Volume 6, Issue 2 (8-2019)
Human Information Interaction 2019, 6(2): 32-47 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
khaleghi H, lagzian M, nazemi S, malekzadeh G. Phenomenography of technology power in interpersonal communications among faculty members. Human Information Interaction 2019; 6 (2)
URL: http://hii.khu.ac.ir/article-1-2630-en.html
URL: http://hii.khu.ac.ir/article-1-2630-en.html
ferdowsi university of mashhad
Abstract: (3566 Views)
Background and Aim: Fast pace of progress in technology with its transformations has become an elephant in darkness that different people have different perceptions toward that. Since people in organizations behave according to their own perception of reality, exploring and describing perception and interpreting power of technology could be influential in interpersonal communications made among employees. The target of present study is to deeply describe experiences and diverse perceptions of faculty members of a university from power of technology in interpersonal communications in a way to familiarize managers and employees with new and variant attitudes toward technology and its dominance.
Methods: The research approach is qualitative in this research and is based on phenomenography approach to achieve deep understanding of collective consciousness among those being studied. Participants are thirteen members of faculty selected through maximum variation sampling to achieve theoretical saturation. Six category of descriptions were obtained at individual, organizational, and social levels through analysis of semi-structured interviews.
Results: At the individual level, two perception methods, including the concept based on individual isolation (little emotional relations, distrust) and hypocritical behaviors (variant behaviors and self-monitoring), are formed; and at the organizational level, social networks, monitoring communications (senior authority, dominance of control in organizational relationships), and weakening the role of human are formed; and at the social level, a category consisting the culture of ostentatious behaviors is formed. In continuation, the obtained category of descriptions cleared the outcome space a bigger structure to relate different methods of experiencing phenomenon and to provide a better multidimensional image of various concepts of individuals being studied.
Conclusion: Findings can be a great help in better understanding of collective consciousness toward technology power in a particular group of people and also better preparing organization to face it.
Methods: The research approach is qualitative in this research and is based on phenomenography approach to achieve deep understanding of collective consciousness among those being studied. Participants are thirteen members of faculty selected through maximum variation sampling to achieve theoretical saturation. Six category of descriptions were obtained at individual, organizational, and social levels through analysis of semi-structured interviews.
Results: At the individual level, two perception methods, including the concept based on individual isolation (little emotional relations, distrust) and hypocritical behaviors (variant behaviors and self-monitoring), are formed; and at the organizational level, social networks, monitoring communications (senior authority, dominance of control in organizational relationships), and weakening the role of human are formed; and at the social level, a category consisting the culture of ostentatious behaviors is formed. In continuation, the obtained category of descriptions cleared the outcome space a bigger structure to relate different methods of experiencing phenomenon and to provide a better multidimensional image of various concepts of individuals being studied.
Conclusion: Findings can be a great help in better understanding of collective consciousness toward technology power in a particular group of people and also better preparing organization to face it.
Keywords: Technology power, perception, organizational communication, phenomenography, faculty members
References
1. Åkerlind, Gerlese S. (2012). Variation and commonality in phenomenographic research methods. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(1), 321-334.
3. Akhavan, P; Bagheri, R (2010). Knowledge management. Tehran: Atinegar Publishing Co. (Persian)
4. Bruce, C., Pham, B. & Stoodley, I. (2002). The Collective Consciousness of Information Technology Research: The Significance and Value of Research Projects.
5. Chan, A & Garrik, J. (2003). The moral Technologies of knowledge management. Information Communication and Society, 291-306.
7. Danaifard, H; Khazemi, H (2010). Interpretative research in organization. Tehran: Imam Sadeq Publishing Co. (Persian)
8. Eisenberg, Eric M. Goodall, Jr and Angela Trethewey. (2010).Organizational Communication: Balanc
9. ing Creativity and Constraint. 6 Edition. Bedford/St. Martin's.
10. Farhangy, A. (2002). Human communicatioin. Tehran: Resa Publishing Co. (Persian)
11. Ghoolipour, A (2010). Organization Behavior Management. Tehran: Samt Publishing Co. (Persian)
12. Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Translated by Khaleghi. H. barresybazargani. 69; 45-67. (Persian)
13. Hui, Du. Lehmann, M & Willson, L.(2014). The Technology-Facilitated Contribution Behavior. Behavioral Research in Accounting. 26(2), 99-130.
15. Khaleghi, H. (2011). Knowledge share behavior at industrial firm. Tehran: Jahad Eghtesadi Conference. 66-79. (Persian)
16. Lamp, P; Sandberg, J; Liesch,P.W. (2011). "Small firm internationalization unveiled through phenomenography. Journal of International Business Studies. Pp 672-693.
18. Marcuse, H (1983). One Dimensional Man, Translated by Moaedy. M. Tehran: Amirkabir Publishing Co. (Persian)
19. Marton, F.(2005). Phenomenography: A Research Approach to Investigating Different Understandings of Reality. In R. R. Sherman & R. B. Webb. Taylor & E-library.
20. McAuley, J., Duberley, J., & Johnson, P. (2007). Organization theory: Challenges and perspectives. Translated by Danaifard, H. Tehran: Imam Sadeq Publishing Co. (Persian)
21. Mcshane, Steven L. Von Glinow, Mary. (2010). Organizational Behavior: Emerging Knowledge and practice for the real world. McGraw-Hill. Irwin, New York: NY.
22. Miller, K.(2002). Organizational Communication: Approaches and Processes, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth The Gallup Report.
23. Mohamadpour, A.(2009). Methodology, Tehran: Jameshenasan Publishing Co. (Persian)
24. Otakhani, A (2010). Collaboration and justice. Vision Mangement. 33; 29-47. (Persian)
25. Nye, J (2007). Soft power, translated by Rouhani, M & Zolfaghari, M. Tehran: Imam Sadeq Publishing Co. (Persian)
26. Rahmanseresht, H. (2013). Organization Theory. Tehran: Doran Publishing Co. (Persian).
27. Saunders. M , Lewis. P and Thornhill. A (2009) "Research methods for business students". Fifth edition, Pearson Education Limited, Prentice Hall.
28. Trethewey, A., & Corman, S. (2001). Anticipating k-commerce: E-commerce, knowledge management, and organizational communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 14(4), 619-628.
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
