A hybrid analytical framework to guide studies of innovative it adoption by work groups

Technical Communication Quarterly

Volumn 15, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 355-382

  Dayton, David ^a  

^a TOWSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 51149111159     PISSN: 10572252     EISSN: 15427625     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15427625tcq1503_5     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Bazerman, C. (1997). Discursively structured activities. Mind, Culture and Activity, 4, 296–308.
2. Bazerman, C. (2003). Speech acts, genres, and activity systems: How texts organize activity and people. In C. Bazerman & P. Prior (Eds.), What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analyzing texts and textual practices (pp. 309–340). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
3. Bazerman, C., & Russell, D. (Eds.). (2002). Writing selves/writing societies: Research from activity perspectives. Retrieved October 3, 2005, from http://wac.colostate.edu/books/selves_societies/
4. Beason, G. (1996). Redefining written products with WWW documentation: A study of the technical writing process at a computer company. Technical Communication, 3, 339–348.
5. Bijker, W. E. (1995). Of bicycles, Bakelites, and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6. Blomberg, J. L. (1986). The variable impact of computer technologies on the organization of work activities. In Proceedings of the 1986 ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Austin, Texas, December 3–5, 1986 (pp. 35–42). New York: ACM Press.
7. Bookless, J., Marx, A., & Davis, S. (2005). Demonstration of an XML-based content management system. In Proceedings of the 52nd International Conference of the Society for Technical Communication (pp. 187–190). Arlington, VA: Society for Technical Communication.
8. Burke, K. (1969). A grammar of motives. Berkeley: University of California Press.
9. Clark, D. (2002). Rhetoric of present single-sourcing methodologies. In Proceedings of the 20th annual International Conference on Computer Documentation (pp. 20–25). New York: ACM Press.
10. Dayton, D. (2001). Electronic editing in technical communication: Practices, attitudes, and impacts. Doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University, Lubbock. Retrieved October 3, 2005, from http://pages.towson.edu/ddayton/
11. Dayton, D. (2003). Electronic editing in technical communication: A model of user-centered technology adoption. Technical Communication, 50, 192–205.
12. Dayton, D. (2004a). Electronic editing in technical communication: The compelling logics of local contexts. Technical Communication, 51, 1–16.
13. Dayton, D. (2004b). Electronic editing in technical communication: A model of user-centered technology adoption. Technical Communication, 51, 207–223.
14. Denzin, N. K. (1978). Strategies of multiple triangulation. In N. K. Denzin (Ed.), The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (2nd ed., pp. 297–313). New York: McGraw-Hill.
15. Doheny-Farina, S. (1992). Rhetoric, innovation, technology: Case studies of technical communication in technology transfers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16. Downing, J. R. (2004). “It’s easier to ask someone I know.” Journal of Business Communication, 41, 166–191.
17. Duin, A. H., & Hansen, C. J. (Eds.). (1996). Nonacademic writing: Social theory and technology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
18. Engeström, Y. (1999a). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19–38). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
19. Engeström, Y. (1999b). Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in practice. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 377–406). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
20. Fichman, R. G. (2000). The diffusion and assimilation of information technology innovations. In R. Zmud (Ed.), Framing the domains of IT management: Projecting the future through the past. Cincinnati, OH: Pinnaflex Educational. (Also available from http://www2.bc.edu/~fichman/Fichman_2000_IT_Diff_Chp.pdf/)
21. Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge (A. Sheridan, Trans.). New York: Pantheon.
22. Fox, C. (2002). Beyond the “tyranny of the real”: Revisiting Burke’s pentad as research method for professional communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 11, 365–388.
23. Freedman, A., & Medway, P. (Eds.). (1994). Genre and the new rhetoric. London: Taylor & Francis.
24. Goto, K., & Cotler, E. (2001). Web redesign: Workflow that works. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders.
25. Haas, C. (1996). Writing technology: Studies on the materiality of literacy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
26. Hansen, C. J. (1996). Contextualizing technology and communication in a corporate setting. In A. H. Duin & C. J. Hansen (Eds.), Nonacademic writing: Social theory and technology (pp. 305–324). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
27. Hart-Davidson, W. (2001). On writing, technical communication, and information technology: The core competencies of technical communication. Technical Communication, 48, 145–155.
28. Kahn, R. (2000). The effect of technological innovation on organizational structure: Two case studies of the effects of the introduction of a new technology on informal organizational structures. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 14, 328–347.
29. Kain, D., & Wardle, E. (2005). Building context: Using activity theory to teach about genre in multi-major professional communication courses. Technical Communication Quarterly, 14, 113–139.
