An Applied Inquiry Method for Interventionist Sciences
Abstract
The 21st century’s most consequential applied disciplines, like software engineering, innovation management, marketing science, and strategic planning, face a profound epistemological crisis. These ”interventionist sciences” actively construct the realities they study rather than merely describing pre-existing phenomena, yet they lack methodological frameworks adequate for their constructive mission. Operating within complex ”phygital” spaces where physical, digital, and social dimensions are inseparably fused, these fields confront a validation crisis that threatens their scientific legitimacy and social responsibility. Classical scientific methods, designed for observational inquiry into stable natural phenomena, prove structurally inadequate for domains where intervention constitutes the primary mode of knowledge generation. Contemporary alternatives — Action Research, Design Science Research, and Lean methodologies — while offering valuable insights, fall short of providing the comprehensive, philosophically coherent, and ethically integrated framework required for navigating phygital complexity. This paper introduces the Adaptive Interventionist Method (AIM), a novel scientific methodology specifically designed for rigorous inquiry within interventionist domains. AIM operationalizes five core principles: phygital contextualization treating physical, digital, and social dimensions as inseparable reality; explicit ethical integration as an epistemically necessary component; model-centric epistemology focused on building adaptive representations rather than discovering universal laws; embedded observation and reflexivity acknowledging researcher participation in studied systems; and multi-dimensional validation concurrently assessing pragmatic utility, systemic viability, and ethical desirability. These principles structure a seven-phase inquiry cycle designed for adaptive learning in complex, uncertain environments. Recognizing the meta-methodological challenge of validating a new scientific method, we propose a novel ”bootstrapping” validation protocol wherein AIM systematically applies its own principles to test and refine its effectiveness through iterative real-world application. This approach offers a pathway for establishing methodological credibility while generating justifiable and responsible knowledge in the very fields that are actively constructing our sociotechnical future. AIM represents not merely a methodological innovation but a foundational step toward legitimate scientific practice for the disciplines shaping the 21st century.
References
Blank, S. (2020). The Four Steps to the Epiphany: Successful Strategies for Products That Win. John Wiley & Sons.
Checkland, P. (1999). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. John Wiley & Sons.
Cross, N. (2011). Design Thinking: Understanding How Designers Think and Work. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Feyerabend, P. K. (2010). Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. Verso Books.
Friedman, B., Kahn Jr., P. H., and Borning, A. (2008). Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems, chapter 4, pages 69–101. John Wiley & Sons.
Giere, R. N. (2006). Scientific Perspectivism. University of Chicago Press.
Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., and Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1):75–105.
Hofstadter, D. R. (1999). Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. Basic Books.
Holland, J. H. (2014). Complexity: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
Ihde, D. (2009). Postphenomenology and Technoscience: The Peking University Lectures. SUNY Press.
James, W. (1907). Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking. Longmans, Green, and Co.
Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, 4 edition.
Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4):34–46.
March, S. T. and Smith, G. F. (1995). Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems, 15(4):251–266.
McNiff, J. and Whitehead, J. (2011). All You Need to Know About Action Research. SAGE Publications, 2 edition.
Meira, S. (2025a). Everything Platforms. Available at SSRN, DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.5160171.
Meira, S. (2025b). SPA: Society, Politics, Advancement. To be published.
Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., and Chatterjee, S. (2007). A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3):45–77.
Peirce, C. S. (1992). The Essential Peirce: Selected Philosophical Writings (Vol. 1). Indiana University Press.
Pickering, A. (2010). The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency, and Science. University of Chicago Press.
Popper, K. R. (2005). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Routledge.
Ries, E. (2011). The Lean Startup: How Today’s Entrepreneurs Use Continuous Innovation to Create Radically Successful Businesses. Crown Business.
Rittel, H. W. J. and Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2):155–169.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books.
Schön, D. A. (1988). Designing: Rules, types and worlds. Design Studies, 9(3):181–190.
Searle, J. R. (1995). The Construction of Social Reality. Free Press.
Simon, H. A. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press, 3 edition.
Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., and Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9):1568–1580.
Stringer, E. T. (2014). Action Research. SAGE Publications, 4 edition.
Tanenbaum, A. S. and Bos, H. (2015). Modern Operating Systems. Pearson, 4 edition.
van Fraassen, B. C. (1980). The Scientific Image. Oxford University Press.
Venable, J., Pries-Heje, J., and Baskerville, R. (2016). FEDS: a framework for evaluation in design science research. European Journal of Information Systems, 25(1):77–89.
Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus, 109(1):121–136.
