The document outlines an agenda for a lecture on pragmatism as a philosophy of science and research. The lecture will cover three parts: a pragmatic approach, design science research and action research, and student presentations analyzing journal papers within pragmatism. The learning outcomes are for students to receive an overview of pragmatism, experiment with design science research and action research, and analyze and present journal papers using pragmatism. The lecture will be given by Sergejs Groskovs, an external lecturer and PhD candidate.

1. SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
25 NOVEMBER 2015
PRAGMATISM
IS Philosophy of Science and Research
25 November 2015

2. 25 NOVEMBER 2015
2
SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
SERGEJS GROSKOVS
MSc IT / MSc Management / BSc Economics
12+ years in business development and research
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
BUSINESS MODEL INNOVATION

3. 25 NOVEMBER 2015
3
SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
AGENDA
 Part 1: Pragmatic approach
 Part 2: Design science research & Action research
 Part 3: Student presentations

4. 25 NOVEMBER 2015
4
SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
LEARNING OUTCOMES
You will have:
 received an overview and insight into the pragmatism paradigm
 experimented with design science research and action research
 analyzed and presented journal papers within the pragmatism paradigm

5. SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
25 NOVEMBER 2015
PART 1:
PRAGMATIC APPROACH

6. 25 NOVEMBER 2015
6
SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
 Positivist approach
 Interpretive approach
 Pragmatic approach
 Critical approach
APPROACHES TO RESEARCH
IN THE INFORMATION SYSTEMS DOMAIN

8. Picture: Himmelfarb et al 2002: 1526 (artist: G. Renee Guzlas)

9. 25 NOVEMBER 2015
9
SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
THE AIM OF PRAGMATIC RESEARCH
NOT:
 To discover objective reality (elephant) and explain the laws governing it
 To understand and interpret subjective meanings of what blind men think about reality
BUT:
 To generate useful knowledge for practice (e.g. how to ride an elephant to a destination)

10. 25 NOVEMBER 2015
10
SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
PARADIGMS IN IS RESEARCH
Research
Approach
Paradigm
(epistemology)
Design Research
Pragmatism
“What works”
Ethnographies
Research
Methods (e.g.)
Case Studies Action ResearchGrounded Theory
(adapted from Fernández 2003: chapter 2, 3; Mills et al. 2006; Patton 2002: 124-129; Straub et al. 2005; Vaishnavi and Kuechler, 2004/5; Walsham 2006)

11. 25 NOVEMBER 2015
11
SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
RATIONALISTS
Descartes (1596-1650) & Leibniz (1724-1804)
EMPIRICISTS
Locke (1632-1704) & Hume (1711-1776)
(Neuman 2011: 70, Van de Ven 2007: 41-43)

12. 25 NOVEMBER 2015
12
SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
RATIONALISTS
Descartes (1596-1650) & Leibniz (1724-1804)
EMPIRICISTS
Locke (1632-1704) & Hume (1711-1776)
(Neuman 2011: 70, Van de Ven 2007: 41-43)

13. 25 NOVEMBER 2015
13
SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
RATIONALISTS
Descartes (1596-1650) & Leibniz (1724-1804)
EMPIRICISTS
Locke (1632-1704) & Hume (1711-1776)
(Neuman 2011: 70, Van de Ven 2007: 41-43)
TRANSCENDENTAL IDEALISM
Kant (1724-1804)
PRAGMATISM

14. 25 NOVEMBER 2015
14
SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
ABDUCTION
Abduction is an inference to the best explanation.
It starts from a set of facts and infers the most likely
hypothesis to explain the phenomenon.
(Van de Ven 2007: 298)

15. 25 NOVEMBER 2015
15
SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
ABDUCTION
One way to distinguishing logics of enquiry is
to see induction and deduction as involving
linear processes, the former being bottom up
and the latter top down, and… abduction as
involving much more complex processes that
can be thought of as a rising spiral involving
numerous iterations.
(Blaikie 2007: 3) Picture: living.dk

16. 25 NOVEMBER 2015
16
SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
PRAGMATISM: SUMMARY
Pragmatism includes philosophers, who take either objective or subjective views of ontology,
but all adopt a subjective epistemology that emphasizes the relation between knowledge
and action-knowledge is “truthful” to the extent that it is successful in guiding action.
(Van de Ven 2007: 40)
Two main directions:
 relativism – Dewey and Rorty
 realism – Peirce, James, and Rescher
(Van de Ven 2007: 39)

