 2011 and July 2016. In sum, 1,060 articles were considered within our search parameter. The sampling process consisted of two steps: (1) identify design related journals, and (2) journals with philosophy oriented discussion about design issues. In the first step, a general search for design related publications was conducted. To achieve this aim, we conducted a ‘manifest level content analysis’ (Holsti, 1969) of the 1,060 abstracts within our search parameter. Manifest level of analysis describes what a text visibly says and deals with the obvious aspect of the analysis. (Graneheim & Lundman, 2004). The content analysis was based on the design issues identified in the literature review presented in section 2.1 and summarized in Appendix II. As noted earlier, the categorization of these design issues in appendix II were simply to organize the large amount of design issues based on their similar focus, and valid comparability between the design topics was not the issue. The first step yielded 260 articles for further analysis.

In the second step, we read the full text of the selected 260 journals and applied latent level content analysis (Graneheim and Lundman, 2004) to further filter out design related journals with philosophical inclinations as conceptualized in section 3. Latent level analysis is used to explore a deeper meaning of a text and to formulate relationship between theoretical frameworks and empirical data (Graneheim and Lundman, 2004). In addition, Duriau et al., (2007) underline that latent level content analysis can be used

Proceedings of the Twenty-First SIGPhil Workshop, Dublin, Ireland, December 2016 11 Philosophy of design – theoretical structure and review in both inductive and deductive empirical analysis settings, and validity is higher in latent content analysis compare to manifest level analysis where reliability is the main concern. In this step, a two round of latent level analysis was applied. First, using the meta-level theoretical abstraction presented in Table 4, we thematized the 260 publications into their corresponding level of abstractions deductively. Through iterative reading and analysis of contextual meaning of texts in each journals, we were able to formulate a logical relationships between journals and the conceptual understanding of each meta-level theoretical abstractions. Second, each journals went through another round of latent content analysis to determine if they can be taken as philosophical research works. In section three, we have discussed how one can determines a particular research work as philosophical. In addition, both in the outset and particularity in Table 4 we have presented sample philosophical questions that can help to determine if a given research work reflects a philosophical inquiry. The high level theoretical nature of the abstractions and their focus has also assisted to ‘filter’ philosophical leaning research works as we defined it in section three. Both manifest and latent content analysis has followed qualitative approach (QA) techniques. Based on the second stage review, we have identified 154 journals as philosophical design journals. These 154 journals (MISQ – 51, IRS – 24, EJIS – 49, and ISJ – 30) will be the basis of our literature review result (see Table 5). Appendix I presents all 154 articles including description of the study and corresponding design abstractions. The next sections presents our findings. The summary of abstraction in each section aims to discuss which issues of the specific abstraction level have been the focus of the IS research. Journals First sampling Second Sampling Design Non -design Total Philosophical Non -philosophical Total discussion of design discussion design MISQ 82 248 330 51 31 82 ISR 53 268 321 24 29 53 EJIS 80 166 246 49 31 80 ISJ 45 118 163 30 15 45 Total 260 800 1060 154 106 260

Table 5. The sampling process 5. Literature review findings

5.1. General findings

From the total 1,060 journal articles originally collected for review, we identified about 14.5% to be relevant for the discussion of philosophy of design inquiries. The majority of findings, about 37%, focus on the direct experience abstraction, where IS adoption discussion based on TAM and behavioral models with researchers’ added/deduced variables was the main inquiry. The least developed philosophical inquiries were ontological discussions, reaching only 3%. In general, while the North American journals (MISQ and ISR) seemed more interested in a lower level abstraction research (general theory is exception here for MISQ); the European journals mostly focused on the mid-level abstraction (design activity, design domain, and human actors). Most works in epistemology and ontology were also from the European journals. Figure 1 provides general statistics of researchers’ focus of abstraction in the literature review. More detailed findings on each of the theoretical abstractions are presented in the following section.

Proceedings of the Twenty-First SIGPhil Workshop, Dublin, Ireland, December 2016 12 Philosophy of design – theoretical structure and review

Theoretical abstraction reports in percentage

3% Direct experience 8% Artifacts/objects Design activities 10% Design domain 37% Human Actors 10% General theory

7% Epistemology Ontology 19% 6%

Fig. 1 – The distribution of theoretical abstractions of philosophy of design

5.2. Direct experiences

More than half of the research on the discussion of philosophy of design in the sampled journals was focused on direct experience theoretical abstraction. The philosophical inquiry of direct experience commonly related to the discussion of user behavior including users’ ways of adapting technology, risk taking behaviors, resistance, and participation (Chen and Koufaris, 2015, Van Offenbeek et al., 2013). Others have developed (Germonprez and Hovorka, 2013, Elie-Dit-Cosaque and Straub, 2011, Mazmanian et al., 2014, Leonardi, 2011b, Leonardi, 2011a, Sun, 2012) theoretical frameworks and models to discuss users’ ways of adapting technology to their everyday practices. We have found apparent direct experience inquires in our review. Bødker, Gimpel, & Hedman (2014) emphasize that users may have different levels of engagement with technology – ‘time-out/time-in – where technology is used in a reflective or mundane manner. Drawing on sense-making theory, Tong, Tan, & Teo (2015) proposed a model of how to minimize the impact of what they call performance dip during the initial period of IS adoption. Carlo, Lyytinen, and Boland Jr (2012) use the notion of ‘mindfulness’ to propose how organizations can use the collective mind to appropriate IT capabilities. Polites and Karahanna (2012) discuss the residual effect of incumbent systems on users’ perception of new systems. It is clear that the field has a strong connection to TAM when discussing direct experience inquiries. With a few exceptions (Bødker et al., 2014, Levina and Arriaga, 2014), we found no deliberation on what everyday life with technology constitutes, the relationship between design philosophy and user experience, and how users evaluate their direct experience with technological artifacts.

5.3. Artifacts/objects

Although the word artifact or IT artifact has been popular since the publication of Hevener et al, 2004, the review has shown that what the word artifact as a concept connotes has become increasingly puzzling. Many of the journals cited in the artifact/objects category have called for IT artifact reconceptualization (Kallinikos et al., 2013, Lee et al., 2015, Doolin and McLeod, 2012) or elimination from the IS research vocabulary entirely (Alter, 2015). Lederman and Johnston (2011) pointed out that non-IT artifacts play a critical role in defining the use of IT artifact, recommending expanding artifact conceptualization. After suggesting that the word IT artifact and ‘artifact-cousins’, such as sociotechnical artifacts, should be removed from IS research, Alter (2015) proposes the use of simple concepts that can be understood easily, such as IT-enabled work systems. Lee et al. (2015) redefined IT artifact into three different types of IS artifacts: information, technology, and social artifacts. Each of which represents concepts such as messages, hardware, and social acts, in that order. They argue that even though IT artifacts continue to be part of the design research’s important concepts, an organization context means other artifacts come into play during IS use, and need to be considered. Volkoff and Strong (2013) propose the use of the critical realism approach to further clarify how IT artifacts evolve in their affordance while in use. Echoing the same sentiment, Kallinikos, Aaltonen, and Marton (2013) propose changing the reconceptualization of the traditional understanding of IT artifact. The two main theoretical lenses for understanding the nature of artifacts in the journals comes from

Proceedings of the Twenty-First SIGPhil Workshop, Dublin, Ireland, December 2016 13 Philosophy of design – theoretical structure and review affordance (Zheng and Yu, 2016, Volkoff & Strong, 2013) and sociomateriality (Doolin and McLeod, 2012). However, Orlikowski and Scott (2015) brought up the concept of materiality to discuss the interaction between activities, bodies, and artifacts; we observed that the discussion of IT artifact materiality such as aesthetics, mediation or sublimes is non-existent.

5.3. Design activities

The design activities’ abstraction constitute design process and methodologies where issues such as design models, paradigms, values, instantiation, constructions, and other methods of digital technology development are discussed. In the reviewed literature, we observed that method discussion occupies most of the design activity inquires. Iivari (2015), for example, compares two design research strategies by developing a concert IT artifact and meta IT artifact, in which he evaluates 16 dimensions/design related issues. Karlsson (2013) and White (2011) suggested that design methodologies should evolve into a situation-based engineering method as organizations behavior become more emergent. While Siau and Rossi (2011) have used literature review to categorized design models, Benlian (2011) and Venable, Pries- Heje, and Baskerville (2016) provide different approaches to evaluate design methods and models. Out of the different development method, the agile design method was given much consideration (Persson et al., 2012, Conboy et al., 2011). We have also observed a growing interest in devising a new methodological paradigm for design activities. While Baskerville and Myers (2015) propose design ethnography as a method of participation in design, Mattarelli, Bertolotti, and Macrì (2013) proposed a mix of ethnography and ground theory as methodological paradigm. Along the same lines, Goldkuhl (2012) has proposed and action research as a way forward for design research. Two studies (Ketter et al., 2016, Deng et al., 2016) stand out for promoting the alignment of design activates with ethical and values.

5.4. Design domain

The issues of design domain focus on how different non-IT related users’ environment (including users) affect the IS design. We have observed that the philosophical inquiry of the design domain is one of the abstractions that received the least critical reflection. A main focus of discussion targets how the design domain’s cultural background affects the requirement elicitation (RE) effort. Holmström and Sawyer (2011) have discussed how developers, at times, conveniently ignores complex parts of the design domain, and proposes the conceptualization of RE as a social construction where RE can be seen as a social learning activity. While Tuunanen and Kuo (2015) discussed how culture affects requirement elicitation and prioritization, Jayanth et al. (2011) examine factors that affect the vender-customer feedback loop during prototype use for the purpose of requirement analysis. Cultural background was also the focus of the abstraction where minority groups (Payton, 2015), cultural values of indulgence and (Zhou et al., 2015), and adapting users’ interface according to cultural background (Reinecke and Bernstein, 2013) were discussed. Finally, we find that social (Leclercq- Vandelannoitte, 2014) and organizational (Tyworth, 2014) identities and their effect on design were elaborated within the context of IS design.

5.5. Human actors

The discussion of the human actor abstraction focuses on designers’ overall professionalism; from motivation to skills, challenges, and teamwork. Designers’ motivation has been studied from perspectives such as wage and participation (Mehra and Mookerjee, 2012) and perceived community-based credibility and sponsorship (Spaeth et al., 2015). Others have focused on developing methods such as focus group (O'hEocha et al., 2012), Stochastic model (Singh et al., 2011), and (Von Krogh et al., 2012) to study designers’ skills and motivation. Designers’ behavior and attitude in the context of design and adoption stages have also received some attention (Deng et al., 2015, Lin et al., 2012, Zimmermann et al., 2013). Furthermore, we have seen relevant work on requirement analyst competence (Klendauer et al., 2012), team communication development (Ghobadi and Mathiassen, 2016), and sideline/peripheral open source development and its benefits for both organization and individual programmers (Mehra et al., 2011, Setia

Proceedings of the Twenty-First SIGPhil Workshop, Dublin, Ireland, December 2016 14 Philosophy of design – theoretical structure and review et al., 2012). With some exceptions (Klendauer et al., 2012, Deng et al., 2015), we find a general lack of discussion of specific designers’ skills, their personal/group design philosophy and its effect on design, and the designer’s way of perceiving user environment.

5.6. General theory

General theory discussions could have a broader focus, such as meta-level theories and sub-theory discussions (Gregor and Jones, 2007), or a narrow focus about a particular design issue, such as the above abstraction (i.e. direct experiences, human factors, etc.). In the latter case, the general theme is that such theories enable us to capture a complete story about a particular issue, which can be used to discuss specific issues such as factors/variables of the bigger picture. For example, a general theory of IS adoption can be used to discuss different factors related to adoption, variable lead/inhibit adoptions or IT acceptance and continuance use. In our review, with one exception (Niehaves and Ortbach, 2016), we have found that all general theory discussions focus on the narrow level design theoretical discussion. Theories within the context of direct experiences had much coverage with issues such as trust (Schlichter and Rose, 2013), IT reinvention (Nevo et al., 2016), technology use (Pozzebon et al., 2014), IS implementation success/failure (Cecez-Kecmanovic et al., 2014), and digitalized sociomateriality (Gaskin et al., 2014). Other contexts include design activities such as IS development (McLeod and Doolin, 2012), DSR (Gregor and Hevner, 2013), and sustainable system design methods (Seidel et al., 2013). We have found articles for each abstraction such as design domain (Appan and Browne, 2012), artifact/object (Faulkner and Runde, 2013), and human actors (Howison and Crowston, 2014). Consequently, general theory abstraction is one of the least covered philosophy of design subjects, in particular in terms of its broader contribution, such as design meta-level theories and the effect of ‘Hume’s problem of induction’ on deriving design theories (Tsang and Williams, 2012).

