Introduction

Scientific research can be understood as a formal, rational and systematic process that aims to provide answers to the study of a phenomenon using scientific procedures. A research can be understood as a systematic investigation that aims to develop theories, establish evidence and solve problems (Gough et al. 2012). To achieve such an objective, there is a path from identifying a problem to presenting reliable results (Dresch et al. 2015a). The research process is supported by the knowledge available and by the careful use of methods, techniques and scientific procedures recognized by the academic community (Cauchick Miguel 2011). As there are different variables guiding the choices of the researcher, this study emphasizes variables resulting from particular areas of knowledge and from the choice of methods whose epistemological basis is consistent with the objectives pursued by researchers.

Operations management, for example, is oriented towards the need to generate knowledge that contributes to solve organization problems (Coghlan and Shani 2005). Such a need to unite the practical and the theoretical contexts of the study of organizations contributes to the implementation of action research and design science research as research methods.

However, there is no unanimity in the use of such methods or their main distinctions and complementarities. However, there is a productive disagreement that favors a wide range of studies (Cole et al. 2005; Iivari and Venable 2009; Loebbecke and Powell 2009). This discussion and the expansion of the portfolio of research methods contribute to improve knowledge with the necessary rigor to scientific research (Lacerda et al. 2013). Therefore, it is important that research methods be studied and disseminated among researchers, especially methods that promote an interaction between researchers and the real problems of organizations. The possibility of a dynamic cooperation among research methods is the focus of studies proposing a joint use of action research and design science research (Cole et al. 2005). New studies are needed to address specific issues such as epistemological roots and possible reasons why both approaches have evolved independently (Cole et al. 2005). Although it is necessary to investigate the ontological and epistemological aspects of methods, this will not be the main objective of this study.

Considering such a context, this study presents the main concepts related to action research and design science research in the context of operations management. These two research methods may support studies whose objectives are to solve problems which require actions or interventions and which, at the same time, require the design and the development of an artifact that operationalizes such actions. It should be noted that some authors suggest a third research method called “action research design” (Sein et al. 2011). Thus, the aim of this study is to deepen the distinctive analysis between these two research methods and discuss the need for a third method: action research design.

This study is structured into four sections, besides this introduction. We present in the next section the main theoretical concepts we used as a basis for this study. Then, we describe the methodological procedures used to conduct the study. Subsequently, we present the main results of the research. Finally, we exhibit the conclusions and the limitations of this study, and suggestions for future research.

Theoretical Basis

This section presents the key concepts related to action research and design science research. Then, we draw a comparison between these two methods to guide the arguments used in this study.

It should be mentioned that the distinction in the groundwork of these methods (Action Research and Design Science Research) is not always understood. In a first approach, it is worth noting that action research is concerned simultaneously with the implementation of changes in organizations and with relationships between researchers and the members of participant organizations (Coughlan and Coghlan 2002; Coghlan and Shani 2005; Thiollent 2009; Cauchick Miguel 2011). Design science research, in turn, may require effective actions to enable changes in a collaborative manner. However, its main objective is to design artifacts and prescribe solutions (March and Smith 1995; Hevner 2007). Another topic that deserves attention concerns the scientific paradigm underlying these methods, which characterizes studies that use them. It should be noted that studies on operations management may be based on traditional science (social and natural) or even on design science (Dresch et al. 2015a). Operations management studies are generally based on the paradigms of traditional science. In that sense, their main objectives are often to explore, describe, explain and, whenever possible, predict something (Van Aken 2004). As such, these studies are therefore oriented towards a description and an explanation of how a particular system or phenomenon works in the real world. Research based on design science, in turn, is concerned with the generation of knowledge by projecting and prescribing solutions to real problems (Dresch et al. 2015b).

Action Research

Action research is a research approach designed to establish a close association between actions and solving of problems. In this perspective, it involves researchers and participants of a research situation in a cooperative and participatory way. They identify a problem, conduct data analyses, plan actions, implement actions and finally present an evaluation of a problem (Coughlan and Coghlan 2002; Thiollent 2009; Cauchick Miguel 2011).

