A Socio-technical Perspective on New Media and Information Sharing in Government and Non-government Sectors in India

Abstract

The Information System (IS) discipline studies the way individuals, groups and organizations use information. Although these methodologies have traditionally focused on the design of hardware, software and data aspects of the IS, newer (the so called ‘soft’) approaches involve more consideration of human factors issues. These socio-technical methodologies incorporate a higher level of participation by system users and focus on identification of user needs and task satisfaction. This study examines how socio-technical factors (for example, organizational climate and IT-related issues) affect information sharing through their effects on perceived relative satisfaction with the new media (e-mail, instant messaging and videoconferencing) in the government and non-government sectors in India, an emerging economy. The findings reveal a digital divide between the non-government and the government sector. Though technology has been continuously upgraded in most government organizations, the same cannot be said about communication. The study also reports wide gaps between the use, adoption and application of technology and what people desire socially. The study recommends structuring of the new media to harness data and information from participants.

Keywords

socio-technical model media satisfaction digital divide GLM regression CMCS

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ackerman, M. (2001). The intellectual challenge of CSCW: The gap between social requirements and technical feasibility . Human Computer Interaction, 15(2/3), 179–204 .

Avison, D.E. , Kendall, J.E. , & DeGross, J.I. (eds). (1993). Human, organizational, and social dimensions of information systems development. Elsevier Science Publications .

Brown, S.A. , Fuller, V. , & Vician (2004). Who’s afraid of the virtual world? Anxiety and computer-mediated communication . Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 5(2), 79–107.

Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. (2002). The discipline of information systems: Issues and challenges . In R. Ramsower and J. Windsor (eds), Eighth Americas conference on information systems AMCIS 2002 (pp. 1696–1703 ). Retrieved from http://wwwdocs.fce.unsw.edu.au/sistm/staff/AMCIS2002Cecez-Kecmanovic_ISdisc_022706.pdf

Crowe, M. , Beeby, R. , & Gammack, J. (1996). Constructing systems and information: A process view. Maidenhead: McGraw Hill .

Easton, G. , Easton, A. , & Belch, M. (2003). An experimental investigation of electronic focus groups . Information and Management, 40(8), 717–727 .

Fulk, J.J. , Schmitz, J. , & Steinfield, C.W. (1990). A social influence model of technology use. In J.I. Fulk & C.W. Steinfield (eds), Organizations and communication technology (pp. 117–140). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications . Quoted in Use of a groupware product: A test of three theoretical perspectives by Haolou, Scamell and Shah (2006), Journal of Computer Information Systems, 36.

Goffman, E. (1961). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor-Doubleday in Ackerman .

Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public. New York: Basic Books in Ackerman .

10.

Hiltz, S.R. (1988). Productivity enhancement from computer-mediated communication: A systems contingency approach . Communication of the ACM, 31(12), 1438–1454 .

11.

Lin, Hsiu-Fen , & Lee, Gwo-Guang (2005). Effects of socio-technical factors on organizational intention to encourage knowledge sharing . Management Decision, 44(1), 74–88 .

12.

Purani, K. , & Nair, S. (2006). Knowledge community: Integrating ICT into social development in developing economies . AI and Society, 21(3). London: Springer .

13.

Rao, V.S. , & Dennis, A.R. (2000). Equality of reticence in groups and idea generation: An empirical study . Journal of Information Technology Management, 11, 1–20 .

14.

Riva, G. (2002). The sociocognitive psychology of computer-mediated communication: The present and future of technology-based interactions . Cyber Psychology & behavior, 5(6), 581–598 .

15.

Sarbaugh-Thompson, M. , & Feldman, M.S. (1998). Electronic mail and organizational communication: Does saying ‘Hi’ really matter? Organization Science, 9(6), 685–698 .

16.

Scott, C.R. , & Timmerman, C.E. (2005). Relating computer, communication, and computer-mediated communication apprehensions to new communication technology use in the workplace . Communication Research, 32(6), 683–725 .

17.

Sproull, L. , & Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections: New ways of working in the networked organizations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

18.

Templeton, G.F. , Lewis, B.R. , & Snyder, C.A. (2002). Development of a measure for the organizational learning construct . Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(2), 175–218 .

19.

Turk, A. , & Trees, A. (1998). Culture and participation in the development of CMC. In C. Ess & F. Sudweeks (eds), Cultural attitudes towards communication and technology (pp. 263–267). Australia: University of Sydney

20.

Walther, J.B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective . Communications Research, 19(1), 52–90 .

21.

Williams, F. , & Rice, R.E. (1983). Communication research and new media technologies. In R.N. Bostrom (ed.), Communication yearbook 7 (pp. 200–224). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications .

22.

Zmud, W. , Lind, M. , & Young, F. (1990). An attribute space for organizational . Information Systems Research, 1(4), 440–457 .