5.7. Epistemology

The discussion of epistemology focuses on how design knowledge (theory) can be constructed, validated, represented, or communicated in the IS research field. Overall, the epistemology abstraction literature reviewed in particular focused on the overall IS research knowledge construction. We have included such literature in our selection as their general view still echoes the design knowledge construction in different ways (Walsh, 2015,Hassan, 2014, Burton-Jones et al., 2015, Osei ‐Bryson and Ngwenyama, 2011). Others have taken a closer look at the design knowledge construction of specific design issues, such as computer-mediated social contexts (Vaast and Walsham, 2013), taxonomy development and knowledge production from the perspective of the DSR paradigm (Nickerson et al., 2013, Baskerville et al., 2015), heuristic design theorizing (Gregory and Muntermann, 2014), and context based theory building (Hong et al., 2013). Bera et al. (2014) and Clarke et al. (2016) have examined design model construction from the perspective of semantics and pragmatics. Grover and Lyytinen (2015) provide a fresh view on the effect of borrowing grand theories from reference fields and ‘domesticate’ into IS field of interest, which weakens IS research theories and mid-level frameworks. Overall, just like as in the case of general theories, the philosophy of design epistemology lags in many areas such as construction of design knowledge theories, design knowledge representation, types of design knowledge, design knowledge testing, and how design knowledge is acquired.

5.8. Ontology

We found that the discussion of ontology is the least covered area at the level of theoretical abstraction. Two journal articles discussed the philosophical foundation of the IS research identity (Hassan, 2011a) and the field’s research approaches (Basden, 2011). Faik and Walsham (2013) have looked at the reality of modernization through the lens of technology use. In particular, they have examined the context of technological change on the one hand and social, economic and political changes on the other. A more relevant work to the ontological discussion is found in Riemer and Johnston (2014) where they discuss two philosophical foundations, and dualism, that shape what constitutes reality, and how that frames different areas of IS research. After arguing the ontological stand of dualism as the customary design and IS use tradition, they propose a holistic philosophical foundation as an alternative foundation for different

Proceedings of the Twenty-First SIGPhil Workshop, Dublin, Ireland, December 2016 15 Philosophy of design – theoretical structure and review

IS research areas. Our overall take is that the knowledge of philosophical foundation of IS research, and design in particular, is hardly covered in the IS discipline and left for reference fields. Such knowledge include defining design, ethical design, problems and boundaries of philosophy of design, realty framing of different design issues and design values. 6. Discussions and conclusion

When reviewing different design themes in the form of meta-theoretical structure of abstractions, we have observed the following: 1. There is an apparent research gap in design discussions on the ontological level, and its effects can be clearly observed in the quality of design theories. The notion that the IS research field is a bridge between the reference fields of natural and social science has resulted in a limited interest in developing a metaphysical level understanding of general IS research concepts. Reference field metaphysical concept analysis shapes the behavior of (Lee, 2004), thus jump-starting from, for example, a borrowed general theory to develop sub-theories for lower level abstraction can result in poorly fitting frameworks and theories for the IS research context. This is particularly clear in the discussion of direct experiences abstraction, where different variables are selected from reference fields such as psychology to develop motives why users adopt technologies. The result is too many sub theoretical frameworks with small tweaks or even at times contradictory abstractions, misalignment between theories and real-life experiences, research work that sits on different ontological chairs, and what Bourdieu (1989) called ‘spontaneous’ research result with unsound epistemology construction (p. 8). Hassan (2011a) suggested that defining the IS research fields as ‘disciplines’ may release the field from such unwarranted dependency. Others, like Riemer and Johnson (2013), call for a more robust understanding of ontological positioning and its effect on how the IS field’s concepts, such as artifacts, are conceptualized. This argument is in line with literature findings that show that misalignments are the result of lack of metaphysical research work. 2. In cases when specific abstractions are covered, the field is less interested in developing a broader theory that enables formulating the abstractions overall interest or main interests within the abstraction. Sub-theories play an important role in developing a specific abstraction interest, and provide a means to relate to other theories. Examples of such sub-theories include theorizing a specific interest within the abstraction as a whole or developing a theory to define the abstraction itself. While Nevo et al. (2016), for example, develop a theory of IT reinvention as part of direct experience abstraction, Gregor and Hevner (2013) propose a theory for the overall DSR work. Most theoretical contributions we have observed focused on specific concepts/observable variables (reasonably useful) rather than a wider theoretical contribution of main abstraction concepts or the abstraction itself. 3. There is a lack of general design theories, presumably originating from lack of design discussions on the ontological level. Almost all general theories we observed focused on subclass theorizing; aiming at discussing specific themes in abstractions or a specific abstraction as a whole. However, the latter was rarely the case. We have observed that there is limited to no research contribution to general design theories. In addition, sub- theories that focus on specific abstractions (direct experience abstraction) are limited. In general, we have observed that while higher level abstractions are rarely covered or left for reference fields to do so, low level theorization of abstraction follows a single theme knowledge contribution rather than a wider concept theorization. 4. Few design issues were completely ignored. Apart from ontological deliberations, we observed a general lack of research on the materiality of artifacts such as aesthetics and sublimes. The IS research field has shown a great deal of interest in sociomateriality, and the notion of artifact materiality and change during use experience (Venters et al., 2014, Leonardi, 2012a). But no work has been reported in the area of aesthetics materiality of artifacts in the reviewed publications. The reasons behind such neglect may be the result of the assumption that research on aesthetics deals with artifact or cosmetics or that the concept belongs to reference fields. Aesthetic design aims to anticipate and develop sensorial experiences, thus is not limited to the concerns or lifestyle

Proceedings of the Twenty-First SIGPhil Workshop, Dublin, Ireland, December 2016 16 Philosophy of design – theoretical structure and review of specific artifact features, but ‘the stuff of everyday lives as lived and felt’ (Wright et al., 2008). Consequently, aesthetic research can contribute to the discussion of artifact design and sociomateriality. Other missing concepts in the research include ethical and value design, privacy and gender from the perspective of design (Sutanto et al. (2013) is the exception here), and the notion of the artifact itself. In the latter case, we have observed increasing calls for decommissioning the word IT artifact from IS research as a result of its ‘misuse’ (Alter, 2015). But we have also seen that the discussion of artifact materiality such as mediation, instrumentality, artifact-body interaction (Orlikowski & Scott (2015) is again an exception here) is non-existent. In addition, the transformation of an artifact from one state to another requires a philosophical discussion of artifacts’ nature, and more research is needed on this topic. The proposed taxonomy can be used as a starting point to develop a coherent philosophy of design research. As it is organized hierarchically, it can provide a means to ‘compare and contrast different theoretical abstractions’ (Love, 2000). In addition, hierarchical abstractions are well-positioned to propose an ‘ecological based’ models since the basic premise for the level of abstractions comes from the ‘dependency relationship’ (Miles, 1980). The concept of an ecology based model implies how interdependency between individual elements, in our case abstractions, can be incorporated to provide an overall model for the phenomenon of interest (i.e. philosophy of design). In their widely cited article DeLone and McLean (1992), for example, have implemented Miles’s (1980) ‘ecology model’ to describe the ‘dependency relationship’ between the six I/S success criteria they have identified, and developed an I/S success model. In line with the ecological concept of model development, we have identified three multidimensional ‘dependent relationships’ in the proposed taxonomy as a basis to propose a model to study philosophy of design (Miles, 1980). The first dependency relationship can be defined as ‘ directorial’, which bases a relationship that comes from being consecutive in the meta-theoretical abstraction such as the proposed taxonomy itself (Purao, 2002). Using Polanyi’s 2 (1968) principles of hierarchy abstraction, Purao (2002) noted that the dependency relationship between two consecutive levels is not about being aggregated or disaggregated from each other. In fact, both have their own anatomical independency. But, the upper level notations ‘exploit the lower levels toward a purpose, which the lower level, left to themselves, would not seek’ (p. 8). That is, the upper level holds a directorial role rather than a content determining role. The second dependency relationship can be seen between ‘level of abstractions (LoAs)’ ; where the identified level or set of levels, are aggregated into groups, and their dependency and identity can be defined on a group-for-group basis (Floridi and Sanders, 2004). Floridi (2008) argued that once such aggregated levelism has been applied, the consecutively based directional level of prominence no longer applies. The classic example of aggregate levelism is the use of ontology, epistemology, and methodology classification to define the particular interest of a given research. Following the tripartite approach, others have suggested computational, algorithmic, and implementational levels (Mart, 1982), semantic, syntactic, and the physical levels (Pylyshyn, 1984), and the intentional stance, the design stance, and the physical stance levels (Dennett, 1989). What the tripartite aggregated levelism share is that while higher level abstraction defines the principal (metaphysical) meaning of abstraction, the lower abstraction consists of application level abstraction. In addition, just like Dennett (1989), we find a middle ground abstraction that ‘governs general principles’ of any system. Following the same line of thought, we classify the first five lower level abstractions (direct experience, artifact/object, design activities, design domain, human actors) as application LoAs, while epistemology and general theory can be classified as knowledge base LoAs, in accordance with Dennett’s (1989) idea of using middle LoA as governing knowledge principles. Lee (2004) noted that while ontology can guide the behavior of epistemology, the same ontology ‘can lead to more than one epistemology’ (p. 6). Consequently, ontology abstraction is on the top level of directorial dependency as metaphysical LoAs. The

2 Polanyi (1968) provides two hierarchal principles: 1) Interface of mutual constraints, and (2) Level of control. The first principles stated that lower levels cannot simple aggregate into groups to create/substitute upper levels. The second principle asserts that low-level abstractions has a degree of freedom that cannot be violated by high-level abstraction.

Proceedings of the Twenty-First SIGPhil Workshop, Dublin, Ireland, December 2016 17 Philosophy of design – theoretical structure and review

advantage of such aggregated LoAs is that two groups of LoAs can simultaneously inform each other without hierarchy relationship concerns. The third dimension of dependency relationship can be a direct relationship between two non-consecutive abstractions while keeping the integrity of hierarchy. Such a transversal level of relationship can occur, especially when the lesser application level abstractions determine the behavior of a higher level abstraction. By using direct experience abstraction, for example, it can be determined how a human actor abstraction behaves in the real-world. Such a relationship, though not consecutive, highlights the possibility of a dependent relationship. Figure 2 presents a multidimensional philosophy of design model that recognizes all three dependency relationships. The dotted line in the pyramid suggests the possibility of a transversal level relationship between the abstractions.

Direct experiences

Artifact/objects Application Level of Abstractions (LoAs) Design activity Directorial dependency Design domain

Human actors

General theory Knowledge base Level of Abstract ions (LoAs)

Epistemology

Meta -physical Level of Abstraction (LoA) Ontology

Figure 2. Philosophy of Design Model

The model is an attempt to further delineate relationship building between abstractions, LoAs, and hierarchy-based relationships. The interdependent nature of abstractions, in particular, was given more emphasis where coherency in philosophy of design can be achieved from different relationship paths. The model clearly needs more validation and further improvement to be used as a guide to study and integrate philosophy of design within IS research field. Parallel with the proposed taxonomy, it can be a useful tool to map out relationship ambiguities and deviations on the level of abstraction.

In conclusion, the examination of the literature review on philosophy of design revealed the field’s struggle to study IS design in a coherent and unified manner. The literature review has identified some reasons behind such struggles and illustrate the need for a coherent body of work to define core design issues and their interdependent relationships. In line with this, we have proposed a taxonomy of meta-theoretical design abstractions. Based on the result of the literature review and proposed taxonomy, we further proposed a philosophy of design model to increase the coherency of design issues. The philosophy of design could contribute to a range of different IS research interests, from IS design practice to IS use and success evaluation, to ethics and societal change. To harness its benefits, it is important to continue improving the integration between philosophy and the IS research field. This paper hopes to contribute to that end.

Proceedings of the Twenty-First SIGPhil Workshop, Dublin, Ireland, December 2016 18 Philosophy of design – theoretical structure and review