For Thiollent (2009), action research is a participant research. It does not comprise only taking actions or studying a problem; it also produces knowledge, accumulates experience and contributes to the discussion of problems (Thiollent 2009). In action research, the researcher observes from within an objective situation of the real world both to improve it and to acquire knowledge (Checkland and Holwell 1998). Action research is also a research that aims to act and to generate knowledge starting by studying the theory to implementing actions (Coughlan and Coghlan 2002).

In short, action research must achieve two basic objectives: intervention in practice and production of knowledge (Thiollent 2009). The first objective refers to the contribution of the research to solve a practical problem, and the second objective relates to the knowledge generated by the solution of a problem (Thiollent 2009).

With regard to the participant aspect of action research, aspects of the cooperation between the researcher and the participants of the organization under study are highlighted by the definition of Thiollent (2009, p. 16). According to this author, "action research is a form of social research with an empirical basis designed and carried out in close association with an action or solving a collective problem, and which involves representative researchers and participants of a situation or problem in a cooperative or participatory way." In the context of organizations, action research is appropriate when the research seeks to describe the operations and developments of actions over time for a particular group, community or management (Coghlan and Brannick 2001). In addition, action research seeks to understand how a member of a particular group performs an action, how and why such action may change or improve the functioning of a system and how the process of change or improvement allows the generation of learning (Coghlan and Brannick 2001).

Action research is characterized by some key aspects. Among such aspects, there are among others the collaboration between researchers and participants of the organization and the intervention in the situation investigated. Figure 1 shows the main aspects of action research according to (Järvinen 2007).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Aspects of action research. Source: Prepared by the authors based on Järvinen (2007)

Full size image

The application of action research essentially comprises four main phases: (i) preliminary, (ii) conduction cycle, (iii) meta-phase (Coughlan and Coghlan 2002) and (iv) final phase (Thiollent 2009). Figure 2 illustrates the main phases of action research.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Phases of Action Research. Source: Adapted from Coughlan and Coghlan (2002) and Thiollent (2009)

Full size image

At the preliminary phase, the researcher conducts a study which aims to understand the context and the purpose of the research (Coughlan and Coghlan 2002). At the second phase, a conduction cycle is performed in six steps; it is applicable to an organizational environment (Coughlan and Coghlan 2002). The steps that comprise the conduction cycle are briefly presented in Table 1.

Table 1 Conduction cycle steps
Full size table

The third phase is the meta-phase, which consists in monitoring all conduction cycles (the six previous steps). Its objective is to identify the learning generated during the conduction of the research as well as to improve the implementation of future cycles (Coughlan and Coghlan 2002). It is noteworthy that the six-step conduction cycle should be performed as often as necessary to obtain the desired solution to a studied problem (Coughlan and Coghlan 2002). Finally, Thiollent (2009) emphasizes the importance of communication and external publicizing of the research and its results for those interested in the study and for the academic community in general. The following section presents some basic concepts associated with design science research.

Design Science Research

Design science research is a research method that seeks to generate knowledge on designing an artifact or even prescribing a solution (Dresch et al. 2015a). A research based on the design science paradigm helps to draw close researchers and members of organizations in order to generate useful knowledge to solve real problems (Bayazit 2004).

Design science research enables the conduction of research in several areas (Vaishnavi and Kuechler 2009), among them operations management (Holmström et al. 2006). Regarding operations management, design science research is appropriate since it may help to reduce the existing gap between theory and practice by engaging in issues of interest to both professionals and academics (Holmström et al. 2006). Design science research provides a systematic procedure that guide the conduction of studies aiming to design artifacts or even prescribe solutions (Dresch et al. 2015a).

Another concern of design science research is performing an evaluation to developed artifacts. Such evaluation is performed in order to verify the effective range of the objectives to which the artifact was intended (Çağdaş and Stubkjær 2011). Thus, the development of an artifact is not enough to characterize an investigation as design science research, but it is essential to certify that the device achieved the objectives originally proposed by the researcher (Dresch et al. 2015a).

