Examining the "Levels of Analysis" Issue in Understanding Technology Adoption by Groups

“Levels of analysis” has been a controversial topic in group research and has often been ignored by IS researchers leading to “cross-level fallacies” and “aggregation biases.” While the predominant practice in IS research is to assess group behavior by computing the “arithmetic mean of individual members’ behaviors,” recent studies have argued that groups should be treated separate from the individuals who constitute them, and group behavior should be measured using “global” constructs. This study examines the applicability of these two divergent practices in the context of technology adoption by groups, a phenomenon of growing importance in organizations that has not been investigated in-depth in IS research. Preliminary results from an experimental study provide some resolution to the debate surrounding the appropriateness of these two approaches, and highlight the contexts in which aggregation of individual-level measures may not be suitable for understanding group behavior.

[1]  John J. Sosik,et al.  Group Potency and Collective Efficacy , 2003 .

[2]  Michael J. Gallivan,et al.  A framework for analyzing levels of analysis issues in studies of e-collaboration , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.

[3]  Dale L. Goodhue,et al.  Development and Measurement Validity of a Task-Technology Fit Instrument for User Evaluations of Inf , 1998 .

[4]  Wynne W. Chin,et al.  The Effects of Group Attitudes Toward Alternative GDSS Designs on the Decision‐making Performance of Computer‐Supported Groups* , 1994 .

[5]  Amy Buhl Conn,et al.  Is everyone in agreement? An exploration of within-group agreement in employee perceptions of the work environment. , 2001, The Journal of applied psychology.

[6]  K. Klein,et al.  Levels Issues in Theory Development, Data Collection, and Analysis , 1994 .

[7]  Dorothy Leon Ard-Barton Implementation Characteristics of Organizational Innovations , 1988 .

[8]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies , 2000, Management Science.

[9]  Joseph S. Valacich,et al.  Technology Adoption by Groups: A Valence Perspective , 2005, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[10]  Ilze Zigurs,et al.  A Theory of Task/Technology Fit and Group Support Systems Effectiveness , 1998, MIS Q..

[11]  E. Rogers,et al.  Diffusion of innovations , 1964, Encyclopedia of Sport Management.

[12]  Gordon B. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View , 2003, MIS Q..

[13]  T. Luke Methodological Individualism: The Essential Ellipsis of Rational Choice Theory , 1987 .

[14]  R. Zmud,et al.  Information technology implementation research: a technological diffusion approach , 1990 .

[15]  L. R. Hoffman,et al.  Individual and Group in Group Problem Solving The Valence Model Redressed , 1994 .

[16]  Suzanne Rivard,et al.  A Multilevel Model of Resistance to Information Technology Implementation , 2005, MIS Q..

[17]  John Hulland,et al.  Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of four recent studies , 1999 .

[18]  Robert P. Bostrom,et al.  The Impact of Group Support Systems on Group Conflict and Conflict Management , 1993, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[19]  J. Brown,et al.  Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing , 1999, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[20]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models , 1989 .

[21]  Peter A. Todd,et al.  Understanding Information Technology Usage: A Test of Competing Models , 1995, Inf. Syst. Res..

[22]  Venkataraman Ramesh,et al.  An analysis of research in computing disciplines , 2004, CACM.

[23]  Robert J. Kauffman,et al.  50th Anniversary Article: The Evolution of Research on Information Systems: A Fiftieth-Year Survey of the Literature in Management Science , 2004, Manag. Sci..

[24]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Model of Adoption and Technology in Households: A Baseline Model Test and Extension Incorporating Household Life Cycle , 2005, MIS Q..

[25]  Erja Mustonen-Ollila,et al.  How organizations adopt information system process innovations: a longitudinal analysis , 2004, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[26]  E. Mannix,et al.  The Dynamic Nature of Conflict: A Longitudinal Study of Intragroup Conflict and Group Performance. , 2001 .

[27]  B. Fisher Small Group Decision Making: Communication and the Group Process , 1980 .

[28]  E.,et al.  GROUPS : INTERACTION AND PERFORMANCE , 2001 .

[29]  John K. Brilhart Effective Group Discussion , 1974 .

[30]  Paul R. Yost,et al.  Potency in groups: articulating a construct. , 1993, The British journal of social psychology.

[31]  M. Scott Poole,et al.  The Valence Model Unveiled: Critique and Alternative Formulation , 1981 .