Study II: Children require less gait kinematic adaptations to pull a trolley than to carry a backpack

In this section I explain and illustrate the development of the ‘central category’

(Strauss & Corbin, 1998), the key concept that I use as the building block to build my theory that will answer my research question (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

In figure 4.1, I illustrate the development of the central category. As I mentioned in the previous chapter, to develop the central category I followed Strauss and Corbin (1998). Initially, I generated concepts through open coding (step 1 in figure 4.1).

Subsequently, through axial coding, I abstracted from these concepts that resulted in categories and their relations with sub-categories (step 2 in the figure). During axial

coding I also generated more concepts, subcategories, and categories. I abstracted further, through selective coding to generate the central category that relates the categories (step 3 in the figure). My central category is technology frame (step 4 in the figure).

FIGURE 4.1: BUILDING THE CENTRAL CATEGORY:

TECHNOLOGY FRAME

Now, let us consider the details of the steps. In figure 4.1, consider box 1. The

concepts such as error free data entry, no information hiding, and teamwork across the departments were all task related behavioral changes that the employees expected would happen (or felt as happened) by implementing the ERP. Therefore, I grouped them together as task related behavioral change, which formed one sub category. To make clear how I generated the concepts such as error free data entry, in table 4.1 (next page), I have given representative quote for each concept in box 1, frequency of such quotes, and the sources of such quotes. I also have given the frequency of quote considering each open code separately. The table shows the density of grounding that the open codes have. As we move up in abstraction from open codes to axial code and further to selective code, the density of grounding also increases since the total

number of quotes grouped under the code increases.

Open code Sample quote Frequency enter a requisition, I could easily trace it and edit it. This ERP does not give me anything like that...no error allowed in the data entry…. to deal with ERP we need to be perfect without any mistake

30 Employee

information but hid it from others..for example,..now, it’s no more

There was no teamwork. All works are in individual depts. When will the teamwork come? When we share the data. This is what ERP does. If I don’t share my design data, the other person also will do the same….Now, there will be and are more discussion and a team work.

32 Interview, meetings

Frequency of quote for open code: minimum-3, average-10, maximum-30 TABLE 4.1: SAMPLE QUOTES FOR THE OPEN CODES

Now, I turn back to figure 4.1. Similar to task related behavioral change, there were time related behavioral changes (box 3), and cost related behavioral changes (box 4).

Since the employees interpreted these changes as a part of a new discipline that the ERP was bringing, I grouped these changes under disciplinary changes (box 6), which is called an axial code. Then, other comments of the employees that resulted in the concepts presented in box 1 and box 5 made sense. These concepts were means the ERP used or the management used via ERP (box 1) to achieve the disciplinary changes and the resulting costs and benefits (anticipated and felt) (box 5) of such changes. Therefore, I confirmed the label “disciplinary changes” as the axis (result of axial coding). Underlying the disciplinary changes was an image of ERP: ERP as a disciplining agent. In sum, now we have a) an attributed meaning (or image: ERP a disciplining agent, see box 7) of ERP that implied an objective of ERP

implementation—disciplining user behavior, b) means to achieve this objective through ERP implementation (example of one such means is system forced time boundedness, see box 1), c) expected or felt behavioral changes by application of these means (example of one such changes, specifically temporal changes is timely data entry, see box 3), and d) expected or actual results in terms of cost-benefits of such changes (example of one such results is increase in individual’s task efficiency, see box 5). In the next step (selective coding), I compared and contrasted these four aspects with other families of codes. I found similar relationship repeatedly emerging in other families too. As Strauss and Corbin (1998) suggested, I compared this repetitive phenomena with the theoretical concepts available in technology implementation literature and organizational cognition literature in order to check whether any concept could represent this repetition effectively. I considered “frames of meanings” (Collins & Pinch, 1982), “cognitive maps” (Bougon, Weick &

Binkhorst, 1977; Eden, 1992), “frames” (Goffman, 1974), “interpretive frames”

(Bartunek & Moch, 1987), “interpretative schemes” (Giddens, 1984), “mental models”

(Argyris & Schon, 1978; Shutz, 1970), “paradigms” (Kuhn, 1970; Sheldon, 1980),

“scripts” (Abelson, 1981; Gioia, 1986), “thought worlds” (Dougherty, 1992), and

“technological frames” (Bijker, 1995; Orlikowski & Gash, 1994). I found technological frame, which I shortened as technology frame, as the most suitable concept that would tie the four different aspects together (i.e. category-subcategory relationship) as well as the different meanings or images of ERP (categories) that emerged over time. The different images of technology emerged over time, in other words the categories, were manifestation of shift in technological frame. Therefore, technological frame could connect the categories (see box 8, step 4). In the following paragraph, I explain why I found technological frame as the most suitable concept.

