Advertisement

Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 38–59 | Cite as

Why university members use and resist technology? A structure enactment perspective

  • Canchu Lin
  • Ross Singer
  • Louisa Ha
Article
First Online:

Abstract

This case study investigated university members’ use of and resistance to a communication information technology system in a higher education organization. This case study utilized the technology enactment framework to examine structure enactment in university members’ technology use and resistance. We found that the following structures were enacted in organizational members’ interactions with the system: maximum use, enhancing teaching, augmenting service, limited use, and resistance. Besides providing empirical evidence to the enactments of inertia, application, and change, this case study added a new enactment type, i.e., resistance, to the existing enactment typology. The findings provided empirical support to the structuration principle—the enabling and constraining nature of structure. Important implications were addressed with respect to adoption and implementation of technology in higher education institutions.

Keywords

Technology use Blackboard Structure enactment Resistance Technology enactment 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Applegate, L. M., McFarlan, F. W., & Mckenney, J. L. (1996). Corporate information systems management: Text and cases. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  2. Bedeian, A. (2007). Even if the tower is “ivory”, it isn’t “white:” Understanding the consequences of faculty cynicism. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6, 9–32.Google Scholar
  3. Bennett, L. (2001). Technology standards for the preparation of teachers. International Journal of Social Education, 15, 1–11.Google Scholar
  4. Blackboard.com retrieved on October 23, 2009.Google Scholar
  5. Carnevale, D. (2006). Online. Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(24), A37.Google Scholar
  6. Chan, S. C. H., & Ngai, E. W. T. (2007). A qualitative study of information technology adoption: How ten organizations adopted web-based training. Information Systems Journal, 17, 289–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chapman, B. F., & Heath-Camp, B. (2005). Factors influencing the computer technology adoption rate of business teacher educators. Business Education Digest, 14, 15–30.Google Scholar
  8. Duhaney, D. C. (2001). Teacher education: Preparing teachers to integrate technology. International Journal of Instructional Media, 28, 23–30.Google Scholar
  9. Eisenberg, E. M., Murphy, A., & Andrews, L. (1998). Openness and decision making in the search for a university provost. Communication Monographs, 65, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Eynon, R. (2008). The use of the world wide web in learning and teaching in higher education: Reality and rhetoric. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45, 15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fountain, J. E. (2001). Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional change. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.Google Scholar
  13. Fulk, J., Schmitz, J., & Steinfield, C. (1990). A social influence model of technology use. In J. Fulk & C. Steinfield (Eds.), Organizations and communication technology (pp. 117–140). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Gerdes, C., & Kuhr, P. (2004). The Blackboard course makeover of ethics and the media. TechTrends, 48(5), 71–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure, and contradiction in social analysis. Berkley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  16. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge, MA: Polity.Google Scholar
  17. Groves, M. M., & Zemel, P. C. (2000). Instructional technology adoption in higher education: An action research case study. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27, 57–65.Google Scholar
  18. Jablin, F. M. (2001). Organizational entry, assimilation, and disengagement/exit. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 732–818). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Jefferies, P., Grodzinsky, F., & Griffin, J. (2003). Advantages and problems in using information communication technologies to support the teaching of a multi-institutional computer ethics course. Journal of Educational Media, 28, 191–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kirkpatrick, G. (2005). Online ‘chat’ facilities as pedagogic tools. Active Learning in Higher Education, 6, 145–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lapointe, L., & Rivard, S. (2005). A multilevel model of resistance to information technology implementation. MIS Quarterly, 29, 461–491.Google Scholar
  22. Larkin, T. L., & Belson, S. I. (2005). Blackboard technologies: A vehicle to promote student motivation and learning in physics. Journal of STEM Education, 6, 14–27.Google Scholar
  23. Myers, M. D., & Newman, M. (2007). The qualitative interview in IS research: Examining the craft. Information and Organization, 17, 2–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Orlikowski, W. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11, 404–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Roberts-DeGennaro, M., Brown, C., Min, J. W., & Siegel, M. (2005). Using an online support site to extend the learning to a graduate field practicum in the United States. Social Work Education, 24, 327–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sitkin, S. B., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Barrios-Choplin, J. R. (1992). A dual-capacity model of communication media choice in organizations. Human Communication Research, 18, 563–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Vannatta, R. A. (2000). Evaluation to planning: Technology integration in a school of education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8, 231–246.Google Scholar
  28. Weick, K. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Yao, J. E., Xu, X., Liu, C., & Lu, J. (2003). Organizational size: A significant predictor of IT innovation adoption. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 43, 76–82.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Media and CommunicationBowling Green State UniversityBowling GreenUSA
  2. 2.Department of Speech CommunicationSouthern Illinois UniversityCarbondaleUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options