Summary of: Management Research Based on the Paradigm of
the Design Sciences: The Quest for Field-Tested
and Grounded Technological Rules
INTRODUCTION
The text argues that there is a gap between the research done in Business Schools and its
practical application in the field of management. The author suggests that the present-day
management theory, developed by the academic community, is not being widely used in the
practice of management. The reason for this gap is seen as a combination of poor
presentation of research results and the nature of the research itself. The author argues
that the nature of the research products is determined by the research paradigm, which is
the combination of research questions, research methodologies and the nature of the
pursued research. They argue that in management, what is needed is not only description-
driven research programs but also prescription-driven research ones, in order to develop
research products that can be used in designing solutions for management problems.
They suggest that it is not enough to just understand the problem but also to develop and
test solutions for it. They argue that what is needed is the development of scientific
knowledge to solve a class of management problems, through the development of abstract
knowledge, technological rules and design exemplars that can be used as a guide for
managerial problem-solving. The text also states that the classics in the field like Taylor,
Weber, and Fayol are not adequate for the contemporary problems and the need of the
current managers. It concludes with the statement that academics should aim to develop
more practical theories that can be easily translated into the business world and can help in
solving management problems.
THE UTILIZATION PROBLEM OF ACADEMIC MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
The article delves into the problem of 'utilization' in management research, which is seen as
a gap between the rigorous research produced in Business Schools and its practical
application in the field of management. The authors argue that management theory is
either scientifically sound but too reductionistic or trivial to be of practical relevance, or
relevant to practice but lacking rigorous justification. It is stated that in other academic
fields, this problem is often solved by separating the two contexts but in Business Schools,
"the soldiers of organizational performance and the priests of research purity often occupy
not only the same halls but also the same bodies."
The text goes on to point out that utilization problem in natural sciences is different and
there are usually effective partnerships in place between the natural sciences and fields
such as medicine and engineering, and between researchers in any given field and the
professionals of that field. But in the field of management, the utilization problem is a well-
discussed and thorny issue. The authors describe that managers and academics have
different frames of reference regarding management knowledge, and use different
languages to communicate. The result is that academic researchers have to operate within
two reputation systems; the academic reputation system, which rewards rigorous research
and the professional reputation system which rewards relevant research outcomes and the
professional training of prospective managers.
, The authors argue that the current prioritization of these systems varies over time and it
resembles a pendulum. Prior to the Ford and Carnegie Foundation reports on American
Business Schools, priority was given to professional training and the professional reputation
system, but since then, the academic community began to view the field as a practice-based
craft as a result of the insufficient attention given to descriptive research and the
justification of the prescriptions given.
The text highlights that there are also similar tensions in other countries, for example, The
Netherlands, France, and Britain. where researchers have raised concerns about the
relevance and application of management research results and have called for more
emphasis on Mode 2 knowledge production, which is the kind of knowledge that is created
by combining fundamental research and practical application.
In conclusion, the authors suggest that the problem of utilization in management research is
a complicated issue caused by the lack of balance between rigorous research and practical
relevance. They call for a more practical approach to management research that focuses on
the development of scientific knowledge that can be used to solve a class of management
problems, and a balance between the academic reputation system and the professional
reputation system. They suggest that this will help bridge the gap between academic
research and its practical application in the field of management.
THE PARADIGM OF THE DESIGN SCIENCES
This article argues that a major reason for the lack of adoption of academic management
theory for practical use is the nature of the theory itself. This nature is said to be strongly
influenced by the paradigm used to develop the theory. The term "paradigm," as used in the
article, refers to a system of scientific habits used by a group of scientists to solve scientific
problems. In this context, it specifically refers to the combination of research questions
asked, the research methodologies used to answer these questions, and the nature of the
research products being pursued.
Formal, Explanatory and Design Sciences
The text discusses the idea that there are different types of scientific disciplines, which can
be categorized into three groups: the formal sciences (such as philosophy and
mathematics), the explanatory sciences (such as natural sciences and social sciences), and
the design sciences (such as engineering, medical science, and modern psychotherapy). The
formal sciences are said to be "empirically void," as their main focus is on building systems
of propositions that are internally consistent. The explanatory sciences, on the other hand,
aim to describe, explain, and possibly predict observable phenomena within their field, and
their research should lead to true propositions that are accepted by the scientific
community. The typical research product of an explanatory science is a causal model, which
is ideally expressed in quantitative terms. The design sciences, on the other hand, focus on
developing knowledge for the design and realization of artifacts (to solve construction
problems) or for the improvement of existing entities (to solve improvement problems).
