Advertisement

How lecturers neutralize resistance to the implementation of learning management systems in higher education

  • Lucy Charity SakalaEmail author
  • Wallace Chigona
Article
  • 30 Downloads

Abstract

The aim of the study was to investigate neutralisation techniques used by lecturers to justify their resistance behaviours during the implementation of learning management systems (LMS) in higher educational institutions (HEIs). Moreover, we explored why lecturers employed such neutralisation techniques to justify their resistance behaviours. A number of studies identified resistance as a barrier to successful implementation of technology in HEIs. However, there is a dearth of literature on the choice of neutralisation techniques employed by lecturers to justify such resistance behaviours. Understanding the logic behind the choice of neutralisation techniques could ensure effective management strategies towards user resistance, which could further assist to improve technology uptake in HEIs. The study draws from Bourdieu’s theory of practice (ToP) as a lens to investigate the logic behind the use of certain neutralisation techniques to justify user resistance. The research used cross-sectional data from semi-structured interviews and participant observations of a single in-depth case setting. The most common neutralisation technique used by lecturers was condemn the condemners followed by denial of responsibility, denial of injury, and appeal to higher loyalties. Findings suggest that the habitus and capital of lecturers significantly influence the choice of techniques to justify resistance. Lecturers tended to neutralise before they resisted, such that they prepared themselves to justify any deviance well in advance in case they got caught. Integration of ToP and Neutralisation theory enriches theorisation of user resistance, enabling development of mechanisms that could effectively manage lecturer resistance behaviours to improve uptake of LMS in HEIs.