Another feature of design science research is that, although it is an approach oriented towards problem-solving, its objective is not developing an optimal solution, but rather a satisfactory solution compared to existing ones (Dresch et al. 2015a). Another relevant aspect is that, although the problems addressed by design science research are specific, the solutions should be capable of generalization to a certain class of problems (Van Aken 2004; Sein et al. 2011; Lacerda et al. 2013). In view of these central concepts, researchers using design science research as a research method should consider some essential elements in order to obtain an adequate contribution. Such elements are briefly shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Essential elements for an adequate conduction of design science research. Source: prepared by the authors based on March and Storey (2008)

Full size image

The first element refers to the formalization of a relevant problem (March and Storey 2008). The second element is the evidencing by the researcher that there are no appropriate solutions to solve the problem, thus justifying the importance of the planned research (Dresch et al. 2015a). The third and fourth elements are related to the development and the evaluation of a new artifact that will be used to solve the problem (March and Storey 2008). This evaluation must be performed considering the utility and the viability of the artifact in order to demonstrate its practical and academic validity (Hevner et al. 2004).

Furthermore, design science research needs to address the following aspects: (a) the research should add value to the existing theoretical knowledge (contributing to the improvement of general knowledge) and improve practical situations of organizations; and (b) it is recommend that the researcher, upon concluding its activities, test the implications of the study’s results in a real situation (March and Storey 2008).

After presenting the main characteristics of design science research, below are the main steps recommended for a proper study conduction using this method. Figure 4 summarizes these steps.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Main steps to conduct a design science research. Source: Dresch et al., 2015a, p. 125)

Full size image

The purpose of Fig. 5 is to present the main steps to be taken to conduct a design science research. Overall, design science research begins with a clear identification of the problem, which, above all, must be relevant. It should be noted that the researcher needs to understand the problem in depth in order to identify all its facets and possible interrelations with the context in which it appears (Dresch et al. 2015a).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Categories for classifying articles. Source: Prepared by the authors

Full size image

Once the problem is understood, the researcher must identify artifacts previously developed to address such problems, as well as possible classes of problems (Dresch et al. 2015a). Then, it is possible to make possible suggestions for future artifacts. Therefore, one or more alternatives of artifacts to solve a problem should be made explicit (Manson 2006).

This step results in a set of possible artifacts. One of them is selected to advance to the next steps, which focus on the development of such artifact. The suggestion step is essentially creative and therefore somewhat subjective (Vaishnavi and Kuechler 2009).

During the development of the artifact itself, the researcher constructs the internal environment of the artifact (Simon 1996). To design the artifact, different approaches may be used, for example algorithms, graphic models, models etc. (Lacerda et al. 2013). The product of the development step will be the artifact itself at a functional state (Manson 2006).

In design science research, the development of an artifact is not enough to conclude the research. The evaluation of the artifact is essential. Such evaluation aims to analyze how the artifact behaves in the context for which it was designed, verifying its ability to meet the intended objectives (Dresch et al. 2015a). In addition, the evaluation should pay attention to the pragmatic validity of the artifact, that is, whether the developed artifact meets the utility demands for its application in the external environment for which it was designed (Hevner et al. 2004).

In the final stages of the method, the researcher must formalize the whole research process, including its results and learning acquired from it. At this point, the steps of the research should be synthesized detailing the conduction process and justifying the choices made. Whenever possible, the study should generalize the solutions obtained by using the artifact for a determined class of problems (Dresch et al. 2015a).

Finally, it is necessary publicize the research. Communication is fundamental because it presents the research results to the academic and organizational communities (Peffers et al. 2007). Such publicizing is essential to improve the knowledge of the studied areas.

In the following section, we present an analysis that distinguishes design science research from action research. This distinctive analysis helps to identify the main differences between action research and design science research as well as a possible need for a third research method, that is, action design research.

Distinctive Analysis Distinguishing Action Research From Design Science Research

Once we identified the characteristics of action research and design science research, it is possible to find similarities and differences between them. Table 2 summarizes the characteristics of the this comparatively.

