Abstract
Technology acceptance models (TAMs) are tools for predicting users’ reception of technology by measuring how they rate statements on a questionnaire scale. It has been claimed that these tools help to assess the social acceptance of a final IT product when its development is still under way. However, their use is not without problems. This chapter highlights some of the underlying shortcomings that arise particularly from a simplistic conception of “acceptance” that does not recognize the possibility that users can invent new uses for (i.e., appropriate) technology in many situations. This lack of recognition can easily lead one to assume that users are passive absorbers of technological products, so that every user would adopt the same usages irrespective of the context of use, the differences in work tasks, or the characteristics of interpersonal cooperation. In light of recent research on appropriation, technology use must actually be understood in a more heterogeneous way, as a process through which different users find the product useful in different ways. This chapter maintains that if, in fact, a single technology can be used for multiple purposes, then subscribing to the thinking arising from technology acceptance model research may actually lead one to suboptimal design solutions and thus also compromise user acceptance. This chapter also presents some starting points for designing specifically for easier technology appropriation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Reprinted by permission, Fred D. Davis, Richard P. Bagozzi, Paul R.Warshaw. 1989. User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models, Management Science, volume 35, number 8, August, 1989. Copyright 1989, the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS), 7240 Parkway Drive, Suite 310, Hanover, MD 21076 USA.
- 2.
However, this starting point does not hold in cases in which the goal is to invite the user to reflect on and problematize the purpose of the system and, in this way, even force the user to create new interpretations of the system through its nonapparent purpose of use. This approach has been suggested by Gaver, Beaver, and Benford (2003), but specifically in the context of interactive art pieces and digital entertainment. In such cases, purposely complicating the user’s tasks is sometimes appropriate.
References
Bansler, J., & Havn, E. (2006). Sensemaking in technology-use mediation: Adapting groupware technology in organizations. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 15, 55–91.
Barki, H., Titah, R., & Boffo, C. (2007). Information system use-related activity: An expanded behavioral conceptualization of individual-level information system use. Information Systems Research, 18, 173–192.
Benbasat, I., & Barki, H. (2007). Quo vadis, TAM?. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8, 211–218.
Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual design: Defining customer-centered systems. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. London: Routledge.
Brown, B. A., & Perry, M. (2000). Why don’t telephones have off switches? Understanding the use of everyday technologies. Interacting with Computers, 12, 623–634.
Burton-Jones, A., & Straub, D. W. (2006). Reconceptualizing system usage: An approach and empirical test. Information Systems Research, 17, 228–246.
Chalmers, M., & Galani A. (2004). Seamful interweaving: Heterogeneity in the theory and design of interactive systems. In D. Benyon, P. Moody, D. Gruen, & I. McAra-McWilliam (Eds.), DIS ’04: Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (pp. 243–252). New York: ACM Press.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–340.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical constructs. Management Science, 35, 982–1003.
DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5, 121–147.
Dillon, A., & Morris, M. G. (1996). User acceptance of new information technology: Theories and models. In M. E. Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (pp. 3–32). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Dourish, P. (1997). Accounting for system behaviour: Representation, reflection and resourceful action. In M. Kyng & L. Mathiassen (Eds.), Computers and design in context (pp. 145–170). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Dourish, P. (2003). The appropriation of interactive technologies: Some lessons from placeless documents. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 12, 465–490.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Gaver, W. W., Beaver, J., & Benford, S. (2003). Ambiguity as a resource for design. In G. Cockton & P. Korhonen (Eds.), CHI ’03: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 233–240). New York: ACM Press.
Höök. K. (2006). Designing familiar open surfaces. In G. Ghosh & D. Svanæs (Eds.), NordiCHI ’06: Proceedings of the 4th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 242–251). New York: ACM Press.
Huysman, M., Steinfield, C., Jang, C.-Y., David, K., Huis in ’t Veld, M., Poot, J. et al. (2003). Virtual teams and the appropriation of communication technology: Exploring the concept of media stickiness. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 12, 411–436.
