Making Sense of Technological Frames: Promise, Progress, and Potential

Abstract

In a seminal paper, Orlikowski and Gash (1994) articulated a conceptual framework for technological frames of reference (TFR) to lay the groundwork for a systematic approach to socio-cognitive research on information technology. This work is widely cited as a justification for social and socio-cognitive analysis of IT, but a limited number of studies utilizing and further developing the frames concept have been published in the ensuing decade. In this paper, we review the promise of the technological frame concept, assess theoretical and methodological progress evident in TFR publications, and consider how potential contributions of TFR may be realized in future research. In doing so, we consider how limitations in TFR research to-date might be addressed, including the feasibility of a rapprochement with quantitative research methods, of TFR analysis at the industry level of analysis, and of action research approaches.

From Knowing It to “Getting It”: Envisioning Practices in Computer Games Development

“…Another relevant strand in the literature, as noted earlier, is work on technology frames (Orlikowski and Gash 1994, Davidson and Pai 2004, Davidson 2002. Here our findings provide a counterpoint to the emphasis that such studies place on the contested, and often implicit, nature of different groups' frames by highlighting the collaborative work across groups that enables the development of a shared conceptualization of user experience.…”

Technological frames of stakeholders shaping the SDI implementation: A case study from India

“…It has been argued that merely becoming aware of disparities among frames is not sufficient to improve either design or user acceptability. Davidson and Pai (2004) note that the framework proposed by Orlikowski and Gash (1994) does not resolve issues relating to structural aspects of incongruence. Also, post hoc explanation of unsuccessful IS implementations are of limited value to IS practitioners (Davidson & Pai).…”

“…SCOT perceives technological development as a social process in which the meanings that different actors and social groups assign to technology provide the basis for its stabilization. IS researchers (Davidson & Pai, 2004;Davidson, 2002;Sahay et al, 1994) have argued that the notion of technological frames explicitly is derived from these concepts. However, a point of departure is that the conceptualization of these frames also draws significantly upon socio-cognitive research (Orlikowski & Gash, 1994).…”

“…Orlikowski and Gash's (1994) quest was to analyze sense-making processes around the introduction of new ICTs in organizations and consequent technology-induced changes, particularly arising from disagreements and incongruities in technological frames of stakeholder groups. They drew upon the notion of cognitive consensus to introduce the concept of congruence as the alignment of technological frames along key elements, implying thereby similarity of structures (common categories) and content (common values; Davidson & Pai, 2004). Orlikowski and Gash (1994) argued that incongruence in the technological frames of meaning of key organizational groups led to different or contradictory expectations about the role of ICTs in business processes, poor acceptance and appropriation of technology in work processes, and resistance by users.…”

Dominant Cognitive Frames and the Innovative Power of Social Networks

“…Here, senior managers are found to be skilled in framing the strategic objectives and change processes that inform members' understandings of their role or the organization's position in its environment (Cornelissen & Werner 2014). Dominant frames are thus seen as F o r P e e r R e v i e w 9 creating a capacity for change (or inertia -see Baunsgaard & Clegg, 2013), be that in relation to organizational change programs (Chreim, 2006), the implementation of technology (Davidson & Pai, 2004) or knowledge transfer between organizations (Burg, Berends & Raaij, 2014). This previous work has been conducted, however, almost exclusively within hierarchical organization settings, where senior managers exercise significant position power.…”