Name
Abstract | ||
|---|---|---|
The boundaries and contours of design sciences continue to undergo definition and refinement. In many ways, the sciences of design defy disciplinary characterization. They demand multiple epistemologies, theoretical orientations (e.g. construction, analysis or intervention) and value considerations. As our understanding of this emerging field of study grows, we become aware that the sciences of design require a systemic perspective that spans disciplinary boundaries. The Doctoral Consortium at the Design Science Research Conference in Information Sciences and Technology (DESRIST) was an important milepost in their evolution. It provided a forum where students and leading researchers in the design sciences challenged one another to tackle topics and concerns that are similar across different disciplines. This paper reports on the consortium outcomes and insights from mentors who took part in it. We develop a set of observations to guide the evolution of the sciences of design. It is our intent that the observations will be beneficial, not only for IS researchers, but also for colleagues in allied disciplines who are already contributing to shaping the sciences of design. |
Year | Venue | Keywords |
|---|---|---|
2008 | COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SYSTEMS | Design research, sciences of design, design as science, discipline, body of knowledge, system of professions |
DocType | Volume | ISSN |
Journal | 23 | 1529-3181 |
Citations | PageRank | References |
0 | 0.34 | 0 |
Authors | ||
7 | ||
Name | Order | Citations | PageRank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sandeep Purao | 1 | 792 | 124.46 |
| Carliss Y. Baldwin | 2 | 362 | 19.02 |
| Alan R. Hevner | 3 | 1184 | 145.91 |
| Veda C. Storey | 4 | 2796 | 542.19 |
| Jan Pries-Heje | 5 | 938 | 68.22 |
| Brian Smith | 6 | 0 | 0.34 |
| Ying Zhu | 7 | 0 | 0.34 |