Jacucci, G., Oulasvirta, A., Ilmonen, T., Evans, J., & Salovaara, A. (2007). CoMedia: Mobile group media for active spectatorship. In M. B. Rosson & D. Gilmore (Eds.), CHI ’07: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1273–1282). New York: ACM Press.
Jasperson, J., Carter, P. E., & Zmud, R. W. (2005). A comprehensive conceptualization of post-adoptive behaviors associated with information technology enabled work systems. MIS Quarterly, 29, 525–557.
Lee, Y., Kozar, K. A., & Larsen, K. R. T. (2003). The technology acceptance model: Past, present, and future. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 12, 752–780.
MacLean, A., Carter, K., Lövstrand, L., & Moran, T. (1990). User-tailorable systems: Pressing the issues with buttons. In J. C. Chew & J. Whiteside (Eds.), CHI ’90: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference of Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 175–182). New York: ACM Press.
Mehto, K., Kantola, V., Tiitta, S., & Kankainen, T. (2006). Interacting with user data: Theory and examples of drama and dramaturgy as methods of exploration and evaluation in user-centered design. Interacting with Computers, 18, 977–995.
Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). Duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3, 398–427.
Orlikowski, W. J. (1996). Improvising organizational transformation over time: A situated change perspective. Information Systems Research, 7, 63–92.
Pargman, T. C., & Wærn, Y. (2003). Appropriating the use of a Moo for collaborative writing. Interacting with Computers, 15, 759–781.
Petersen, M. G., Madsen, K. H., & Kjær, A. (2002). Usability of everyday technology: Emerging and fading opportunities. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 9, 74–105.
Salovaara, A. (2007). Appropriation of a MMS-based comic creator: From system functionalities to resources for action. In M. B. Rosson & D. Gilmore (Eds.), CHI ’07: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1117–1126). New York: ACM Press.
Schepers, J., & Wetzels, M. (2007). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model: Investigating subjective norm and moderation effects. Information & Management, 44, 90–103.
Schwarz, A., & Chin, W. (2007). Looking forward: Toward an understanding of the nature and definition of IT acceptance. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8, 230–243.
Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text and interaction. London: SAGE Publications.
Svanæs, D., & Seland, G. (2004). Putting the users center stage: Role playing and low-fi prototyping enable end users to design mobile systems. In E. Dykstra-Erickson & M. Tscheligi (Eds.), CHI ’04: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 479–486). New York: ACM Press.
Tamminen, S. (2001). What do users actually evaluate when evaluating computer programs? Defining the dimensions in HCI by qualitative attitude research. In G. Salvendy M. J. Smith (Eds.), HCI International 2001: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (Vol. 2, pp. 647–651). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tuomi, I. (2002). Networks of innovation: Change and meaning in the age of the Internet. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Tyre, M. J., & Orlikowski, W. J. (1994). Windows of opportunity: Temporal patterns of technological adaptation in organizations. Organization Science, 5, 98–118.
van der Heijden, H. (2004). User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS Quarterly, 28, 695–704.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46, 186–204.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27, 425–478.
Voida, A., & Mynatt, E. D. (2005). Six themes of the communicative appropriation of photographic images. In G. C. van der Veer & C. Gale (Eds.), CHI ’05: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 171–180). New York: ACM Press.
von Hippel, E. (1988). The sources of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
von Hippel, E. (2001). User toolkits for innovation. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18, 247–257.
Williams, R., Stewart, J., & Slack, R. (2005). Social learning in technological innovation: Experimenting with information and communication technologies. Cheltenham, UK: Edgar Elgar Publishing.
Acknowledgments
Funding for this work was provided by the Finnish Graduate School of User-Centered Information Technology (UCIT).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer-Verlag London Limited
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Salovaara, A., Tamminen, S. (2009). Acceptance or Appropriation? A Design-Oriented Critique of Technology Acceptance Models. In: Isomäki, H., Saariluoma, P. (eds) Future Interaction Design II. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84800-385-9_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84800-385-9_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-84800-300-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-84800-385-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)