Why university members use and resist technology? A structure enactment perspective

Journal of Computing in Higher Education

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 38-59

  Lin, Canchu ^a   Singer, Ross ^b   Ha, Louisa ^a  

^a BOWLING GREEN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Blackboard; Resistance; Structure enactment; Technology enactment; Technology use

Indexed keywords

EID: 84872362291     PISSN: 10421726     EISSN: 18671233     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12528-010-9028-1     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Applegate, L. M., McFarlan, F. W., & Mckenney, J. L. (1996). Corporate information systems management: Text and cases. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
2. Bedeian, A. (2007). Even if the tower is "ivory", it isn't "white:" Understanding the consequences of faculty cynicism. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6, 9-32.
3. Bennett, L. (2001). Technology standards for the preparation of teachers. International Journal of Social Education, 15, 1-11.
4. Blackboard. com retrieved on October 23, 2009.
5. Carnevale, D. (2006). Online. Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(24), A37.
6. Chan, S. C. H., & Ngai, E. W. T. (2007). A qualitative study of information technology adoption: How ten organizations adopted web-based training. Information Systems Journal, 17, 289-315.
7. Chapman, B. F., & Heath-Camp, B. (2005). Factors influencing the computer technology adoption rate of business teacher educators. Business Education Digest, 14, 15-30.
8. Duhaney, D. C. (2001). Teacher education: Preparing teachers to integrate technology. International Journal of Instructional Media, 28, 23-30.
9. Eisenberg, E. M., Murphy, A., & Andrews, L. (1998). Openness and decision making in the search for a university provost. Communication Monographs, 65, 1-23.
10. Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11. Eynon, R. (2008). The use of the world wide web in learning and teaching in higher education: Reality and rhetoric. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45, 15-23.
12. Fountain, J. E. (2001). Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional change. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
13. Fulk, J., Schmitz, J., & Steinfield, C. (1990). A social influence model of technology use. In J. Fulk & C. Steinfield (Eds.), Organizations and communication technology (pp. 117-140). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
14. Gerdes, C., & Kuhr, P. (2004). The Blackboard course makeover of ethics and the media. TechTrends, 48(5), 71-74.
15. Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure, and contradiction in social analysis. Berkley: University of California Press.
16. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge, MA: Polity.
17. Groves, M. M., & Zemel, P. C. (2000). Instructional technology adoption in higher education: An action research case study. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27, 57-65.
18. Jablin, F. M. (2001). Organizational entry, assimilation, and disengagement/exit. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 732-818). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19. Jefferies, P., Grodzinsky, F., & Griffin, J. (2003). Advantages and problems in using information communication technologies to support the teaching of a multi-institutional computer ethics course. Journal of Educational Media, 28, 191-202.
20. Kirkpatrick, G. (2005). Online 'chat' facilities as pedagogic tools. Active Learning in Higher Education, 6, 145-159.
21. Lapointe, L., & Rivard, S. (2005). A multilevel model of resistance to information technology implementation. MIS Quarterly, 29, 461-491.
22. Larkin, T. L., & Belson, S. I. (2005). Blackboard technologies: A vehicle to promote student motivation and learning in physics. Journal of STEM Education, 6, 14-27.
23. Myers, M. D., & Newman, M. (2007). The qualitative interview in IS research: Examining the craft. Information and Organization, 17, 2-26.
24. Orlikowski, W. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11, 404-428.
25. Roberts-DeGennaro, M., Brown, C., Min, J. W., & Siegel, M. (2005). Using an online support site to extend the learning to a graduate field practicum in the United States. Social Work Education, 24, 327-342.
26. Sitkin, S. B., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Barrios-Choplin, J. R. (1992). A dual-capacity model of communication media choice in organizations. Human Communication Research, 18, 563-598.
27. Vannatta, R. A. (2000). Evaluation to planning: Technology integration in a school of education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8, 231-246.
28. Weick, K. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1-19.
29. Yao, J. E., Xu, X., Liu, C., & Lu, J. (2003). Organizational size: A significant predictor of IT innovation adoption. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 43, 76-82.