Long Live Design Science Research! .... And Remind Me again about Whether It Is a New Research Paradigm or a Rationale of Last Resort for Worthwhile Research that Doesn't Fit under Any Other Umbrella
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is broadening and increasingly unquestioned acceptance of design science research (DSR). Recently, DSR may have provided an important bridge for overcoming or bypassing artificial barriers to accepting the legitimacy of certain types of research, but in some cases it is not obvious how DSR actually contributed to the research. Perhaps it is time to retire the assumption that DSR is somehow a new and different paradigm for doing research and to move on. Recognizing that the information-systems discipline is quintessentially rooted in design, this panel examines whether we actually need DSR to legitimize research that produces interesting and valuable results related to new constructs, models, methods, or instantiations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.057 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.031 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.026 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.017 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".