Technology and Institutions: What Can Research on Information Technology and Research on Organizations Learn from Each Other?

By Wanda J. Orlikowski, Stephen R. Barley. MIS Q., 2001

1,310 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Management Information Systems, Sociology and Political Science, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6ae96bad7e6612cc2217211eb7249adff84e3a4c

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Management Information Systems

In Sociology and Political Science

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Positioning the institutional perspective in information systems research (2009, background): “In an IS context, institutional analysis has been said to have the potential to help researchers understand ‘how institutions influence the design, use, and consequences of technologies, either within or across organizations’ (Orlikowski and Barley, 2001: 153).”
Strategizing information systems-enabled organizational transformation: A transdisciplinary review and new directions (2012, background): “…Ciborra and Lanzara (1994), punctuated equilibrium by Sabherwal et al. (2001), Silva and Hirschheim (2007), and Lyytinen and Newman (2008) and institutionalism by Avgerou (2000), Butler (2003), Chatterjee et al. (2002), Gosain (2004), Teo et al. (2003), and Orlikowski and Barley (2001).”
Networks of Action: Sustainable Health Information Systems Across Developing Countries (2004, background): “The translations that go into local appropriation correspond closely to the gradual institutionalization or routinization of the IS as it seeps into the fabric of everyday practice (Orlikowski and Barley 2001).”
Social Media Use in Organizations: Exploring the Affordances of Visibility, Editability, Persistence, and Association (2013, neutral): “…used the concept to explore the ways in which new technologies can be better designed (Gaver, 1991; Norman, 1990), while others have used it to explore the dynamics of technologically occasioned social change (Orlikowski & Barley, 2001; Zammutto, Griffi th, Majchrzak, Dougherty, & Faraj, 2007).”
Research on information systems in developing countries: Current landscape and future prospects (2006, background): “There has been debate for many years in the IS field (Orlikowski & Barley, 2001) as to whether IS needs to develop its own theory, or whether it can adapt theory from other disciplines.”
Reconceptualizing Users as Social Actors in Information Systems Research (2003, background): “However, even researchers who have a richly contextualized conception of users as social actors often write ambiguously about agency and workers, so their conceptions can be readily interpreted as either individualistic or social (cf., Orlikowski and Barley 2001; Walsham 2001).”
Digital innovation and transformation: An institutional perspective (2018, background): “…argues that the well-developed institutional perspective has concepts and theorizing that are highly relevant to the study of digital innovation and especially when the range and depth of such innovations leads to digital transformation (for a similar approach see also Orlikowski & Barley, 2001).”
Designing routines: On the folly of designing artifacts, while hoping for patterns of action (2008, background): “Equally clear is the importance of human agency at all stages in their design and use (Orlikowski, 1992; Orlikowski & Barley, 2001).”
Information technology and culture: Identifying fragmentary and holistic perspectives of culture (2005, background): “Since the first two stages have been critiqued by several scholars (Markus, 1983; Markus & Robey, 1988; Orlikowski & Barley, 2001; Orlikowski, 1992), we only briefly mention them here.”