Association for Information SystemsAIS Electronic Library (AISeL)
ECIS 2014 Proceedings
ADOPTION OF WEB 2.0 TECHNOLOGIESAMONG KNOWLEDGE WORKERS: ATHEORETICAL INTEGRATION OFKNOWLEDGE SHARING AND SEEKINGFACTORSJang Bahadur SinghIndian Institute of Management Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli, Tamilnadu, India, [email protected]
Rajesh ChandwaniIIM Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad, Gujrat, India, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2014
This material is brought to you by the European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS) at AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). It has been acceptedfor inclusion in ECIS 2014 Proceedings by an authorized administrator of AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). For more information, please [email protected].
Jang Bahadur Singh and Rajesh Chandwani, 2014, "ADOPTION OF WEB 2.0 TECHNOLOGIES AMONG KNOWLEDGEWORKERS: A THEORETICAL INTEGRATION OF KNOWLEDGE SHARING AND SEEKING FACTORS", Proceedings of theEuropean Conference on Information Systems (ECIS) 2014, Tel Aviv, Israel, June 9-11, 2014, ISBN 978-0-9915567-0-0http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2014/proceedings/track02/7
brought to you by COREView metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk
provided by AIS Electronic Library (AISeL)
Twenty Second European Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv 2014
ADOPTION OF WEB 2.0 TECHNOLOGIES AMONG
KNOWLEDGE WORKERS: A THEORETICAL
INTEGARATION OF KNOWLEDGE SHARING AND
SEEKING FACTORS
Research in Progress
Singh, Jang Bahadur, IIM Tiruchirappalli, India, [email protected]
Chandwani, Rajesh, IIM Ahmedabad, India, [email protected]
Abstract
Web 2.0 applications have attracted considerable attention among knowledge workers as a means via
which they can connect to peers for knowledge sharing. Web 2.0 use has potential to facilitate
knowledge transfer in a much more improved way compared to previous communication tools. Despite
of its benefits, there is limited research on adoption behaviour of these technologies. We propose a
model linking knowledge sharing and seeking factors to web 2.0 acceptance among knowledge
workers. Proposed research model is based on the extended attitude-behaviour framework. The model
shows that attitudes towards sharing and seeking, determined by their salient belief sets, could have
an impact on web 2.0 use. This study will make important contribution to IS area as it attempts to
investigate the influence of drivers from two motivational domain i.e. knowledge sharing and seeking
on technology acceptance based on an integrated theoretical framework.
Keywords: Web 2.0, IT Adoption, Knowledge sharing, Knowledge seeking.
1 Introduction
The global economy is in transition to knowledge economy as there is an increasingly greater reliance
on intellectual capabilities for production of goods and services (Powell and Snellman, 2004). In this
economy, knowledge workers are responsible for driving innovation and growth. Typically,
knowledge workers have high degree of expertise, education or experience, for example legal
professionals, consultants and health care practitioners (Davenport, 2005). Their job involves creating,
distributing or application of knowledge and they require access to information and knowledge from
both public and private sources (Davenport, 2011).
Over the last several years, web 2.0 applications (such as blogs, wikis, and social-networking sites)
have been widely adopted by knowledge workers due to its promising potential to boost knowledge
sharing and collaboration (Tredinnick, 2006). These applications have led to the paradigm shift in
creation and dissemination of knowledge (Huang and Güney, 2012) as it enables much faster and
broader scope of knowledge transfer (Huang et. al., 2010).
Knowledge workers are greatly benefiting from the advice, insights, and experiences of others on
internet by web 2.0 applications (Schneckenberg, 2009). Despite of ubiquity of these applications,
there is a limited understanding of web 2.0 adoption among knowledge workers. It has been
acknowledged that current technology acceptance models provide limited explanation to web 2.0
adoption and use (Parameswaran and Whinston, 2007). Usage of web 2.0 means that someone is
willing to share knowledge by codifying it through blogs, wikis etc. and also seeking out the
knowledge made available by others. This pattern of usage necessitates for a framework that could
link knowledge seeking and sharing motivations to its acceptance.
Singh et al. /Adoption of Web 2.0 Technologies
Twenty Second European Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv 2014 2
Web 2.0 applications serves multiple needs both intrinsic and extrinsic and their use may be defined
by motives related to ‘individual person’ as well as ‘organizational actor’ (Soliman and Beaudry,
2010). Prior studies have established that knowledge sharing is driven by both intrinsic and extrinsic
motivational factors (Wasko and Faraj, 2000). That is why it has been suggested that web 2.0 are
being adopted for reasons not limited to performance related motivations which is largely the basis of
technology acceptance model (Kane and Fichman, 2009).
