The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Going Beyond the Dominant Paradigm for Information Technology Innovation Research: Emerging Concepts and Methods
Abstract
Research on information technology (IT) innovation is concerned with identifying the factors that facilitate or hinder the adoption and diffusion of new IT-based processes or products. Most of this research has been conducted within the confines of a dominant paradigm wherein innovations are assumed to be beneficial, and organizations that have greater innovation-related needs and abilities are expected to exhibit a greater amount of innovative activity. This essay suggests that the dominant paradigm may be reaching the point of diminishing returns as a framework for supporting ground-breaking research, and urges researchers to adopt a more innovative approach to the study of IT innovation itself. Toward this end, I present seven opportunities for conducting new kinds of research that go beyond the dominant paradigm.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward A Unified View1
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036540 · Cited by 45,035
Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function
Solow, R. M. (1957) · The Review of Economics and Statistics · doi:10.2307/1926047 · Cited by 12,259
Bharadwaj, A. S. (2000) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3250983 · Cited by 5,042
The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations
Orlikowski, W. J. (1992) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.3.3.398 · Cited by 4,957
The productivity paradox of information technology
Brynjolfsson, E. (1993) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/163298.163309 · Cited by 2,604
Information Technology and Organizational Change: Causal Structure in Theory and Research
Markus, M. L., & Robey, D. (1988) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.34.5.583 · Cited by 2,108
Predicting Intention to Adopt Interorganizational Linkages: An Institutional Perspective1
Teo, H. H., Wei, K. K., & Benbasat, I. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036518 · Cited by 1,639 · cited 1×
“One is to capture static managerial perceptions, as was done by Teo et al. (2003), who used perceptions of the three institutional forces as predictors of intention to adopt inter-organizational systems.”
BackgroundInvestment in Enterprise Resource Planning: Business Impact and Productivity Measures
Hitt, L. M., Wu, D. J., & Zhou, X. (2002) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.2002.11045716 · Cited by 877 · cited 4×
“These have included studies of automated teller machines (Dos Santos and Peffers, 1995), enterprise resource planning, (Hitt et al., 2001; McAfee, 2002), electronic data interchange (Mukhopadhyay et al., 1995) and hospital information systems (Devaraj and Kohli, 2003; Kohli and Devaraj, 2003).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialThe Assimilation of Software Process Innovations: An Organizational Learning Perspective
Fichman, R. G., & Kemerer, C. F. (1997) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.43.10.1345 · Cited by 811
Self-citationThe illusory diffusion of innovation: An examination of assimilation gaps
Fichman, R. G., & Kemerer, C. F. (1999) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.10.3.255 · Cited by 633
Self-citation
Cited by
A Review of the Predictors, Linkages, and Biases in IT Innovation Adoption Research
Jeyaraj, A., Rottman, J. W., & Lacity, M. C. (2006) · Journal of Information Technology · doi:10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000056 · Cited by 1,136
Clohessy, T., & Acton, T. (2019) · Industrial Management & Data Systems · doi:10.1108/imds-08-2018-0365 · Cited by 436
Park, Y., Fiss, P. C., & El Sawy, O. A. (2020) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2020/13879 · Cited by 300
Explore success factors that impact artificial intelligence adoption on telecom industry in China
Chen, H., Li, L., & Chen, Y. (2021) · Journal of Management Analytics · doi:10.1080/23270012.2020.1852895 · Cited by 300
Innovating with enterprise systems and digital platforms: A contingent resource-based theory view
Sedera, D., Lokuge, S., Grover, V., Sarker, S., & Sarker, S. (2016) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2016.01.001 · Cited by 246
Metadata
- Authors
- Boston College, & Fichman, R.
- Venue
- Journal of the Association for Information Systems
- Publisher
- Association for Information Systems
- Published
- 2004-08
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 314-355
- ISSN
- 1536-9323 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2157375194
- Cited by
- 595
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 69.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
