A study of emergent organizing and technological affordances after a natural disaster

Purpose Drawing on the model of technology-in-practice and the literature on bona fide approaches and technological affordances, the purpose of this paper is to argue that collectives involved in emergency response may exhibit similar and different usage patterns for technology due to the combined influence of the temporal development of the response actions and the existing and newly enacted organizational, social, and technological structures. Design/methodology/approach To enrich the argument about the inter-related influence on response organizations’ use of technology across phases of the disaster response, this research uses a multi-method and longitudinal case study of citizen-based response organizations after Hurricane Sandy. Findings Findings show that technologies were used similarly by response organizations immediately after the hurricane, whereas the later use of technologies exhibited variations. Moreover, Twitter was used consistently for diverse purposes across the phases of the disaster response, whereas Facebook usage among organizations first diverged and then converged two months after the hurricane. The organizations’ different patterns of social media use also reflected the construction and reconstruction of resource networks for relief operations over time. Research limitations/implications This study integrates multiple theoretical frameworks in explaining the processes and outcomes of technology use for collectives in emergency response, which presents an example of bridging and enriching the theoretical constructs from the areas of technology adaptation and emergency management. Practical implications Findings of this study provide practical knowledge about the mechanisms of integrating multiple information systems into the building of resilient social systems for emergency response. Social implications Findings of this study enrich social understanding about how the use of technologies for collective activity in emergency situations can go beyond one-time events and lay the foundation for long-term resilient emergency management. Originality/value The originality of this study lies in its mixed-method and longitudinal design, which allows for the examination of the timing, circumstances, and outcomes of citizen-based response organizations’ technology use.

[1]  Marie-Claude Boudreau,et al.  Enacting Integrated Information Technology: A Human Agency Perspective , 2005, Organ. Sci..

[2]  Geoff Walsham,et al.  Representations and actions: the transformation of work practices with IT use , 2005, Inf. Organ..

[3]  Yan Jin,et al.  Keeping up with the digital age: How the American Red Cross uses social media to build relationships , 2011 .

[4]  Leysia Palen,et al.  "Voluntweeters": self-organizing by digital volunteers in times of crisis , 2011, CHI.

[5]  I. Hutchby Technologies, Texts and Affordances , 2001 .

[6]  W. Lowe,et al.  Using Twitter to mobilize protest action: online mobilization patterns and action repertoires in the Occupy Wall Street, Indignados, and Aganaktismenoi movements , 2015 .

[7]  P. Leonardi,et al.  Social Media Use in Organizations: Exploring the Affordances of Visibility, Editability, Persistence, and Association , 2013 .

[8]  Linda L. Putnam,et al.  Bona fide groups: A reconceptualization of groups in context , 1990 .

[9]  Andrew J. Flanagin,et al.  Collective Action in Organizations: Contents , 2012 .

[10]  Caroline Haythornthwaite,et al.  Strong, Weak, and Latent Ties and the Impact of New Media , 2002, Inf. Soc..

[11]  P. Leonardi,et al.  Social Media as Social Lubricant , 2015 .

[12]  A. Strauss,et al.  Basics of Qualitative Research , 1992 .

[13]  Paul M. Leonardi,et al.  When Does Technology Use Enable Network Change in Organizations? A Comparative Study of Feature Use and Shared Affordances , 2013, MIS Q..

[14]  Andrew J. Flanagin,et al.  Collective Action in Organizations: Interaction and Engagement in an Era of Technological Change , 2012 .

[15]  W. Orlikowski Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations , 2000 .

[16]  Paul M. Leonardi,et al.  Social Media, Knowledge Sharing, and Innovation: Toward a Theory of Communication Visibility , 2014, Inf. Syst. Res..

[17]  Louise K. Comfort,et al.  Inter-organizational coordination in extreme events: The World Trade Center attacks, September 11, 2001 , 2006 .

[18]  Michelle Shumate,et al.  Interorganizational Collaboration Explored Through the Bona Fide Network Perspective , 2012 .

[19]  M. Lynne Markus,et al.  A Foundation for the Study of IT Effects: A New Look at DeSanctis and Poole's Concepts of Structural Features and Spirit , 2008, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[20]  James L. McKenney,et al.  Social Context and Interaction in Ongoing Computer-Supported Management Groups , 1995 .

[21]  Kyujin Jung,et al.  Grass-Root Organisations, Intergovernmental Collaboration, and Emergency Preparedness: An Institutional Collective Action Approach , 2015 .

[22]  Ronald E. Rice,et al.  Technology adaption: the case of a computer-supported inter-organizational virtual team 1 , 2000 .

[23]  Kyujin Jung,et al.  Does the provision of emergency information on social media facilitate citizen participation during a disaster , 2016 .

[24]  Harry Heft Affordances, Dynamic Experience, and the Challenge of Reification , 2003, How Shall Affordances be Refined? Four Perspectives.

[25]  Judith Donath,et al.  Signals in Social Supernets , 2007, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[26]  William W. Gaver Technology affordances , 1991, CHI.

[27]  Fran H Norris,et al.  Disaster research methods: past progress and future directions. , 2006, Journal of traumatic stress.

[28]  R. Rice,et al.  New Media and Organizational Structuring , 2001 .

[29]  Gerald C. Kane,et al.  Casting the Net: A Multimodal Network Perspective on User-System Interactions , 2008, Inf. Syst. Res..

[30]  K. L. Walker,et al.  Communicating in a Collaborating Group: A Longitudinal Network Analysis , 2012 .

[31]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory , 1994 .

[32]  D. Neal,et al.  Effective emergency management: reconsidering the bureaucratic approach. , 1995, Disasters.

[33]  D. Neal,et al.  An Examination of Emergent Norms and Emergent Social Structures in Collective Behavior Situations , 1988 .

[34]  W. Orlikowski The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations , 2014 .

[35]  F. Norris,et al.  Community Resilience as a Metaphor, Theory, Set of Capacities, and Strategy for Disaster Readiness , 2008, American journal of community psychology.

[36]  Kyujin Jung,et al.  Social Media Use during Japan's 2011 Earthquake: How Twitter Transforms the Locus of Crisis Communication , 2013 .

[37]  Ann Majchrzak,et al.  Coordinating Expertise Among Emergent Groups Responding to Disasters , 2007, Organ. Sci..

[38]  Linda L. Putnam,et al.  Bona Fide Groups: An Alternative Perspective for Communication and Small Group Decision Making , 1996 .