The objective of this study is to deepen our understanding of the factors that explains knowledge
worker’s adoption behaviour of web 2.0 applications. It focuses on the research question: What drives
knowledge workers to adopt web 2.0 applications? We conceptualize web 2.0 as a technological
platform that facilitates knowledge seeking and sharing. In particular, with an integrated theoretical
framework, we attempt to link the seeking and sharing motivations to adoption of these applications.
Our theoretical model is based on ‘extended’ TRA framework and uses the concepts of technology
acceptance research and knowledge management literature.
Organization of the paper is as follows: In the next section, characteristics of web 2.0 tools and its
knowledge management potential is presented. Subsequent to this, a brief review of literature of
technology adoption in particular and latest development in attitude-behaviour framework in general is
discussed. The next section presents the research model and hypotheses. Following this, proposed
methodology for the study is presented. In the last section expected contribution to theory and practice
is discussed.
2 Web 2.0: Characteristics and Knowledge Management
Perspective
Web 2.0 is a network platform through which end users interact with each other to generate and share
information over the web. These platforms are digital environment in which contributions and
interactions by the end users are widely visible, persistent and searchable (McAfee, 2009). Web 2.0 is
difficult to define because it is not enabled by new or revolutionary technology but represents a
progression (Wilson et al., 2011). It is a broad topic encompassing various related concepts and its
understanding is varied. Since the web 2.0 term has been coined, academicians and practitioners both
have attempted to formally define web 2.0. Initially, question was raised that how web 2.0
technologies are different from traditional ITs such as email, instant messaging, groupware,
knowledge management (KM) system etc. Kim et al., (2009) specified that web 2.0 applications’
technological characteristics are different than those of traditional IT as later are generally standalone
software packages with compartmentalized application having low or limited interactivity. Whereas,
web 2.0 technologies have web itself as software platform (offer applications via a web browser) with
high interactivity. Web 2.0 applications provide opportunities for massively connected social
interactions and collaboration in much larger scope than traditional communication and collaboration
technologies (2009). McAfee (2009, p47) further states that specific trends in technological
characteristics have led to web 2.0. First is the availability of free and easy platforms for
communication and interaction. The main goal of these platforms is to make content widely and
permanently available to its members. They are free and easy in the sense that they require little or no
cost to acquire them over internet and these are easy to use as it requires minimum technical
knowledge to use. Second is that these applications are free of imposed structure such as workflow,
interdependency and decision right allocations which are associated with traditional ITs such as ERP.
Web 2.0 applications are inherently egalitarian in nature i.e. indifferent to credentials, titles and ranks
(2009). It is recognized that web 2.0 is as much about the technology as the way people use them.
The type of technologies that come under web 2.0 umbrella are wikis, blogs, social networking sites
information sharing sites, syndication and mashups. Based on the above definitions, key features that
Singh et al. /Adoption of Web 2.0 Technologies
Twenty Second European Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv 2014 3
differentiate it from traditional IT, are grounded in the principles of participation, networking,
egalitarian notion and collective intelligence. Web 2.0 engaged by these principles, imparts control
over applications to users, enabling users to extract data, information and knowledge and reuse those
in a flexible way (Tredinnick, 2006). So, web 2.0 is not just a technology type or a collection of tools,
but rather a set of characteristics discussed before. These characteristic facilitates the creation of
virtual communities where information and knowledge are generated and shared (Huang et al., 2010).
From the above discussion, it is evident that web 2.0 applications promote knowledge sharing and
seeking. This is true particularly among knowledge workers, as web 2.0 applications have contributed
most in knowledge intensive businesses (Andreolli, 2010). Evidence suggests, web 2.0 applications
are contributing to business performance due to speedy access to knowledge and other factors (Bughin
et al., 2009). Despite of wide-spread use of web 2.0 technology, there is limited understanding of
factors affecting its adoption and use. A 2009 McKinsey report stated that executives find managing
web 2.0 adoption challenging, as traditional financial or performance incentives are not wholly
effective. Such incentives may cause low quality contribution, it further states that any management
intervention must also appeal to users’ ‘egos and needs’ (Chui et al, 2009). In this study, we argue that
motivational factors that influence adoption of web 2.0 among knowledge workers may coexist with
performance/productivity related motivational factors (for knowledge seeking) and other
intrinsic/extrinsic motivational factors (for knowledge sharing). Significant body of research, within
the knowledge management stream, have investigated the motivation to share and seek knowledge.
