Crossed Conversations with Jean-Louis Le Moigne and Around His Work: From a Foundational Dialogue to a Contemporary Reappraisal
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.66450/sim.v30i3.03Keywords:
Jean-Louis Le Moigne, epistemology, Methodology, sciences of the artificial, Design Science ResearchAbstract
Emerging from a dual dialogue—first between the first author and Jean-Louis Le Moigne, and subsequently between the two authors around his work—this article offers a contemporary rereading of Jean-Louis Le Moigne’s thought, particularly in the fields of management and management of information systems. It highlights the continuing relevance of his methodological and epistemological contributions for conceptualizing collaborative research with practitioners in management sciences, for validating the knowledge produced, as well as for anchoring the management sciences and Design Science Research within the archetypal framework of the sciences of the artificial.
References
Albert, M.-N. (2007). L’engagement revisité à l’aide du concept du «soi»: Expérience d’une entreprise familiale de la grande distribution [PhD Thesis, Lyon 3]. https://theses.fr/2007LYO33015
Albert, M.-N., & Couture, M.-M. (2013). La légitimation de savoirs issus de récits autobiogra-phiques dans une épistémologie constructiviste pragmatique. Recherches qualitatives, 32(2), 175–200. https://doi.org/10.7202/1084627ar
Amabile, S., Meissonier, R., & Peneranda, A. (2018). XIX. Jean-Louis Le Moigne–Pionnier de l’ingénierie des systèmes d’information organisationnels. In J.-F. Chanlat (Ed.), Les grands auteurs en systèmes d’information (pp. 370–389). EMS Editions.
Avenier, M. J., & Bloch-Dolande, M. (2018). Dialoguer dans un projet de recherche commun afin de progresser dans nos métiers respectifs. In N. Fabbe-Costes & L. Gialdini (Eds.), Stratégie organisationnelle par le dialogue, Economica (pp. 135–143). Econom-ica.
Avenier, M. J., & Parmentier-Cajaiba, A. P. (2012). The Dialogical Model: Developing Aca-demic Knowledge for and from Practice. European Management Review, 9(4), 199–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-4762.2012.01038.x
Avenier, M.-J. (2010). Shaping a Constructivist View of Organizational Design Science. Or-ganization Studies, 31(9–10), 1229–1255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840610374395
Avenier, M.-J. (2011a). Les paradigmes épistémologiques constructivistes: Post-modernisme ou pragmatisme? Management & Avenir, 43(3), 372–391.
Avenier, M.-J. (2011b). Pourquoi jeter le bébé avec l’eau du bain? Méthodologie sans épisté-mologie n’est que ruine de la réflexion. Le Libellio d’AEGIS, 7(1), 39–52.
Avenier, M.-J., & Albert, M.-N. (2007). Constructing academically valid workable knowledge in management research: A methodological framework. Communication To The Third Organization Studies Workshop. https://hal.science/halshs-00192179/
Avenier, M.-J., & Gavard-Perret, M.-L. (2018). Inscrire son projet dans un cadre épistémolo-gique. In M. L. Gavard-Perret, M. L., Gotteland, D., Haon, C., & Jolibert, A., D. Got-teland, C. Haon, & A. Jolibert (Eds.), Méthodologie de la recherche en sciences de ges-tion: Réussir son mémoire ou sa thèse (Pearson Education France, pp. 7–50).
Avenier, M.-J., & Gialdini, L. (2009). A methodological framework for capturing practitioners’ knowledge. 9th EURAM Annual Conference. https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00533278/
Avenier, M.-J., & Thomas, C. (2015). Finding one’s way around various methodological guidelines for doing rigorous case studies: A comparison of four epistemological frameworks. Systèmes d’Information et Management, 20(1), 61–98.
Baptiste, J. L. (2024). Merise-Guide pratique (modélisation des données et des traitements, manipulations avec le langage SQL) [4ième édition]. Éditions ENI.
Bhaskar, R. (1998). Philosophy and Scientific Realism. In R. Bhaskar, A. Collier, T. Lawson, & A. Norrie (Ed.), Critical Realism: Essential Readings (pp. 16–47). Routledge.
Bloch-Dolande, M. (2018). De la dialogique visible & invisible au management dialogique. In N. Fabbe-Costes & L. Gialdini (Eds.), Stratégie organisationnelle par le dialogue (pp. 81–91). Economica.
Boutet, M., & Parmentier-Cajaiba, A. (2022). Dialogues entre disciplines, tisser les savoirs et renouveler l’enquête. In D. Landivar & M. Monnin (Eds.), Le protocole Coopair (pp. 99–114). Open Origens.
Chandra Kruse, L., Purao, S., & Seidel, S. (2022). How designers use design principles: De-sign behaviors and application modes. Journal of the Association for Information Sys-tems, 23(5), 1235–1270.
