CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 765Information Systems Theories and ImplementationInformation Technology Governance and StrategyManagement and Organizational Studies

Accounting for the Contradictory Organizational Consequences of Information Technology: Theoretical Directions and Methodological Implications

Robey, Daniel, Boudreau, Marie-Claude·1999·Information Systems Research
DOI 10.1287/isre.10.2.167
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Although much contemporary thought considers advanced information technologies as either determinants or enablers of radical organizational change, empirical studies have revealed inconsistent findings to support the deterministic logic implicit in such arguments. This paper reviews the contradictory empirical findings both across studies and within studies, and proposes the use of theories employing a logic of opposition to study the organizational consequences of information technology. In contrast to a logic of determination, a logic of opposition explains organizational change by identifying forces both promoting change and impeding change. Four specific theories are considered: organizational politics, organizational culture, institutional theory, and organizational learning. Each theory is briefly described to illustrate its usefulness to the problem of explaining information technology's role in organizational change. Four methodological implications of using these theories are also discussed: empirical identification of opposing forces, statement of opposing hypotheses, process research, and employing multiple interpretations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1287/isre.10.2.167

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Past research has revealed that changes induced by information technology are often resisted, unanticipated, or contradictory.

    “Because past research has revealed that changes induced by mformation technology are often resisted, unanticipated, or contradictory, a theory embedding a motor that acknowledges the opposing forces contnbuting to change promises useful analytical power (Robey and Boudreau, 1999).”

    From Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change (2002) · cites this paper as Robey and Boudreau, 1999

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Robey, D., & Boudreau, M.-C.
Affiliations
Georgia State University (US)
ORCID
Boudreau, Marie-Claude
Venue
Information Systems Research
Publisher
Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS)
Published
1999-06
Volume
10
Issue
2
Pages
167-185
ISSN
  • 1047-7047 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-5536
DOI
10.1287/isre.10.2.167
OpenAlex
W1976410576
Cited by
765
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 45 · 2013: 48 · 2012: 42
FWCI
75.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Information Systems Research (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Information Technology Governance and Strategy
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
Keywords
organizational politics, organizational culture, institutional theory, organizational learning, process research, multiple interpretations, opposing forces

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review