Although knowledge sharing and seeking might have unique motivational features, both are a pair of
closely interrelated and inseparable behaviours for the effective use of knowledge repositories (He and
Wei, 2009a). However, most of the studies consider two perspectives independently with unstated
understanding that both seeking and sharing behaviours are performed through technological systems.
3 Theoretical Framing
Studies related to knowledge management (Bock and Kim, 2002; Bock et al., 2005), theory of
reasoned action, TRA (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975) has been used as a theoretical model for explaining
the knowledge sharing behaviour in organizations. While studies related to seeking behaviour (Bock et
al., 2006; He and Wei, 2009b and Kankanhalli et al., 2005b) TRA, theory of planned behaviour, TPB
(Ajzen, 1985), extant literature on Technology Acceptance Model, TAM (Davis, 1989) have been the
theoretical basis to explain the seeking behaviour. Reviews of IT adoption research have also reported
that TRA, TPB and TAM are the popular theories to study the IT acceptance behaviour in general
(Dwivedi et al., 2008, Williams et al., 2009).
To understand the theoretical background for integrating motivational domain of knowledge
contribution and knowledge seeking, we first discuss briefly theory of reasoned action (TRA), theory
of planned behaviour (TPB) and technology acceptance model (TAM). Subsequently, we propose our
research model for acceptance of web 2.0.
3.1 TRA, TPB and TAM
TRA posits that a person’s conscious behaviour is determined by strength of his/her intention (BI) to
perform that particular behaviour (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). According to TRA, BI is a function of
Attitude (A) and subjective norm (SN) concerning the behaviour. Attitude is further determined by a
person’s salient beliefs towards performing the behaviour. More formally TRA is represented as:
BI =w1A +w2SN;
(w1 and w2 are relative weights estimated by regression or other techniques)
Singh et al. /Adoption of Web 2.0 Technologies
Twenty Second European Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv 2014 4
Ajzen (1985) put forth the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), positing that translation of
behavioural intention into actual behaviour was dependent not only on attitude and subjective norms
but also perceived behavioural control (PBC). According to TPB,
BI = w1A + w2SN + w3PBC.
PBC is the perceived ease or difficulty of performing behaviour and a personal sense of control over
performing it (Ajzen, 1985). Both TRA and TPB are context specific. That is, beliefs, attitude,
subjective norms and behavioural control, differ drastically from one behavioural to other. TAM is
grounded in TRA and TPB framework with two parsimonious belief set i.e. perceived usefulness and
ease of use (Davis, 1989).
The generalizability, measurability and simplicity of TAM resulted in large number of technology
adoption studies being based on it (Lucas et al, 2007). Reviews and Meta analysis of studies using
TAM have confirmed its empirical support (Chang et al., 2010; King and He., 2006; Legris et al.,
2003 and Lee et al., 2003). TAM itself has evolved over the years, as researchers using the theory,
added variables that enhanced the applicability of the model. Addition of salient beliefs, other than the
perceived usefulness and ease of use in the TAM model, are driven by change in both context of the IT
and nature of IT itself. For example, beliefs such as social presence in case of collaborative
communication technologies (Yoo and Alavi, 2001) and trust in online shopping context (Gefen et al.,
2003) have significant influence on acceptance behaviour. Hu et al. (1999) stated the changing nature
of IT, user group and context drives the acceptance research. Thus, researchers have been including
additional construct in TAM model to explain the changing nature of IT and its context of use.
3.2 Role of attitude in IT adoption
In initial studies related to TAM models, attitude construct reported to have partial mediating role
between perceived usefulness and ease of use. However in later studies (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000)
this construct has been dropped. According to Davis et al. (1989), adoption of technology does not
depend upon a person’s attitude and he/she will adopt the technology in spite of a negative attitude if
the person feels that adoption will enhance his performance in the organization. Some researchers have
demonstrated the mediating role of attitude between usefulness, ease of use and intention (see for
example, Taylor and Todd, 1995; Pavlou and Fygenson 2006). Today, the access to technology has
catapulted an individual to diverse connections, including that to the peer group, while the individual
is engaged in his organizational role. Motivation to adopt a particular technology may not be
exclusively performance/productivity related and it may coexist with other intrinsic factors. In such
situations individual’s belief structure will shape the attitude about the specific behaviour that will
have significant role in attitude-behaviour link as originally stated by TRA.