References

AGARWAL, R. & PRASAD, J. 1999. Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new information technologies? Decision sciences, 30 , 361-391. ALTER, S. 2015. The concept of ‘IT artifact’has outlived its usefulness and should be retired now. Information Systems Journal, 25 , 47-60. APPAN, R. & BROWNE, G. J. 2012. The impact of analyst-induced misinformation on the requirements elicitation process. MIS Quarterly, 36 , 85. ARCHIE, L. C. 2012. Philosophy 102: Introduction to Philosophical Inquiry. BALJON, C. J. 2002. History of history and canons of design. Design Studies, 23 , 333-343. BAMFORD, G. 2002. From analysis/synthesis to conjecture/analysis: a review of Karl Popper's influence on design methodology in . Design Studies, 23 , 245-261. BASDEN, A. 2011. Enabling a Kleinian integration of interpretivist and socio-critical IS research: the contribution of Dooyeweerd's philosophy. European Journal of Information Systems, 20 , 477-489. BASKERVILLE, R. L., KAUL, M. & STOREY, V. C. 2015. Genres of inquiry in design-science research: Justification and evaluation of knowledge production. Mis Quarterly, 39 , 541-564. BASKERVILLE, R. L. & MYERS, M. D. 2002. Information systems as a reference discipline. Mis Quarterly , 1-14. BASKERVILLE, R. L. & MYERS, M. D. 2015. Design ethnography in information systems. Information Systems Journal, 25 , 23-46. BENBASAT, I. & ZMUD, R. W. 2003. The identity crisis within the IS discipline: Defining and communicating the discipline's core properties. MIS quarterly , 183-194. BENLIAN, A. 2011. Is traditional, open-source, or on-demand first choice? Developing an AHP- based framework for the comparison of different software models in office suites selection. European Journal of Information Systems, 20 , 542-559. BERA, P., BURTON-JONES, A. & WAND, Y. 2014. How Semantics and Pragmatics Interact in Understanding Conceptual Models. Information Systems Research, 25 , 401. BESTELIU, I. & DOEVENDANS, K. 2002. Planning, design and the post-modernity of cities. Design Studies, 23 , 233-244. BLACKSHAW, T. 2008. Bauman on Consumerism–Living the Market-Mediated Life. THE SOCIOLOGY OF ZYGMUNT BAUMAN , 117. BØDKER, M., GIMPEL, G. & HEDMAN, J. 2014. Time ‐out/time ‐in: the dynamics of everyday experiential computing devices. Information Systems Journal, 24 , 143-166. BOURDIEU, P. 1989. Social space and symbolic power. Sociological theory, 7, 14-25. BROWN, B. 2010. Objects, others, and us (The refabrication of things). Critical Inquiry, 36 , 183-217. BUCCIARELLI, L. L. 2002. Between thought and object in engineering design. Design studies, 23 , 219-231. BURGESS, K., KERR, D. V. & HOUGHTON, L. 2013. Paradigmatic approaches used in enterprise resource planning systems research: A systematic literature review. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 18. BURTON-JONES, A., MCLEAN, E. R. & MONOD, E. 2015. Theoretical perspectives in IS research: from variance and process to conceptual latitude and conceptual fit. European Journal of Information Systems, 24 , 664-679. CARLO, J. L., LYYTINEN, K. & BOLAND JR, R. J. 2012. of Collective Minding: Contradictory Appropriations of Information Technology in a High-Risk Project. MIS Quarterly, 36 , 1081-1108. CECEZ-KECMANOVIC, D., KAUTZ, K. & ABRAHALL, R. 2014. Reframing Success and Failure of Information Systems: A Performative Perspective. Mis Quarterly, 38 , 561-588. CHEN, C.-W. & KOUFARIS, M. 2015. The impact of decision support system features on user overconfidence and risky behavior. European Journal of Information Systems, 24 , 607-623. CLARKE, R., BURTON-JONES, A. & WEBER, R. 2016. On the Ontological Quality and Logical Quality of Conceptual-Modeling Grammars: The Need for a Dual Perspective. Information Systems Research . CLARKE, W. N. 1993. The Nature of Philosophical Inquiry. International Philosophical Quarterly, 33 , 474- 475. CONBOY, K., COYLE, S., WANG, X. & PIKKARAINEN, M. 2011. People over process: Key challenges in agile development. Ieee Software, 28 , 48.

Proceedings of the Twenty-First SIGPhil Workshop, Dublin, Ireland, December 2016 19 Philosophy of design – theoretical structure and review

COYNE, R., PARK, H. & WISZNIEWSKI, D. 2002. Design devices: digital drawing and the pursuit of . Design studies, 23 , 263-286. CROSS, N. 1982. Designerly ways of knowing. Design studies, 3, 221-227. CROSS, N. Design/science/research: developing a discipline. Fifth Asian Design Conference: International Symposium on Design Science, Su Jeong Dang Printing Company, Seoul, Korea, 2001. CROSS, N. 2007. From a design science to a design discipline: Understanding designerly ways of knowing and thinking. Design research now. Springer. DELONE, W. H. & MCLEAN, E. R. 1992. Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research, 3, 60-95. DENG, X., JOSHI, K. & GALLIERS, R. D. 2016. The Duality of Empowerment and Marginalization in Microtask Crowdsourcing: Giving Voice to the Less Powerful through . Mis Quarterly, 40 , 279-302. DENG, X. N., WANG, T. & GALLIERS, R. D. 2015. More than providing ‘solutions’: towards an understanding of customer ‐oriented citizenship behaviours of IS professionals. Information Systems Journal, 25 , 489-530. DENNETT, D. C. 1989. The intentional stance , MIT press. DOOLIN, B. & MCLEOD, L. 2012. Sociomateriality and boundary objects in information systems development. European Journal of Information Systems, 21 , 570-586. DUBIN, R. 1978. Theory building (Rev. ed.). New Symptoms of depression in adolescents with epi . Duriau, V. J., Reger, R. K., & Pfarrer, M. D. (2007). A content analysis of the content analysis literature in organization studies: Research themes, data sources, and methodological refinements. Organizational research methods , 10 (1), 5-34. ELIE-DIT-COSAQUE, C. M. & STRAUB, D. W. 2011. Opening the black box of system usage: user adaptation to disruptive IT. European Journal of Information Systems, 20 , 589-607. EVBUOMWAN, N., SIVALOGANATHAN, S. & JEBB, A. 1996. A survey of design , models, methods and systems. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 210 , 301-320. FAIK, I. & WALSHAM, G. 2013. Modernisation through ICTs: towards a network ontology of technological change. Information Systems Journal, 23 , 351-370. FARRELL, R. & HOOKER, C. 2012. The Simon–Kroes model of technical artifacts and the distinction between science and design. Design Studies, 33 , 480-495. FAULKNER, P. & RUNDE, J. 2013. Technological Objects, Social Positions, and the Transformational Model of Social Activity. Mis Quarterly, 37 , 803-818. FEENBERG, A. 1999. Questioning technology , Routledge. FENG, P. & FEENBERG, A. 2008. Thinking about design: Critical theory of technology and the design process. Philosophy and Design. Springer. FITZGERALD, B. & HOWCROFT, D. 1998. Towards dissolution of the IS research debate: from polarization to polarity. Journal of Information Technology, 13 , 313-326. FLORIDI, L. 2008. The method of levels of abstraction. Minds and machines, 18 , 303-329. FLORIDI, L. & SANDERS, J. W. 2004. The method of abstraction. Yearbook of the artificial. Nature, culture and technology. Models in contemporary sciences , 177-220. FLUSSER, V. 2013. Shape of things: A philosophy of design , Reaktion Books. FORS, A. C. & STOLTERMAN, E. Everyday Aesthetics and Design of Information Technology. Proceedings of the Fifth European Academy of Design Conference: Techne Design Wisdom, Barcelona,(28 April-30 April), 2003. GALLE, P. 2002. Philosophy of design: an editorial introduction. Design Studies, 23 , 211-218. GASKIN, J., BERENTE, N., LYYTINEN, K. & YOO, Y. 2014. Toward Generalizable Sociomaterial Inquiry: A Computational Approach for Zooming In and Out of Sociomaterial Routines. Mis Quarterly, 38 , 849- 871. GAVER, W. W. Technology affordances. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, 1991. ACM, 79-84. GERMONPREZ, M. & HOVORKA, D. S. 2013. Member engagement within digitally enabled social network communities: new methodological considerations. Information systems journal, 23 , 525-549. GHOBADI, S. & MATHIASSEN, L. 2016. Perceived barriers to effective knowledge sharing in agile software teams. Information Systems Journal, 26 , 95-125.

Proceedings of the Twenty-First SIGPhil Workshop, Dublin, Ireland, December 2016 20 Philosophy of design – theoretical structure and review

GOLDKUHL, G. 2012. Pragmatism vs interpretivism in qualitative information systems research. European Journal of Information Systems, 21 , 135-146. Graneheim, U.H. & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse education today, 24, 105-112. GRANT, D. 1979. Design methodology and design methods. Design Methods and Theories, 13 , 46-47. GREGOR, S. 2006. The nature of theory in information systems. Mis Quarterly , 611-642. GREGOR, S. & HEVNER, A. R. 2013. Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS quarterly, 37 , 337-355. GREGOR, S. & JONES, D. 2007. The anatomy of a design theory. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8, 312-335. GREGORY, R. W. & MUNTERMANN, J. 2014. Research Note—Heuristic Theorizing: Proactively Generating Design Theories. Information Systems Research, 25 , 639-653. GROVER, V. & LYYTINEN, K. 2015. New State of Play in Information Systems Research: The Push to the Edges. Mis Quarterly, 39 , 271-296. GUBA, E. G. & LINCOLN, Y. S. 1982. Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic inquiry. ECTJ, 30 , 233-252. HASSAN, N. R. 2011a. Is information systems a discipline? Foucauldian and Toulminian insights. European Journal of Information Systems, 20 , 456-476. HASSAN, N. R. 2011b. Is information systems a discipline[quest] Foucauldian and Toulminian insights. Eur J Inf Syst, 20 , 456-476. HASSAN, N. R. 2014. Paradigm lost… paradigm gained: a hermeneutical rejoinder to Banville and Landry’s ‘Can the Field of MIS be Disciplined?’. European Journal of Information Systems, 23 , 600-615. HASSAN, N. R., MINGERS, J. & BERND, S. 2015. Call for Papers: IS Philosophy Special Issue. European Journal of Information Systems, available at: http://www.palgrave- journals.com/ejis/EJIS_IS_Philosophy_Special_Issue-v6a_Final_Copy.pdf . HEIDEGGER, M. 1962. Being and Time. 1927. Trans. John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson. New York: Harper . HEVNER, A. R., MARCH, S. T., PARK, J. & RAM, S. 2004. Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28 , 75-105. HOLSTI, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. HOLMSTRÖM, J. & SAWYER, S. 2011. Requirements engineering blinders: exploring information systems developers’ black-boxing of the emergent character of requirements. European Journal of Information Systems, 20 , 34-47. HONG, W., CHAN, F. K., THONG, J. Y., CHASALOW, L. C. & DHILLON, G. 2013. A framework and guidelines for context-specific theorizing in information systems research. Information Systems Research, 25 , 111-136. HOUKES, W., VERMAAS, P. E., DORST, K. & DE VRIES, M. J. 2002. Design and use as plans: an action- theoretical account. Design studies, 23 , 303-320. HOWISON, J. & CROWSTON, K. 2014. Collaboration Through Open Superposition: A Theory of the Open Source Way. Mis Quarterly, 38 , 29-50. IIVARI, J. 2007. A paradigmatic analysis of information systems as a design science. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 19 , 39. IIVARI, J. 2015. Distinguishing and contrasting two strategies for design science research. European Journal of Information Systems, 24 , 107-115. IIVARI, J., HIRSCHHEIM, R. & KLEIN, H. K. 1998. A paradigmatic analysis contrasting information systems development approaches and methodologies. Information Systems Research, 9, 164-193. JASPERSON, J. S., CARTER, P. E. & ZMUD, R. W. 2005. A comprehensive conceptualization of post- adoptive behaviors associated with information technology enabled work systems. Mis Quarterly, 29 , 525-557. JAYANTH, R., JACOB, V. S. & RADHAKRISHNAN, S. 2011. Vendor and client interaction for requirements assessment in software development: implications for feedback process. Information Systems Research, 22 , 289-305. JUNG, H. Y. 1987. Being, praxis, and : Toward a dialogue between phenomenology and Marxism. Dialectical anthropology, 12 , 307-328. KALLINIKOS, J., AALTONEN, A. & MARTON, A. 2013. The Ambivalent Ontology of Digital Artifacts. Mis Quarterly, 37 , 357-370.

Proceedings of the Twenty-First SIGPhil Workshop, Dublin, Ireland, December 2016 21 Philosophy of design – theoretical structure and review

KARLSSON, F. 2013. Longitudinal use of method rationale in method configuration: an exploratory study. European Journal of Information Systems, 22 , 690-710. KETTER, W., PETERS, M., COLLINS, J. & GUPTA, A. 2016. A multiagent competitive gaming platform to address societal challenges. Mis Quarterly, 40 , 447-460. KLEIN, H. K. & MYERS, M. D. 1999. A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS quarterly , 67-93. KLENDAUER, R., BERKOVICH, M., GELVIN, R., LEIMEISTER, J. M. & KRCMAR, H. 2012. Towards a competency model for requirements analysts. Information Systems Journal, 22 , 475-503. KROES, P. 2002. Design methodology and the nature of technical artefacts. Design studies, 23 , 287-302. KUECHLER, B. & VAISHNAVI, V. 2004. Design Science Research in Information Systems. Jan. LAKEW, N. & LINDBLAD-GIDLUND, K. 2015. Toward Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis–Exploring Technology Adoption and Continuous Use as Lifeworld Experience. LECLERCQ-VANDELANNOITTE, A. 2014. Interrelationships of identity and technology in IT assimilation. European Journal of Information Systems, 23 , 51-68. LEDERMAN, R. & JOHNSTON, R. B. 2011. Decision support or support for situated choice: lessons for system design from effective manual systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 20 , 510-528. LEE, A. 2001. MIS quarterly’s editorial policies and practices. Mis Quarterly, 25 , iii-vii. LEE, A. S. 2004. Thinking about social theory and philosophy for information systems. Social theory and philosophy for Information Systems , 1-26. LEE, A. S. 2010. Retrospect and prospect: Information systems research in the last and next 25 years. Journal of Information Technology, 25 , 336-348. LEE, A. S. & BASKERVILLE, R. L. 2003. Generalizing generalizability in information systems research. Information systems research, 14 , 221-243. LEE, A. S., THOMAS, M. & BASKERVILLE, R. L. 2015. Going back to basics in design science: from the information technology artifact to the information systems artifact. Information Systems Journal, 25 , 5-21. LEONARDI, P. 2011a. When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: Affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies. MIS Quarterly, 35 , 147-167. LEONARDI, P. 2012a. Materiality, Sociomateriality, and Socio-Technical Systems: What Do These Terms Mean? How are They Related? Do We Need Them? Materiality and organizing: Social interaction in a technological world , 25-48. LEONARDI, P. M. 2011b. WHEN FLEXIBLE ROUTINES MEET FLEXIBLE TECHNOLOGIES: AFFORDANCE, CONSTRAINT, AND THE IMBRICATION OF HUMAN AND MATERIAL AGENCIES. MIS Quarterly, 35 , 147-168. LEONARDI, P. M. 2012b. Materiality, sociomateriality, and socio-technical systems: what do these terms mean? How are they related? Do we need them? Materiality and organizing: Social interaction in a technological world , 25-48. LEVINA, N. & ARRIAGA, M. 2014. Distinction and status production on user-generated content platforms: Using Bourdieu’s theory of cultural production to understand social dynamics in online fields. Information Systems Research, 25 , 468-488. LIN, T. C., HSU, J. S. C., CHENG, K. T. & WU, S. 2012. Understanding the role of behavioural integration in ISD teams: an extension of transactive memory systems concept. Information Systems Journal, 22 , 211-234. LOVE, T. 2000. Philosophy of design: a meta-theoretical structure for design theory. Design studies, 21 , 293-313. LOVE, T. 2002. Constructing a coherent cross-disciplinary body of theory about designing and designs: some philosophical issues. Design Studies, 23 , 345-361. MARCH, S. T. & SMITH, G. F. 1995. Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision support systems, 15 , 251-266. MART, D. 1982. A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. San Francisco: WH Freeman and Company. MATTARELLI, E., BERTOLOTTI, F. & MACRÌ, D. M. 2013. The use of ethnography and grounded theory in the development of a management information system. European Journal of Information Systems, 22 , 26-44. MAZMANIAN, M., COHN, M. L. & DOURISH, P. 2014. Dynamic Reconfiguration in Planetary Exploration: A Sociomaterial Ethnography. Mis Quarterly, 38 , 831-848.

