FORMS OF DISCOVERY FOR DESIGN KNOWLEDGE
2012
- 553Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage553
- Abstract Views308
- Downloads245
Article Description
The article at hand analyses an often disregarded aspect of design science research that is how design knowledge is actually built or, more precisely, how new design knowledge is discovered. In the article we distinguish abductive and inductive forms of discovery. We describe how inductive and abductive discoveries are dealt with in traditional science and how these two forms of discovery have been discussed in Information Systems Design Science Research literature. By means of a case study we specifically illustrate the impact of a chosen mode of discovery on validity, utility, generality, and innovativeness of a problem solution. We find that the strength of inductively discovered design knowledge is that its validity, utility, and generality can be proven more easily than that of abductive discoveries. However, inductively discovered design knowledge often suffers from a smaller degree of innovativeness.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know