1 / 32

TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE RESEARCH Rise and Fall of IS Theory Irfan E. Kanat

TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE RESEARCH Rise and Fall of IS Theory Irfan E. Kanat. Refresher: Theory. Is a simplified representation of reality. It is a theory “owned” by the IS research community. In the IS field where theories are scarce, TAM served as an example for other areas of IS research.

dewei
Download Presentation

TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE RESEARCH Rise and Fall of IS Theory Irfan E. Kanat

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE RESEARCH Rise and Fall of IS Theory Irfan E. Kanat

  2. Refresher: Theory Is a simplified representation of reality.

  3. It is a theory “owned” by the IS research community. In the IS field where theories are scarce, TAM served as an example for other areas of IS research. Lee & Kozar 2003

  4. Why is having a Theory Important Establishes scientific fields

  5. Outline Technology Acceptance Research Theories Evolution Current state

  6. Technology Acceptance Research

  7. Technology Acceptance Research Hallmarks Traditional TAR study (replication, extension) has some distinctive features Foundational Theories Constructs Diagram Survey Statistics Once you read one you have read them all.

  8. Timeline

  9. Pre-TAM Technology Acceptance Disorganized efforts Lacking coherence Isolated effects

  10. Pre-TAM Foundational Theories TRA, Ajzen and Fishbein, 1975

  11. Pre-TAM Foundational Theories TPB, Ajzen, 1985

  12. Post-TAM Research progress may be stimulated by the establishment of an integrating paradigm to guide theory development and to provide a common frame of reference within which to integrate various research streams. Davis, 1989

  13. Post-TAM: TAM TAM, Davis, 1986 Based on TRA Seminal articles MISQ 1989 (12000+ citations) MS 1989 (6000+ citations) Replication and Extension Studies

  14. Post-TAM: TAM

  15. Post-TAM: IDT IDT, Moore & Benbasat, 1991

  16. Post-TAM: D&M IS SF IS Success Factors, D&M, 1992 Focus on artifact

  17. Disillusionment Imagine talking to a manager and saying that to be adopted technology must be useful and easy to use. I imagine the reaction would be “Duh!” The more important questions are what makes technology useful and easy to use. Alan Dennis

  18. Disillusionment The knowledge accumulated was not getting integrated back into the theory. After a decade of research researchers were starting to see the limitations. We see updates to TAM++ theories, and a return to roots. Theories getting more complex. Extension studies moving down. Replication dying off.

  19. Disillusionment: TAM 2 Venkatesh and Davis, 2000

  20. Disillusionment: IS SF update D&M, 2002

  21. Disillusionment: UTAUT Venkatesh, Moris and Davis, 2003 FULL CIRCLE

  22. Disillusionment: Review Theory Brought Rigor Focused Efforts Diverted attention Trivial Practice PEOU unstable Self-report Single Measurement R2 Lee & Kozar, 2003

  23. Paradigm Shift After 17 years of research and a multitude of studies investigating TAM and its many variants, we now know almost to a point of certainty that perceived usefulness is a very influential belief . . . Unfortunately, we believe that, in spite of its significant contributions, the intense focus on TAM has led to several dysfunctional outcomes. Benbasat & Barki, 2007

  24. Paradigm Shift The key problem with TAM could be described as a focus on a middle range theory that provides a potentially useful bridge to antecedents and consequences of adoption, but the bridge seems to have become an end in itself. Benbasat & Barki, 2007

  25. Paradigm Shift Knowledge integration failed. The dissatisfaction took over. Publishing traditional TAR research became impossible. Extension studies died off. The need for a more radical change in how we evaluate the acceptance of IS became apperent. Theories getting more complex.

  26. Paradigm Shift: Quo Vadis? Dysfunctional Outcomes Real Issues Illusion of progress Rigid Theoretical Chaos Why Technology Evolved Status Quo Solution • Return to roots • Redefine Use • Temporal Saliance • Antecedents • Outcomes • Beyond Perception

  27. Paradigm Shift: What it means? Did we find the new bone? What happened with TAM? Theory building is an accumulative process. There will be ups and downs.

  28. Paradigm Shift: TAR Today Traditional TAR study might be dead Acceptance is a fundamental part of IS research Research question is still valid New acceptance studies are still published A new perspective is required

  29. Paradigm Shift: TAM 3 Venkatesh & Hillol, 2008 Focus on interventions Nothing came out of this

  30. Paradigm Shift: Interaction Centric Model Al-natour and Benbasat, 2009 Focus on interactions IS as a social artifact Redefined use

  31. Paradigm Shift Paradigm is dead. Long live the paradigm!

  32. The End

More Related