Proceedings of the Twenty-First SIGPhil Workshop, Dublin, Ireland, December 2016 22 Philosophy of design – theoretical structure and review

MCLEOD, L. & DOOLIN, B. 2012. Information systems development as situated socio-technical change: a process approach. European Journal of Information Systems, 21 , 176-191. MEHRA, A., DEWAN, R. & FREIMER, M. 2011. Firms as incubators of open-source software. Information Systems Research, 22 , 22-38. MEHRA, A. & MOOKERJEE, V. 2012. Human capital development for programmers using open source software. MIS quarterly, 36 , 107-122. MILES, R. H. 1980. Macro Organizational Behavior, Goodyear, Santa Monica. Cal . MINGERS, J. 2001. Combining IS research methods: towards a pluralist methodology. Information systems research, 12 , 240-259. MITCHAM, C. 1994. Thinking through technology: The path between engineering and philosophy , University of Chicago Press. MITCHAM, C. 2000. On character and technology. Technology and the good life , 126-148. MITCHAM, C. & HOLBROOK, J. B. 2006. Understanding technological design , Springer. MORGAN, G. 1980 Paradigms, Metaphors, and Puzzle Solving in Organization Theory Administrative Science Quarterly, 25 , 605-622. NANDHAKUMAR, J. & AVISON, D. E. 1999. The fiction of methodological development: a field study of information systems development. Information technology & people, 12 , 176-191. NELSON, H. G. & STOLTERMAN, E. 2003. The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world: Foundations and fundamentals of design competence , Educational Technology. NEVO, S., NEVO, D. & PINSONNEAULT, A. 2016. A Temporally Situated Self-Agency Theory of Information Technology Reinvention. Mis Quarterly, 40 , 157-186. NICKERSON, R. C., VARSHNEY, U. & MUNTERMANN, J. 2013. A method for taxonomy development and its application in information systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 22 , 336-359. NIEHAVES, B. & ORTBACH, K. 2016. The inner and the outer model in explanatory design theory: the case of designing electronic feedback systems. European Journal of Information Systems . O'HEOCHA, C., WANG, X. & CONBOY, K. 2012. The use of focus groups in complex and pressurised IS studies and evaluation using Klein & Myers principles for interpretive research. Information Systems Journal, 22 , 235-256. ORLIKOWSKI, W. & SCOTT, S. V. 2015. The Algorithm and the crowd: Considering the materiality of service innovation. ORLIKOWSKI, W. J. 2008. Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Resources, co-evolution and artifacts , 255-305. ORLIKOWSKI, W. J. & BAROUDI, J. J. 1991. Studying information technology in organizations: Research approaches and assumptions. Information systems research, 2, 1-28. ORLIKOWSKI, W. J. & GASH, D. C. 1994. Technological frames: making sense of information technology in organizations. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 12 , 174-207. ORLIKOWSKI, W. J. & IACONO, C. S. 2001. Research commentary: Desperately seeking the “IT” in IT research—A call to theorizing the IT artifact. Information systems research, 12 , 121-134. OSEI ‐BRYSON, K. M. & NGWENYAMA, O. 2011. Using decision tree modelling to support Peircian abduction in IS research: a systematic approach for generating and evaluating hypotheses for systematic theory development. Information Systems Journal, 21 , 407-440. PARK, J., BOLAND JR, R. & YOO, Y. 2011. Discovering the meanings of design in IS: reviews and future directions. Service-Oriented Perspectives in Design Science Research. Springer. PAYTON, F. C. 2015. Cultures of participation—for students, by students. Information Systems Journal . PEFFERS, K., TUUNANEN, T., ROTHENBERGER, M. A. & CHATTERJEE, S. 2007. A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of management information systems, 24 , 45-77. PERSSON, J. S., MATHIASSEN, L. & AAEN, I. 2012. Agile distributed software development: enacting control through media and context. Information Systems Journal, 22 , 411-433. PHILLIPS, C. 2010. Socrates Cafe: A Fresh of Philosophy: A Fresh Taste of Philosophy , WW Norton & Company. POLANYI, M. 1968. Life's Irreducible Structure Live mechanisms and information in DNA are boundary conditions with a sequence of boundaries above them. Science, 160 , 1308-1312. POLITES, G. L. & KARAHANNA, E. 2012. Shackled to the Status Quo: The Inhibiting Effects of Incumbent System Habit, Switching Costs, and Inertia on New System Acceptance. MIS quarterly, 36 , 21-42.

Proceedings of the Twenty-First SIGPhil Workshop, Dublin, Ireland, December 2016 23 Philosophy of design – theoretical structure and review

POPPER, K. 1978. Three Worlds, The Tanner Lectures on Human Values. lecture delivered at the University of Michigan . POZZEBON, M., MACKRELL, D. & NIELSEN, S. 2014. Structuration bridging diffusion of innovations and gender relations theories: a case of paradigmatic pluralism in IS research. Information Systems Journal, 24 , 229-248. PRIES-HEJE, J. & BASKERVILLE, R. 2008. The design theory nexus. MIS quarterly , 731-755. PURAO, S. 2002. Design research in the technology of information systems: Truth or dare. GSU Department of CIS Working Paper , 45-77. PYLYSHYN, Z. W. 1984. Computation and cognition , Cambridge Univ Press. REINECKE, K. & BERNSTEIN, A. 2013. Knowing What a User Likes: A Design Science Approach to Interfaces that Automatically Adapt to Culture. Mis Quarterly, 37 , 427-453. REYDON, T. A. 2012. Philosophy of technology. RIEMER, K. & JOHNSTON, R. B. 2013. Rethinking the place of the artefact in IS using Heidegger's analysis of equipment. European Journal of Information Systems . RIEMER, K. & JOHNSTON, R. B. 2014. Rethinking the place of the artefact in IS using Heidegger's analysis of equipment. European Journal of Information Systems, 23 , 273-288. RUSSELL, B. 2001. The problems of philosophy , Oxford University Press. SCHLICHTER, B. R. & ROSE, J. 2013. Trust dynamics in a large system implementation: six theoretical propositions. European Journal of Information Systems, 22 , 455-474. SEIDEL, S., RECKER, J. C. & VOM BROCKE, J. 2013. Sensemaking and sustainable practicing: functional affordances of information systems in green transformations. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 37 , 1275-1299. SERAFEIMIDIS, V. & SMITHSON, S. 2000. Information systems evaluation in practice: a case study of organizational change. Journal of Information Technology, 15 , 93-105. SETIA, P., RAJAGOPALAN, B., SAMBAMURTHY, V. & CALANTONE, R. 2012. How peripheral developers contribute to open-source software development. Information Systems Research, 23 , 144-163. SIAU, K. & ROSSI, M. 2011. Evaluation techniques for systems analysis and design modelling methods–a review and comparative analysis. Information Systems Journal, 21 , 249-268. SIMON, H. A. 1969. The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA . SINGH, P. V., TAN, Y. & YOUN, N. 2011. A hidden Markov model of developer learning dynamics in open source software projects. Information Systems Research, 22 , 790-807. SMITH, B. 2008. Ontology, in The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Computing and Information. SPAETH, S., VON KROGH, G. & HE, F. 2015. Perceived firm attributes and intrinsic motivation in sponsored open source software projects. Information Systems Research, 26 , 224. SUN, H. 2012. Understanding user revisions when using information system features: Adaptive system use and triggers. MIS quarterly, 36 , 453-478. TONG, Y., TAN, S. S.-L. & TEO, H.-H. 2015. The Road to Early Success: Impact of System Use in the Swift Response Phase. Information Systems Research, 26 , 418-436. TRACEY, M. W. & HUTCHINSON, A. 2013. Developing designer identity through reflection. TROTT, E. 2002. Permanence, change and standards of excellence in design. Design Studies, 23 , 321-331. TSANG, E. W. & WILLIAMS, J. N. 2012. Generalization and induction: misconceptions, clarifications, and a classification of induction. Mis Quarterly, 36 , 729-748. TSOUKAS, H. & KNUDSEN, C. 2005. Introduction: The need for meta-theoretical reflection in organization theory. TSUI, E., WANG, W. M., CHEUNG, C. F. & LAU, A. S. 2010. A concept–relationship acquisition and approach for hierarchical taxonomy construction from tags. Information processing & management, 46 , 44-57. TUUNANEN, T. & KUO, I.-T. 2015. The effect of culture on requirements: a value-based view of prioritization. European Journal of Information Systems, 24 , 295-313. TYWORTH, M. 2014. Organizational identity and information systems: how organizational ICT reflect who an organization is. European Journal of Information Systems, 23 , 69-83. VAAST, E. & WALSHAM, G. 2013. Grounded theorizing for electronically mediated social contexts. European Journal of Information Systems, 22 , 9-25. VAN OFFENBEEK, M., BOONSTRA, A. & SEO, D. 2013. Towards integrating acceptance and resistance research: evidence from a telecare case study. European Journal of Information Systems, 22 , 434-454. VENABLE, J., PRIES-HEJE, J. & BASKERVILLE, R. 2016. FEDS: a framework for evaluation in design science research. European Journal of Information Systems, 25 , 77-89.

Proceedings of the Twenty-First SIGPhil Workshop, Dublin, Ireland, December 2016 24 Philosophy of design – theoretical structure and review

VENKATESH, V., THONG, J. Y. & XU, X. 2012. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS quarterly, 36 , 157-178. VENTERS, W., OBORN, E. & BARRETT, M. I. 2014. A trichordal temporal approach to digital coordination: the sociomaterial mangling of the CERN grid. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 38 , 927-949. VOLKOFF, O. & STRONG, D. M. 2013. Critical Realism and Affordances: Theorizing IT-Associated Organizational Change Processes. Mis Quarterly, 37 , 819-834. VON KROGH, G., HAEFLIGER, S., SPAETH, S. & WALLIN, M. W. 2012. Carrots and rainbows: Motivation and social practice in open source software development. Mis Quarterly, 36 , 649-676. WALLS, J. G., WIDMEYER, G. R. & EL SAWY, O. A. 1992. Building an information system design theory for vigilant EIS. Information systems research, 3, 36-59. WALSH, I. 2015. Using quantitative data in mixed-design grounded theory studies: an enhanced path to formal grounded theory in information systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 24 , 531- 557. WARTOFSKY, M. W. 1979. Philosophy of technology. Current Research in Philosophy of Science, East Lansing (MI): Philosophy of Science Association 171-184. WEBSTER, J. & WATSON, R. T. 2002. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 26 , 3. WHITE BAKER, E. 2011. Why situational method engineering is useful to information systems development. Information Systems Journal, 21 , 155-174. WILLIS, A.-M. 2006. Ontological designing. Design philosophy papers, 4, 69-92. WONG, P. H., BREY, P., BRIGGLE, A. & SPENCE, E. 2012. Thinking Through Consumption and Technology. The Good Life in a Technological Age. , 157-167. WRIGHT, P., WALLACE, J. & MCCARTHY, J. 2008. Aesthetics and experience-centered design. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 15 , 18. YOO, Y. 2010. Computing in Everyday Life: A Call for Research on Experiential Computing. Mis Quarterly, 34. YOSHIKAWA, H. 1989. Design philosophy: the state of the art. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology, 38 , 579-586. ZHENG, Y. & YU, A. 2016. Affordances of social media in collective action: the case of Free Lunch for Children in China. Information Systems Journal . ZHOU, Z., JIN, X.-L., FANG, Y. & VOGEL, D. 2015. Toward a theory of perceived benefits, affective commitment, and continuance intention in social virtual worlds: cultural values (indulgence and individualism) matter. European Journal of Information Systems, 24 , 247-261. ZIMMERMANN, A., RAAB, K. & ZANOTELLI, L. 2013. Vicious and virtuous circles of offshoring attitudes and relational behaviours. A configurational study of German IT developers. Information Systems Journal, 23 , 65-88.