Corbett-Etchevers, I., & Parmentier-Cajaiba, A. (2022). Making Strategy Out of Everyday Tools: A Collective Bricolage Perspective. M@n@gement, 39–56. https://doi.org/10.37725/mgmt.v25.4560
Darras, N., & Gélizé, M. (2025). L’exploration de la phase de spécification d’une recherche-intervention. Recherches En Sciences de Gestion, 165(6), 163–179.
Denyer, D., Tranfield, D., & Van Aken, J. E. (2008). Developing Design Propositions through Research Synthesis. Organization Studies, 29(3), 393–413. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607088020
Gavard-Perret, M.-L., Gotteland, D., Haon, C., & Jolibert, A. (2012). Méthodologie de la re-cherche en sciences de gestion. Réussir son mémoire ou sa thèse. Pearson Paris.
Gregor, S. (2021). Reflections on the Practice of Design Science in Information Systems. In S. Aier, P. Rohner, & J. Schelp (Eds.), Engineering the Transformation of the Enterprise: A Design Science Research Perspective (pp. 101–113). Springer International Publish-ing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84655-8_7
Gregor, S., & Hevner, A. R. (2013). Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 337–355.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Sage.
Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 75–105.
Iivari, J. (2020). A critical look at theories in design science research. Journal of the Associa-tion for Information Systems, 21(3), 502–519.
Le Moigne, J. L. (1973). Les systèmes d’information dans les organisations (Presses Universi-taires de France).
Le Moigne, J. L. (1992). Du" parce que..." au" afin de...": De la triste querelle du détermi-nisme à la joyeuse dispute du projectivisme. 6(3), 223–240.
Le Moigne, J.-L. (1977). La théorie du système général: Théorie de la modélisation. Presses Universitaires de France. https://www.intelligence-complexite.org/media/document/ateliers/theorie-systeme-general/open.
Le Moigne, J.-L. (1990). La modélisation des systèmes complexes. Bordas.
Le Moigne, J.-L. (1995). Les épistémologies constructivistes. Que sais-je.
Le Moigne, J.-L. (2001). Le Constructivisme; Tome 1: Les Enracinements. Editions L’Harmattan.
Le Moigne, J.-L. (2003). Le Constructivisme; Tome 2 Épistémologie de l’Interdisciplinarité. Editions L’Harmattan.
Le Moigne, J.-L. (2004). Le Constructivisme; Tome 3: Modéliser pour Comprendre. Editions L’Harmattan.
Le Moigne, J.-L. (2012). Des sciences appliquées aux sciences de conception, les Nouvelles Sciences d’Ingénierie sont sciences fondamentales. https://jllm.mcxapc.org/media/sciences-appliquees-sciences-conception-nouvelles-sciences-dingenierie-sont-sciences
Le Moigne, J.-L. (2013). Les sciences d’ingenium, enjeux epistémologiques. In J.-L. Le Moigne & E. Morin (Ed.), Intelligence de la complexité (pp. 337–363). Hermann.
March, S. T., & Smith, G. F. (1995). Design and natural science research on information tech-nology. Decision Support Systems, 15(4), 251–266.
Morin, E. (1996). La Méthode-tome 3 La Connaissance de la connaissance. Seuil.
Morin, E. (1999). La pensée complexe, une pensée qui se pense. In E. Morin & J.-L. Le Moigne (Eds.), L’intelligence de la complexité (pp. 247–267). L’Harmattan.
Mullarkey, M. T., & Hevner, A. R. (2019). An elaborated action design research process mod-el. European Journal of Information Systems, 28(1), 6–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2018.1451811
Niehaves, B. (2007). On epistemological pluralism in design science. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 19(2), 93–104.
Nunamaker, J. F., Briggs, R. O., Derrick, D. C., & Schwabe, G. (2015). The Last Research Mile: Achieving Both Rigor and Relevance in Information Systems Research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 32(3), 10–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2015.1094961
Parmentier-Cajaiba, A. (2010). La construction de compétences fondamentales, une application à l’homologation dans l’industrie du biocontrôle [PhD Thesis]. PhD thesis. Université de Grenoble.
Parmentier-Cajaiba, A. (2018). Le dialogue comme vecteur d’actions et de connaissances orientées stratégie. In N. Fabbe-Costes & L. Gialdini (Eds.), Stratégie organisation-nelle par le dialogue. Economica.
Parmentier-Cajaiba, A. P., & Avenier, M.-J. (2013). Recherches collaboratives et constructi-visme pragmatique: Éclairages pratiques. Recherches Qualitatives, 32(2), 201–226.
Pascal, A. (2012). Le design science dans le domaine des systèmes d’information: Mise en débat et perspectives. Systèmes d’Information et Management, 17(3), 7–31.
Pascal, A. (2025). Repenser le Design Science Research pour répondre aux grands défis socié-taux. Projectics/Proyéctica/Projectique, 41(2), 111–116.
