Talk:Design science (methodology)
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | The contents of the Design science research page were merged into Design science (methodology) on 26 May 2017. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
| The contents of the Constructive research page were merged into Design science (methodology) on 3 April 2019. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Merger Discussion
editRequest received to merge articles: Constructive research into Design science (methodology); dated: Nov/2017. Proposer's Rationale: Authoritative Springer text says constructive research is simply a synonym for Design Science Research aka Design science (methodology), and there are serious, long-flagged copyright issues with the constructive research article that will solved by merging these two apparent synonyms together. Discuss here. Sixsigma942 (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I am going to propose the Constructive Research article, which has a serious copyright issue long flagged on that page by another editor, be merged into this one. Since this is the target article (the one that will be kept), merger instructions require the discussion to go here, since the other talk page will be deleted if the merger succeeds. Here is my rationale:
According to the apparently authoritative very first sentence in the forward I of the Spring Verlag text I cited ("Design Science Research, a Method for Science and Technology Advancement"), Constructive Research is simply a synonym for Design Science Research, which already has multiple wikipedia articles as Design Science and Design Science (methodology). Given the very serious copyright issues already flagged with the entire Constructive Research article, I'm going to propose merging it with Design Science Research aka Design Science (methodology) article, as that would seem to be a very good way to solve the serious copyright issue with this article.Sixsigma942 (talk) 00:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- I've completed the merge, but there is little to move over, as most of the page has remained uncited since 2007 and therefore the lack of verification suggests that it shouldn't be used. Klbrain (talk) 11:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Old Wine in New Bottles?
editDesign Science (DS) seems to be little more than a recycling/repackaging of already established ideas/practices that are at least four decades old. The DS "build-evaluate loop", for example, has previously been encompassed by terms like spiral development and iterative refinement (which also includes creation of prototypes) through close interaction with users of each version of the artifact. Agile software development has a similar premise. Prakash Nadkarni (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)