17. 25 NOVEMBER 2015
17
SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
PRAGMATISM: SUMMARY
 According to James, the truthfulness of a theory is evident through its success as an
instrument that is loyal to past experience but also is able to transcend it to generate new
facts and to hold so long as it is believed to be “profitable for our lives”.
(Van de Ven 2007: 56)
 Pragmatism is multifaceted and seems to vary according to each pragmatist.
(Van de Ven 2007: 54)
 Natural science has a traditional focus on truth whereas design science based on
pragmatism focuses more on (situated) utility.
(adapted from Vaishnavi and Kuechler 2004)

18. 25 NOVEMBER 2015
18
SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
PRAGMATISM: SUMMARY
 Pragmatism developed as an alternative to the historical debates between rationalism
and empiricism.
 Pragmatism attempts to reconcile the abstractness of rationalism with the particularism of
empiricism.
 Pragmatism is characterized by the relation of theory and praxis.
 The varieties of pragmatisms share a common understanding of truth as the success in
guiding action and prediction.
 Pragmatism embraced abduction as the mode of scientific discovery.

19. 25 NOVEMBER 2015
19
SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
PHILOSOPHICAL ASSUMPTIONS
OF THREE RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES
POSITIVIST INTERPRETIVE PRAGMATIST
Ontology A single reality. Knowable.
Probabilistic
Multiple realities, socially
constructed
Subjective: Similar to postmodernism.
Objective: Reality places limitations and
constraints on our actions
Epistemology Objective. Dispassionate.
Detached observer of truth
Subjective, i.e. values and
knowledge emerge from the
researcher-participant
interaction
Knowing through making.
Subjective and dependent on practical
consequences
Methodology Observation. Quantitative.
Statistical
Participation. Qualitative.
Hermeneutic, dialectical.
Developmental: Measure artifactual
impacts on the composite system
Human
nature
Determinism (although
different degrees)
Voluntarism (although different
degrees)
Middle ground and situated (depends
on relativism or realism understanding)
(Vaishnavi and Kuechler 2004)

20. 25 NOVEMBER 2015
20
SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
PRAGMATISM VS INTERPRETIVISM
Remarks:
 “Dewey (1931) describes pragmatism to be based on both realist and idealist metaphysics” (Goldkuhl 2012: 141)
 Understanding and interpretation (hermeneutics)
(Goldkuhl 2012: 142)





21. 25 NOVEMBER 2015
21
SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
PRAGMATISM VS OTHERS: EXAMPLE 1
(Martela 2015: 12)

22. 25 NOVEMBER 2015
22
SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
PRAGMATISM VS OTHERS: EXAMPLE 2
Remarks:
 “Critical realism incorporating pragmatic action” (Coghlan & Brannick 2012: 42)
 ”Epistemic reflexivity looks at exposing interests and enabling emancipation through self-reflexivity” (ibid.)
(Coghlan & Brannick 2012: 41)





23. SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
25 NOVEMBER 2015
EXERCISE
Use the group report assignment from the course “IS Development
and Implementation in a Business Context” (final report) and discuss
with your neighbor:
 Which paradigm you will be using in the assignment?
 What research design you will be using?
 Quantitative, qualitative, design research, or mixed?
 Which research methods?

24. Positivistic
approach
Interpretive
approach
Critical
approach
Pragmatic
approach
Quantitative
research
Qualitative
research
Design
research
Mixed
research

25. SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
25 NOVEMBER 2015
PART 2:
DESIGN SCIENCE RESEARCH
& ACTION RESEARCH

26. 25 NOVEMBER 2015
26
SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
DESIGN SCIENCE VS ACTION RESEARCH
 Cycles and collaboration in AR Artifact in design science research
(Coghlan and Brannick 2010: 10)

27. 25 NOVEMBER 2015
27
SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
DESIGN SCIENCE RESEARCH

28. 25 NOVEMBER 2015
28
SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
…design, stripped to its essence, can be defined as
the human capacity to shape and make our
environment in ways without precedent in nature,
to serve our needs and give meaning to our lives.
John Heskett (2002: 7). Toothpicks & Logos: Design in Everyday Life. Oxford University Press