In social psychology research, attitude toward a particular behaviour is an important determinant for
predicting adoption of that behaviour (Fishbein and Ajzen, 2005). Fishbein and Ajzen assert that
attitude towards performing a specific behaviour is a better predictor of the adoption of the specific
behaviour. Studies have found empirical support for the predictive power of ‘attitude towards specific
target behaviour’ in diverse contexts. For example in IS research, attitudes toward microcomputer
usage (Igbaria, 1989), attitude towards using office productivity technology (Taylor and Todd, 1995),
and consumer attitude toward use of the internet (Porter and Donthu, 2006) explained their acceptance
behaviour respectively. These studies confirm the contention of Fishbein and Azjen (2005) that
attitude toward performing the behaviour is good predictor of the behaviour (i.e. use behaviour) in
question. Jennings et al., (2012) extended attitude-behaviour framework and identified ‘closely related
and opposing attitudes’ as equally important predictor of behaviour. In their study, Jennings et al.
explained that son’s marriage behaviour was influenced by specific attitude about childbearing and
old-age care of parents in non-western social context. Their theoretical extension of TRA and TPB is
very important to our research model because it maintains the focus of specific attitude but broadens
Singh et al. /Adoption of Web 2.0 Technologies
Twenty Second European Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv 2014 5
the range of attitudes that may be relevant for predicting behaviour. With this extension, a specific
behavior is determined by his or her behavioral intention (BI) to perform the behavior, and BI is
determined by the person's relevant specific attitudes (A1, A2….An), stated mathematically below:
B = BI= w1A1 +w2A2+….wnAn + wn’SN
Where A1, A2. .are the relevant attitudes with respect to a behavior and SN is subjective norm.
The above attitude-behaviour framework provides an opportunity to explain acceptance behaviour by
integrating knowledge sharing and seeking factors within a single research model which is still a
theoretical gap in existing literature. Based on IT adoption research and the knowledge management
literature, one can theorize the influence of attitudes about knowledge sharing and seeking (with their
corresponding beliefs set), on acceptance of web 2.0 applications.
4 Research Model and Hypotheses
Our research model is presented in figure 1 based on the extended TRA. Other deviation of the model
from TRA is that construct subjective norm is not included. As this study is targeted among
knowledge workers and given autonomous characteristics of knowledge workers (Davenport, 2005)
subjective norm will not have significant influence on adoption behaviour.
Web 2.0 technology has significantly influenced the knowledge management process for knowledge
workers (Bughin et al., 2009). One must also recognize that ‘individuals share knowledge directly with
others or indirectly through technology agents’ (Bock et al., 2005). Similarly, this is true for
knowledge seeking also. Information technology lowers temporal and special barriers between
knowledge workers and improves access to information (Hendricks, 1999). Therefore, favourable
attitude towards knowledge sharing and seeking will have positive impact on intention to adopt web
2.0 applications. Considering this discussion, we develop following hypothesis.
H1: Favourable attitude towards knowledge sharing will have a positive influence on intention to
adopt web 2.0 applications by knowledge workers.
H2: Favourable attitude towards knowledge seeking will have a positive influence on intention to
adopt web 2.0 applications by knowledge workers.
Perceived Seeking
Effort
Perceived usefulness
Trust
Expected reciprocal
benefits
Knowledge Self-efficacy
Enjoyment in helping
others
Knowledge seeking
attitude
Knowledge sharing
attitude
Intention to Use Web 2.0
H2
H1
H3
H5
H4
H7
H6
H9
H8
Figure 1. Research Model
Singh et al. /Adoption of Web 2.0 Technologies
Twenty Second European Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv 2014 6
4.1 Factors influencing knowledge sharing
It is stated that two broad classes of motivation i.e. intrinsic and extrinsic affect the knowledge sharing
behaviour of individuals (Lin, 2007). Extrinsic motivational factors, such as expected rewards and
anticipated reciprocal benefits (Wasko and Faraj, 2000) grounded in economic exchange and social
exchange theories (Kelley and Thibaut, 1978; Blau, 1964) respectively, are posited to influence
knowledge sharing. Within intrinsic motivational domain, enjoyment in helping others (Kankanhalli et
al., 2005a; Lin, 2007) derived from social psychological theory (altruism) (Krebs 1975; Smith 1981)
and knowledge self-efficacy (Kankanhalli et al., 2005a; Lin, 2007) from social cognitive theory
(Bandura, 1985) are believed to affect the sharing behaviour also. Motivational domain of knowledge
workers might be different as fundamental quality they possess is humanness (Von et al., 2000), the
implication is that knowledge workers are less likely to be influenced by monetary rewards. Therefore,
we have not included the expected rewards factor in our research model. Based on the above
discussion, we will develop the posited relationship in the following section.