Table 2 Features distinguishing action research from design science research
Full size table

The main differences between action research and design science research are their objectives, evaluation of results, role of the researcher and need for empirical basis. On the one hand, studies that develop artifacts, use such artifacts in an organizational context (cooperatively or not) and evaluate artifacts have an appropriate methodological support by using design science research. On the other hand, studies that seek to cooperatively understand a phenomenon in depth and studies that require an intervention in practice have an adequate subsidy for conducting the research by using action research.

Moreover, comparing action research with design science research, it can be observed as an essential difference that design science research does not require a collaborator or a specific group interested in the research (Iivari and Venable 2009). In addition, design science research does not require a joint collaboration between researchers and participants in the environment in which the research is conducted.

Iivari and Venable (2009) pointed out that action research and design science research are compatible with each other, but, for some reasons, their combination may be difficult. For example: (i) design research science enables learning through “flaws and errors” due to the nature of the development of something new or of an innovative artifact, different from action research, whose interest is the generation of knowledge to solve a practical problem; (ii) in design science research, tests using the artifacts can be performed even without the participation of the people interested in the research. This partly reduces risks and partly ensures that the researcher makes technology decisions in a rigorous and robust way.

Finally, it can be noted that, for the use of design science research for some situations, an interaction may be required. However, it is not as essential as for action research, that is, the researcher may work collaboratively or not when using design science research. However, such cooperation is required for studies using action research.

Methodological Procedures

To achieve the objective of this research, we performed a comprehensive and systematic literature review according to the procedures proposed by (Morandi and Camargo 2015). The systematic literature review was performed on studies found in the databases EBSCOhost, ScienceDirect and Google Scholar. The selected publications contained the search terms “action research” associated with ““design science”, “design science research”, ““prescriptive research" and the specific words "”action research design” and ““action design research". The search was limited to studies published in scientific journals over the last ten years. A preliminary search found 43 studies with a high result rate for the association of the terms "action research and design science”. Appendix 1 summarizes the main results of the systematic literature review.

Upon an inspectional reading (Adler and Van Doren 1972) of the studies found, we identified 15 relevant studies that met the literature review criteria. For their selection, the studies must have presented at least one of the following criteria: (i) comparison between action research and design science research; and (ii) proposition of a new method based on action research and design science research.

The inspectional reading process helps to verify the relevance of the texts to the research. After selecting the relevant texts, we analyzed them in depth and classified them into four categories: (i) articles claiming that action research and design science research can be combined; (ii) articles using action research under the paradigm of design science; (iii) articles proposing a new research method based on action research and design science research; (iv) articles that only present the similarities between action research and design science research; and (v) articles arguing against the combination of action research and design science research. Fig. 5 shows the distribution of the articles into each category.

In addition, by analyzing the articles, we found that the most articles are theoretical and only six articles analyzed or applied action research and design science research empirically. Finally, we could also identify that most articles identified during the systematic literature review addressed information systems and management. There were few articles applying these methods to education.

In the next section, we present the main results obtained by analyzing the selected articles. This analysis presents the point of view of several authors on the similarities and the differences of the three methods, the possible combination of methods and the proposition of a new one. The complete list of papers originated from the literature review, can be visualized in the Appendix 1.

Results

First, we reviewed the characteristics of action research and design science research defined and mentioned above. Studies analyzed the similarities and differences between action research and design science research, and some researchers pointed out that they are similar (Cole et al. 2005; Loebbecke et al. 2007; Science 2007; Iivari and Venable 2009; Papas et al. 2012; Alles et al. 2013). Others consider that action research and design science research can be combined and, by this association, a new method is created including procedures from both (Rose and Saifullah 2012; Sein et al. 2011). This new method is called “action design research” (Sein et al. 2011).

