4.2. Research Methodology
4.2.2. Research Design
4.2.2.1. Design Science Research
102
participants so that worthwhile improvements can occur (Forbes & Khoo, 2015). This epistemology is congruent with the PD approach taken in the co-construction of knowledge through the interaction between individuals at the PD workshops and individuals and the prototype. Interpretivism was used for the qualitative analysis of the subjective meanings that participants ascribed to their interaction with the prototype eModeration system.
An important requirement in pragmatism is that knowledge should make a difference in action (Goldkuhl, 2012), which is what the present study attempted to do by using a DSR design (see Section 4.2.2). DSR encourages knowledge in the service of action. DSR thus supports pragmatism as the underlying epistemological belief (Mckenney et al., 2007). The pragmatist paradigm was used to design and develop the prototype.
The following section outlines the research design, which incorporates a Participatory Design data collection strategy and a Participatory Action Design Research approach to position the user and incorporate learning and reflection within an iterative DSR design.
103
(De Villiers & Harpur, 2013; Drechsler & Hevner, 2016; Geerts, 2011). In the IS field, DSR encompasses the production of artefacts ranging from decision support systems, constructs, models, frameworks, and methods for IS evaluation to design principles, methods, and theories (Gregor & Hevner, 2013; Vaishnavi et al., 2017). The focus is on the developed artefact as well as the relevance of the artefact in the domain of application (Hevner & Chatterjee, 2010). Despite numerous articles extolling the benefits of DSR, there have also been useful critiques.
Notably, Hevner et al., (2004) and Gregory (2010), argue that Design Science researchers solve problems that are usually so specific to the implemented domain that the solution is not generalizable. Barab and Squire (2004) support this view by indicating that the claims made by researchers are grounded on the researcher’s influence on the context and, as such, may not be generalizable to other implementation contexts that are not as directly influenced by the researcher. Thus, while the main objective of DSR is to provide a solution to a practical problem, this objective is achieved at the cost of the generalizability of the result and the findings. Gregor and Hevner (2013) further contend that this problem partially arises because work on DSR to a large extent views the actual creation of the artefact as the entire purpose.
Consequently, little importance has been attached to the meaning of contributing to generalized knowledge. In attempting to ensure that this study was generalizable despite the researcher’s views on the context, participants were engaged during each stage of the research.
DSR includes the investigation of how constructed objects are utilized and how they function to identify, clarify, and refine their behaviour (Iivari & Venable, 2009). The fundamental principle of DSR as a research method within IS, is the development of knowledge to either construct new products or to propose enhancements to current artefacts. Within academia, DSR emphasizes the information used in devising solutions rather than the design-based act of producing an artefact (Peffers et al., 2007). The defining attribute of DSR is learning via the construction of artefacts (Vaishnavi et al., 2017).
The idea of a problem and taking action to understand and describe the problem is a fundamental principle of DSR (Venable, 2014). Research activities in DSR comprise of two activities aimed at improving performance, that is, build and evaluate. Build refers to the construction of the artefact, while evaluate refers to the development of criteria against which the performance of the artefact is assessed (March & Smith, 1995).
104
Relevance and novelty are two important attributes of Design Science artefacts (Geerts, 2011).
Thus, an artefact must firstly provide solutions to important problems. Secondly, DSR should either tackle an unresolved problem in a unique and novel way, or address a problem that has already been solved in a more effective way, to differentiate DSR from routine design (Geerts, 2011; Hevner et al., 2004).
The common elements amongst DSR researchers are the need for a concise definition of the problem prior to artefact development (Peffers et al., 2007; Sein et al., 2011), the identification of specific features and requirements of the artefact prior to design and development (Peffers et al., 2007; Venable, 2014), and an evaluation process to demonstrate rigour and the importance of establishing pertinent solutions to identified problems (Peffers et al., 2007;
Peffers et al., 2006; Vaishnavi & Kuechler, 2004).
4.2.2.1.2. Applicability of DSR to the eModeration context
A qualitative web-based exploratory survey of 53 respondents indicated that there is a low uptake of DSR in SA due to a lack of awareness (Naidoo et al., 2012). Naidoo et al. (2012) further posit that DSR has yet to be recognized as a reliable paradigm in computing research in SA. In contrast, subsequent studies indicate that DSR, specifically within the discipline of IS, is in fact being applied in the SA context (De Villiers & Harpur, 2013). The application of DSR, specifically to the evaluation of the user experience of an eModeration system within HEIs in South Africa, is evident in the works of Van Staden et al. (2015), Van Staden (2017) and Van Staden et al. (2019). These studies point to the relevance and suitability of DSR in the evaluation of eModeration systems in SA. Therefore, this study is not novel in its application of DSR to the eModeration context.
From the review of characteristics and concerns, it can be concluded that DSR has several significant characteristics that resonate with the objectives of this study, specifically the characteristics of learning through the building of artefacts; solving practically relevant real- world problems in a more effective way; an investigation into how designed artefacts are utilized and how they function; and the knowledge used in designing solutions. These characteristics are reflected in the Four-Cycle View of DSR (see Figure 4-1) as recommended by Drechsler and Hevner (2016) and in the Design Science Research Process Model (DSRPM) proposed by Vaishnavi et al. (2017), as illustrated in Figure 4-2.
105
Vaishnavi et al. (2017) maintain that research begins with an awareness of a problem.
Recommendations for a solution are abductively derived from the prevailing theory base for the specific problem domain (see Figure 4-2).
In this study, the literature review indicated that there is no dedicated eModeration system in use in secondary schools. This finding points to a knowledge gap of eModeration systems in the secondary school environment in SA, thus creating a research problem (see Section 1.3).
Using current information, an attempt was made to innovatively solve the problem. A provisional design (a solution) was used to implement an artefact in the Change and Impact Cycle depicted in Figure 4-1. Development and Evaluation (see Figure 4-1) are commonly performed iteratively in the Rigor Cycle of the research endeavour (see Figure 4-1). A functional specification is used to evaluate either partially or fully successful implementations during the Evaluation stage.
Figure 4-1: A Four-Cycle View of the Design Science Research Process (Drechsler &
Hevner, 2016)
Development, Evaluation, and Suggestion (see Figure 4-2) are often iteratively executed during the research effort. The Circumscription arrows indicate the iterative flow from partially completing the cycle back to an Awareness of the Problem. Conclusion specifies the culmination of a cycle of the research process or the end of a specific Design Science Research project (Vaishnavi et al., 2017).
106
Consistent with the pragmatic approach of this study, the Design Cycle (see Figure 4-1) comprised of the logical design of an eModeration system. The software coding thereafter resulted in a prototype eModeration system that represented the first item of validation (Rigor Cycle) of the design process. This study positioned DSR in the field of IS change interventions using Design Science knowledge to develop an eModeration evaluation framework for use in South African secondary schools.
Figure 4-2: Design Science Research Process Model (Vaishnavi et al., 2017)
User participation is central to the developing practices that define trends in user-driven innovations (Robertson and Simonsen, 2012). However, based on a review of 31 papers, Haj- Bolouri (2015) indicates that the user is not a central concept within DSR. Given that user involvement is critical in the development of an eModeration evaluation framework, a methodology proposing the involvement of users in various stages of the DSR process is described in the following section.