A CRITIQUE PAPER

by Kurt Russel Arabejo

The article entitled “Design and Natural Science Research on Information Technology”,
by Salvatore March and Gerald Smith focuses on the proposal of a two-dimensional framework
for research in information technology (IT) that reconciles these conflicting points of view where
the first dimension is based on broad types of design and natural science activities: build,
evaluate, theorize, and justify while the second dimension is based on the broad types of
outputs or artifacts produced by design research: constructs, models, methods, and
instantiations. The issue at hand concerns scientific interest in IT, specifically whether
knowledge-producing activity corresponding to natural science or knowledge-using activity
corresponding to design science constitutes legitimate scientific research in the field. The
researchers then argued that in order for IT research to be both relevant and effective, both
design science and natural science activities are required.

It was clearly stated from the paper’s introduction on how this division of interests has
created a dichotomy among IT researchers and disagreement. These types of disagreements
are common in fields that include both knowledge-producing and knowledge-using activities.
They are fueled in part by the high regard in which science is held in modern societies, as well
as the belief that the term "science" should only be applied to research that results in theoretical
knowledge. The authors made a clear distinction between natural science and design science in
the following paragraph, where it was indicated that natural science aims to understand and
explain phenomena while design science aims to develop ways to achieve human goals.
Artifacts and artificial phenomena are created by design science. Natural science, on the other
hand, can deal with both natural and man-made phenomena. Natural scientists, for example,
study how organizations, which are artificial phenomena, function. With the differences
stipulated, the authors then made a linkage or interaction between the two species of scientific
activity in an ordinal manner where first, design science creates artifacts, giving rise to
phenomena that can be the targets of natural science research. Second, because artifacts
"have no dispensation to ignore or violate natural laws". And the final linkage or interaction by
the authors concerns the justification of natural science claims. The authors then concluded that
design science provides substantive tests of the claims of natural science research. Herewith,
both March and Smith, after positing the linkage or interaction among identified variables, they
were able to manifest a proposed framework to which was driven by the distinction between
research outputs and research activities. This is where the two dimensions enter having the first
dimension based on design science research outputs or artifacts: constructs, models, methods,
and instantiations and the second dimension is based on broad types of design science and
natural science research activities: build, evaluate, theorize, and justify. The following paragraph
then contained the discussion of the various indicators for both the two-dimensional framework.
The structure of the paper from the beginning till the end was well written that it posed the
author’s greatest strength.

However, aside from the strength of the paper, various implications can be established.
As such were the fact that there may not be an underlying deep structure to support a theory of
IT. As there are only limited claims or theories to support IT research. The next point to consider
is how perishable the artifacts are, which means that the author's research results will be
perishable as well. As needs change, so do the artifacts created to meet those needs. IT
artifacts are being produced at an ever-increasing rate, resulting in a plethora of phenomena to
investigate. Understanding and assessing IT artifacts will make categorization easier, allowing
researchers to spend less time building and studying artifacts that have already been built and
studied "in kind." Moreover, the authors also indicated that although the study or paper have
provided innumerable research question, it pointed out its several weaknesses. To begin with,
the author acknowledges that it failed to provide guidance for selecting important interactions to
investigate; all interactions among identified variables are treated equally. Second, it ignores the
large body of design science research that is currently being conducted in the field. Third, it fails
to recognize that IT research is concerned with artificial phenomena operating for a purpose
within an environment; the task to which IT is applied is crucial. Fourth, it ignores the adaptive
nature of artificial phenomena, which means that the phenomena can change over time.

Although weaknesses were established, the framework was then followed by the
following claims supporting the following indicators for each framework dimensions. Moreover,
with such issue at hand, I certainly want and ascertain to follow through and investigate in the
future the division of scientific interest in IT that peaks several arguments and disagreements on
whether or not design and natural science research certainly ensures the effectivity and
relevance in IT research. I also want to thoroughly investigate the further distinctions between
design science and natural science and ascertain its linkages and interactions and establish a
framework with assured theories supporting the claim.