One of the most persistent challenges in Design Science Research (DSR) is demonstrating a meaningful contribution to knowledge. Researchers often build impressive artifacts, solve real problems, and produce useful innovations, yet still face the question from editors and reviewers: “What knowledge does this research add?”
This question lies at the heart of whether a DSR project will be recognized, published, and valued within the Information Systems (IS) community. In this article, we break down what a knowledge contribution truly means in DSR, why the field still lacks consensus, and how DSR projects can effectively signal both scholarly and practical impact.
1. What Counts as a Knowledge Contribution in DSR?
A knowledge contribution in Design Science Research goes beyond building something new. According to Davis, one valid form of contribution occurs when a study develops and demonstrates a new or improved design of a conceptual or physical artifact.
In simple terms:
A DSR project contributes knowledge when it creates a design that did not exist before, or improves an existing one in a meaningful, demonstrable way.
This contribution can be established through several forms of evidence:
- Logical reasoning
- Proof of concept
- Proof that the design adds value
- Proof that the design is accepted and used by real users
This flexibility acknowledges that DSR works across many levels of abstraction—from detailed artifacts to broad design principles—but all must ultimately expand our understanding of how to design better systems.
2. What Does Not Count as a Contribution?
Not all development work is research.
A system built in an industry project might be useful, costly, and technically impressive. However, if it merely demonstrates something everyone already knows is possible, then it does not contribute new knowledge.
Davis explains this bluntly:
Many industry solutions do not contribute knowledge because they simply carry out tasks that are already conceptually understood.
For example:
- Building a typical e-commerce website
- Implementing standard algorithms
- Developing a dashboard using known techniques
- Configuring an off-the-shelf software system
These are achievements, but they lack novelty.
A DSR project must offer insights that go beyond completing a practical task. It must generate understanding that others did not previously have—whether through new design principles, new constructs, new methods, or new explanations.
3. Why the Field Still Lacks a Shared Understanding
The IS discipline has not fully converged on what constitutes a clear knowledge contribution in DSR. This lack of consensus has slowed acceptance and reduced recognition of DSR in top journals.
Some of the reasons include:
- The relatively young age of the DSR paradigm in IS
- Differences in expectations across journals
- Varied backgrounds of DSR researchers (IS, CS, engineering)
- Confusion between artifact building and knowledge building
Because of this, even high-quality DSR work can be misunderstood or undervalued simply because the contribution is not clearly articulated.
A core goal of ongoing DSR scholarship is to provide researchers with practical frameworks for identifying, positioning, and presenting their knowledge contributions.
4. Beyond Knowledge: DSR Must Also Contribute to Practice
Although the focus of academic publication is often on theoretical contributions, DSR has a dual responsibility: it must contribute to the knowledge base and to practical application environments.
Design Science Research is different from theory-only research because:
- It begins with real-world problems
- It produces solutions meant to be used
- Its value depends partly on its impact on organizations and society
Hevner’s well-known framework highlights this dual mission: DSR should simultaneously advance theory and improve practice.
Many scholars argue that this practical relevance is what makes DSR especially important to the Information Systems field.
Commentaries in IS research repeatedly emphasize:
- The need for solutions that matter to organizations
- The importance of bridging academia and practice
- The unique strength of DSR in producing actionable knowledge
5. Global Discussions on Practice Impact in IS
Across the international IS community, there is growing conversation about the need for research to inform practice more directly.
For instance:
- The German Wirtschaftsinformatik community has called for greater recognition of design-oriented research and highlighted the close collaboration between industry and academia in Europe.
- Gill and Bhattacherjee have criticized the lack of practical “informing” offered by many IS studies.
- Others have responded by noting that IS journals are open to DSR and emphasize the need to publish both theoretical and practical contributions.
These discussions underline a simple truth:
DSR is most powerful when it both advances knowledge and improves real-world practice.
6. The Path Forward: Clearer Signaling of Contributions
The central challenge is not lack of innovation. It is lack of clarity.
DSR researchers must make their knowledge contributions visible. This includes:
- Stating what is new
- Explaining why it matters
- Showing how the artifact advances understanding
- Demonstrating how principles can be generalized
- Connecting the design to justificatory knowledge
- Highlighting how the solution impacts practice
When these elements are clearly articulated, DSR becomes compelling to both academics and practitioners.
Conclusion
Design Science Research has immense potential to transform both scholarship and practice in Information Systems. But its influence depends on one essential skill: the ability to demonstrate a clear, meaningful knowledge contribution.
Producing an artifact is only the beginning. What matters is the insight that the artifact reveals, the principles it uncovers, and the understanding it adds to the knowledge base. At the same time, DSR must remain firmly anchored in real-world challenges, ensuring that research not only advances theory but also improves practice.
The future of DSR lies in strengthening this dual contribution. Clearer frameworks for signaling knowledge, greater consensus in the field, and stronger articulation of practical relevance will elevate DSR to its full potential.
Leave a Reply