29. 25 NOVEMBER 2015
29
SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
Design disciplines have a long history of
building their knowledge base through
making – the construction of artifacts and
the evaluation of artifact performance
following construction.
A GENERAL MODEL FOR GENERATING
AND ACCUMULATING KNOWLEDGE
(Vaishnavi and Kuechler 2004)

30. 25 NOVEMBER 2015
30
SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
WHAT ARE THEY DOING?
Design
• creating something new that does not
exist in nature
Design research
• research into or about design
Design science research
• research using design as a research
method or technique
(Vaishnavi and Kuechler 2004) Picture: drs2012bangkok.org

31. 25 NOVEMBER 2015
31
SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
HEVNER’S THREE-CYCLE FRAMEWORK
(Hevner 2007: 88)

32. 25 NOVEMBER 2015
32
SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
DESIGN SCIENCE RESEARCH FRAMEWORK
(Hevner et al. 2004: 80)

33. 25 NOVEMBER 2015
33
SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
DESIGN SCIENCE RESEARCH GUIDELINES
(Hevner et al. 2004)

34. 25 NOVEMBER 2015
34
SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
ACTIVITIES & OUTPUTS IN DESIGN SCIENCE
RESEARCH ACTIVITIES RESEARCH OUTPUTS
Build Evaluate Theorize Justify
Constructs or concepts form the vocabulary of a domain (e.g.
entities, attributes, relationships, identifiers, constraints)
Model is a set of propositions or statements expressing
relationships among constructs (e.g. entity-relationship model)
Method is a set of steps, an algorithm or guideline used to
perform a task (e.g. normalization of relational databases)
Instantiation is the realization of an artifact in its environment
(e.g. physical implementation of a specific database)
(Adapted from March and Smith 1995)

35. 25 NOVEMBER 2015
35
SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
CHALLENGES FOR DESIGN SCIENCE
 There is an inadequate theoretical base. The field is still very young lacking the cumulative
theory development found in other engineering and social-science disciplines.
 Insufficient sets of constructs, models, methods, and tools exist for accurately representing
the business/technology environment.
 The existing knowledge base is often insufficient for design purposes and designers must
rely on intuition, experience, and trial-and-error methods.
 Design-science research is perishable. Rapid advances in technology can invalidate
design-science research results before they are implemented effectively in the business
environment.
 Rigorous evaluation methods are extremely difficult to apply in design-science research.
(Hevner et al. 2004: 99)

36. 25 NOVEMBER 2015
36
SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
ACTION RESEARCH

37. 25 NOVEMBER 2015
37
SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
CHARACTERISTICS OF ACTION RESEARCH
 Research in action, rather than research about action
 Not detached observation, but participation and enacting change
 Collaborative democratic partnership
 Together with members of the system, not clinically uninvolved
 Research concurrent with action
 Making more effective actions and simultaneously building up knowledge
 Sequence of events and an approach to problem solving
 Iterative cycles and scientific method of fact-finding and experimentation
(Coghlan & Brannick 2012: 4-5)

38. 25 NOVEMBER 2015
38
SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
ACTION RESEARCH CYCLES
(Coghlan & Brannick 2012: 4-5)

39. 25 NOVEMBER 2015
39
SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
ACTION RESEARCH CYCLES
(Coghlan & Brannick 2012: 9-10)
What is the issue?
What shall we
do about it?
We do it
What is the
result of our
intervention?

40. 25 NOVEMBER 2015
40
SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
ACTION RESEARCH CYCLES
(Coghlan & Brannick 2012: 9-10)
What is the issue?
What shall we
do about it?
We do it
What is the
result of our
intervention?
What is the
result of our
intervention?

41. 25 NOVEMBER 2015
41
SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
ACTION RESEARCH CYCLES
(Coghlan & Brannick 2012: 9-10)
What is the issue?
What shall we
do about it?What is the
result of our
intervention?
What is the
result of our
intervention?
We do it

42. 25 NOVEMBER 2015
42
SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
SIMULTANEOUS ACTION RESEARCH CYCLES
(Coghlan & Brannick 2012: 10-11)

43. 25 NOVEMBER 2015
43
SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
REALITY OF ACTION RESEARCH
(Coghlan & Brannick 2012: 69)

