Understanding GDSS in Symbolic Context: Shifting the Focus from Technology to Interaction

Abstract

GDSS has enjoyed about a decade and a half of vigorous research activity. Throughout this time, a problem that has occupied the research community is the inconsistent research results that have been obtained. The purpose of this paper is to assess whether the reason for these inconsistencies is rooted in the epistemological mode that has prevailed and to offer an alternative epistemological lens that might help advance our understanding of GDSS use and research. Using quali-'M. Lynne Markus was the accepting senior editor for this paper. tative research methods and a symbolic interactionist theoretical basis, this paper examines how a particular group used a GDSS over two meetings. The findings indicate that GDSS use may result in reactions from its users that are difficult to capture using conventional methodological assumptions, thereby helping explain why past results have not been consistent. Based on these findings, a shift in focus is advocated from an emphasis on the technology to an emphasis on human interaction, one that embraces the reasons underlying past inconsistencies rather than attempting to overcome them.

Conducting and Evaluating Critical Interpretive Research: Examining Criteria as a Key Component in Building a Research Tradition

“…What complicates this exercise is that it is difficult to treat equally categories like hermeneutical philosophical base (Klein and Myers 1999), symbolic interactionist work (Gopal and Prasad 2000), ethnographic writing (Golden-Biddle and Locke 1995) or confessional research (Schultze 2000). For instance, while hermeneutic can be defined as a broad theoretical tradition, ethnography can be defined as a research strategy.…”

“…Because their set of principles applies mostly to hermeneutics and not all interpretive studies follow a hermeneutical philosophical base, Klein and Myers recommend that other IS authors, representing other forms of interpretivism, suggest additional principles. For instance, Gopal and Prasad (2000) propose a set of criteria particularly adapted for evaluating symbolic interactionist work, arguing that this research differs from other social constructionist genres, notably hermeneutics and ethnography. A number of IS interpretive researchers-like Davidson (2002), Schultze (2000, Trauth and Jessup (2000), and Walsham and Sahay (1999)-have used Golden-Biddle and Locke's three criteria for ethnographic writing (which does not exclude hermeneutics), as the basis for evaluating their research.…”

The small group subtlety of using ICT for participatory governance: A South African experience

“…It is generally accepted that e-collaboration involves the electronic exchange of information with the goal of the participants playing a role in the outcome of the collaborative process (Kock 2005). Earlier research on e-collaboration tended to focus on the technology and as such resulted in inconsistent results (Gopal and Prasad 2000). The overemphasis on technology with little to no attention placed on the human or social context is reminiscent of the technology determinism that is still broadly adopted in ICT for human development projects (Heeks andBailur 2007, Avgerou 2009).…”

Sensitive cabbies: Ongoing sense-making within technology structuring

“…By looking into the cognitive processes of the human mind, current research has largely examined how users make new senses of technology at the initial period of technology adoption (e.g. Fulk, 1993;Gopal & Prasad, 2000;Orlikowski & Gash, 1994). Thus far, we know relatively little about the effect of ongoing sense-making occasioned by technology structuring in unexpected ways (Spicer, 2005;Weick, 1990).…”