Getting pragmatic

Ågerfalk, Pär J.

doi:10.1057/ejis.2010.22

Cited by 54 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We suggest a reframing of an information system not as an aggregation of artefacts but as a coupled system of socio-communicative-technical action. This refocuses attention from an interpretive framing of an information system to a pragmatic framing of an information system (Ågerfalk, 2010;Goldkuhl, 2012). For us, an information system must constitute an ensemble of actors taking coordinated, communicative and articulative action (BeynonDavies, 2010), that includes not only machines such as computers but also artefacts such as data structures.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What’s in a face? Making sense of tangible information systems in terms of Peircean semiotics

Beynon‐Davies

2018

European Journal of Information Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Within this paper, we utilise a delimited area of philosophy to help make sense of a delimited area of design science as it pertains to a class of contemporary information systems. The philosophy is taken from that of Charles Sanders Peirce; the design science is directed at the construction of visual devices in that area known as visual management. The utilisation of such devices within their wider visual management systems we take to be instances of what we refer to as tangible information systems. Tangible information systems use tangible artefacts, such as whiteboards and magnetic tokens, to accomplish information. We particularly use Peircean semiotics to analyse the use of tangible emoticons articulated upon performance boards within a large-scale manufacturing facility. We infer from our analysis of these informative artefacts that certain integrated aspects of Peircean philosophy offers an alternative way of framing notions of a proper design science, design theory, and design artefact for the discipline of information systems.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What’s in a face? Making sense of tangible information systems in terms of Peircean semiotics

Beynon‐Davies

2018

European Journal of Information Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hevner et al, 2004;Ågerfalk, 2010) as well as comparisons between those two (Järvinen, 2007;Lee, 2007;Sein et al, 2011). Another example is found in who proposes practice research as a way to both contribute to general practice through abstract and useful knowledge and to study empirical fields as interconnected practices.…”

Section: Limitations and Further Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Action in action research

Melin

Axelsson

2016

JSIT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Structured abstract PurposeThe main ambition with action research is being able to solve organisational problems through intervention and to contribute to scientific knowledge. The main emphasis has so far been on the "research part". Here we focus on the "action part" of action research in order to generate rigorous research, to solve local problems and to deal with evident dilemmas in action research. The purpose of the article is to elaborate on the concept of action by addressing actions and roles in the practice of action research, illustrated by dilemmas in an action research project on information systems development in public sector. Design/methodology/approachThis is a qualitative case study. The empirical illustrations of this article originate from an action research project that focused the two e-service development initiatives analysed below. The analysis is structured using key aspects and phases proposed by Avison et al. (2001). As a result of the analysis the concept of action is elaborated. The action elements action, actor, motive, space, and time are analysed together with different roles. This goes beyond the existing action research literature. FindingsThe conclusions show that there is a need to understand actions and roles within action research projects -not separating action from research. Research is also seen as action. The practice of action research is also discussed as context bounded interactive social action: action research as a recurrent, interactive, and dynamic activity. It is also identified that the understanding of roles, actions and interaction can help us to handle dilemmas in action research. Research limitations/implicationsWe contribute to the body of knowledge concerning action research in the information systems research field and in general by exploring the need to study the concept of action (e.g. situations and elements), to be explicit concerning the different phases, roles and responsibilities and management of different dilemmas in action research. The inter-organizational development character in this study adds an extra dimension into the practice of actions research only partially highlighted. This one limitation. Another limitation is focus on public agencies. However, this is not critical for the results on action elements and the AR dilemmas that are studied. Practical implicationsThe understanding of roles, actions and interaction can solve the dilemmas and challenges linked to the practice of action research in the information systems field, but such understanding can help us to discover and handle dilemmas in action research.1 This article is a rewritten and significantly expanded version of a former conference paper: Melin, U., Axelsson, K. (2007) Originality/valueThe originality in this research is an illustration of and a perspective on action research as a context bounded interactive social action: action research as a recurrent, interactive, and dynamic activity. The value is that this knowledge can help us to handle dilemmas in action research.

show abstract

“…In orde the constructs of the modelling lan ontological constructs of thing associations. In contrast, a social fo use approach acknowledges that rea a set of brute facts alone [37]. Rat subjectively constituted through use) among social actors.…”

Section: Problem 1: Current Modelling Langua Design Biased Whilst Clamentioning

confidence: 99%

Software Modelling Languages: A Wish List

Henderson‐Sellers

González-Pérez

Eriksson

et al. 2015

2015 IEEE/ACM 7th International Workshop on Modeling in Software Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Contemporary software engineering modelling tends to rely on general-purpose languages, such as the Unified Modeling Language. However, such languages are practice-based and seldom underpinned with a solid theory -be it mathematical, ontological or concomitant with language use. The future of software modelling deserves research to evaluate whether a language base that is compatible with these various elements as well as being philosophically coherent offers practical advantages to software developers.

show abstract

Getting pragmatic

Cited by 54 publications

References 24 publications

What’s in a face? Making sense of tangible information systems in terms of Peircean semiotics

What’s in a face? Making sense of tangible information systems in terms of Peircean semiotics

Action in action research

Software Modelling Languages: A Wish List

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About