Architects and civil engineers mainly deal with construction problems, while medical doctors
the Design Sciences: The Quest for Field-Tested
and Grounded Technological Rules
INTRODUCTION
The text argues that there is a gap between the research done in Business Schools and its
practical application in the field of management. The author suggests that the present-day
management theory, developed by the academic community, is not being widely used in the
practice of management. The reason for this gap is seen as a combination of poor
presentation of research results and the nature of the research itself. The author argues
that the nature of the research products is determined by the research paradigm, which is
the combination of research questions, research methodologies and the nature of the
pursued research. They argue that in management, what is needed is not only description-
driven research programs but also prescription-driven research ones, in order to develop
research products that can be used in designing solutions for management problems.
They suggest that it is not enough to just understand the problem but also to develop and
test solutions for it. They argue that what is needed is the development of scientific
knowledge to solve a class of management problems, through the development of abstract
knowledge, technological rules and design exemplars that can be used as a guide for
managerial problem-solving. The text also states that the classics in the field like Taylor,
Weber, and Fayol are not adequate for the contemporary problems and the need of the
current managers. It concludes with the statement that academics should aim to develop
more practical theories that can be easily translated into the business world and can help in
solving management problems.
THE UTILIZATION PROBLEM OF ACADEMIC MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
The article delves into the problem of 'utilization' in management research, which is seen as
a gap between the rigorous research produced in Business Schools and its practical
application in the field of management. The authors argue that management theory is
either scientifically sound but too reductionistic or trivial to be of practical relevance, or
relevant to practice but lacking rigorous justification. It is stated that in other academic
fields, this problem is often solved by separating the two contexts but in Business Schools,
"the soldiers of organizational performance and the priests of research purity often occupy
not only the same halls but also the same bodies."
The text goes on to point out that utilization problem in natural sciences is different and
there are usually effective partnerships in place between the natural sciences and fields
such as medicine and engineering, and between researchers in any given field and the
professionals of that field. But in the field of management, the utilization problem is a well-
discussed and thorny issue. The authors describe that managers and academics have
different frames of reference regarding management knowledge, and use different
languages to communicate. The result is that academic researchers have to operate within
two reputation systems; the academic reputation system, which rewards rigorous research
and the professional reputation system which rewards relevant research outcomes and the
professional training of prospective managers.
, The authors argue that the current prioritization of these systems varies over time and it
resembles a pendulum. Prior to the Ford and Carnegie Foundation reports on American
Business Schools, priority was given to professional training and the professional reputation
system, but since then, the academic community began to view the field as a practice-based
craft as a result of the insufficient attention given to descriptive research and the
justification of the prescriptions given.
The text highlights that there are also similar tensions in other countries, for example, The
Netherlands, France, and Britain. where researchers have raised concerns about the
relevance and application of management research results and have called for more
emphasis on Mode 2 knowledge production, which is the kind of knowledge that is created
by combining fundamental research and practical application.
In conclusion, the authors suggest that the problem of utilization in management research is
a complicated issue caused by the lack of balance between rigorous research and practical
relevance. They call for a more practical approach to management research that focuses on
the development of scientific knowledge that can be used to solve a class of management
problems, and a balance between the academic reputation system and the professional
reputation system. They suggest that this will help bridge the gap between academic
research and its practical application in the field of management.
THE PARADIGM OF THE DESIGN SCIENCES
This article argues that a major reason for the lack of adoption of academic management
theory for practical use is the nature of the theory itself. This nature is said to be strongly
influenced by the paradigm used to develop the theory. The term "paradigm," as used in the
article, refers to a system of scientific habits used by a group of scientists to solve scientific
problems. In this context, it specifically refers to the combination of research questions
asked, the research methodologies used to answer these questions, and the nature of the
research products being pursued.
Formal, Explanatory and Design Sciences
The text discusses the idea that there are different types of scientific disciplines, which can
be categorized into three groups: the formal sciences (such as philosophy and
mathematics), the explanatory sciences (such as natural sciences and social sciences), and
the design sciences (such as engineering, medical science, and modern psychotherapy). The
formal sciences are said to be "empirically void," as their main focus is on building systems
of propositions that are internally consistent. The explanatory sciences, on the other hand,
aim to describe, explain, and possibly predict observable phenomena within their field, and
their research should lead to true propositions that are accepted by the scientific
community. The typical research product of an explanatory science is a causal model, which
is ideally expressed in quantitative terms. The design sciences, on the other hand, focus on
developing knowledge for the design and realization of artifacts (to solve construction
problems) or for the improvement of existing entities (to solve improvement problems).
Architects and civil engineers mainly deal with construction problems, while medical doctors