By taking the objective of action research, the researcher works to solve practical problems and improve the knowledge in a particular area (Coughlan and Coghlan 2002; Järvinen 2007; Thiollent 2009). As for design science research, the objective is to design artifacts that propose satisfactory solutions to practical problems. Thus, it focuses on production systems that do not yet exist either by changing existing practices or by creating new practices (Takeda et al. 1990; Romme 2004; Manson 2006; Peffers et al. 2007; Vaishnavi and Kuechler 2009).

In this sense, the objectives of both research methods converge to a same objective: problem-solving and improving knowledge. However, the guidelines of each method follow specific flows. The researcher using action research addresses research contexts and purposes, collects data, provides feedback, analyzes data, plans actions, implements, evaluates and finally presents the results. The researcher using design science research, in turn, identifies a problem with a practical relevance, designs and evaluates an artifact, occasionally implements and examines the scope of application and the possibility of generalization of the artifact to a class of problems, identifies and analyzes practical and theoretical contributions of the artifact and finally presents the results.

To deepen the discussion, we present below a synthesis of the converging aspects of action research and design science research. Such aspects have been identified by reading the papers found during the systematic literature review stage.

For comparison purposes, we considered the converging aspects identified by (Cole et al. 2005; Järvinen 2007). The choice for these two studies is because they are early researchers of the similarities between action research and design science research. The first study evidencing the existence of similarities between the action research and design science research was Romme (2004), who considered both as complementary tools. Romme (2004) did not focus on the methods’ aspects aiming to draw comparisons. Table 3 shows the similarities between the action research and design science research.

Table 3 Similarities between action research and design science research
Full size table

Most studies shown in Table 4 argued that action research and design science research are analogous research approaches because both are based on planning and taking action in order to study the reality by using a practical problem-solving point of view. Thus, the motivation for both is to solve specific problems within the organizational context. Action research can be considered as an alternative to or a complementary strategy for design science research.

Table 4 Possibilities of combining action research (AR) and design science research (DSR)
Full size table
Table 5 Results of Searches in Databases
Full size table
Table 6 Papers from the systematic literature review
Full size table

Ninety percent (90%) of the studies which addressed the similarities between action research and design science research, mention the generation of knowledge about the project analyzed (Alles et al. 2013; Cole et al. 2005; Holmström et al. 2009; Iivari and Venable 2009; Järvinen 2007; Loebbecke et al. 2007; Papas et al. 2012; Ractham et al. 2012; Romme 2004; Weeding and Dawson 2012). The generation of new knowledge through theoretical contributions and, simultaneously, the generation of practical improvements are connection points between the action research and design science research (Alles et al. 2013; Cole et al. 2005). New knowledge arises from the conduction of the research in which knowledge is generated, used, tested and modified so that it contributes to practical solving-problems (Järvinen 2007). The generation of knowledge about the project using action research is considered a success when there is an improvement in a real situation. In design science research, there is success when an artifact contributed satisfactorily to improve the reality or to solve a particular problem (Papas et al. 2012).

Sixty percent (60%) of the studies analyzed considered activities focused on intervention and evaluation, collaboration between researchers and participants, cyclicality and focus on improving reality as similarities between action research and design science research. In addition, both research approaches aim to improve reality, since their purpose is to improve an unwanted problem-situation (Romme 2004; Cole et al. 2005; Holmström et al. 2006; Järvinen 2007).

According to the analysis, action research can be used for activities focused on intervention, construction and evaluation (Järvinen 2007; Papas et al. 2012). In this perspective, action research can be used for evaluating or assisting in the implementation of a research artifact previously developed by design science research. Such application of action research can be made either for the artifact design or during its evaluation (Cole et al. 2005; Peffers et al. 2007).

Cole et al. (2005), Järvinen (2007), Papas et al. (2012) and Loebbecke et al. (2007) agreed on a proactive intervention of action research in the design of the artifact recognizing at the same time that the intervention of the researcher is not a requisite of design science research. Iivari and Venable (2009) highlighted the compatibility between action research and design science research and deemed the synergy between them as positive, although the authors warned of the risks of testing an artifact in a real situation. This is because, in design science research, tests of artifacts could be conducted in laboratory. However, some authors (Cole et al. 2005; Järvinen 2007) argued that the test of the artifact in certain situations should use an intervention approach, not only laboratory tests or simulations.