Proceedings of the Twenty-First SIGPhil Workshop, Dublin, Ireland, December 2016 25 Appendix I Table 1 – Direct experience

Authors Study description Description of philosophical inquiry Srivastava, Ranganathan, & Loo (2011) Using mindfulness as a theoretical base for suc cessful technology implementation Technology implementation

Bhattacherjee & Lin (2015) Three alternative influences that shape continuance behavior; reasoned action, experiential IS continuance use response, and habitual response.

Sharma & Rai (2015) The effect of IS leaders and their perception of technological factors on adoption decision IS process innovation and adoption

Scott, DeLone, & Golden (2016) Public Value theory to reposition IS Success Model to encompass three value clusters: IS adoption success efficiency, effectiveness and social value

Elie-Dit-Cosaque & Straub (2011) Coping Model of User Adaptation to measures and understand systems usage Understanding system usage and adaptation

Turel (2015) The study of IS discontinuance in hedonic system IS discontinuance

Hu, Kettinger, & Poston (2015) customer value perspective in the social media context and factors predicting satisfaction How to calculate social values from IS use and continued use

Chen & Koufaris (2015) DSS systems three options to users that appears to be useful, but risky; degree of choice, Users’ risky behavior due to system choices competition among concurrent users, and the use of training to increase system familiarity.

Van Offenbeek, Boonstra, & Seo (2013) Two behavioral dimensions; ranging from high use to non-use, and from enthusiastic to Technology acceptance and resistance aggressive resistance.

Söllner, Hoffmann, & Leimeister (2016) Multiple targets of trust for the success of IS adoption Network trust relationship in IS adoption

Bhattacherjee and Park (2014) A model of end-user migration from client-hosted computing to cloud computing Migration from client host systems to cloud

Laumer, Maier, Eckhardt, & Weitzel (2016) Comparing users' of the technology with their perceptions of work routines to Perception of technology vs. routine on adoption success analyzing user resistance behavior. The model uses work system theory

Lyytinen & Newman (2015) How weak user network and long due technology alignment affect adoption Analyzing user participation in IS adoption

Rodon, Sese, & Christiaanse (2011) Conceptual lens for managerial intervention and users' appropriation Post-implementation

Germonprez and Hovorka (2013) New methodological way to study Digitally enabled social networks (DESN) Socio-technical use as communal engagement

Herath et al (2014) User intention to adopt an email authentication service Users’ intention to adopt vs. perception of risk

Bødker, Gimpel, & Hedman (2014) The study of users and system interaction with ordinary and extra ordinary intervals A case of experiential computing

Saeed & Abdinnour (2013) The study of post adoption in the self-service systems Post adoption

Wang & Benbasat (2013) Investigates the effects of a user -system interaction mode (USIM), on users' effort -related Users’ evaluation of o nline products based on interaction and quality-related assessments

(Peng & Dey (2013) The effect of network centrality and closure on technology adoption Users’ evaluation of adoption experience

Kang, Lim, Kim, & Yang (2012) Predict and explain the use of collaborative technologies (CT) and the task performance of IS adoption and diffusion individual users as a result of using CT

Levina & Arriaga (2014) Analysis social status production processes with user-generated content (UGC) platforms Social identities

Venkatesh, Zhang, & Sykes (2011) Understanding factors that defines the use of healthcare systems and the consequences of IS diffusion and adoption in healthcare using such systems

Aggarwal, Kryscynski, Midha, & Singh (2015) Users’ actual and perceived IT knowledge on IS adoption process IS adoption and continuance

Brown, Venkatesh, & Goyal (2012) Expectation confirmation model that considers both experience and expectation Technology acceptance

Burton-Jones & Grange (2012) Understanding the concept of effective system use and what drives it. Effective IS adoption and performance

Venkatesh, Thong, Chan, & Hu (2016) Managing citizen uncertainty of the use of e-gov’t IS Adoption and developing trusted experience

Tong, Tan, & Teo (2015) How to manage early adoption dip as users’ struggle with unfamiliar systems Early postadoption management

Sun (2013) A model to explain how herd behavior occurs during initial adoption and its effect on Post adoption and users’ behavior continuance use.

Barrett, Heracleous, & Walsham (2013) Rhetorical approach, framing and ideology, as alternative paradigm to IT diffusion IS diffusion

Venters, Oborn, & Barrett (2014) Sociomaterial perspective on digital coordination to understand how the nonhuman and Sociomateriality human agencies involved in coordination are embedded in the past, present, and future.

Carlo, Lyytinen, & Boland Jr (2012) How organizations need to act with collective mindfulness while appropriating IT Complex sociomateriality system capabilities

De Guinea & Webster (De Guinea & Webster, 2013) IS use patterns as individuals' emotions, cognition, and behaviors while employing an IS use pattern information technology to accomplish a work-related task

Nan (2011) A CAS model of IT use that encodes a bottom-up IT use processes Collective level IT use

Bala & Venkatesh (2013) Outcomes of changes in employees' job characteristics following an ES implementation IS adoption and Change in everyday life

(Venkatesh, Thong, & Xu (2012) Extended UTAUT2; with three constructs into UTAUT: hedonic motivation, price value, and IT acceptance habit. Individual differences-namely, age, gender, and experience

Stein, Newell, Wagner, & Galliers (2015) Studying the role of emotions in how specific IT use patterns emerge. Emotional factors in users' behaviors

Mazmanian, Cohn, & Dourish (2014) Examines how system and users reconfigure each other Sociomateriality configuration

Brown, Venkatesh, & Goyal (2014) Validating expectation confirmation research in IS adoption IT acceptance

(Dobson, Jackson, & Gengatharen (2013) Discuses about individual reflexivity in explaining the adoption decision and potential IS adoption and users’ behavior adoption barriers

Murray & Häubl (2011) How users' freedom of choice, or the lack thereof, could affect interface preferences Users’ freedom of choice and IS adoption

Hsieh, Rai, Petter, & Zhang (2012) Explains the role of front-line employee users' satisfaction with mandated use of CRM in Mandated IS adoption and quality of service determining their service quality

Rivard & Lapointe (2012) Discusses how implementers' responses--and their effect--when users resist IS adoption Users’ resistance and implementers response

Leonardi, Bailey, Diniz, Sholler, & Nardi (2016) Discusses how existing theories are not well equipped to discusses when users of a system IS implementation in diverse environment are diverse as to be incompletely definable at the time of system development

Polites & Karahanna (2012) Discusses how use of an incumbent system negatively impacts new system perceptions and Residual effect of old systems on users’ tendency usage intentions

Sun (2012) Discuss why and how users’ system revisiting at feature level occurs System redesigning

Leonardi (2013) Discussion of features use and affordances concepts during IS adoption IS adoption, affordances, feature use

Leonardi (2011) Discusses how human and material agencies—the basic building blocks common to both Sociomateriality routines and technologies—are imbricated

Hildebrand, Häubl, Herrmann, & Landwehr (2013) The negative effect of self-design applications Adverse effect

Venkatesh, Sykes, & Venkatraman (2014) Discusses demographics and personality (the big five), as predictors of e-Government portal Personality and demographics and IS use use

Fayard, Gkeredakis, & Levina (2016) When organization doesn’t fit with users’ way of using technology Organization culture

Berente & Yoo (2012) Examines how institutionally plural organization with diverse institutional creates Organization diverse local logics and IS adoption loose coupling during new system implementations such as ERP

Hsu, Lin, & Wang (2015) Discusses how regulative, normative, and cognitive challenges affects cross-cultural IS Cross-culture factors and IS adoption adoption processes

Hoehle, Zhang, & Venkatesh (2015) Draws on Hofstede's five cultural values, discusses continued use intention Cultural values and IS continuance use

Barnett, Pearson, Pearson, & Kellermanns (2015) Discusses how five personality triat predicts IS adoption using interactional psychology Personality and Adoption

Kohler, Fueller, Matzler, & Stieger (2011) Dicusses how co-creation between users’ and designers can be accomplished Users’ co-creation and participation design

Abraham, Boudreau, Junglas, & Watson (2013) Proposes evolutionary psychology, as embodied in the Four-Drive model, to understand Evolutionary psychology based model for IS acceptance technology acceptance

Table 2 – Artifacts/objects

Authors Study description Description of philosophical inquiry Lederman and Johnston (2011) How non IT artifacts used in everyday life interaction within an IT systems Nature of Artifact

Doolin and McLeod (2012) The development of artifacts in use through the lens of sociomateriality and boundary perspective Artifacts as boundary from sociomateriality perspective

Zheng & Yu (2016) The role of social media in social transformation Technology as an affordance

Lee, Thomas, & Baskerville (2015) Alternative conceptualization of 'IS artifact' as 'information artifact', 'technology artifact' and Artifact types 'social artifact'

Alter (2015) Commentary on retiring IT artifact term with suggesting to replace it with other lexicon Redefining IT artifact term use

Sein, Henfridsson, Purao, Rossi, & Lindgren (2011) Understanding how artifact emerges from interaction with the organizational context IT artifact evolution in organization context/use

Volkoff & Strong (2013) Discusses how critical realism approach provides a way to understand the evolution of IT artifacts IT Affordance development while in use affordances in organization context use

Kallinikos, Aaltonen, & Marton (2013) How the change in artifact nature calls for reconceptualize the traditional understanding of Redefining IT artifact artifact

Orlikowski & Scott (2015) Sociomateriality as a lens to explore the materiality of activities, bodies, and artifact in service Sociomateriality innovations

Vance, Lowry, & Eggett (2015) Proposes the use of user interface to monitor access violation artifacts

Table 3 – Design activities

Authors Study description Description of philosophical inquiry Onita & Dhaliwal (2011) Alignment as theoretical lens for problem s between software testing and functionality development Design activity problems

Iivari (2015) Comparison of two DR approaches between concrete IT artefact and IT meta-artifact Design method

Venable, Pries-Heje, & Baskerville (2016) Evaluation development for DSR Design method evaluation

Benlian (2011) Examines the traditional, open-source and on-demand application software (AS) using AHP model Evaluation of different design models

Karlsson (2013) Goal-driven situational method engineering for to keep the integrity of software method use Engineering methodology

Cram & Newell (2016) The application and evaluation of agile method in different organization setting Agile methodology

Goldkuhl (2012) The use of pragmatism research for action research and design research Methodological paradigm

Mattarelli, Bertolotti, & Macrì (2013) How ethnography and grounded theory can be used to develop management information system Methodological paradigm

Persson, Mathiassen, & Aaen (2012) Successful agile method in a distributed development environment Agile methodology

X. Wang, Conboy, & Pikkarainen (2012) Discusses the use of agile practices, focusing on the later stages of assimilation; acceptance, Agile methodology routinization and infusion

Cram and Brohman (2013) Discusses how and why information systems development (ISD) approaches differ in their tactics to ISD typology control the behavior of development teams

Baskerville & Myers (2015) Participating in design as conducting ethnographic studies – design ethnography Methodological design ethnography

Hustad and Olsen (2014) IS design principle for a teaching framework in the context of teaching enterprise systems model

Siau and Rossi (2011) Evaluate design techniques and categorized into three classifications: feature comparison, theoretical Categorizing design models (lit. review) and conceptual evaluation, and empirical evaluation

Corvera Charaf, Rosenkranz, & Holten (2013) Sematic alignment between stakeholders and developers to commutate requirement analysis Methodological approach

McAvoy, Nagle, & Sammon (2013) The use of mindfulness to examine the agility of ISD Agile methodology

Iivari & Iivari (2011) User-centeredness in the context of systems development with its four aspects: user focus, work- Design focus centeredness, user involvement and system personalization

White (2011) Discusses emergent and evolving engineering method development and use Situational method engineering

Ramesh, Mohan (2012) Discusses how to balance conflicting demands between alignment and adaptability posed by agile Design activity problems distributed development method

Subramanyam, Ramasubbu, & Krishnan (2012) Discusses how the design of software components, specifically component granularity, affects Design components development efficiency and flexibility.

