I have decided to stop looking for a research question and title until I have read more research papers. I need to find a sound gap in the current research in order to better define my own research.
Research Title & Question
Reply
Monthly Archives: April 2013
Thoughts on ANT
I have been working on the start of the second assignment and the literature review. Also I have been working on the in-class presentation that describes theory and a relevant theory for our research project. I have up to this point found Actor-Network Theory (ANT) a little obscure in terms of how it can be applied to a case. Doing this work has allowed me to read more and in-depth about ANT and through doing this to understand how it can be applied and it has also given me the confidence that ANT is a relevant theory / methodology for my project. I have been reading case studies using ANT across a range of areas from maritime archaeology to information systems to housing policy. ANT seems to be spreading across subject areas and increasing in popularity. The useful aspect of ANT is its adaptability to different areas of social study. I have been reading Bruno Latour’s Reassembling the Social, An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory and his dictum “follow the actor” suddenly made complete sense to me.
Actor-Network Theory – Applications and Possiblities
Looking at the moment at Actor-Network Theory (ANT) and the possibility of using this as the underlying theory for my thesis project. I am considering using ANT along with Everett Rogers Diffusion of Innovations Theory and Karl Weick’s Sensemaking Theory. The rationale for these together is that they compliment one another in many regards. ANT has been used over the past 20 years for analysing socio-technical systems (STS) and other Information Systems. One influential text was – Actor-Network Theory and Information Systems by Arthur Tatnall and Anthony Gilding, 1999. ANT was developed in the mid-late 1980’s by Bruno Latour, Michael Callon and John Law and was initially used as a technique for studying science and technology. The aim of Tatnall and Guilding was to make use of ANT as an alternative to the prevailing use of quantitative methods used for studying IS at that time.
Michael D. Myers in the paper Qualitative Research in Information Systems, MIS Quarterly, 1997 states that there are four main qualitative methods commonly in use in IS research. These include, case study method, ethnography, grounded theory and action research. Since the mid 2000’s ANT has increasingly been seen as complementary the case study method. In recent years ANT has been used increasingly in other fields of research including accounting and finance research, human resources research (e-HRM), archaeological research and maritime archaeology research and organizational research to name a few.
One of the main reasons for the widening of interest in ANT is it’s ability to bring into the view of the researcher both human and non-human entities (or things). This allows researchers to better understand many more aspects of organizational (human/non-human) constructs than straightforward human systems constructs or information systems constructs. Humans and non-humans operate in complex networks of interactions. Innovations are often led by a main actor (actant) who ‘enlist’ other actants into the network of the innovation. The innovation – e.g. a technology – also becomes an integral part of the network. These are in effect heterogeneous actors working together in a network or black-box, a single point actor.
A key characteristic of ANT is it’s description of all actors as texts that can be examined and interpreted. Actors within a black-box can include documents, emails, reports, software agents, organizations etc. etc. All of these can be described textually or verbally from documents or observation. This aspect lends itself to the case study technique which also draws on similar elements.
More on Diffusion of Innovations Theory and Sensemaking Theory soon…
New Research Issue
I have been reading a lot of papers on theory and research for assignment one. On the weekend I made a discovery about an area that could be an interesting area for my research project specifically e-HRM systems. e-HRM systems are basically ERP (enterprise resource planning) systems or part of, that allow Human Resources teams to carry out their functions using online internet or intranet systems.
e-HRM is the (planning, implementation and) application of information technology for both networking and supporting at least two individual or collective actors in their shared performing of HR activities. This concept highlights several crucial aspects of e-HRM. At the outset, e-HRM utilizes information technology in a twofold manner: First, technology is necessary to connect usually spatially segregated actors and enable interactions between them irrespective of their working in the same room or on different continents, i.e. technology serves as a medium with the aim of connection and integration. Second, technology supports actors by partially – and sometimes even completely – substituting for them in executing HR activities.
Hence, information technology serves additionally as a tool for task fulfillment. The planning aspect accentuates the systematic and anticipated way of applying information technology. The shared performing of tasks through at least two actors’ points out that the sharing of HR activities is an additional feature and underlines the aspect of interaction and networking. The consideration of individual and collective actors takes into account that e-HRM is a multilevel phenomenon; besides individual actors, there are
collective actors like groups, organizational units and even whole organizations that interact in order to perform HR activities.
Stefan Strohmeier, 2007.
e-HRM: HR functional applications, integrated HR suite applications, interactive voice responses (IVR), HR Intranet applications, Employee Self-Service (ESS) and Manager Self-Service (MSS) portals, HR extranet applications, or HR portals (Florkowski & Olivas-Luja´ n, 2006). Reflecting the breadth and rapid development of these technologies, the concept of e-HRM has been defined in several ways. In line with Martin, Reddington, and Alexander (2008), we distinguish between the use of IT in HRIS and e-HRM. Whilst HRIS refers to the automation of systems for the sole benefit of the HR function, e-HRM is defined as the application of Internet and web-based systems to change the nature of interactions between HR professionals, line managers and employees from face-to-face relationships to ones that are increasingly mediated by technology.
Jukka-Pekka Heikkila, Adam Smale, 2011.
One area that has had some investigation is online staff training systems. These are often not used to the extent that that they are designed for. There are many reasons for this and there are many related theories. Some of these include, motivation theories, IT systems theories, performance theories, Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), Diffusion of Innovation Theory and to some extent Actor-Network Theory.
I will be looking at eLearning for staff at work over the next few weeks and reporting the findings here.