Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Debra C. Gash

dblp:14/4660 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 1994
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Collaborative and social computing · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Collaborative and social computing
computer-supported cooperative work
0.011994
Technological Frames: Making Sense of Information Technology in Organizations · ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 1994
Collaborative and social computing › socio-technical systems
organizational impact of technology
0.011994
Technological Frames: Making Sense of Information Technology in Organizations · ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 1994

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

qualitative analysis · 0.0empirical study · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
1994 Technological Frames: Making Sense of Information Technology in Organizations
abstract
In this article, we build on and extend research into the cognitions and values of users and designers by proposing a systematic approach for examining the underlying assumptions, expectations, and knowledge that people have about technology. Such interpretations of technology (which we call technological frames) are central to understanding technological development, use, and change in organizations. We suggest that where the technological frames of key groups in organizations—such as managers, technologists, and users— are significantly different, difficulties and conflict around the development, use, and change of technology may result. We use the findings of an empirical study to illustrate how the nature, value, and use of a groupware technology were interpreted by various organizational stakeholders, resulting in outcomes that deviated from those expected. We argue that technological frames offer an interesting and useful analytic perspective for explaining an anticipating actions and meanings that are not easily obtained with other theoretical lenses.
Wanda J. Orlikowski, Debra C. Gash
ACM Trans. Inf. Syst.2