An evaluation of the practice based approach to understanding the adoption and use of information systems

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the value and limitations of a practice-based approach (PBA) to studying the adoption and use of information systems, through a summary of the theory and exploration of empirical data about the use of collaborative software. Design/methodology/approach – A selection of theoretical resources from the practice-based approach, namely, its view of routine and change, socio-materiality, relational thinking and knowing are introduced. They are employed to analyse the adoption of a collaborative technology in a corporate setting. The empirical data is 30 interviews with human resource (HR) professionals involved in a project in a large Mexican University. Findings – The adoption and use of the collaborative technology is shaped by collective, historical, social and contextual factors that permeate the HR practices being supported by the information system. Among the factors that shaped participation are the interconnection of HR practices to other practices of the University; the existence of habits and the sense of routinisation reflected in HR practitioners’ patterns of interaction and media use; the concern of practitioners that participation in the community did not fit the way HR practices are performed; and the political manoeuvring taking place between actors to persuade potential users to participate in the community. Research limitations/implications – The strength of the analysis using key tenets from a PBA is to deepen our understanding of context as shaped by collective and historical conditions. The sociology of translation can be used to further increase understanding of the political process around the adoption of the collaborative technology. Remaining issues point to a major issue with the theoretical resources from the PBA used in this study, namely the adequacy of its treatment of structural power. Originality/value – The paper reports research of significance to those interested in information systems by providing an alternative perspective that sheds light on contextual, social and historical factors affecting the adoption and use of information technologies. The paper is also valuable in suggesting how the PBA can benefit from Actor-Network Theory (ANT). This will be relevant to the field of praxeological studies.

Practice ecology of knowledge management—connecting the formal, informal and personal

“…Practice approach has been useful in understanding the constituting elements of particular practices. For example, specific activities involved in information and knowledge practices (Chen et al, 2019;K€ ans€ akoski, 2017), collective nature of information sharing (Pilerot and Limberg, 2011), interactions between humans and information systems (Orlikowski, 2007;Rivera and Cox, 2014) and the role of affect and embodiment in knowledge sharing (Leith, 2019). Practice approach has also been applied in studying the relationships between practices and the significance of these connections, for example, between everyday work practices and the use of KM system (Vaast, 2007).…”

Agency, sociomateriality, and configuration work

“…At the same time, information technologies facilitate new ways of performing work practices and result in the restructuring of these practices through their material effects (Orlikowski and Scott, 2008). In effect, materiality of technologies influences and is influenced by how it is interpreted by social actors in their daily work practices (Orlikowski, 2007;Rivera and Cox, 2014).…”

Adoption and use of energy-monitoring technology in ship officers’ communities of practice

“…The thesis that technology-induced organizational change is an effect of social construction, that "emerges from an ongoing stream of social action in which people respond to a technology's constraints and affordances" (Leonardi and Barley 2010, p. 1), has been prominently expressed in the research stream known as the practice-based approach (Barley 1986;Boudreau and Robey 2005;Chu and Robey 2008;Gherardi 2010;Orlikowski 1992;Rivera and Cox 2014;Vaast and Walsham 2005). From this perspective human agency (rather than institutional structures or technological features) is given a prominent role in explaining social order (Leonardi 2011).…”