4.1.1 Perceived enjoyment in helping others
Enjoyment in helping others is derived from concept of altruism. Altruism is an important aspect of
human attribute which motivates individuals seeking enjoyment in helping others without expecting
anything in return (Krebs 1975; Smith 1981). Knowledge workers may be motivated by such desire to
help others (Davenport, 2005). Prior research shows that people who contribute their knowledge
possess this helping belief (Kankanhalli et al., 2005a; Lin, 2007). Therefore, knowledge workers who
derive intrinsic enjoyment in helping others will more likely to have a favourable attitude towards
knowledge sharing. Based on this reasoning, we present the following hypothesis.
H3: Perceived enjoyment in helping others will have a positive influence on knowledge sharing
attitude of knowledge workers.
4.1.2 Knowledge self-efficacy
Self-efficacy refers to the perception about what one can do with the skills or knowledge that they
have (Bandura, 1985). It is grounded in the belief of individual that their knowledge can solve issues
faced by others, for example solving job related problems (Constant et al., 1994). Sharing their
knowledge or expertise with people who are in need, enhances the confidence and thus gaining self-
efficacy which leads to knowledge contribution (Kankanhalli et al., 2005a; Lin, 2007). It is suggested
that self-efficacy can be an intrinsic motivational factor for knowledge workers to share knowledge
(Bock and Kim, 2002) and hence they would develop positive attitude towards knowledge sharing.
This leads to the following hypothesis.
H4: Knowledge self-efficacy will have positive influence on the knowledge sharing attitude of
knowledge workers.
4.1.3 Expected reciprocal benefits
Expected reciprocal benefits or reciprocity is defined as a sense of mutual obligation of returning the
favour that individual has received from others (Blau, 1964). Reciprocity is based on the principle of
expectation and exchange, where one perceives that if a person contributes to the knowledge
repository, in future, if a need for others expertise arises, the request for the same will be favourably
met with. Prior research has shown that people who share knowledge believe in reciprocity (Lin, 2007;
Wasko and Faraj, 2000; Wasko and Faraj 2005) and expected reciprocal benefits can be effective
motivation to knowledge sharing (Bock et al., 2005; Lin, 2007). Therefore, if knowledge workers
believe that by sharing knowledge they can expect similar behaviour from others, when it required,
Singh et al. /Adoption of Web 2.0 Technologies
Twenty Second European Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv 2014 7
they would develop favourable attitude towards knowledge sharing. Hence, following hypothesis is
proposed.
H5: Reciprocity will have a positive influence on the knowledge sharing attitude of knowledge
workers.
4.2 Factors influencing knowledge seeking
Value of any knowledge system cannot be realized without understanding one of the important key
processes i.e. knowledge seeking. In the last few years, a body of research have investigated the
factors affecting knowledge seeking behaviour (Bock et al., 2006; He and Wei, 2009b; Kankanhalli et
al., 2005b). These studies conclude that motivational factors related performance/productivity
influence seeking behaviour. Two salient beliefs related to technology acceptance model: perceived
usefulness and perceived seeking effort are found to be significantly influencing knowledge seeking
behaviour.
Significant number of studies in acceptance research have stated that attitude mediates between
perceived usefulness/ease of use and behaviour intention, therefore we are not elaborating further the
linkages between perceived usefulness and knowledge sharing attitude and perceived seeking effort to
seeking attitude. We state the hypothesis related to it as follows.
H6: Perceived usefulness of web 2.0 applications will have a positive influence on the knowledge
seeking attitude of knowledge workers.
H7: Perceived seeking effort through web 2.0 applications will have a negative influence on the
knowledge seeking attitude of knowledge workers.
4.3 Factor influencing both knowledge sharing and seeking
The main aim of technological solutions for knowledge work is to retrieve knowledge contributed by
other users in the system. When people are mutually dependent on each other trust becomes an
important factor. Contrary to the understanding that individuals have tendency to hoard knowledge,
Ardichvili et al. (2003) found that barriers to knowledge sharing are risk of being criticised or being
misunderstood by others. Similarly, a user takes a risk when appropriates knowledge provided by
others as it comes with no guarantee in many cases (Desouza et al., 2006).