According to the analysis above, it is possible to observe the risks inherent to the process of evaluating artifacts developed during the research using design science research. Such risks depend on the nature of the technology and on the situation. However, it is suggested that high-risk evaluations be artificially made before being evaluated by action research (Iivari and Venable 2009). A careful evaluation is bound to an ethical conduction of the research. The research must identify and make explicit the risks of developing and experimenting something new, and take proper steps to mitigate such risks (Iivari and Venable 2009).

Another similarity between action research and design science research concerns the collaboration between researchers and participants. This is a significant challenge because action research and design science research seek to actively intervene in practice rather than just passively observing and analyzing reality (Alles et al. 2013). The collaboration can be useful for both artifact designs and artifact evaluation (Papas et al. 2012; Alles et al. 2013).

Another similar element between action research and design science research is cyclicality. Loebbecke et al. (2007) studied comparatively the methods using iterative steps and a cyclical analysis, including (i) an initial understanding of the situation (diagnosis in action research, and identification of needs in design science research), (ii) intervention of the researcher in the organization under study, and (iii) reflection on and evaluation of the results before restarting the cycle.

Empirical studies demonstrate the association of activities of action research and design science research. Ractham et al. (2012) based their study on a cyclical evaluation and a constructivist learning to develop a learning tool using Facebook. In a collaborative research, Weeding and Dawson 2012) presented an iterative use of action research for planning, acting, evaluating and reflecting aiming to develop a portable solution (artifact) to monitor the health of patients in hospitals.

Following the same line of analysis regarding the differences and similarities between action research and design science research, Papas et al. (2012) discussed the topic from four points of view: (i) the role of the artifact, (ii) the structuring process, particularly in relation to research cycle and development of methods, (iii) the evaluation focus of the intervention and the research, and (iv) the emphasis on learning and knowledge. By analyzing each of these aspects, the authors proposed three approaches combining methods for interventional research (Papas et al. 2012): (i) researchers use action research as a dominant approach and then other methods to examine and explain research problems; (ii) researchers opt for a multi-methodological approach: multiple approaches or methods are incorporated into research efforts; and (iii) meta-approaches: the meta-approach contains elements of both action research and design science research, or even other methods. Sein et al. (2011), in turn, created a more comprehensive approach of design science research, appropriately called “action design research”, based on the action and the organizational aspects of action research.

According to Sein et al. (2011) and Rose and Saifullah (2012), the similarities between action research and design science research is significant. Thus, Sein et al. (2011) proposes the action design research use at the evaluation stage in researches conducted at the organizational context and directed to problem-solving. So, the action design research reflects the assumption that artifacts are sets shaped by the organizational context during their development and use (Sein et al. 2011). Thus, this method approaches the research process by performing inseparable and inherently intertwined activities in order to design an artifact, intervening in the organization and evaluating it at the same time (Sein et al. 2011).

The reason for the creation of a new research method is the need to explicitly recognize the created artifacts, as well as their purpose, construction logic and their continuous improvement in the context in which they are used (Sein et al. 2011). The challenges of this proposal are solving a problem in an organizational environment with the collaboration of researchers and participants, jointly evaluating the formulation of a problem, designing an artifact and evaluating the solution that addresses a class of problems identified by the context (Cole et al. 2005).

The multi-methodological approach, as proposed by Papas et al. (2012), seems the most relevant because it is applicable to all research areas, allowing the combination of methods during the conduction of the research whenever necessary. In this sense, Peffers et al. (2007) consider action research as an alternative to complement design science research during the design and the evaluation of artifacts whenever necessary, including intervention in a real context.

Ractham et al. (2012) also used the action research’s steps to perform evaluations and guide the creation of a learning environment. The authors followed six steps: (i) Problem: identification and motivation, (ii) Project: solution objectives, (iii) Design and development, (iv) Demonstration, (v) Evaluation, and (vi) Communication (Ractham et al. 2012). As a result of the joint application of methods, the authors could apply some of the steps of action research (strategies and interventions) and obtain a constant feedback from research participants to subsequently improve the artifact throughout the development process.

