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, jbs@iimtrichy.ac.in

Rajesh ChandwaniIIM Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad, Gujrat, India, chandwani174@gmail.com

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 contactelibrary@aisnet.org.

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, jbs@iimtrichy.ac.in

Chandwani, Rajesh, IIM Ahmedabad, India, chandwani174@gmail.com

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.