Cited by 128Open Source Software InnovationsInformation Systems Theories and ImplementationInnovation Diffusion and Forecasting

A Rhetorical Approach to It Diffusion: Reconceptualizing the Ideology-Framing Relationship in Computerization Movements1

Open access
Barrett, Michael, Heracleous, Loizos, Walsham, Geoff·2013·MIS Quarterly

Abstract

In this paper we propose rhetoric as a valuable yet underdeveloped alternative paradigm for examining IT diffusion. Building on recent developments of computerization movements theory, our rhetorical approach proposes that two central elements of the theory, framing and ideology, rather than being treated as separate can be usefully integrated. We suggest that IT diffusion can be usefully explored through examining the interrelationship of the deep structures underlying ideology and the type and sequence of rhetorical claims underpinning actors’ framing strategies. Our theoretical developments also allow us to better understand competing discourses influencing the diffusion process. These discourses reflect the ideologies and shape the framing strategies of actors in the broader field context. We illuminate our theoretical approach by drawing on the history of the diffusion of free and open source software.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.25300/misq/2013/37.1.09

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • In regimes of continuous temporality, when significant changes take place from outside the project's environment, such change is limited to increasing uncertainty and not to changes in the deep structure of the project.

    “When significant changes take place from outside the project's environment, such change is limited to increasing uncertainty (Oh et al., 2016), and not, say, changes in the deep structure of the project (Barrett et al., 2013)”

    From The sustainability of open source commons (2023) · cites this paper as Barrett et al., 2013

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 84 · Cited by 128

Authors
Barrett, M., Heracleous, L., & Walsham, G.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • University of Warwick (GB)
Venue
MIS Quarterly
Publisher
MIS Quarterly
Published
2013-03-01
Volume
37
Issue
1
Pages
201-220
ISSN
  • 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
  • 2162-9730
OpenAlex
W1749409116
Cited by
128
References
84
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 4
FWCI
16.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • MIS Quarterly (publishedVersion)
  • University of Warwick (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Innovation Diffusion and Forecasting
Keywords
IT diffusion, ideology, framing, rhetoric, framing strategies, discourse, free and open source software, technology adoption

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