Although trust is often conceptualized at an interpersonal level, in case of knowledge systems, the
concept of trust may not be dyadic (He and Wei, 2009b). He and Wei further state that users in such
contexts are usually member of a community, where they may or may not know the other users in the
system and more often than not, there is no face to face interaction between the users. This is
particularly true for larger cyber space in case of web 2.0 application, many of the members never
meet physically or do not personally know each other at all. Thus, in such context, trust is at the
generalized collective level. We adopt He and Wei’s definition which states trust is a form of social
belief that the extent to which other users, in general, are perceived to want to do good to the
knowledge seeker or contributor based on an altruistic motive. This means the good faith, knowledge
seeker will have on the users who have made available the knowledge, similarly knowledge
contributors’ good faith on users who is going to utilize the shared knowledge. Trust will reduce the
risk of knowledge sharing and knowledge workers will more likely develop favorable attitude towards
knowledge sharing. Knowledge exchange becomes less costly with trust (Zaheer et al., 1998) and
increases the likelihood that it will be useful for recipient (Levin and Cross, 2004). Therefore, with
trust in other user’s knowledge, seeker will be favorably disposed to knowledge seeking. With this
theoretical reasoning we propose the following hypothesis.
H8: Knowledge workers perceived trust in collective users of web 2.0 applications will have a positive
influence on the knowledge sharing attitude.
Singh et al. /Adoption of Web 2.0 Technologies
Twenty Second European Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv 2014 8
H9: Knowledge workers perceived trust in collective users of web 2.0 applications will have a positive
influence on the knowledge seeking attitude.
5 Proposed Methodology
To assess our research model, we have chosen quantitative research method. Like most of studies in
technology acceptance, a cross-sectional survey will be conducted. As noted earlier, web 2.0
applications are a collection of tools but we have conceptualized it as means for knowledge sharing
and seeking. Prior acceptance research have dealt with such collection of tools, for example,
collaboration technologies where underline features of the technology are hypothesized in the research
model (Brown et al., 2010). A brief description of web 2.0 applications will be provided in the
questionnaire. We have identified various hospitals as our research site and respondents will be health
care professionals working for these hospitals. As stated earlier, the study attempts to integrate both
the aspects of knowledge management, namely, the knowledge seeking and knowledge contributing.
Medical practitioners, typically, rely on the available literature and also the peer group in accessing the
knowledge, which in turn, is put into practice. In other words, medical practitioners actively indulge in
knowledge exchange. Thus the choice of healthcare domain, medical practitioners in particular, would
provide useful insights on behaviour related to knowledge access and contribution via web 2.0
applications. As the peer group of the medical practitioners using web 2.0 for knowledge seeking and
contribution consists of professionals from both private and public sectors, the sample for our study
will include healthcare professionals from both the sectors. We propose to use convenience sampling
for our study. As the purpose of our study is to test hypotheses based on the theoretical model
developed through synthesis of literature, we posit that convenience sampling is more suited for our
study as it would provide homogenous group of respondents with less noise (Lynch, 1982). Further
convenience sampling is more cost effective as it provides a captive audience and enables researchers
to achieve a significantly higher response rate than field sampling, which is important for conducting
study in a niche group of respondents such as medical practitioners (Kardes, 1996). We are actively
collaborating with a health care professional who is associated with a hospital mentioned previously.
From our initial discussion, we found that these professional refer medical wikis, blogs and they
frequently refer few online sites which have strictly peer-reviewed contents but user generated
contents also exists due to comments, responses from the registered users. For developing survey
instrument, we will use existing measures. Required control measures will be included in our model.
Pre-test and pilot study will be conducted to modify and verify the items of the existing measures. For
data analysis, we intend to use appropriate structural equation modelling technique.
6 Expected Contribution
By integrating the extant literature on knowledge sharing and knowledge seeking and linking it to
adoption of web 2.0 applications, this study will make important contribution to both theory and
practice. Our research is a novel attempt to investigate the influence of drivers from two motivational
domain i.e. knowledge sharing and seeking on the technology acceptance in a single research model.
Previous studies have investigated knowledge sharing and seeking behaviour either independently or
in a single study with two research models with a focus on comparative analysis (He and Wei, 2009a).
Output of this research will extend technology acceptance theory as it proposes that relevant and
closely related attitudes will also explain technology adoption. For practitioners, this study will
provide a comprehensive framework to assess the acceptance with respect to knowledge sharing and
seeking and will help them to understand how to strive for balance between two behaviours.
Singh et al. /Adoption of Web 2.0 Technologies
Twenty Second European Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv 2014 9
References
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior (pp. 11-39). Springer
Berlin Heidelberg.
Andriole, S. J. (2010). Business impact of Web 2.0 technologies. Communications of the
ACM, 53(12), 67-79.
Ardichvili, A., Page, V., & Wentling, T. (2003). Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual
knowledge-sharing communities of practice. Journal of knowledge management, 7(1), 64-77.