Currim & Ram (2012) Discusses how rules of modeling can be defined in to understand and classifying Design development approach spatiotemporal set-based (cardinality) constraints and an associated syntax

Ketter, Peters, Collins, & Gupta (2016) Discusses how simulation games can be used to design and evaluate interventions in societal Sustainable design method challenges and sustainable use

Mangalaraj, Nerur, Mahapatra, & Price (2014) Examines the impact of structural distribution of cognition through design patterns and social Development approaches distribution of cognition through collaborating pairs on design outcomes to improve software development projects

Singh, Tan, & Mookerjee (2008) Investigate the impact of network social capital on open source project success Design activity success

Ramasubbu, Bharadwaj, & Tay(2015) Investigates software process diversity, a simultaneous use of multiple software development performance frameworks within a single project, and performance

Deng, Joshi, & Galliers (2016) Describes an emerging paradox of worker empowerment and marginalization, advances theoretical Design values understanding of the societal challenges in crowdsourcing

Macredie & Mijinyawa (2011) Proposes a theoretical framework to critical evaluate and understand factors influencing OSS Open source software methodology adoption

Österle et al. (2011) 10 authors propose principles for design-oriented information systems oriented research activities

Table 4 – Design domain

Authors Study description Description of philosophical inquiry Leclercq -Vandelannoitte (2014) Using Foucault philosophy, it discusses IT and social identity co -evolve during assimilation Social identity and design defines future design

Tyworth (2014) Examines how organizational identity serves as both an enabler and constraint ICT development Organizational identity and design

Holmström & Sawyer (2011) Discusses how developers ignores complex design domain parts and theorizing RE as social Requirement elicitation as social construction construction

Tuunanen & Kuo (2015) How culture affects requirement elicitation and prioritization Requirement elicitation and culture

Zhou, Jin, Fang, & Voge (2015) Examines the effects of two cultural values, indulgence and individualism, on the relationships Cultural values on IS use behavior between perceived benefits, affective commitment, and continuance intention

Payton (2015) Designing for underrepresented groups and cultures of participation Cultural relevant design

Jayanth, Jacob, & Radhakrishnan (2011) Discusses factors that affects vender-customer feedback loop during prototype use for Feedback loop in requirement assessment requirement analysis

Reinecke & Bernstein (2013) Discusses how to adapt users’ interface to cultural background Cultural adaptation

Sutanto, Palme, Tan, & Phang (2013) Built a theoretical lenses to conceptualize privacy impacts the process and content gratifications Privacy issues and design contribution derived from personalization, and how an IT solution can be designed to alleviate privacy concerns

Pollock & Hyysalo (2014) Develops a notion of "reference actor," and discuss how this new actor plays a role in relation to Definition of users expectations and commitments coming from the wider packaged enterprise system community.

Table 5 – Human Actors

Authors Study description Description of philosophical inquiry Mehra, Dewan, & Freimer (2011) How sideline open source programing develop employed programmers skills and benefit both Side line open sources programming employers and developers

X. N. Deng, Wang, & Gallier (2015) Discusses how IS professionals' customer-oriented behaviors ultimate affect design and post- Designers’ customer-oriented behavior implementation

Van Laere & Aggestam (2016) Analysis of champion behaviors, their network of relations, knowledge of the organization and Champions/middleperson competence insight into strategic decision-making affect IS redesign and adoption

Ghobadi & Mathiassen (2016) Examines how project managers, developers, testers and user representatives understands Agile software teams communication knowledge barriers and how to effective share knowledge in agile development

Bergvall ‐Kåreborn & Howcroft (2014) How new sociotechnical trends mobile apps have significantly influence and shape the working sociotechnical growth and programmer challenge lives of software professionals

O'hEocha, Wang, & Conboy (2012) Studying developers’ challenges and complex world using Klein & Myers principles of interpretive Focus group as method to study developers research

Klendauer, Berkovich, Gelvin, Leimeister, & Krcmar Develop and discussion competency model for RAs Requirement Analyst competence (2012)

Lin, Hsu, Cheng, & Wu (2012) Examines behavioral integration and behavioral consequence of cognition and explore the critical Behavioral integration in ISD role of behavioral integration in ISD teams and team performance

Zimmermann, Raab, & Zanotelli (2013) Discusses onshore developers behavior towards offshoring, and how such offshoring attitudes Behavior and attitude configure and effect on ISD affect relational behaviors towards offshore colleagues

Singh, Tan, & Youn (2011) Develops a stochastic model to capture individuals learn from their own experience and from Stochastic model as method to study developers interactions with peers, individual's ability to learn from these activities as she/he evolves/learns over time, and individual learning persists over time.

Setia, Rajagopalan, Sambamurthy, & Calantone (2012) Examines how and when peripheral developers participation contribute to product qualities Peripheral developers

Von Krogh, Haefliger, Spaeth, & Wallin (2012) Basing MacIntyre, the authors construct a theoretical framework to explain Social philosophy to study developers motive individual motivation to participate in open source projects

Mehra & Mookerjee (2012) Develops an analytical model to characterize developers employment contract that features the Motivating developers using participation and wage balance of open source participation and wage payments to improve both skills and retention payment

Ply, Moore, Williams, & Thatcher (2012) Basing capability maturity mode, examines IS workers professional efficacy and satisfaction and System development procedures and IS professional in organizations where behavioral controls are the dominant form of formal control efficiency

Spaeth, von Krogh, & He (2015) Discusses how perceived community-based credibility and openness of sponsoring have a positive Motivating open source participants impact on open source volunteer participants.

Table 6 – General theory

Authors Study description Description of philosophical inquiry McLeod & Doolin (2012) Proposing a theoretical explanation for the nature of IS development Theoretical work on IS development

Niehaves & Ortbach (2016) Develop a framework to formulate relationships between manifest design decisions, kernel theory Theory construction, kernel design theories, and constructs and their evaluation metrics. design theory metrics

Schlichter & Rose (2013) Develop six theoretical propositions to theorize the relationship between trust and project Theorizing trust within the context of direct experience outcomes, the maintenance, breakdown and restoration of trust, the role of the information system in restoring trust, and the emergent and reciprocal nature of trust and project outcomes

Pozzebon, Mackrell, & Nielsen (2014) Discusses the application of pluralist theoretical to conduct IS research informed by three Theorizing and theory development in the context of sociological theories; structuration, diffusion and innovation, and gender theory direct experience (technology use)

Nevo, Nevo, & Pinsonneault (2016) Proposes a theory of IT reinvention whereby users reinvent IT in ways that depart from their Theory of IT reinvention (in the context of direct intended purposes experience)

Howison & Crowston (2014) Develops and illustrates the theory of collaboration; on how open source software development Theory of collaboration in the context of human actors

Mingers, Mutch, & Willcocks (2013) Discusses different articles suggestion on critical realism theory application on IS field interested Critical realism theory for different IS contexts including design

Chaturvedi, Dolk, & Drnevich (2011) Proposes a design theory for the field of virtual world software development Design theory within the context of design activities

Majchrzak, Markus, & Wareham (2016) Based on review 14 papers in special issues, the authors proposed the expansion of theory to Design theory within the context of design activities understand and contribute societal or business change and suggestion of accepting digital design as a replacement for organizations.

Gregor & Hevner (2013) Discusses DSR artifact abstraction, knowledge contribution, and DSR theory development General theory about DSR within the context of artifacts/design activities

Cecez-Kecmanovic, Kautz, & Abrahall (2014) Questioning common assumption of IS success/failure, the authors proposes a performative General theoretical framework about IS perspective to change the IS assessment framing implementation success/failure (direct experience context)

Seidel, Recker, & Vom Brocke (2013) Proposes a general theoretical framework that identifies important functional affordances that General theoretical framework for sustainable IT are required in environmental sustainability transformations systems (design activity context)

Gaskin, Berente, Lyytinen, & Yoo (2014) Proposes a computational, mixed methods approach combined with qualitative analysis for Generalizable theoretical framework to study studying the entanglement of human activities and digital capabilities in organizational routines digitalized sociomateriality

Faulkner & Runde (2013) Based on transformational model of social activity, the authors proposes systematic theory to Systematic theory to study technological objects study technological objects within the context of social activity (artifact/objects context)

Appan & Browne (2012) Build and test a theory of misinformation occurrence during RE processes by analysts Theory about RE (design domain context)

Table 7 – Epistemology

Authors Study description Description of philosophical inquiry Vaast & Walsham (2013) How to develop ground theories for computer -mediated social context Theory development for direct experience

Walsh (2015) Discusses the ground theory project to develop a meta level theories and mixed design researches Theory development

Nickerson, Varshney, & Muntermann (2013) Proposes method for taxonomy development based on DSR paradigm Method for taxonomy development

Hassan (2014) Proposes IS autonomous theory construction based on the Kuhnian model of scientific progress Paradigm/identity definition and theory construction

Burton-Jones, McLean & Monod (2015) Examines three theory building perspectives, process, variance, and systems, and proposes the Methods for theory building use of such approaches in flexible manner

Osei ‐Bryson & Ngwenyama (2011) Proposes a data mining approach to abducting and evaluating hypotheses based on Peirce's Systematic theory testing scientific method

Hong, Chan, Thong, Chasalow, & Dhillon (2013) Proposes a context based theory building approach, and contextualize and put forth a set of Context-based theory development (adoption context) guidelines for developing context-specific models

Gregory & Muntermann (2014) Proposes heuristic theorizing model for design theory Design theory construction using heuristic

Bera, Burton-Jones, & Wand (2014) Examines how semantics and pragmatics interact to construct design conceptual models Design models construction

Clarke, Burton-Jones, & Weber (2016) Examines ways to improve the quality of the semantics of CM grammars in ISD models Design models construction

Baskerville, Kaul, & Storey (2015) Examines knowledge production in design-science research and explain how an endogenous form DSR knowledge production of pluralism characterizes making it problematic to associate design science study with a single view of knowledge production

Grover & Lyytinen (2015) Examine the effect of IS research theory domestication of reference field theories on the quality Rigid theory construction and consequences of knowledge and theory construction in IS, and propose fluidity in theory construction

Hess, McNab, & Basoglu (2014) Validity testing of widely accepted information systems construct Reliability testing of adoption models

Table 8 – Ontology

Authors Study description Description of philosophical inquiry Basden (2011) Basing Dooyeweerd's philosophy, the paper proposes how a philosophically grounded integration Philosophical grounding for IS research approaches of interpretivist, socio-critical and even positivist approaches might proceed.

Faik & Walsham (2013) Discusses the discourse of modernization in the context of technological change on the one hand The reality of modernization through technology and social, economic and political changes on the other.

Hassan (2011) Basing Foucault and Toulmin, the authors discusses the status of IS research from science, The identity of IS research discipline, field notions, and how discipline identity provide flexibility of IS research.

Riemer & Johnston (2014) After describing two philosophical understanding of relativity, dualism and holism, the authors Philosophical grounds for reality framing examine how each approaches affect IS research areas and propose holism as a philosophical footing

