AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction
Abstract
The following discussion takes to heart Benbasat’s (2010) and Lyytinen’s (2010) suggestion that design science techniques should be more fully embraced by the HCI community. Design science approaches, which – in their ideal form – equally emphasize theory, design, and evaluation through an iterative design/research process (Amiel and Reeves, 2008, Hevner et al., 2004, March and Smith, 1995, Markus et al., 2002, Wang and Hannafin, 2005), offer a comprehensive way to tackle many of the complex and sometimes highly subjective design-oriented research questions that are so familiar within the HCI discipline. In this response paper, three typical, high-quality HCI papers are examined in detail to explore the nature of the “pick any two” problem. Suggestions for how missing methodologies might be incorporated into these works through the design science approach are provided. Additionally, a brief review of HCI literature from three publication venues is conducted in order to roughly identify the extent of the “pick any two” problem. Several broad-based reasons for methodology omission are discussed, with suggestions for ways that these institutional challenges might be circumvented or overcome.
Recommended Citation
Prestopnik, N. R.
(2010).
Theory, Design and Evaluation – (Don’t Just) Pick any Two.
AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction, 2(4), 167-177.
Retrieved from https://aisel.aisnet.org/thci/vol2/iss4/5
DOI:
When commenting on articles, please be friendly, welcoming, respectful and abide by the AIS eLibrary Discussion Thread Code of Conduct posted here.