Talk:Design science

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Split[edit]

This page needs to be split into different things. The company and the scientific pursuit championed by "Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28 (1), 75–106." are two totally different concepts. Particularly within the Information Systems discipline, DS is a major methodology. See "Proceedings of the first international conference on design science research in information systems and technology, DESRIST 2006 February 24-25, 2006" for more information about it. Ansell 03:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


Design as science in information systems, a bit Hevner heavy[edit]

There's a number of other academics that have done work in Design Science in Information Systems, including Hasan, Ellis and Levy and March and Storey. All of which have attempted to refine the Design Science approach in Information Systems. Although as it stands now adding these authors is seemingly a rather time consuming task. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.238.4.86 (talk) 08:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The whole section seems mis-placed and someone's personal attempt to insert a rant on information systems. I suggest it be removed. Designergene (talk) 13:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About the distinction between "design as a science" and "science of design"[edit]

User Johngee1 has made a major change where it states that (Sydney A.) Gregory introduces a distinction between "design as a science" and "science of design", but I didn't find that on the referred source (Gregory, 1966). To my knowledge, it is Nigel Cross who makes that distinction in a clear way (Cross, Nigel. Design as a Discipline. In Designerly Ways of Knowing. London: Springer-Verlag, 2006.). There are previous formulations of that distinction at least as early as in "Design Method and Scientific Method" (Design Studies vol 2 no 4 october 1981).

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Design science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Design science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Design science and design research[edit]

The article Design research looks very similar to this one. See Talk:Design research#Design research and design science for a merge proposal. Викидим (talk) 20:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on Talk: Design research. Designergene (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definition[edit]

The current definition, A concept of design science was introduced in 1957 by R. Buckminster Fuller who defined it as a systematic form of designing, is very confusing. In the common-sense understanding of the term "design", it is done by professionals and thus is almost always systematic, although rarely scientific. It seem that the modern understanding of the term traces back to the 2004 article by Hevner et al., which is highly cited and referred to in terms like "these [articles] have appeared after the publication of the landmark paper by Hevner, March, Park, and Ram (2004), which apparently helped standardise terminology in the area (for good and bad)" (doi:10.1080/0960085X.2018.1458065, 2018, underlining is mine). It might be useful to consider basing our definition on this Hevner's work (currently relegated to the middle of the text). In an encyclopedia, the reader expects the modern treatment of the subject in the lead, with the history placed lower. Викидим (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be appropriate to limit Design science by definition solely to the Hevner view of information science research. That would overlook or even dismiss work such as by Simon, Suh and Gero. Designergene (talk) 11:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to know the subject, and I do not, so I have no issues at all with shuffling Hevner aside. However, if Simon, Suh and Gero have a better definition, can we use it in the first sentence instead of the current very vague text? Викидим (talk) 00:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to do some editing in the next few days. Designergene (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Design_science&oldid=1208433783"