Bandura, A. (1985). Social Foundations of Thought and Action A Social Cognitive Theory. Prentice-
Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Transaction Publishers.
Bock, G. W., & Kim, Y. G. (2002). Breaking the myths of rewards: an exploratory study of attitudes
about knowledge sharing. Information Resources Management Journal (IRMJ), 15(2), 14-21.
Bock, G. W., Kankanhalli, A., & Sharma, S. (2006). Are norms enough? The role of collaborative
norms in promoting organizational knowledge seeking. European Journal of Information
Systems, 15(4), 357-367.
Bock, G. W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y. G., & Lee, J. N. (2005). Behavioral intention formation in
knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and
organizational climate. MIS quarterly, 87-111.
Brown, S. A., Dennis, A. R., & Venkatesh, V. (2010). Predicting collaboration technology use:
Integrating technology adoption and collaboration research.Journal of Management Information
Systems, 27(2), 9-54.
Bughin, J., & Manyika, J. (2007). How businesses are using Web 2.0: A McKinsey global
survey. McKinsey Quarterly Web Exclusive.
Bughin, J., Manyika, J., & Miller, A. (2009). How companies are benefiting from Web 2.0. McKinsey
Quarterly, 9, 2009.
Chang, S. H., Chou, C. H., & Yang, J. M. (2010). The literature review of technology acceptance
model: A study of the bibliometric distributions. PACIS 2010 Proceedings.
Chui, M., Miller, A., & Roberts, R. P. (2009). Six ways to make Web 2.0 work. McKinsey
Quarterly, 12-7.
Constant, D., Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. (1994). What's mine is ours, or is it? A study of attitudes about
information sharing. Information Systems Research,5(4), 400-421.
Davenport, T. H. (2005). Thinking for a living: how to get better performances and results from
knowledge workers. Harvard Business Press.
Davenport, T. H. (2011). Rethinking knowledge work: A strategic approach. McKinsey
Quarterly, 1(11).
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology. MIS quarterly, 319-340.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a
comparison of two theoretical models. Management science, 35(8), 982-1003.
Desouza, K. C., Awazu, Y., & Wan, Y. (2006). Factors governing the consumption of explicit
knowledge. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(1), 36-
43.
Dwivedi, Y. K., Williams, M. D. & Venkatesh, V. (2008) Guest Editorial: A profile of adoption of
Information & Communication Technologies (ICT) research in the household context. Information
Systems Frontiers, 10 (4), 385–390.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory
and research.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior. The handbook of attitudes,
173-222.
Singh et al. /Adoption of Web 2.0 Technologies
Twenty Second European Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv 2014 10
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: an integrated
model. MIS quarterly, 51-90.
He, W., & Wei, K. K. (2009a). What drives continued knowledge sharing? An investigation of
knowledge-contribution and-seeking beliefs. Decision Support Systems, 46(4), 826-838.
He, W., Fang, Y., & Wei, K. K. (2009b). The role of trust in promoting organizational knowledge
seeking using knowledge management systems: An empirical investigation. Journal of the
American society for information science and technology, 60(3), 526-537.
Hendriks, P. (1999). Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on the motivation for knowledge
sharing. Knowledge and process management, 6(2), 91-100.
Hu, P. J., Chau, P. Y., Sheng, O. R. L., & Tam, K. Y. (1999). Examining the technology acceptance
model using physician acceptance of telemedicine technology. Journal of management information
systems, 16(2), 91-112.
Huang, K. Y., & Güney, S. (2012). Toward a Framework of Web 2.0-Driven Organizational
Learning. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 31(1), 6.
Huang, K. Y., Choi, N., & Horowitz, L. (2010). Web 2.0 use and organizational innovation: A
knowledge transfer enabling perspective. AMCIS 2010 Proceedings.
Igbaria, M. (1989). The impact of user attitudes toward microcomputer usage on system usage and
user satisfaction. ACM SIGCPR Computer Personnel,12(2), 15-21.
Jennings, E. A., Axinn, W. G., & Ghimire, D. J. (2012). The effect of parents’ attitudes on sons’
marriage timing. American sociological review, 77(6), 923-945.
Kane, G. C., & Fichman, R. G. (2009). The Shoemaker's Children: Using Wikis for Information
Systems Teaching, Research, and Publication. MIS quarterly,33(1), 1-17.
Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C., & Wei, K. K. (2005a). Contributing knowledge to electronic knowledge
repositories: an empirical investigation. Mis Quarterly, 113-143.
Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C., & Wei, K. K. (2005b). Understanding seeking from electronic knowledge
repositories: An empirical study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, 56(11), 1156-1166.
Kardes, F. R. (1996). In defence of experimental consumer psychology. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 5, 279–296.
Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New
York: Wiley.
Kim, D. J., Yue, K. B., Hall, S. P., & Gates, T. (2009). Global diffusion of the internet XV: Web 2.0
technologies, principles, and applications: A conceptual framework from technology push and
demand pull perspective. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 24(1), 38.
King, W. R., & He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information &
Management, 43(6), 740-755.
Krebs, D. (1975). Empathy and altruism. Journal of Personality and Social psychology, 32(6), 1134.
Lee, Y., Kozar, K. A., & Larsen, K. R. (2003). The technology acceptance model: past, present, and
future. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 12(1), 50.
Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical
review of the technology acceptance model. Information & management, 40(3), 191-204.
Levin, D. Z., & Cross, R. (2004). The strength of weak ties you can trust: The mediating role of trust
in effective knowledge transfer. Management science,50(11), 1477-1490.
Lin, H. F. (2007). Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee knowledge sharing
intentions. Journal of information science, 33(2), 135-149.
Lucas, Henry C. Jr.; Swanson, E. Burton; and Zmud, Robert (2007) "Implementation, Innovation, and
Related Themes Over The Years In Information Systems Research," Journal of the Association for
Information Systems: Vol. 8: Iss. 4, Article 17.
Lynch, J. G. (1982). On the external validity of experiments in consumer research. Journal of
Consumer Research, 10, 109–111.
Singh et al. /Adoption of Web 2.0 Technologies
Twenty Second European Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv 2014 11
Mathieson, K. (1991). Predicting user intentions: comparing the technology acceptance model with the
theory of planned behavior. Information systems research, 2(3), 173-191.
McAfee, A. (2009). Enterprise 2.0: New collaborative tools for your organization's toughest
challenges. Harvard Business Press.
O'reilly, T. (2007). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of
software. Communications & strategies, (1), 17.
Parameswaran, M., & Whinston, A. B. (2007). Research issues in social computing. Journal of the
Association for Information Systems, 8(6), 336-350.
Pavlou, P. A., & Fygenson, M. (2006). Understanding and predicting electronic commerce adoption:
an extension of the theory of planned behavior. MIS quarterly, 115-143.
Porter, C. E., & Donthu, N. (2006). Using the technology acceptance model to explain how attitudes
determine Internet usage: The role of perceived access barriers and demographics. Journal of
Business Research, 59(9), 999-1007.
Powell, W. W., & Snellman, K. (2004). The knowledge economy. Annual review of sociology, 199-
220.
Schneckenberg, D. (2009). Web 2.0 and the empowerment of the knowledge worker. Journal of
knowledge management, 13(6), 509-520.
Sharma, S., & Bock, G. W. (2005). Factors influencing individual's knowledge seeking behavior in
electronic knowledge repository. ECIS 2005 Proceedings.
Smith, D. H. (1981). Altruism, volunteers, and volunteerism. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 10(1), 21-36.
Soliman, M. A., & Beaudry, A. (2010). Understanding Individual Adoption and Use of Social
Computing: A User-System Fit Model and Empirical Study. ICIS 2010 Proceedings.
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing
models. Information systems research, 6(2), 144-176.
Tredinnick, L. (2006). Web 2.0 and Business A pointer to the intranets of the future?. Business
information review, 23(4), 228-234.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model:
four longitudinal field studies. Management science, 46(2), 186-204.
Von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K., & Nonaka, I. (2000). Enabling knowledge creation: How to unlock the
mystery of tacit knowledge and release the power of innovation. Oxford university press.
Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge
contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS quarterly, 35-57.
Wasko, M., & Faraj, S. (2000). “It is what one does”: why people participate and help others in
electronic communities of practice. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9(2), 155-173.
Williams, M. D., Dwivedi, Y. K., Lal, B. & Schwarz, A. (2009). Contemporary trends and issues in
IT adoption and diffusion research. Journal of Information Technology, 24 (1), 1–10.
Wilson, D. W., Lin, X., Longstreet, P., & Sarker, S. (2011). Web 2.0: a definition, literature review,
and directions for future research. AMCIS 2011 Proceedings.
Yoo, Y., & Alavi, M. (2001). Media and group cohesion: Relative influences on social presence, task
participation, and group consensus. MIS quarterly, 25(3), 371-390.
Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., & Perrone, V. (1998). Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of
interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance.Organization science, 9(2), 141-159.