Iivari and Venable (2009) supported the multi-methodological approach, arguing that maintaining different methods is interesting because researchers can make decisions about the application or not of a new or different methodology during their research. Thus, upon suggesting the combination of methods in a different manner, Iivari and Venable (2009) proposed that the design of the artifact should first use design science research and that the artifact should be evaluated using action research. Such evaluation can be made by implementing the artifact in an organization with the support of action research, for example (Iivari and Venable 2009).

Accordingly, Cole et al. (2005) pointed out that design science research and action research, could be jointly used because of their degree of similarity and their overlap, especially because both operate pro-actively. The authors proposed adding the reflection and learning phases to design science research, the artifact design phase to action research and, finally, the integration of these two to research steps in general.

The practical aspect of the methods, as proposed by Cole et al. (2005), provides a definition of the problem during the first phase. The second phase, intervention, similar to the “Design” phase of design science research, is a combination of the action research’s action planning and action itself. At this phase, it is possible to identify the need for both processes, artifact design and intervention (planning and implementation of an action), in the organizational context (Cole et al. 2005). The third phase, evaluation, is a relevant criterion for both approaches. The last phase, reflection and learning, generates knowledge, theoretically and practically contributing to the field of study. Cole et al. (2005) proposed integrating the research methods and presented a summary of action research and central concepts of design science research. The central idea was to design or plan an artifact linked to a real context. The proposal has four phases: (i) problem identification, (ii) intervention, (iii) evaluation, and (iv) reflection and learning.

Another finding of this study is that the application of action research and design science research is strongly oriented towards information systems, followed by management, education and health. Such areas often require the design of artifacts, and often researchers in these areas face the need for a collaborative review, such as evaluation of the artifacts by users. We present a discussion on the combined use of action research and design science research in the following section.

Analysis and Discussion of Results

After the systematic literature review and the analysis of the articles, it was possible to establish a set of alternatives that could guide researchers in developing studies using action research and design science research jointly. Table 4 shows possible combinations of these two.

As can be seen in Table 4, the alternative A corresponds to the use of action research taking into account the paradigm of design science. This means conducting the research action according to traditional procedures (Coughlan and Coghlan 2002), for example generate knowledge on how to design an artifact based on a real context and on the collaboration with environmental agents. Such knowledge is generated and refined through problem-solving efforts. In order to conduct this type of research, it is necessary to make some adjustments to the conduction of action research. Therefore, it is necessary to establish what class of problems the contributions may be generalized to, what are the characteristics of the artifact that will be applied (internal and external environment) and what are the satisfactory solutions expected from the artifact. An example of the application of action research taking into account the paradigm of design science is the study conducted by Papas et al. (2012). However, the authors do not name the method as above.

Alternative B is the use of action research and design science research as mixed-methods. Mixed-methods can be understood as the use of different research methods concurrently or sequentially (Borrego et al. 2009; Creswell and Clark 2013). In a context of method combination, in particular, it is suggested that the use of both methods be sequential. This combination is recommended when a previous development an artifact is necessary (design science research) to intervene in a real context (action research). Such artifact may be a construct, a model or a method. In this sense, it is initially necessary to conduct a design science research in order to develop and evaluate the artifact, and then conduct an action research to intervene in the real environment. The combination of action research and design science research was used by (Hüner et al. 2009; Ractham et al. 2012) to initially develop and evaluate an artifact artificially and subsequently perform a naturalistic evaluation (Pries-Heje and Baskerville 2008) of such artifact by implementing it in a real context. For such implementation, action research was used.