The literature on Social Construction Of Technology (SCOT) discusses technological frame in the context of technology development (e.g., Bijker, 1995) in a community.

The Information Systems (IS) literature discusses the same concept in the context of IT implementation in organization (e.g., Orlikowski & Gash, 1994). In both literatures technological frame is defined as a socio-cognitive device used for collective (as well as individual) sensemaking. Common to the definition of technological frame in both literatures are the assumptions (for example, the image or meaning attributed to technology), the knowledge (for example, working of the technology), and the expectations (for example, anticipated changes) that those who are involved in the technology development or implementation use to understand technology. In my representative sample, we can find these three dimensions. For example, the data suggests an image of ERP, anticipate or felt behavioral changes, and how ERP would function (for example through increasing accuracy in estimate) in order to facilitate or

bring about such changes. While SCOT defines technological frame broadly (which includes the technology itself, tests, procedures, etc. see Bijker, 1995), in IS literature the dimensions of technological frame are narrowly specified as a) an image of technology that reveals the actors sensemaking about the nature of technology and its capability, b) the reasons for implementation of technology, and c) the conditions in which technology will be used and the consequences of such use. Both the literatures mention that one may not find all dimensions of technological frame in the empirical study except the essential element of technological frame, the meanings or the images that actors attribute to technology. Given that technological frame is defined as a collective (as well as individual) sensemaking device, the essential dimension—

meaning attributed to technology-- and the elements of technological frame such as assumptions, knowledge, and expectations are consistently observed in my data, and that categories can be connected to each other as shift in technological frame,

technological frame is apt to abstract from the categories that I interpretively identified in my data. Therefore, I chose technology frame (a shortened version of technological frame) as the central category. In the following paragraph, I explain the central category, technology frame, starting with a more general concept frames of reference.

The frames of reference held by organizational members are implicit guidelines that serve to organize and shape their interpretations of events and organizational

phenomena and give these meaning (Moth & Bartunek, 1990; Weick, 1979).

Borrowing the concept of “schema” from cognitive psychology (Bartlett, 1932;

Neisser, 1976), an individual’s frame of reference has been described as “a built-up repertoire of tacit knowledge that is used to impose structure upon, and impart meaning to, otherwise ambiguous social and situational information to facilitate understanding” (Gioia, 1986:56). Literature in organizational cognition has extended

the idea of individual cognitive structures to groups and organizations (Calder &

Schurr, 1981; Gray, Bougon, & Donnellon, 1985). A variety of terms has been used to convey the idea of shared cognitive structures, including “cognitive maps” (Bougon, Weick & Binkhorst, 1977; Eden, 1992), “frames” (Goffman, 1974), “interpretive frames” (Bartunek & Moch, 1987), “interpretative schemes” (Giddens, 1984), “mental models” (Argyris & Schon, 1978; Shutz, 1970), “paradigms” (Kuhn, 1970; Sheldon, 1980), “scripts” (Abelson, 1981; Gioia, 1986), and “thought worlds” (Dougherty, 1992). In the context of the organization, frames refer to “definitions of organizational reality that serve as vehicles for understanding and action” (Gioia, 1986: 50). They include assumptions, knowledge, and expectations, expressed symbolically through language, visual images, metaphors, and stories. Frames are flexible in structure and content, having variable dimensions that shift in salience and content by context and over time. They are structured more as webs of meanings than as linear, ordered graphs (Gioia, 1986). The essential element of a frame is its interpretive meaning.

Based upon the above-discussed literature and following IS scholars, I define

technology frame as a subset of actors’ frames of reference (cognitive structure) that concerns the assumptions, expectations, and knowledge that actors use to understand technology in organizations (Orlikowski & Gash, 1994:178-179). As a subset of frames of reference, technology frames share the properties, dimensions, and uses of other frames. While, the IS literature specifies use of technology frame as cognitive (a cognitive device for sensemaking) (Davidosn, 2002; Orliowski & Gash, 1994), SCOT literature suggests one more use, political: a political device to create a shared

consensus through persuasion. But, SCOT literature does not define technology frame as a political device per se. However, in the following chapters, I show that technology frame is used as an emergent discursive resource for sensegiving. Therefore, I will

argue that technology frame has a political use. In the following chapter, I use

technology frame—the central category—as an interpretive frame (Bartunek & Moth, 1987) to describe and analyze the two ERP implementations that occurred in a cross-cultural context.