In their insightful critique of Action Design Research, Hevner and Mullarkey (this issue) proposed an enhancement of ADR by juxtaposing concepts from a well cited framework of Design Science Research (DSR) developed by Peffers et al. (2007). In this commentary, we argue that while we agree with some of their elaborations, such as unpacking the specific stages of ADR to make them more transparent and accessible and incorporating formalization of learning in every stage, we also disagree with Hevner and Mullarkey on two key areas. The first is depicting multiple different entry points to an ADR project, which goes against the essential spirit of ADR’s single entry point, problem formulation. More importantly, in juxtaposing the Peffers et al. framework of DSR on to ADR, they are combining two approaches that are epistemologically incommensurate. Peffers et al. take a deductive design approach while ADR employs principally an inductive epistemology by giving primacy to the guided emergence of the artifact. In spite of our disagreements, we conclude that both approaches are premised upon pragmatism where researchers are guided more by utility and usefulness rather than an abstract notion of truth. Our disagreements are essential characteristics of a healthy academic discourse.

When acquiring information systems, public entities face a dilemma. On the one hand, they want to procure the system that best suits their needs, which often requires lengthy dialogues with vendors. At the same time, they are restricted by government regulations that mandate limited dialogue in the interests of transparency and equal opportunities for all vendors. To examine how public entities deal with this, we followed three procurement projects in Norway. We show that this dilemma manifests itself as a dialectic between the thesis of getting the system requirements right and the antithesis of strictly adhering to regulations. Public entities search for a resolution of this dialectic through two syntheses: selecting an appropriate tendering procedure, and learning how to specify requirements through networks of peer public entities. Our findings reveal that the syntheses are possible because the dialectic is actually complimentary, both the thesis and the antithesis are needed to create the joint outcome that satisfies both. The resolution of the dialectic unfolds differently over time. Our study contributes to the relatively neglected stream of IS research on dialectics that explicitly searches for a synthesis while revealing the complementarity of the dialectic. We show how time plays a nuanced role in the resolution of the dialectic situation.

Techno-centric initiatives to bridge the digital divide, such as One Laptop per Child (OLPC), has been criticized for not taking a holistic approach. This has led to limited success in areas such as providing quality education in developing countries. In this paper, we offer a premise for a holistic understanding by borrowing from the field of information ecology. To illustrate our premise, we applied the theoretical lens of information ecology to analyze a case study of Open Learning Exchange (OLE) which has been described as one of the few successes in implementing OLPC. Based on our analysis, we posit that information ecology is a suitable and appropriate lens to interpret and understand how IT interventions can be successfully deployed in developing countries.

Although there is a strong theoretical basis for concluding that conceptual models are effective in aiding users build mental models of computer systems, very little empirical evidence exists to support such a conclusion. Frequently, the effect has been weak. Subjects trained with a conceptual model often perform better than control group subjects in learning tests, but seldom at a statistically significant level. One possible reason for this is the influence of individual differences such as basic cognitive abilities. This study examined the influence of two cognitive variables - visual ability and learning mode - in the mental model formation process of novice users of an electronic mail filing system. We compared the effectiveness of two types of conceptual models-analogical and abstract. It was found that high-visual subjects performed significantly better than low-visual subjects. Abstract learners also performed better than concrete learners. More important, interaction effects were observed. Low-visual subjects were severely hampered by abstract models but performed as well as high-visual subjects when provided with analogical models. Abstract learners benefited from the abstract model but were hampered by the analogical model. On the other hand, concrete learners performed better with the analogical models compared to abstract models. The findings indicate that there is a need to consider individual differences, such as visual ability and learning mode, in research on mental models and on human-computer interaction in general.