1.
Using a Visual Abstract as a
Lens for Communicating
Design Science Research in
Software Engineering
Margaret-Anne Storey
Emelie Engstrom
Per Runeson
Martin Host
Elizabeth Bjarnason
@MargaretStorey @SoftEngResGrp
1

2.
2

3.
Can we use “Design Science” as an
effective lens for communicating
software engineering research?
3

4.
4

5.
Design science
research in
information
systems:
5

6.
Wierenga’s view
“Design science is the design and investigation of artifacts in context”
6

7.
Another
view…
by Emelie
Engstrom
7

8.
Towards a Visual Abstract to
communicate, promote and evaluate
Design Science Research
8

9.
https://www.surgeryredesign.com/resources/ 9

10.
Approach to
understand
problem
Technological rule:
To achieve an effect in a situation apply this intervention
Problem
instance(s)
Addressed problem
instance(s)
Solution(s)
Proposed
solution(s)
Evaluation
approach
Approach
to design
solution
Problem relevance
Scientific rigor
Novel contributions
10

11.
11

12.
ISERN Workshop 2017 on Design Science
(Trying out the visual abstract on ICSE best papers!)
12

13.
13

14.
Feedback and limitations
Quite well received by professors, students and practitioners
Seen as useful for training, reviewing, communication and for research design
Preferred over structured abstracts -- different emphasis, more flexible emphasis
But…
The abstract does not apply to studies that don’t produce an artifact/tech rule
Not all components of the abstract may be relevant for all studies
Doesn’t scale well to multiple studies nor to research programs
Not visual enough
14

15.
In comparison, visual
abstracts provide additional
insights with a more flexible
reading order
A structured abstract is an
abstract with distinct, labeled
sections (e.g., Introduction,
Methods, Results, Discussion) for
rapid comprehension.
15

16.
Graphical abstracts != Visual abstracts
https://www.elsevier.com/authors/journal-authors/graphical-abstract
16

17.
Discussion...
How could the visual abstract be improved (if you like it)?
Should technological rule be called a “socio-technological rule” or “takeaway”?
What other types of visual abstracts may be needed for software engineering
research (e.g., empirical studies that do not produce an artifact)?
Would a “gallery” of visual abstracts in software engineering be useful?
If yes, how could it be organized?
@margaretstorey @SoftEngResGrp
17

18.
Thanks to the ISERN workshop participants, Barbara Russo
and Markku Oivo, and the UVic Research Seminar group for
reflecting on and improving the visual abstract!
We are also grateful for the Lise Meitner Guest Professorship
at Lund University for enabling our collaboration!
We welcome your input and ideas!
Talk to us or email: mstorey@uvic.ca or per.runeson@cs.lth.se
or emelie.engstrom@cs.lth.se
@MargaretStorey @SoftEngResGrp
18

19.
Selected Design Science References
A. Hevner and S. Chatterjee, Design Research in Information Systems: Theory and Practice, 2010th ed.
New York ; London: Springer, May 2010.
J. E. v. Aken, “Management Research Based on the Paradigm of the Design Sciences: The Quest for
Field-Tested and Grounded Technological Rules,” vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 219–246, 2004.
S. Gregor, “The nature of theory in information systems,” MIS Quarterly, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 611–642, 2006.
R. J. Wieringa, “What Is Design Science?” in Design Science Methodology for Information Systems and
Software Engineering. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2014, pp. 3–11.
M. Bunge, Philosophy of Science: Volume 2, From Explanation to Justification, 1st ed. New Brunswick,
N.J: Routledge, Feb. 1998.
S. Gregor and A. R. Hevner, “Positioning and Presenting Design Science Research for Maximum Impact,”
vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 337– 356, Jun. 2013.
R. Wieringa and A. Moralı, “Technical Action Research as a Validation Method in Information Systems
Design Science,” in Design Science Research in Information Systems. Advances in Theory and Practice.
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, May 2012, pp. 220–238.
19