Contextualising the IT artefact : towards a wider research agenda for IS using institutional theory
Currie, Wendy, 1960-. (2009) Contextualising the IT artefact : towards a wider research agenda for IS using institutional theory. Information Technology & People, Vol.22 (No.1). pp. 63-77. ISSN 0959-3845Full text not available from this repository.
Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09593840910937508
Purpose - This paper sets out to examine the use of institutional theory in information systems research. It also seeks to consider recent debates within information systems, that the field should develop its own social theories. The purpose of the paper is to demonstrate that IS researchers need to engage more fully with the institutional theory literature as the body of work is conceptually rich and is more appropriately used to analyse and understand complex social phenomena. Design/methodology/approach - Reviewing the institutionalist literature from the field of IS, the paper shows that most accounts engage in empirically testing institutionalist concepts, rather than analysing the richness of these concepts to further develop and build the theory. Findings - The paper finds that most institutionalist accounts within information systems research adopt an organisational unit of analysis as opposed to a multi-level approach which encompasses societal and individual levels. Research further shows more studies on the "effects" of institutionalism than on the "processual" accounts. Research limitations/implications - It is argued that information systems researchers need to become more aware of the wider debates within the institutional theory literature, particularly as the theory is conceptually ambiguous, yet not amenable to over-simplification as a means to achieve methodological rigour. Practical implications - The use of institutional theory offers practitioners conceptual tools and techniques for understanding complex change management scenarios relating to IS work. Originality/value - The paper contributes to the IS literature through reviewing the range of,studies using institutional theory. It illustrates the narrow use of the theory adopted by the IS community and suggests that a more fruitful approach is to use a wider multi-level and multi-method approach. The paper suggests that institutional theory offers a conceptually rich lens for analysing IS themes and issues and encourages further use of the theory for IS and management research.
|Item Type:||Journal Article|
|Subjects:||H Social Sciences > HD Industries. Land use. Labor > HD28 Management. Industrial Management|
|Divisions:||Faculty of Social Sciences > Warwick Business School|
|Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):||Management information systems -- Research, Information resources management -- Research, Sociology -- Research, Information technology|
|Journal or Publication Title:||Information Technology & People|
|Publisher:||Emerald Group Publishing Limited|
|Number of Pages:||15|
|Page Range:||pp. 63-77|
|Access rights to Published version:||Restricted or Subscription Access|
|References:||DiMaggio, P.J. (1995), “Comments on ‘what theory is not’”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40, pp. 391-7. DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983), “The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 147-60. DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1991), “Introduction”, in Powell, W.W. and DiMaggio, P.J. (Eds), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K. and Suddaby, R. (Eds) (2008), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutional Theory, Sage Publications, London. Hasselblad, H. and Kallinikos, J. (2000), “The project of rationalization: a critique and reappraisal of neo-institutionalism in organization studies”, Organization Studies, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 697-720. King, J.L., Gurbaxani, V., Kraemer, K.L., McFarlan, F.W., Raman, K.S. and Yap, C.S. (1994), “Institutional factors in information technology innovation”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 139-69. Lounsbury, M. and Ventresa, M. (2003), “The new structuralism in organisation theory”, Organization, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 457-80. Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1977), “Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 340-63. Orlikowski, W.J. and Barley, S.R. (2001), “Technology and institutions: what can research on information technology and research on organizations learn from each other?”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 145-65. Powell, W.W. and DiMaggio, P.J. (Eds) (1991), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Scott, W.R. (2001), Institutions and Organizations, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Selznick, P. (1957), Leadership in Administration, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Sutton, R.I. and Staw, B.M. (1995), “What theory is not”, Administative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40, pp. 371-84. Swanson, E.B. and Ramiller, N.C. (1997), “The organizing vision in information systems innovation”, Organization Science, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 458-74. Weick, K. (1995), Sensemaking in Organisations, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Zucker, L.G. (1977), “The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 726-43. Zucker, L.G. (1987), “Institutional theories of organisations”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 13, pp. 443-64.|
Actions (login required)