Starting from the social construction of technology approach and proposing a literature review of the concept of technological frame, the distinction or continuity between contexts inside and around technology is analyzed as constitutive of a thicker frame. A multilayered articulation of the technological frame is proposed. Organizational history, identity, interorganizational relations, along with discursive practices and communicational routines are seen as the components of the intranet technological frame. Discursive practices, therefore, mediate between macro components belonging to the organizational dimension and micro components concerning the practice of specific organizational communities or workgroups and the inscribed patterns of use through which technology is temporarily stabilized into specific artifacts. The analysis of the frame as set of practices and contexts is carried out by referring to sociotechnical literature and findings of a completed Ph.D. dissertation about intranet technology.
Akrich, M. (1992). The description of technical objects. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology, building society: Studies in sociotechnical change(pp. 205-224). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2.
Akrich, M. (1995). User representations: Practices, methods and sociology. In A. Rip, T. J. Misa,& T. J. Schot (Eds.), Managing technology in society: The approach of constructive technology assessment(pp. 167-184). London: Pinter.
3.
Akrich, M., & Latour, B. (1992). A summary of a convenient vocabulary for the semiotics of human and nonhuman assemblies. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology, building society: Studies in sociotechnical change(pp. 259-364). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4.
Benchmarking Network. (1999). Intranet Benchmarking Association. Retrieved February 2001, from www.intranetbenchmarking.org
5.
Berger, P.,& Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. New York: Doubleday.
6.
Bijker, W. E. (1995). Of bicycles, bakelites and bulbs. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7.
Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T. J. (1994). The social construction of technological systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8.
Bijker, W. E.,& Law, J. (Eds.). (1992). Shaping technology, building society: Studies in sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9.
Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge? (pp. 196-233). London: Routledge.
10.
CIO.com. (1995). Intranet/Extranet Research Center. Retrieved February 2001, from www.cio.com/research/intranet/
11.
Collins, R. (1994). Four sociological traditions. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
12.
Czarniawska-Joerges, B., & Joerges, B. (1990). Linguistic artifacts at service of organizational control. In P. Gagliardi (Ed.), Symbols and artifacts: Views of the corporate landscape (pp. 339-364). Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.
13.
Damsgaard, J., & Scheepers, R. (1999). Power, influence, and intranet implementation: A safari of South African organizations. Information Technology & People, 12(4), 333-358.
14.
Damsgaard, J., & Scheepers, R. (2000). Managing the crises in intranet implementation: A stage model. Information Systems Journal, 10, 131-149.
15.
Fincham, R. (2002). Narratives of success and failure in systems. British Journal of Management, 13(1), 1-14.
Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretative theory of culture. In The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays (pp. 3-30). New York: Basic Books.
18.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
19.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20.
Hanseth, O., & Monteiro, E. (1997). Inscribing behavior in information infrastructure standards. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 7(4), 183-211.
21.
Iacono, S., & Kling, R. (2001). Computerization movements: The rise of the Internet and distant forms of work. In J. Yates & J. Van Maanen (Eds.), Information technology and organizational transformation: History, rhetoric and practice(pp. 93-135). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22.
Latour, B. (1996). Aramis or the love of technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23.
Lave, J., Murtaugh, M.,& de la Rocha, O. (1984). The dialectic of arithmetic in grocery shopping. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition(pp. 9-40). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
24.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404-442.
25.
Orlikowski, W. J.,& Gash, D. (1994). Technological frames: Making sense of information technology in organizations. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 12(2), 174-207.
26.
Orlikowski, W. J., & Robey, D. (1991). Information technology and the structuring of organizations. Information Systems Research, 2(2), 143-169.
27.
Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (1994). Genre repertoire: The structuring of communicative practices in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(4), 541-574.
28.
Pellegrino, G. (2003). Representations and uses of the intranet: A comparative case-study. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 23(4), 281-296.
29.
Rway Communications. (2004). So what is an intranet?Retrieved February 2001, from www.rway.com/article.cfm
30.
Suchman, L., Orr, J.,& Trigg, R. (1999). Reconstructing technologies as social practice. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(3), 392-408.
31.
Telleen, S. (1997). Intranet organization: Strategies for managing change. Retrieved February 2001, from www.iorg.com/intranetorg/chpt6.html
32.
Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing(2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
33.
Yates, J., & Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). Genres of organizational communication: A structurational approach to studying communication and media. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 299-326.
