Taking into account Context in IS research and practice Chrisanthi Avgerou Professor of Information Systems London School of Economics

‘context’ in the study of IS Inherent in the notion of IS as a socio- technical system, distinct from technology in the laboratory Yet, the prevalent perspectives in the field of IS are: – universalistic perspectives of IS innovation –Or, narrowly ‘situated’ perspectives of action

Universalistic perspectives Based on either of the following assumptions: –That specific aspects of ‘human nature’ imply common ways people perceive what is desirable and what is rational. And therefore lead to common motivation for action and common patterns of rational behaviour –That there is an historical evolution of social institutions, therefore a trajectory of progress from under-developed to developed institutional infrastructures

In universalistic accounts of IS, the potential value of ICT and information, as well as the processes through which such value is achieved are considered independently from the circumstances of the social actors involved. Even contingency accounts of IS innovation assume common values, organizational mission and ‘rational’ behaviour

Manifestation of the limitations of this approach: –Difficulties in exploiting the ‘developmental’ potential of IT, i.e, high failure rate in developing countries –Limited successes in government administration and in SMEs –Emerging recognition of successful innovation behaviour that diverts from ‘rational’ norms, e.g. open source software

Situated perspectives Focusing on the specific circumstances of IS innovation incidents Innovation unfolds as actors embedded in a particular social and organizational setting work out its meaning, legitimacy and value Mostly phenomenological (e.g. Suchman, Ciborra) Emphasis on ‘agency’, improvisation, unformalizable behaviour, actors’ negotiations

Often rely on common assumptions of the social context of the organization and beyond the organization, e.g. professionally managed business firm in a competitive economy Unable to explain ‘paradoxical’ processes of innovation bearing on actors’ behaviour that is embedded in ‘atypical’ social settings that differ from those tacitly assumed.

Pettigrew’s contextualist approach Two interconnected directions of analysis: –Horizontal analysis – sequential unfolding of events in historical, present, and future time –Vertical analysis – tracing interdependencies between higher or lower levels of context within which the process studied has been unfolding The context should not be seen as a barrier to action, but as essentially involved in its production

Three interrelated aspects of contextualist analysis Content of change –For IS studies: intertwined technology shaping and organizational change Process of change –Needs a theoretical perspective: from life-cycle based socio-trechnical theory to ANT Context of change –Organizational, national, global Examples of contextualist studies: evaluation, computerization of public admin in India by Madon

Towards a more dynamic contextualist approach ‘Framing’ as the demarcation of the time span and the boundary of the social network of relationships under study Linking localized and time-specific interaction with the institutions of their broader context ‘Frame of meaning’ involves tracing the justification of action with reference to organizational context

The convincingness of a researcher’s account (or the effectiveness of a practitioner’s intervention) depends on the extent to which actors’ frames of meaning are either commonly assumed or made explicit by drawing the research boundaries so that they are revealed. Seeking a contextualist approach capable of drawing a frame of referencing and meaning – who are the actors? what meanings and emotional attitudes drive their actions? where do they stem from?

Tracing the institutional underpinnings of IS episodes Identifying actors involved (e.g. an ANT analysis) Identifying the institutional bearing of their action in terms of: –Enactment of roles –Sense making and capacity for improvisation –Emotional manifestations

Institutional influences originate in multiple sources (e.g. profession, organizational culture, and national culture, community) Change as a result of multiple institutional forces In need of drawing from domain theories to understand institutional influences on situated action