Keywords

Neutralisation techniques Resistance Lecturers LMS implementation Moodle Higher education 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Albugami, S., & Ahmed, V. (2015). Success factors for ICT implementation in Saudi secondary schools: From the perspective of ICT directors, head teachers, teachers and students. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 11(1), 36–54.Google Scholar
  2. Al-Busaidi, K. A., & Al-Shihi, O. H. (2012). Critical factors influencing instructor’s acceptance and use of learning management systems. In R. Babo & A. Azevedo (Eds.), Higher education institutions and learning management systems: Adoption and standardization (pp. 116–141). Hershey: Information Science Reference.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. AlQudah, A. A. (2014). Accepting Moodle by academic staff at the University of Jordan: Applying and extending TAM in technical support factors. European Scientific Journal, 10(18), 183–200.Google Scholar
  4. Auriacombe, C., & Mouton, J. (2007). Qualitative field research. Journal of Public Administration, 42(6), 441–457.Google Scholar
  5. Bagayogo, F., Beaudry, A., & Lapointe, L. (2013). Impacts of IT acceptance and resistance behaviors: A novel framework. In Proceedings of the 34th international conference on information systems, Milan, Italy.Google Scholar
  6. Barlow, J. B., Warkentin, M., Ormond, D., & Dennis, A. R. (2013). Don’t make excuses! Discouraging neutralization to reduce IT policy violation. Computers and Security, 39, 145–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blin, F., & Munro, M. (2008). Why hasn’t technology disrupted academics’ teaching practices? Understanding resistance to change through the lens of activity theory. Computers & Education, 50(2), 475–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Cambridge: Havard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education. In R. A. Caro (Ed.), The power broker: Robert Moses and the fall of New York (pp. 241–258). New York: Alfred A Knopf Incorporated.Google Scholar
  11. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Canchu, L., Singer, R., & Ha, L. (2010). Why university members use and resist technology? A structure enactment perspective. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 22(1), 38–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cole, J., & Foster, H. (2007). Using Moodle: Teaching with the popular open source course management system (2nd ed.). Newton: O’Reilly Media Inc.Google Scholar
  16. Costello, E. (2013). Opening up to open source: Looking at how moodle was adopted in higher education. Open Learning, 28(3), 187–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cromwell, P., & Thurman, Q. (2003). The devil made me do it: Use of neutralizations by shoplifters. Deviant Behavior, 24(6), 535–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Garg, A., Shukla, B., & Kendall, G. (2015). Barriers to implementation of IT in educational institutions. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 32(2), 94–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Garrett, D. E., Bradford, J. L., Meyers, R. A., Becker, J., Garrett Jeffrey, L., Bradford Ren, D. E., et al. (1989). Issues management and organizational accounts: An analysis of corporate responses to accusations of unethical business practices. Journal of Business Ethics, 8(7), 507–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grenfell, M. (2008). Pierre Bourdieu: Key concepts. Stockfield: Acumen Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  22. Grenfell, M., & James, D. (1998). Bourdieu and education: Acts of practical theory. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  23. Haag, S., & Eckhardt, A. (2015). Justifying shadow IT usage. In Pacific Asia conference on information systems proceedings (p. 241).Google Scholar
  24. Harris, L. C., & Daunt, K. L. (2011). Deviant customer behaviour: A study of techniques of neutralisation. Journal of Marketing Management, 27(7–8), 834–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hinduja, S. (2007). Neutralization theory and online software piracy: An empirical analysis. Ethics and Information Technology, 9(3), 187–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hon, A. H. Y., Bloom, M., & Crant, J. M. (2014). Overcoming resistance to change and enhancing creative performance. Journal of Management, 40(3), 919–941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Howard, S. K. (2013). Risk-aversion: Understanding teachers’ resistance to technology integration. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 22(3), 357–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ignatow, G., & Robinson, L. (2017). Pierre Bourdieu: Theorizing the digital. Information, Communication & Society, 20(7), 950–966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. ITU. (2017). ICT facts and figures 2017. International Telecommunication Union.  https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264202085-5-en.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Joshi, K. (1991). A model of user’s perspective on change: The case of information systems technology implementation. MIS Quarterly, 15(2), 229–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Klockars, C. B. (1974). The professional fence. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  32. Lapointe, L., & Rivard, S. (2005). A multilevel model of resistance to information technology implementation. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 461–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Laumer, S. (2011). Why do people reject technologies—A literature-based discussion of the Phenomena “Resistance to Change” in information systems and managerial psychology research. In Proceedings of the European conference on information systems. Retrieved August 14, 2017 from https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2011/60.
  34. Lee, A. S., & Baskerville, R. L. (2003). Generalizing generalizability in information systems research. Information Systems Research, 14(3), 221–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Liddick, D. (2013). Techniques of neutralization and animal rights activists. Deviant Behavior, 34(8), 618–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lin, T., Huang, S., & Chiang, S. (2018). User resistance to the implementation of information systems: A psychological contract breach perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 19(4), 306–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mahmud, I., Ramayah, T., & Kurnia, S. (2017). To use or not to use: Modelling end user grumbling as user resistance in pre-implementation stage of enterprise resource planning system. Information Systems, 69, 164–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Marakas, G. M., & Hornik, S. (1996). Passive resistance misuse: Overt support and covert recalcitrance in IS implementation. European Journal of Information Systems, 5(3), 208–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Markus, M. L. (1983). Power, politics, and MIS implementation. Communications of the ACM, 26(6), 430–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Martín-Blas, T., & Serrano-Fernández, A. (2009). The role of new technologies in the learning process: Moodle as a teaching tool in physics. Computers & Education, 52(1), 35–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Minor, W. W. (1981). Techniques of neutralization: A reconceptualization and empirical examination. Journal of Research in Crime and Deliquency, 18(2), 295–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mutch, C. (2006). Adapting Bourdieu’s field theory to explain decision-making processes in educational policy. In V. A. Anfara Jr. & N. T. Mertz (Eds.), Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research (Vol. 1, pp. 155–174). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. Myers, M. D., & Newman, M. (2007). The qualitative interview in IS research: Examining the craft. Information and Organization, 17(1), 2–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nawaz, A. (2013). Using e-learning as a tool for ‘education for all’ in developing states. International Journal of Science and Technology, 4(3), 38–46.Google Scholar
  45. Orlikowski, W. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Piquero, N. L., Tibbetts, S. G., & Blankenship, M. B. (2005). Examining the role of differential association and techniques of neutralization in explaining corporate crime. Deviant Behavior, 26(2), 159–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations (1st ed.). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  48. Sakala, L., & Chigona, W. (2017). Lecturer resistance during ICTs implementation in higher education in Zimbabwe: Forms and triggers. In Proceedings of the South African institute of computer scientists and information technologists (p. 31). ACM.Google Scholar
  49. Samhan, B. (2018). Revisiting technology resistance: current insights and future directions. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 22, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schultze, U., & Boland, R., Jr. (2000). Place, space and knowledge work: A study of outsourced computer systems administrators. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 10(3), 187–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5(4), 465–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Selander, L., & Henfridsson, O. (2012). Cynicism as user resistance in IT implementation. Information Systems Journal, 22(4), 289–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sinkovics, R. R., Penz, E., & Ghauri, P. N. (2008). Enhancing the trustworthiness of qualitative research in international business. Management International Review, 48(6), 689–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Siponen, M., & Vance, A. (2010). Neutralization: New insights into the problem of employee information systems security policy violations. MIS Quarterly-Special Issue, 34(3), 487–502.Google Scholar
  55. Siponen, M., Vance, A., & Willison, R. (2012). New insights into the problem of software piracy: The effects of neutralization, shame, and moral beliefs. Information & Management, 49(7–8), 334–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sykes, G. M., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Association, 22(6), 664–670.Google Scholar
  57. Vinthagen, S., & Johansson, A. (2013). “Everyday resistance”: Exploration of a concept and its theories. Resistance Studies Magazine, 1(1), 1–46.Google Scholar
  58. Walsham, G. (1995). Interpretive case studies in IS research: Nature and method. European Journal of Information Systems, 4(2), 74–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Watty, K., McKay, J., & Ngo, L. (2016). Innovators or inhibitors? Accounting faculty resistance to new educational technologies in higher education. Journal of Accounting Education, 36, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Willison, R., & Warkentin, M. (2013). Beyond deterrence: An expanded view of employee computer abuse. MIS Quarterly, 37(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. World Economic Forum. (2015). The global information technology report 2015. World Economic Forum.  https://doi.org/10.3359/oz0304203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Yin, R. K. (2013). Analysing case study evidence—How to start your analysis, your analytic choices and how they work. In R. K. Yin (Ed.), Case study research: Design and methods (pp. 127–164). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information SystemsUniversity of Cape TownCape TownSouth Africa
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceBindura University ScienceBinduraZimbabwe

Personalised recommendations