Finally, the third way of combining the action research and design science research (Alternative C) is especially indicated when the artifact to be developed and evaluated is an instantiation-type artifact. Instantiation can be understood as the implementation of an artifact in a real environment (Venable 2006). It is considered the most complex artifact in terms of development and evaluation (March and Smith 1995). A satisfactory solution achieved by instantiation depends on the interaction of its users or beneficiaries with the responsible agents. This makes this process complex. For the development of instantiation, it is necessary to design the artifact together with the research participants, anticipating potential problems of design derived from the lack of specific knowledge on the practical context by the researcher. Regarding the evaluation of this type of artifact and its improvement, the interaction between researchers, research participants and other instantiation environment agents is fundamental. This artifact evaluation and improvement becomes more robust by using the concept of cyclicality and collection and analysis of data as proposed by action research. Data collection and analysis occur repeatedly and can be adjusted or revised to allow taking into account new data and new analyses throughout the conduction of the research.

In this sense, considering the complexity of the instantiation artifact, the use of a new research method integrating the steps and the concepts of action research and design science research seems appropriate to this artifact’s development and evaluation. This is precisely the purpose of action research according to (Bilandzic and Venable 2011; Sein et al. 2011). In the next section, we present the conclusions of this study, highlighting the major contributions, limitations and opportunities for future works.

Conclusion

This study aimed to deepen a distinctive analysis between action research and design science research and to discuss the need for a third method (action design research).

Based on a systematic literature review and the analysis of articles, we identified the similarities between action research and design science research. The analysis limited to studies that addressed both action research and design science research. The articles analyzed are theoretical and practical.

From the analyzes, it was possible to identify the differences and similarities between the design science research and action research. The main differences between action research and design science research are their objectives, evaluation of results, role of the researcher and need for empirical basis.

Also, the analysis highlights the main similarities between action research and design science research. Generation of knowledge emerged in 90% of the searches in databases. In 60% of the studies analyzed, the following aspects stood out: activities focused on intervention and evaluation, collaboration between researchers and participants, cyclicality and focus on improving reality. Upon noting these similarities between the action research and design science research, this study seeks to improve the academic and professional dialogue on the need for a new research method or a joint use of action research and design science research.

It is possible to point out some findings which result from the analysis of the use of action research in conjunction with design science research. First, researchers who use action research considering the paradigm of design science do not make explicit which theory (traditional or design theory) they are contributing to. This implies a conceptual misalignment in using the methods. This is related to a lack of understanding by researchers about the distinction between design science and design science research. On the one hand, design science is the paradigm that supports design research. Design science research, on the other hand, is a method which implements research considering the paradigm of design science.

A second issue observed is that researchers, by using combined research methods, do not distinguish assumptions when using both methods in a combined manner. In particular, they do not make explicit how they use the collaboration and intervention steps which are considered necessary to conduct this type of research.

The third issue observed is that the proposals for a new method (action research design) presented to date are little specific regarding the conduction of research, stressing only macro steps. In addition, studies on action design research are incomplete, lacking a reflection on the circumstances of use or on which research objectives this approach is necessary for and justifiable.

Based on such findings, it was possible to establish a set of alternatives that could guide researchers in conducting research. The alternatives were organized in three possibilities: (i) incorporation of new elements into action research - the concepts of classes of problems, satisfactory solutions, internal/external artifact environment and the time the research is developed under the paradigm of design science; (ii) the use of methods in a combined and sequential manner; and (iii) establishment of a new method integrating the elements of action research and design science research, i.e., action design research. However, it’s necessary to develop researches and publications to propose clear and detailed procedure to conduct the action design research. Information on which are the steps required to operationalize action design research are needed. Only a description of the macro steps, such as the studies conducted to date presented, is not sufficient.

Thus, future studies can focus on proposing a more detailed method to operationalize action research design. Moreover, it is essential that such proposition be widely applied in practice in order to verify the method’s suitability and evaluate its implementation.

The limitations of this study are of a theoretical nature. There is a need for further empirical studies that verify the functionality of each of the alternatives proposed for the conduction of research combining action research and design science research. Another limitation of this study is its analysis, which focused specifically on the research methods themselves (action research and design science research). That is, we have not performed a deeper analysis of these methods taking into account their ontological and epistemological roots.