Appendix – II Authors Comparable different Design issues Love (2000) Ontology of Epistemology General Theories Design Design Mechanis Behavior of Description Direct design of design design about process Methods ms of elements of objects Perceptions of theory and theories designers and structure choice object collaborators X Cross (198 2, Fundament Design Design Design Design 2001) al concepts Epistemology X environment Praxiology X X X X Phenomenology X Gregor & Design Justificatory Testable Expository constructs Principles of Artifact Principles of Jones Purpose knowledge propositions instantiations forms and X X mutability implementation X (2007) functions Feng & Nature of Politics of Critical Designers vs Intentiona Values Instrument ethical Feenberg technology knowledge theory design lity X and al vs. Value values (2001) domain morals laden X X Iivari Ontological Epistemology Methodology Ethics (2007) grounding construction X X X X X X X Wright et. al Holistic Experiential Sensibility Interaction Aesthetics Users felt (2008) ontology computing design and X experiences X Embodiment X (DSR focus) Research Design as Relevance Rigor Design Search Communica Hevner et contribution artifact problems evaluation processes te of X X al. (2004) X X research (Pre - Design Making vs. Designer and Rich and Less Artistic and Sustainable Lived world Societal modern purposes thinking users within intimate treatment of Aesthetics and experiences values discussions) design X the same context synthetic and X meaning and well Mitcham knowledge design space analytic objects being and Holbrook (2006) Appendix I – Reference Abraham, C., Boudreau, M.-C., Junglas, I., & Watson, R. (2013). Enriching our theoretical repertoire: the role of evolutionary psychology in technology acceptance. European Journal of Information Systems, 22 (1), 56-75. Aggarwal, R., Kryscynski, D., Midha, V., & Singh, H. (2015). Early to Adopt and Early to Discontinue: The Impact of Self-Perceived and Actual IT Knowledge on Technology Use Behaviors of End Users. Information Systems Research, 26 (1), 127-144. Alter, S. (2015). The concept of ‘IT artifact’has outlived its usefulness and should be retired now. Information Systems Journal, 25 (1), 47-60. Appan, R., & Browne, G. J. (2012). The impact of analyst-induced misinformation on the requirements elicitation process. MIS Quarterly, 36 (1), 85. Bala, H., & Venkatesh, V. (2013). Changes in Employees' Job Characteristics During an Enterprise System Implementation: A Latent Growth Modeling Perspective. MIS Quarterly, 37 (4), 1113- 1140. Barnett, T., Pearson, A. W., Pearson, R., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2015). Five-factor model personality traits as predictors of perceived and actual usage of technology. European Journal of Information Systems, 24 (4), 374-390. Barrett, M. I., Heracleous, L., & Walsham, G. (2013). A Rhetorical Approach to IT Diffusion: Reconceptualizing the Ideology-Framing Relationship in Computerization Movements. MIS Quarterly, 37 (1), 201-220. Basden, A. (2011). Enabling a Kleinian integration of interpretivist and socio-critical IS research: the contribution of Dooyeweerd's philosophy. European Journal of Information Systems, 20 (4), 477-489. Baskerville, R. L., Kaul, M., & Storey, V. C. (2015). Genres of inquiry in design-science research: Justification and evaluation of knowledge production. MIS Quarterly, 39 (3), 541-564. Baskerville, R. L., & Myers, M. D. (2015). Design ethnography in information systems. Information Systems Journal, 25 (1), 23-46. Benlian, A. (2011). Is traditional, open-source, or on-demand first choice? Developing an AHP- based framework for the comparison of different software models in office suites selection. European Journal of Information Systems, 20 (5), 542-559. Bera, P., Burton-Jones, A., & Wand, Y. (2014). How Semantics and Pragmatics Interact in Understanding Conceptual Models. Information Systems Research, 25 (2), 401. Berente, N., & Yoo, Y. (2012). Institutional contradictions and loose coupling: Postimplementation of NASA's enterprise information system. Information Systems Research, 23 (2), 376-396. Bergvall ‐Kåreborn, B., & Howcroft, D. (2014). Persistent problems and practices in information systems development: a study of mobile applications development and distribution. Information Systems Journal, 24 (5), 425-444. Bhattacherjee, A., & Lin, C.-P. (2015). A unified model of IT continuance: three complementary perspectives and crossover effects. European Journal of Information Systems, 24 (4), 364- 373. Bhattacherjee, A., & Park, S. C. (2014). Why end-users move to the cloud: a migration-theoretic analysis. European Journal of Information Systems, 23 (3), 357-372. Bødker, M., Gimpel, G., & Hedman, J. (2014). Time ‐out/time ‐in: the dynamics of everyday experiential computing devices. Information Systems Journal, 24 (2), 143-166. Brown, S. A., Venkatesh, V., & Goyal, S. (2012). Expectation confirmation in technology use. Information Systems Research, 23 (2), 474-487. Brown, S. A., Venkatesh, V., & Goyal, S. (2014). Expectation Confirmation in Information Systems Research: A Test of Six Competing Models. MIS Quarterly, 38 (3), 729-756. Burton-Jones, A., & Grange, C. (2012). From use to effective use: a representation theory perspective. Information Systems Research, 24 (3), 632-658. Burton-Jones, A., McLean, E. R., & Monod, E. (2015). Theoretical perspectives in IS research: from variance and process to conceptual latitude and conceptual fit. European Journal of Information Systems, 24 (6), 664-679. Carlo, J. L., Lyytinen, K., & Boland Jr, R. J. (2012). Dialectics of Collective Minding: Contradictory Appropriations of Information Technology in a High-Risk Project. MIS Quarterly, 36 (4), 1081-1108. Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., Kautz, K., & Abrahall, R. (2014). Reframing Success and Failure of Information Systems: A Performative Perspective. MIS Quarterly, 38 (2), 561-588. Chaturvedi, A. R., Dolk, D. R., & Drnevich, P. L. (2011). Design principles for virtual worlds. MIS Quarterly, 35 (3), 673-684. Chen, C.-W., & Koufaris, M. (2015). The impact of decision support system features on user overconfidence and risky behavior. European Journal of Information Systems, 24 (6), 607- 623. Clarke, R., Burton-Jones, A., & Weber, R. (2016). On the Ontological Quality and Logical Quality of Conceptual-Modeling Grammars: The Need for a Dual Perspective. Information Systems Research . Corvera Charaf, M., Rosenkranz, C., & Holten, R. (2013). The emergence of shared understanding: applying functional pragmatics to study the requirements development process. Information Systems Journal, 23 (2), 115-135. Cram, W. A., & Brohman, M. K. (2013). Controlling information systems development: a new typology for an evolving field. Information Systems Journal, 23 (2), 137-154. Cram, W. A., & Newell, S. (2016). Mindful revolution or mindless trend? Examining agile development as a management . European Journal of Information Systems, 25 (2), 154-169. Currim, F., & Ram, S. (2012). Modeling spatial and temporal set-based constraints during conceptual . Information Systems Research, 23 (1), 109-128. De Guinea, A. O., & Webster, J. (2013). An Investigation of Information Systems Use Patterns: Technological Events as Triggers, the Effect of Time, and Consequences for Performance. MIS Quarterly, 37 (4), 1165-1188. Deng, X., Joshi, K., & Galliers, R. D. (2016). The Duality of Empowerment and Marginalization in Microtask Crowdsourcing: Giving Voice to the Less Powerful through Value Sensitive Design. MIS Quarterly, 40 (2), 279-302. Deng, X. N., Wang, T., & Galliers, R. D. (2015). More than providing ‘solutions’: towards an understanding of customer ‐oriented citizenship behaviours of IS professionals. Information Systems Journal, 25 (5), 489-530. Dobson, P., Jackson, P., & Gengatharen, D. E. (2013). Explaining broadband adoption in rural Australia: Modes of reflexivity and the morphogenetic approach. Doolin, B., & McLeod, L. (2012). Sociomateriality and boundary objects in information systems development. European Journal of Information Systems, 21 (5), 570-586. Elie-Dit-Cosaque, C. M., & Straub, D. W. (2011). Opening the black box of system usage: user adaptation to disruptive IT. European Journal of Information Systems, 20 (5), 589-607. Faik, I., & Walsham, G. (2013). Modernisation through ICTs: towards a network ontology of technological change. Information Systems Journal, 23 (4), 351-370. Faulkner, P., & Runde, J. (2013). Technological Objects, Social Positions, and the Transformational Model of Social Activity. MIS Quarterly, 37 (3), 803-818. Fayard, A.-L., Gkeredakis, E., & Levina, N. (2016). Framing innovation opportunities while staying committed to an organizational epistemic stance. Information Systems Research . Gaskin, J., Berente, N., Lyytinen, K., & Yoo, Y. (2014). Toward Generalizable Sociomaterial Inquiry: A Computational Approach for Zooming In and Out of Sociomaterial Routines. MIS Quarterly, 38 (3), 849-871. Germonprez, M., & Hovorka, D. S. (2013). Member engagement within digitally enabled social network communities: new methodological considerations. Information Systems Journal, 23 (6), 525-549. Ghobadi, S., & Mathiassen, L. (2016). Perceived barriers to effective knowledge sharing in agile software teams. Information Systems Journal, 26 (2), 95-125. Goldkuhl, G. (2012). Pragmatism vs interpretivism in qualitative information systems research. European Journal of Information Systems, 21 (2), 135-146. Gregor, S., & Hevner, A. R. (2013). Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Quarterly, 37 (2), 337-355. Gregory, R. W., & Muntermann, J. (2014). Research Note—Heuristic Theorizing: Proactively Generating Design Theories. Information Systems Research, 25 (3), 639-653. Grover, V., & Lyytinen, K. (2015). New State of Play in Information Systems Research: The Push to the Edges. MIS Quarterly, 39 (2), 271-296. Hassan, N. R. (2011). Is information systems a discipline? Foucauldian and Toulminian insights. European Journal of Information Systems, 20 (4), 456-476. Hassan, N. R. (2014). Paradigm lost… paradigm gained: a hermeneutical rejoinder to Banville and Landry’s ‘Can the Field of MIS be Disciplined?’. European Journal of Information Systems, 23 (6), 600-615. Herath, T., Chen, R., Wang, J., Banjara, K., Wilbur, J., & Rao, H. R. (2014). Security services as coping mechanisms: an investigation into user intention to adopt an email authentication service. Information Systems Journal, 24 (1), 61-84. Hess, T. J., McNab, A. L., & Basoglu, K. A. (2014). Reliability Generalization of Perceived Ease of Use, Perceived Usefulness, and Behavioral Intentions. MIS Quarterly, 38 (1), 1-28. Hildebrand, C., Häubl, G., Herrmann, A., & Landwehr, J. R. (2013). When social media can be bad for you: Community feedback stifles consumer and reduces satisfaction with self- designed products. Information Systems Research, 24 (1), 14-29. Hoehle, H., Zhang, X., & Venkatesh, V. (2015). An espoused cultural perspective to understand continued intention to use mobile applications: a four-country study of mobile social media application usability. European Journal of Information Systems, 24 (3), 337-359. Holmström, J., & Sawyer, S. (2011). Requirements engineering blinders: exploring information systems developers’ black-boxing of the emergent character of requirements. European Journal of Information Systems, 20 (1), 34-47. Hong, W., Chan, F. K., Thong, J. Y., Chasalow, L. C., & Dhillon, G. (2013). A framework and guidelines for context-specific theorizing in information systems research. Information Systems Research, 25 (1), 111-136. Howison, J., & Crowston, K. (2014). Collaboration Through Open Superposition: A Theory of the Open Source Way. MIS Quarterly, 38 (1), 29-50. Hsieh, J. P.-A., Rai, A., Petter, S., & Zhang, T. (2012). Impact of user satisfaction with mandated CRM use on employee service quality. Hsu, C., Lin, Y.-T., & Wang, T. (2015). A legitimacy challenge of a cross-cultural interorganizational information system. European Journal of Information Systems, 24 (3), 278-294. Hu, T., Kettinger, W. J., & Poston, R. S. (2015). The effect of online social value on satisfaction and continued use of social media. European Journal of Information Systems, 24 (4), 391-410. Hustad, E., & Olsen, D. H. (2014). Educating reflective Enterprise Systems practitioners: a design research study of the iterative building of a teaching framework. Information Systems Journal, 24 (5), 445-473. Iivari, J. (2015). Distinguishing and contrasting two strategies for design science research. European Journal of Information Systems, 24 (1), 107-115. Iivari, J., & Iivari, N. (2011). Varieties of user ‐centredness: An analysis of four systems development methods. Information Systems Journal, 21 (2), 125-153. Jayanth, R., Jacob, V. S., & Radhakrishnan, S. (2011). Vendor and client interaction for requirements assessment in software development: implications for feedback process. Information Systems Research, 22 (2), 289-305. Kallinikos, J., Aaltonen, A., & Marton, A. (2013). The Ambivalent Ontology of Digital Artifacts. MIS Quarterly, 37 (2), 357-370. Kang, S., Lim, K. H., Kim, M. S., & Yang, H.-D. (2012). Research Note-A Multilevel Analysis of the Effect of Group Appropriation on Collaborative Technologies Use and Performance. Information Systems Research, 23 (1), 214-230. Karlsson, F. (2013). Longitudinal use of method rationale in method configuration: an exploratory study. European Journal of Information Systems, 22 (6), 690-710. Ketter, W., Peters, M., Collins, J., & Gupta, A. (2016). A multiagent competitive gaming platform to address societal challenges. MIS Quarterly, 40 (2), 447-460. Klendauer, R., Berkovich, M., Gelvin, R., Leimeister, J. M., & Krcmar, H. (2012). Towards a competency model for requirements analysts. Information Systems Journal, 22 (6), 475-503. Kohler, T., Fueller, J., Matzler, K., & Stieger, D. (2011). Co-creation in virtual worlds: the design of the user experience. MIS Quarterly, 35 (3), 773-788. Laumer, S., Maier, C., Eckhardt, A., & Weitzel, T. (2016). Work routines as an object of resistance during information systems implementations: theoretical foundation and empirical evidence. European Journal of Information Systems . Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, A. (2014). Interrelationships of identity and technology in IT assimilation. European Journal of Information Systems, 23 (1), 51-68. Lederman, R., & Johnston, R. B. (2011). Decision support or support for situated choice: lessons for system design from effective manual systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 20 (5), 510-528. Lee, A. S., Thomas, M., & Baskerville, R. L. (2015). Going back to basics in design science: from the information technology artifact to the information systems artifact. Information Systems Journal, 25 (1), 5-21. Leonardi, P. M. (2011). When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: Affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies. MIS Quarterly, 35 (1), 147-167. Leonardi, P. M. (2013). When does technology use enable network change in organizations? A comparative study of feature use and shared affordances. MIS Quarterly, 37 (3), 749-775. Leonardi, P. M., Bailey, D. E., Diniz, E. H., Sholler, D., & Nardi, B. (2016). Multiplex Appropriation in Complex Systems Implementation: The Case of Brazil’s Correspondent Banking System. MIS Quarterly, 40 (2), 461-473. Levina, N., & Arriaga, M. (2014). Distinction and status production on user-generated content platforms: Using Bourdieu’s theory of cultural production to understand social dynamics in online fields. Information Systems Research, 25 (3), 468-488. Lin, T. C., Hsu, J. S. C., Cheng, K. T., & Wu, S. (2012). Understanding the role of behavioural integration in ISD teams: an extension of transactive memory systems concept. Information Systems Journal, 22 (3), 211-234. Lyytinen, K., & Newman, M. (2015). A tale of two coalitions–marginalising the users while successfully implementing an enterprise resource planning system. Information Systems Journal, 25 (2), 71-101. Macredie, R. D., & Mijinyawa, K. (2011). A theory-grounded framework of Open Source Software adoption in SMEs. European Journal of Information Systems, 20 (2), 237-250. Majchrzak, A., Markus, M. L., & Wareham, J. (2016). Designing for Digital Transformation: Lessons for Information Systems Research from the Study of ICT and Societal Challenges. MIS Quarterly, 40 (2), 267-277. Mangalaraj, G., Nerur, S. P., Mahapatra, R., & Price, K. H. (2014). Distributed Cognition in Software Design: An Experimental Investigation of the Role of Design Patterns and Collaboration. MIS Quarterly, 38 (1), 249-274. Mattarelli, E., Bertolotti, F., & Macrì, D. M. (2013). The use of ethnography and grounded theory in the development of a management information system. European Journal of Information Systems, 22 (1), 26-44. Mazmanian, M., Cohn, M. L., & Dourish, P. (2014). Dynamic Reconfiguration in Planetary Exploration: A Sociomaterial Ethnography. MIS Quarterly, 38 (3), 831-848. McAvoy, J., Nagle, T., & Sammon, D. (2013). Using mindfulness to examine ISD agility. Information Systems Journal, 23 (2), 155-172. McLeod, L., & Doolin, B. (2012). Information systems development as situated socio-technical change: a process approach. European Journal of Information Systems, 21 (2), 176-191. Mehra, A., Dewan, R., & Freimer, M. (2011). Firms as incubators of open-source software. Information Systems Research, 22 (1), 22-38. Mehra, A., & Mookerjee, V. (2012). Human capital development for programmers using open source software. MIS Quarterly, 36 (1), 107-122. Mingers, J., Mutch, A., & Willcocks, L. (2013). Critical realism in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 37 (3), 795-802. Murray, K. B., & Häubl, G. (2011). Freedom of choice, ease of use, and the formation of interface preferences. MIS Quarterly, 35 (4), 955. Nan, N. (2011). Capturing bottom-up information technology use processes: A complex adaptive systems model. MIS Quarterly, 35 (2), 505-532. Nevo, S., Nevo, D., & Pinsonneault, A. (2016). A Temporally Situated Self-Agency Theory of Information Technology Reinvention. MIS Quarterly, 40 (1), 157-186. Nickerson, R. C., Varshney, U., & Muntermann, J. (2013). A method for taxonomy development and its application in information systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 22 (3), 336- 359. Niehaves, B., & Ortbach, K. (2016). The inner and the outer model in explanatory design theory: the case of designing electronic feedback systems. European Journal of Information Systems . O'hEocha, C., Wang, X., & Conboy, K. (2012). The use of focus groups in complex and pressurised IS studies and evaluation using Klein & Myers principles for interpretive research. Information Systems Journal, 22 (3), 235-256. Onita, C., & Dhaliwal, J. (2011). Alignment within the corporate IT unit: An analysis of software testing and development. European Journal of Information Systems, 20 (1), 48-68. Orlikowski, W., & Scott, S. V. (2015). The Algorithm and the crowd: Considering the materiality of service innovation. Osei ‐Bryson, K. M., & Ngwenyama, O. (2011). Using decision tree modelling to support Peircian abduction in IS research: a systematic approach for generating and evaluating hypotheses for systematic theory development. Information Systems Journal, 21 (5), 407-440. Österle, H., Becker, J., Frank, U., Hess, T., Karagiannis, D., Krcmar, H., . . . Sinz, E. J. (2011). Memorandum on design-oriented information systems research. European Journal of Information Systems, 20 (1), 7-10. Payton, F. C. (2015). Cultures of participation—for students, by students. Information Systems Journal . Peng, G., & Dey, D. (2013). A Dynamic View of the Impact of Network Structure on Technology Adoption: The Case of OSS Development. Information Systems Research, 24 (4), 1087-1099. doi:10.1287/isre.2013.0494 Persson, J. S., Mathiassen, L., & Aaen, I. (2012). Agile distributed software development: enacting control through media and context. Information Systems Journal, 22 (6), 411-433. Ply, J. K., Moore, J. E., Williams, C. K., & Thatcher, J. B. (2012). IS employee attitudes and perceptions at varying levels of software process maturity. MIS Quarterly, 36 (2), 601-624. Polites, G. L., & Karahanna, E. (2012). Shackled to the Status Quo: The Inhibiting Effects of Incumbent System Habit, Switching Costs, and Inertia on New System Acceptance. MIS Quarterly, 36 (1), 21-42. Pollock, N., & Hyysalo, S. (2014). The Business of Being a User: The Role of the Reference Actor in Shaping Packaged Enterprise System Acquisition and Development. MIS Quarterly, 38 (2), 473-496. Pozzebon, M., Mackrell, D., & Nielsen, S. (2014). Structuration bridging diffusion of innovations and gender relations theories: a case of paradigmatic pluralism in IS research. Information Systems Journal, 24 (3), 229-248. Ramasubbu, N., Bharadwaj, A., & Tayi, G. K. (2015). Software process diversity: conceptualization, measurement, and analysis of impact on project performance. Forthcoming, MIS Quarterly . Ramesh, B., Mohan, K., & Cao, L. (2012). Ambidexterity in agile distributed development: an empirical investigation. Information Systems Research, 23 (2), 323-339. Reinecke, K., & Bernstein, A. (2013). Knowing What a User Likes: A Design Science Approach to Interfaces that Automatically Adapt to Culture. MIS Quarterly, 37 (2), 427-453. Riemer, K., & Johnston, R. B. (2014). Rethinking the place of the artefact in IS using Heidegger's analysis of equipment. European Journal of Information Systems, 23 (3), 273-288. Rivard, S., & Lapointe, L. (2012). Information technology implementers' responses to user resistance: nature and effects. MIS Quarterly, 36 (3), 897-920. Rodon, J., Sese, F., & Christiaanse, E. (2011). Exploring users' appropriation and post ‐implementation managerial intervention in the context of industry IOIS. Information Systems Journal, 21 (3), 223-248. Saeed, K. A., & Abdinnour, S. (2013). Understanding post ‐adoption IS usage stages: an empirical assessment of self ‐service information systems. Information Systems Journal, 23 (3), 219-244. Schlichter, B. R., & Rose, J. (2013). Trust dynamics in a large system implementation: six theoretical propositions. European Journal of Information Systems, 22 (4), 455-474. Scott, M., DeLone, W., & Golden, W. (2016). Measuring eGovernment success: a public value approach. European Journal of Information Systems, 25 (3), 187-208. Seidel, S., Recker, J. C., & Vom Brocke, J. (2013). Sensemaking and sustainable practicing: functional affordances of information systems in green transformations. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 37 (4), 1275-1299. Sein, M., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., & Lindgren, R. (2011). Action design research. Setia, P., Rajagopalan, B., Sambamurthy, V., & Calantone, R. (2012). How peripheral developers contribute to open-source software development. Information Systems Research, 23 (1), 144- 163. Sharma, S., & Rai, A. (2015). Adopting IS process innovations in organizations: the role of IS leaders’ individual factors and technology perceptions in decision making. European Journal of Information Systems, 24 (1), 23-37. Siau, K., & Rossi, M. (2011). Evaluation techniques for systems analysis and design modelling methods–a review and comparative analysis. Information Systems Journal, 21 (3), 249-268. Singh, P. V., Tan, Y., & Mookerjee, V. (2008). Network effects: The influence of structural social capital on open source project success. Management Information Systems Quarterly, Forthcoming . Singh, P. V., Tan, Y., & Youn, N. (2011). A hidden Markov model of developer learning dynamics in open source software projects. Information Systems Research, 22 (4), 790-807. Söllner, M., Hoffmann, A., & Leimeister, J. M. (2016). Why different trust relationships matter for information systems users. European Journal of Information Systems, 25 (3), 274-287. Spaeth, S., von Krogh, G., & He, F. (2015). Perceived firm attributes and intrinsic motivation in sponsored open source software projects. Information Systems Research, 26 (1), 224. doi:10.1287/isre.2014.0539 Srivastava, S. C., Ranganathan, C., & Loo, J. (2011). A framework for stakeholder oriented mindfulness: case of RFID implementation at YCH Group . Retrieved from Stein, M.-K., Newell, S., Wagner, E. L., & Galliers, R. D. (2015). Coping with Information Technology: Mixed Emotions, Vacillation, and Nonconforming Use Patterns. MIS Quarterly, 39 (2), 367- 392. Subramanyam, R., Ramasubbu, N., & Krishnan, M. (2012). In search of efficient flexibility: Effects of software component granularity on development effort, defects, and customization effort. Information Systems Research, 23 (3-part-1), 787-803. Sun, H. (2012). Understanding user revisions when using information system features: Adaptive system use and triggers. MIS Quarterly, 36 (2), 453-478. Sun, H. (2013). A Longitudinal Study of Herd Behavior in the Adoption and Continued Use of Technology. MIS Quarterly, 37 (4), 1013-1041. Sutanto, J., Palme, E., Tan, C.-H., & Phang, C. W. (2013). Addressing the Personalization-Privacy Paradox: An Empirical Assessment from a Field Experiment on Smartphone Users. MIS Quarterly, 37 (4), 1141-1164. Tong, Y., Tan, S. S.-L., & Teo, H.-H. (2015). The Road to Early Success: Impact of System Use in the Swift Response Phase. Information Systems Research, 26 (2), 418-436. Turel, O. (2015). Quitting the use of a habituated hedonic information system: a theoretical model and empirical examination of Facebook users. European Journal of Information Systems, 24 (4), 431-446. Tuunanen, T., & Kuo, I.-T. (2015). The effect of culture on requirements: a value-based view of prioritization. European Journal of Information Systems, 24 (3), 295-313. Tyworth, M. (2014). Organizational identity and information systems: how organizational ICT reflect who an organization is. European Journal of Information Systems, 23 (1), 69-83. Vaast, E., & Walsham, G. (2013). Grounded theorizing for electronically mediated social contexts. European Journal of Information Systems, 22 (1), 9-25. Van Laere, J., & Aggestam, L. (2016). Understanding champion behaviour in a health-care information system development project–how multiple champions and champion behaviours build a coherent whole. European Journal of Information Systems, 25 (1), 47-63. Van Offenbeek, M., Boonstra, A., & Seo, D. (2013). Towards integrating acceptance and resistance research: evidence from a telecare case study. European Journal of Information Systems, 22 (4), 434-454. Vance, A., Lowry, P. B., & Eggett, D. (2015). Increasing Accountability Through User-Interface Design Artifacts: A New Approach to Addressing the Problem of Access-Policy Violations. MIS Quarterly, 39 (2), 345-366. Venable, J., Pries-Heje, J., & Baskerville, R. (2016). FEDS: a framework for evaluation in design science research. European Journal of Information Systems, 25 (1), 77-89. Venkatesh, V., Sykes, T. A., & Venkatraman, S. (2014). Understanding e ‐Government portal use in rural India: role of demographic and personality characteristics. Information Systems Journal, 24 (3), 249-269. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., Chan, F. K., & Hu, P. J. (2016). Managing Citizens’ Uncertainty in E- Government Services: The Mediating and Moderating Roles of Transparency and Trust. Information Systems Research, 27 (1), 87-111. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36 (1), 157- 178. Venkatesh, V., Zhang, X., & Sykes, T. A. (2011). “Doctors do too little technology”: A longitudinal field study of an electronic healthcare system implementation. Information Systems Research, 22 (3), 523-546. Venters, W., Oborn, E., & Barrett, M. I. (2014). A trichordal temporal approach to digital coordination: the sociomaterial mangling of the CERN grid. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 38 (3), 927-949. Volkoff, O., & Strong, D. M. (2013). Critical Realism and Affordances: Theorizing IT-Associated Organizational Change Processes. MIS Quarterly, 37 (3), 819-834. Von Krogh, G., Haefliger, S., Spaeth, S., & Wallin, M. W. (2012). Carrots and rainbows: Motivation and social practice in open source software development. MIS Quarterly, 36 (2), 649-676. Walsh, I. (2015). Using quantitative data in mixed-design grounded theory studies: an enhanced path to formal grounded theory in information systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 24 (5), 531-557. Wang, W. Q., & Benbasat, I. (2013). A Contingency Approach to Investigating the Effects of User- System Interaction Modes of Online Decision Aids. Information Systems Research, 24 (3), 861-876. doi:10.1287/isre.1120.0445 Wang, X., Conboy, K., & Pikkarainen, M. (2012). Assimilation of agile practices in use. Information Systems Journal, 22 (6), 435-455. White Baker, E. (2011). Why situational method engineering is useful to information systems development. Information Systems Journal, 21 (2), 155-174. Zheng, Y., & Yu, A. (2016). Affordances of social media in collective action: the case of Free Lunch for Children in China. Information Systems Journal . Zhou, Z., Jin, X.-L., Fang, Y., & Vogel, D. (2015). Toward a theory of perceived benefits, affective commitment, and continuance intention in social virtual worlds: cultural values (indulgence and individualism) matter. European Journal of Information Systems, 24 (3), 247-261. Zimmermann, A., Raab, K., & Zanotelli, L. (2013). Vicious and virtuous circles of offshoring attitudes and relational behaviours. A configurational study of German IT developers. Information Systems Journal, 23 (1), 65-88.

Appendix II – Reference Cross, N. 1982. Designerly ways of knowing. Design studies, 3, 221-227 Cross, N. 2001 Design/science/research: developing a discipline. Fifth Asian Design Conference: International Symposium on Design Science, Su Jeong Dang Printing Company, Seoul, Korea. Gregor, S. & Jones, D. 2007. The anatomy of a design theory. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8, 312-335. Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J. & Ram, S. 2004. Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28 , 75-105 Ivari, J. 2007. A paradigmatic analysis of information systems as a design science. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 19 , 39 Love, T. 2000. Philosophy of design: a meta-theoretical structure for design theory. Design studies, 21 , 293-313. Mitcham, C. & Holbrook, J. B. 2006. Understanding technological design , Springer. Feng, P. & Feenberg, A. 2008. Thinking about design: Critical theory of technology and the design process. Philosophy and Design. Springer. Wright, P., Wallace, J. & McCarthy, J. 2008. Aesthetics and experience-centered design. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 15 , 18.