Pascal, A., & Renaud, A. (2020). 15 Years of Information System Design Science Research: A Bibliographic Analysis. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, HICSS’53.
Pascal, A., Thomas, C., & Romme, A. G. L. (2013). Developing a Human‐centred and Sci-ence‐based Approach to Design: The Knowledge Management Platform Project. Brit-ish Journal of Management, 24(2), 264–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00802.x
Piaget, J. (1967). Logique et connaissance scientifique (Editions Gallimard).
Prabalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Busi-ness Review, 68(3), 79–91.
Romme, A. G. L. (2003). Making a Difference: Organization as Design. Organization Science, 14(5), 558–573. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.5.558.16769
Sandberg, J., & Tsoukas, H. (2011). Grasping the Logic of Practice: Theorizing Through Prac-tical Rationality. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 338–360. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0183
Sarasvathy, S. D. (2003). Entrepreneurship as a science of the artificial. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24(2), 203–220.
Schön, D. A. (1979). The reflective practitioner (Basic books).
Siemon, D., Becker, F., Meyer, M., & Strohmann, T. (2022). Addressing the practical impact of design science research. AMCIS Proceedings. AMCIS.
Simon, H. A. (1969). The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT press.
Simon, H. A. (1974). La science des systèmes: Science de l’artificiel (J. L. Le Moigne, Trans.; Editions E.P.I.).
Simon, H. A. (1981). The sciences of the artificial (2nd ed.) (M.I.T. Press).
Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.) (MIT Press).
Strohmann, T., Siemon, D., Elshan, E., & Gnewuch, U. (2023). Design principles in infor-mation systems research: Trends in construction and formulation. AMCIS Proceedings.
Thiétart, R.-A. (2025). Méthodes de recherche en management-5e éd. Dunod.
Thomas, L. (2019). Business models for open source hardware [PhD Thesis, Université Gre-noble Alpes].
Tsoukas, H. (1989). The Validity of Idiographic Research Explanations. Academy of Man-agement Review, 14(5), 551–561. https://doi.org/10.2307/258558
Tsoukas, H. (2009). A dialogical approach to the creation of new knowledge in organizations. Organization Science, 20(6), 941–957.
Van Aken, J. E. (2004). Management Research Based on the Paradigm of the Design Scienc-es: The Quest for Field‐Tested and Grounded Technological Rules. Journal of Man-agement Studies, 41(2), 219–246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00430.x
Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social re-search. Oxford University Press.
Venable, J., Pries-Heje, J., & Baskerville, R. (2016). FEDS: A Framework for Evaluation in Design Science Research. European Journal of Information Systems, 25(1), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2014.36
Vicente-Oliva, S., Martínez-Sánchez, Á., & Berges-Muro, L. (2015). Research and develop-ment project management best practices and absorptive capacity: Empirical evidence from Spanish firms. International Journal of Project Management, 33(8), 1704–1716.
Vico, G. (2001). La Science nouvelle (A. Pons, Trans.; Éditions Fayard).
vom Brocke, J., Winter, R., Hevner, A., & Maedche, A. (2020). Introduction to design science research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 21(3), 520–544.
Von Glaserfeld, E. (1988). Einführung in den radikalen Konstruktivismus. In P. Watzlawick (Ed.), Die erfundene Wirklichkeit (pp. 16–38). Piper.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1988). Constructivism as a Scientific Method. Scientific Reasoning Re-search Institute Newsletter, 3(2), 8–9.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (2001). The radical constructivist view of science. Foundations of Science, 6(1), 31–43.
Walsh, I., & Kalika, M. (2018). Network dynamics in the French-speaking and English-speaking is research communities. Systèmes d’Information et Management, 23(4), 67–145.
Wynn Jr, D., & Williams, C. K. (2012). Principles for conducting critical realist case study research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 36(3), 787–810.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
The author bears the responsibility for checking whether material submitted is subject to copyright or ownership rights (e.g. figures, tables, photographs, illustrations, trade literature and data). The author will need to obtain permission to reproduce any such items, and include these permissions with their final submission.
It is our policy to ask all contributors to transfer for free the copyright in their contribution to the journal owner. There are two broad reasons for this:
- ownership of copyright by the journal owner facilitates international protection against infringement of copyright, libel or plagiarism;
- it also ensures that requests by third parties to reprint or reproduce a contribution, or part of it, in either print or electronic form, are handled efficiently in accordance with our general policy which encourages dissemination of knowledge within the framework of copyright.
In conformity with the French law, the author keeps the 'moral rights' related to the article:
- The 'authorship right': It is the author's right to have his name associated with each publication and exploitation of the article.
- The 'integrity right': It can be claimed by the author if he finds that during an exploitation, his work has been distorted (cutting, reassembly...).
