Reproduce “Artifact Validity in Design Science Research (DSR): A Comparative Analysis of Three Influential Frameworks” on OpenResearch
Turn your favorite coding agents into research agents that review literature, develop hypotheses, and run experiments.
Universal app for Apple silicon and Intel. Requires macOS 11 or later.
About this paper
Sylvana Kroop
Sylvana Kroop critically analyzed three influential Design Science Research (DSR) frameworks, revealing a lack of explicit support for crucial artifact validity types, particularly instrument and design validity. The work introduces a revised DSR framework that systematically integrates five distinct validity types to enhance rigorous artifact evaluation.
Key insights
- All analyzed DSR frameworks strongly emphasize purpose validity, confirming the artifact's problem-solving effectiveness, but show significant gaps in other validity types.
- Instrument validity and design validity are consistently the least explicitly addressed types across frameworks, indicating a critical gap in ensuring the reliability of evaluation methods and the user-centric quality of artifacts.
- The implicit handling of validity types in current DSR frameworks creates challenges for students and researchers in conducting thorough and systematic artifact evaluations.
Summary by alphaXiv.
Tip: change arxiv.org to autoarxiv.org in any arXiv abstract link to open the paper here.