30. Kramer, R. (2003). IBM’s SGML toolset and the writer as technologist, problem solver, and editor. Technical Communication, 50, 328–334.
31. Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human–computer interaction research. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human–computer interaction (pp. 17–44). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32. Lapointe, L., & Rivard, S. (2005). A multilevel model of resistance to information technology implementation. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 29, 461–491.
33. Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality (M. J. Hall, Trans.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
34. Meyer, A. D., & Goes, J. B. (1988). Organizational assimilation of innovations: A multilevel contextual analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 897–923.
35. Orlikowski, W., & Yates, J. (1994). Genre repertoire: Examining the structuring of communicative practices in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 541–574.
36. Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3, 398–427.
37. Orlikowski, W. J., & Baroudi, J. J. (1991). Studying information technology in organizations: Research approaches and assumptions. Information Systems Research, 2(1), 1–28.
38. Orlikowski, W. J., & Gash, D. C. (1994.) Technological frames: Making sense of information technology in organizations. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 12, 174–207.
39. Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1984). The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science, 14, 399–441.
40. Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1987). The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. J. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology (pp. 17–50). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
41. Porter, J. E. (1990). Audience and rhetoric: An archaeological composition of the discourse community. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
42. Rehling, L. (1999). Print to online: Conflicting tales of transition. Technical Communication, 46, 27–35.
43. Rockley, A. (2002). Managing enterprise content: A unified content strategy. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders.
44. Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations (1st ed.). New York: Free Press.
45. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
46. Russell, D. (1995). Activity theory and its implications for writing instruction. In J. Petraglia (Ed.), Reconceiving writing, rethinking writing instruction (pp. 51–77). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
47. Russell, D. (1997). Rethinking genre in school and society: An activity theory analysis. Written Communication, 14, 504–554.
48. Russell, D. (1998). Writing and genre in higher education and workplaces: A review of studies that use cultural–historical activity theory. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 4, 224–237.
49. Sharif, N. (2005). Contributions from the sociology of technology to the study of innovation systems. Knowledge, Technology, and Policy, 17(3–4), 83–105.
50. Spinuzzi, C. (1996). Pseudotransactionality, activity theory, and professional writing instruction. Technical Communication Quarterly, 5, 295–307.
51. Spinuzzi, C. (1999a). Designing for lifeworlds: Genre and activity in information system design and evaluation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames.
52. Spinuzzi, C. (1999b). Grappling with distributed usability: A cultural–historical examination of documentation genres over four decades. In J. Johnson-Eilola & S. Selber (Eds.), ACM SIGDOC’99 (pp. 16–21). New York: ACM.
53. Spinuzzi, C. (2002). Compound mediation in software development: Using genre ecologies to study textual artifacts. In C. Bazerman & D. Russell (Eds.), Writing selves/writing societies: Research from activity perspectives (pp. 97–124). Retrieved October 3, 2005, from the WAC Clearing house website: http://wac.colostate.edu/books/selves_societies/
54. Sullivan, P., & Dautermann, J. (1996). Electronic literacies in the workplace: Technologies of writing. Urbana, IL: NCTE and Computers in Composition.
55. Swanson, E. B., & Ramiller, N. C. (1997). The organizing vision in information systems innovation. Organization Science, 8, 458–474.
56. Swanson, E. B., & Ramiller, N. C. (2004). Innovating mindfully with information technology. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 28, 553–584.
57. Trotter, P. (2005, June 10). Re: Intro for students interested in single-sourcing? [stc-single-sourcing-l]. Message posted to http://lists.stc.org/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=stc-single-sourcing-l
58. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 27, 425–478.
59. Walsham, G. (1995). The emergence of interpretivism in IS research. Information Systems Research, 6, 376–394.
60. Wegner, D. (2004). The collaborative construction of a management report in a municipal community of practice: Text and context, genre and learning. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 18, 411–452.
61. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
62. Winsor, D. (1999). Genre and activity systems: The role of documentation in maintaining and changing engineering activity systems. Written Communication, 16, 200–224.
63. Winsor, D. (2000). Ordering work: Blue-collar literacy and the political nature of genre. Written Communication, 17, 155–184.
64. Yates, J., & Orlikowski, W. (1992). Genres of organizational communication: A structurational approach to studying communication and media. Academy of Management Review, 17, 299–326.