Abstract
The methodology of design science (DS) has been emerging as a new form of engaged scholarship in which key managerial and organizational challenges are addressed and solved. These developments have major implications for management education, which has been repeatedly criticized for its lack of relevance to practitioners. However, design science methodology and its implications for management education are still unclear and disputed. Teaching and learning DS thus often suffers from the lack of a consistent methodology. In this respect, teaching DS is very much like mixing oil with water. The purpose of this paper is to compare various taxonomies for DS methodology proposed in the management literature and then develop a consistent taxonomy and integrative framework that may appeal to management students at undergraduate and graduate levels. The proposed framework for DS involves an iterative cycle of exploration, synthesis, creation and evaluation. Design principles arise from, but also connect and inform, these four steps in DS.
Highlights
In recent years, design approaches have been gaining attention and recognition in management discourse
The second framework we review is the science-based design approach proposed in Romme (2003) and further developed by Romme and Endenburg (2006)
Despite the variety in terminology and form, the three frameworks suggest that the prevailing mode of thinking in design science is prescriptive in nature
Summary
Design approaches have been gaining attention and recognition in management discourse. Design-oriented research has especially been proposed as a way to bridge the gap between theory (i.e. rigor) and practice (i.e. relevance), to produce scientific knowledge while solving complex and relevant field problems (Gibbons et al, 1994; Romme, 2003). In this respect, the methodology of design science (DS) has been emerging as a new form of engaged scholarship in which researchers and practitioners co-produce knowledge (Andriessen, 2007; Hatchuel, 2001b; Holmström, Ketokivi, & Hameri, 2009; Pascal, Thomas, & Romme, 2013; Romme & Endenburg, 2006)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
