When information technologies (IT) have a central role in organizational change programs, understanding how organization members make sense of technology is critical to influencing their actions and to achieving planned outcomes. Orlikowski and Gash articulated a theoretic framework centered on technological frames of reference (TFR) to investigate interpretive processes related to IT in organizations. The TFR framework has been cited across a wide range of publications and has formed the basis for a genre of studies on the interpretive aspects of IT and organizational change. In this article, the author assesses these research contributions and argues that further theoretic development is needed for the TFR framework to reach its potential contributions to knowledge. The author outlines the following research strategies that could facilitate TFR theory development: focusing analysis on frame structure, investigating framing as a dynamic interpretive process, and examining the cultural and institutional basis of organizational frames.
Avison, D., Lau, F., Myers, M., & Nielsen, P. (1999). Action research. Communications of the ACM, 42, 94-98.
2.
Barr, P. (1998). Adapting to unfamiliar environmental events: A look at the evolution of interpretation and its role in strategic change. Organization Science, 9, 644-669.
3.
Barrett, M. (1999). Challenges of EDI adoption for electronic trading in the London Insurance Market. European Journal of Information Systems, 8, 1-15.
4.
Bartunek, J. (1984). Changing interpretive schemes and organizational restructuring: The example of a religious order. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 355-372.
5.
Bartunek, J., Lacey, C., & Wood, D. (1992). Social cognition in organizational change: An insider-outsider approach. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 28, 204-223.
6.
Bartunek, J., & Moch, M. (1987). First order, second order, and third order change and organization development interventions: A cognitive approach. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 23, 483-500.
7.
Becker, H. (1998). Tricks of the trade: How to think about your research while you are doing it. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
8.
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality. New York: Anchor.
9.
Bijker, W. (1995). Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: Towards a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10.
Bijker, W., Hughes, T., & Pinch, T. (1987). The social construction of technological systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11.
Bogner, W., & Barr, P. (2000). Making sense in hypercompetitive environments: A cognitive explanation for the persistence of high velocity competition. Organization Science, 11, 212-226.
12.
Chiasson, M., & Davidson, E. (2005). Taking industry seriously in IS research. MIS Quarterly, 29, 2-16.
13.
Crowston, K., & Myers, M. (2004). Information technology and the transformation of industries: Three research perspectives. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 13, 5-28.
14.
Daft, R., & Weick, K. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretative systems. Academy of Management Review, 9, 284-295.
15.
Davidson, E. (2002). Technology frames and framing: A socio-cognitive investigation of requirements determination. MIS Quarterly, 26, 329-358.
16.
Davidson, E., & Pai, D. (2004). Making sense of technology frames: Promise, progress, and potential. In B. Kaplan, D. Truex, D. Wastell, T. Wood-Harpe, & J. DeGross (Eds.), Relevant theory and informed practice: Looking forward from a 20 year perspective on IS research (pp. 473-491). Boston: Kluwer.
17.
DiMaggio, P. (1995). Comments on what theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 391-397.
18.
El Sawy, O., & Pauchant, T. (1988). Triggers, templates and twitches in the tracking of emerging strategic issues. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 445-473.
19.
Fiol, C. (1994). Consensus, diversity, and learning in organizations. Organization Science, 5, 403-420.
20.
Gallivan, M. (2001). Meaning to change: Howdiverse stakeholders interpret organizational communication about change initiatives. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 44, 243-266.
21.
Gephart, R. (2004). Sensemaking and the newmedia atwork. American Behavioral Scientist, 48, 479-495.
22.
Gioia, D., Thomas, J., Clark, S., & Chittipeddi, K. (1994). Symbolism and strategic change in academia: The dynamics of sensemaking and influence. Organization Science, 5, 363-383.
23.
Grant, D., Michelson, G., Oswick, C., & Wailes, N. (2005). Guest editorial: Discourse and organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change, 18, 6-15.
24.
Griffith, T. (1999). Technology features as triggers for sensemaking. Academy of Management Review, 24, 472-489.
25.
Heng, M., Trauth, E., & Fischer, S. (1999). Organizational champions of IT innovation. Accounting, Management and Information Technology, 9, 193-222.
26.
Heracleous, L., & Barrett, M. (2001). Organizational change as discourse: Communicative actions and deep structures in the context of information technology implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 755-778.
27.