44. 25 NOVEMBER 2015
44
SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
QUALITY & RIGOR IN ACTION RESEARCH
A good action research project contains three elements:
 What happened?
 A good story
 How do you make sense of what happened?
 A rigorous reflection on that story
 So what?
 An extrapolation of usable knowledge or theory from the reflection on the story
(Coghlan & Brannick 2012: 15-16)

45. 25 NOVEMBER 2015
45
SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
ACTION RESEARCH + DESIGN SCIENCE
(Sein 2011: 41)

46. 25 NOVEMBER 2015
46
SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
PARADIGM? APPROACH?
Venture Tower game for partnerships
 Created based on a problem identified
during an interview with a startup CEO
 Designed and developed by a group of
design students based on Jenga
 Tested with two different groups of
business people
 Participants generously shared their
reflections on doing business (cultures,
planning, risk, mgmt styles, delegation,
profit, funding, growth etc.)
(Groskovs 2011)

47. SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
25 NOVEMBER 2015
EXERCISE
Use the group report assignment from the course “IS Development
and Implementation in a Business Context” (final report) and discuss
with your neighbor:
 How you might use –
 Design science research approach?
 Action research approach?

48. SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
25 NOVEMBER 2015
FINAL QUESTIONS
 Aim of pragmatic research?
 Action research vs Design science research?

49. SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
25 NOVEMBER 2015
PART 3:
STUDENT PRESENTATIONS

50. 25 NOVEMBER 2015
50
SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
GUIDELINES FOR PAPER PRESENTATIONS
 Content and structure
 Main contributions
 Paradigmatic point of departure (ontology, epistemology, human nature, methodology)
 Research methodology
 Use of theory
 Discussion of findings
 Implications
 How to make practical use of the paper

51. 25 NOVEMBER 2015
51
SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
 Presentation 2 – Group 7 Presentation 1 – Group 6
STUDENT PRESENTATIONS

52. 25 NOVEMBER 2015
52
SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
REFERENCES
 Blaikie, N. (2007). Approaches to social enquiry: Advancing knowledge.
 Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis. Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life. London,
Heinemann Educational.
 Coghlan, D. and Brannick, T. (2012). Doing action research in your own organization. London, Sage Publications.
 Fernández, W. D. (2003). Metateams in Major Information Technology Projects - A Grounded Theory on Conflict, Trust, Communication, and Cost.
School of Information Systems. Brisbane, Queensland University of Technology. PhD.
 Groskovs, S. (2011) Design Talks Business: The Venture Tower Game. Proceedings of the SIDeR’11 Conference, DTU.
 Goldkuhl, G. (2012). Pragmatism vs interpretivism in qualitative information systems research. European Journal of Information Systems, 21(2),
135-146. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.54
 Hevner, A. (2007). "The Three Cycle View of Design Science Research." Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 19(2): 87.
 Hevner, A. R. et al. (2004). "Design Science in Information Systems Research." MIS Quarterly 28(1): 75-105.
 Martela, F. (2015). Fallible Inquiry with Ethical Ends-in-View: A Pragmatist Philosophy of Science for Organizational Research. Organization
Studies 36(4), 537–563.

53. 25 NOVEMBER 2015
53
SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
REFERENCES
 Mills, J., A. Bonner and K. Francis (2006). "The development of constructivist grounded theory." International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5(1): 1-
10.
 Neuman, W. L. (2006). Social Research Methods: Quantitative and Qualitative Methods (Sixth Edition ed.). Boston: Pearson Education Inc.
 Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications Inc.
 Sein, M. K., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., & Lindgren, R. (2011). Action Design Research. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 37-56.
 Straub, D., Gefen, D. and Boudreau, M.-C. (2005). Quantitative Research. Research in information systems: a handbook for research supervisors and
their students. D. E. Avison and J. Pries-Heje. Oxford, Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann: 221-238.
 Vaishnavi, V. and W. Kuechler. (2004, last updated November 11, 2012). "Design Research in Information Systems." http://desrist.org/design-
research-in-information-systems/.
 Van de Ven, A. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research, Oxford University Press, USA.
 Walsham, G. (2006). "Doing Interpretive Research." European Journal of Information Systems 15(3): 320-330.

54. SERGEJS GROSKOVS
EXTERNAL LECTURER & PHD CANDIDATE
25 NOVEMBER 2015
THANK YOU
Significant part of the content for this presentation
was kindly provided by Per Svejvig