Technological frames

Abstract

In this paper, we build a theoretical framework to extend research into users' and designers' cognitions and values by proposing a systematic approach to examining the underlying assumptions, expectations, and knowledge that people have about technology. Such interpretations of technology (which we label technological frames) are central to understanding technological development, use, and change in organizations as they critically influence the way people act around technology. We suggest that where the technological frames of key groups in organizations--such as managers, technologists, and users--are significantly different, difficulties and conflict around the development, use, and change of technology may result. We use the findings of an empirical study to illustrate how the nature, value, and use of a groupware technology were interpreted differently by various organizational stakeholders, resulting in outcomes that deviated from those expected. We argue that technological frames offer an interesting and useful analytic perspective for explaining and anticipating actions and meanings around information technology that are not easily obtained with other theoretical lenses.ii Some fifteen years ago Bostrom and Heinen (1977) suggested that many of the social problems associated with the implementation of information systems (IS) were due to the frames of reference of system designers. Building on this work, Dagwell and Weber (1983) and Kumar and Bj0rn-Andersen (1990) examined the influence of designers' values and views of users on systems development, while Boland (1978Boland ( , 1979 showed that designers' conceptual frameworks influenced the kind of systems they designed. Ginzberg (1981), in turn, investigated how users' expectations of a pending information system significantly shaped their attitudes toward it. Since these studies, researchers have considered designers' and users' perceptions and values as part of their examination of the social aspects of information technology (Hirschheim and Klein, 1989;Kling and Iacono, 1989;Markus, 1984).While a cognitive thread has clearly run through IS research, this has nevertheless not led to a systematic articulation of the role of frames of reference in systems development and use. In this paper we hope to lay the groundwork for such a systematic approach to social cognitions around information technology. We argue that an understanding of people's interpretations of a technology is critical to understanding their interaction with it. To interact with technology, people have to make sense of it. And in this sensemaking process, people develop particular assumptions, expectations, and knowledge of the technology, which then serve to shape their subsequent action towards it. While these interpretations of technology become taken-for-granted and are rarely surfaced and reflected on, they nevertheless remain particularly significant in influencing how actors in organizations think about and act towards technology. Weick (1990:17), for example, has noted: ...

Varieties of User-Centeredness

“…[28], [70], [71], [74]). It has been acknowledged that no matter how well designed and implemented; IT may produce unexpected, paradoxical or ironic consequences in organizations [73], [74].…”

The affordances of reading/writing on paper and digitally in Finland

“…This study begins from the theory of Technological Frames developed by Orlikowski together with Gash (Orlikowski and Gash, 1994;Orlikowski, 2000), while trying to understand how some of digital reading and writing practices may become reinforced and institutionalised in one country but not in another. Technological frames have resemblance to cognitive schemas (Neisser, 1967;Barlett, 1932).…”

Perceptions of Social Media

“…Moreover, we base our framework on the technological frames model of Wanda J. Orlikowski and Debra C. Gash (1994), whose premises rely on the social cognitive perspective. This model's key argument is that an understanding of people's interpretations of a technology is critical to understanding their interaction with it.…”

“…While observers have focused on the use of social media, we know little about actors' perceptions of social media as a platform for political communication. These perceptions could well be important to understanding the use of social media, because behavior arguably reflects underlying understandings of the media as technological platforms of communication (Orlikowski & Gash 1994). Previous research has therefore failed to show whether non-realization of the touted democratic benefits of social media is due to the actors having different perceptions.…”