Iivari, N., & Abrahamsson, P. (2002). The interaction between organizational subcultures and user-centered design—A case study of an implementation effort. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science(CD-ROM). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.
28.
Isabella, L. (1990). Evolving interpretations as a change unfolds: Howmanagers construe key organizational events. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 7-41.
29.
Keil, M., & Robey, D. (1999). Turning around troubled software projects: An exploratory study of the deescalation of commitment to failing courses of action. Journal of Management Information Systems, 15(4), 63-88.
30.
Khoo, M. (2001). Community design of DLESE collections reviewpolicy: A technological frames analysis. In Proceedings of the First ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (pp. 157-164). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
31.
Kilduff, M., Angelmar, R., & Mehra, A. (2000). Top management-team diversity and firm performance: Examining the role of cognitions. Organization Science, 11, 21-34.
32.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
33.
Law, Y., & Lee-Partridge, J. (2003). Towards a strategy for sense-making of empirical knowledge management perceptions—The TFL methodology. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science(CD-ROM). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.
34.
Lee, A., & Baskerville, R. L. (2003). Generalizing generalizability in information systems research. Information Systems Research, 14, 221-243.
35.
Lin, A., & Cornford, T. (2000). Framing implementation management. In S. Ang, H. Krcmar, W. J. Orlikowski, P. Weil, & J. J. DeGross (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Information Systems (pp. 197-205). Atlanta, GA: Association for Information Systems.
36.
Lin, A., & Silva, L. (2005). The social and political construction of technological frames. European Journal of Information Systems, 14, 49-59.
37.
Markus, M. L. (2004). Technochange management: Using IT to drive organizational change. Journal of Information Technology, 19, 3-19.
38.
Markus, M. L., & Bjørn-Andersen, N. (1987). Power over users: Its exercise by system professionals. Communications of the ACM, 30, 498-504.
39.
McGovern, T., & Hicks, C. (2004). Howpolitical processes shaped the IT adoption by a small make-to-order company: A case study in the insulated wire and cable industry. Information and Management, 42, 243-257.
40.
McLoughlin, I., Badham, R., & Couchman, P. (2000). Rethinking a-political process in technological change: Socio-technical configurations and frames. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 12, 17-37.
41.
Newman, M., & Sabherwal, R. (1996). Escalation of commitment to information systems development: A longitudinal investigation. MIS Quarterly, 20, 23-54.
42.
Orlikowski, W. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11, 404-428.
43.
Orlikowski, W., & Gash, D. (1994). Technology frames: Making sense of information technology in organizations. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 12, 174-207.
44.
Ovaska, P., Rossi, M., & Smolander, K. (2005). Filtering, negotiating and shifting in the understanding of information system requirements. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 17, 31-66.
45.
Porac, J., Thomas, H., & Baden-Fuller, C. (1989). Competitive groups as cognitive communities: The case of Scottish knitwear manufacturers. Journal of Management Studies, 26, 397-416.
46.
Powell, W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (1991). The newinstitutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
47.
Sahay, S., Palit, M., & Robey, D. (1994). Arelativist approach to studying the social construction of information technology. European Journal of Information Systems, 3, 248-258.
48.
Scott, W. (2001). Institutions and organizations(2nd ed.). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
49.
Shaw, N., Lee-Partridge, J., & Ang, J. (1997). Understanding end-user computing through technological frames. In J. J. DeGross& K. Kumar (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Information Systems (pp. 453-459). Atlanta, GA: Association for Information Systems.
50.
Swanson, E., & Ramiller, N. (1997). The organizing vision in information systems innovation. Organization Science, 8, 458-474.
51.
Tan, F., & Hunter, M. (2002). The repertory grid technique: A method for the study of cognition in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 26, 39-57.
52.
Walsh, J. (1995). Managerial and organizational cognition: Notes from a trip down memory lane. Organization Science, 6, 280-321.
53.
Walsh, J., Henderson, C., & Deighton, J. (1988). Negotiated belief structures and decision performance: An empirical investigation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 42, 194-216.
54.
Walsham, G. (1995). Interpretive case studies in IS research: Nature and method. European Journal of Information Systems, 4, 74-81.
55.
Weick, K. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
56.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
57.
Yoshioka, T., Yates, J., & Orlikowski, W. (2002). Community-based interpretive schemes: Exploring the use of cyber meetings within a global organization. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science(CD-ROM). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.
