482
Chapter XXVII
What Use is Domestication
Theory to Information
Systems Research?
Deirdre Hynes
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK
Helen Richardson
University of Salford,UK
AbstrAct
This chapter introduces and discusses domestication theory—essentially about giving technology a
place in everyday life—and its relevance and importance to information systems (IS) research. The
authors discuss domestication within the context of the social shaping of technology and critique use
and adoption theories more widely found in IS studies. The authors illustrate how domestication theory
underpins studies of how Irish households find ways of using computers (or not) in their everyday life
and research into the use of ICTs in UK gendered households. In conclusion they outline how developments in domestication theory can contribute to future IS research.
introduction
In this chapter we discuss domestication theory, its
origin in the reference discipline of sociology and
potential/undiscovered importance to Information
Systems (IS) research. The relationship between
technology and everyday life (and implicit in this
construction is the prevalence of users) is a matter
of increasing concern for many academics in a
wide range of disciplines. Disciplines like IS may
claim ownership for the study and treatment of
the end-users of computer systems, for example
Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
What Use is Domestication Theory to Information Systems Research?
terming the field Human Factors of Computing
or Human Computer Interaction. Yet, although
examining the interaction between people and the
technological artefact and the systems running on
it, little attention is often paid to the social constructs in which computer use actually takes place,
and how if at all, this influences how computers
are acquired, used and made sense of.
Domestication, essentially, is about giving
technology a place in everyday life. The concept
catches the practical, temporal, spatial place, but
most importantly, it underlines how this is mixed
with the cultural as an expression of lifestyles
and values.
According to Haddon (2006), the very first
outlines of the Domestication framework emerged
in the early 1990s. Two major strands of domestication literature can be detected – the UK strand
(for example Silverstone et al., 1989, 1992, 1994)
and the Norwegian strand (for example Sørenson
et al. 1996). Silverstone and his collaborators
focused their version of domestication within
the household setting and on media technologies,
while Sørenson and his collaborators widened
their interest in domestication to contexts outside
of the home and on other technologies, such as
the car and ‘smart-houses’.
In the IS field, it is crucial to understand
domestication theory as IS research begins to
engage with the concept of ubiquitous computing
in everyday life beyond engineering or design
issues and the organisational setting for system
implementation. In this chapter we therefore aim
to showcase significant studies that illustrate
domestication theory as an approach and discuss
research strategies in the method adopted. The
majority of IS research focus on computer usage
in settings other than the household (and indeed
the construct of everyday life). Organisational,
educational, institutional contexts are and have
been prioritized over the household setting or
the realm of everyday life. IS has not been solely
guilty of this obvious neglect but so too the fields
of media studies, audience studies, computer
studies and so on, that is until the 1990s with the
emergence of the Domestication concept set within
a social shaping of technology framework. It is
first important to define and discuss this theoretical framework before we can fully appreciate the
value of Domestication as a concept.
The chapter will proceed by placing the concept
of Domestication in the context of the development
of theory related to the social shaping of technology. Then we critically analyze other approaches
to the study of adoption and use of technology
more widely used in IS research. We explain how
Domestication theory is an important alternative to
our understanding of technology in everyday life
and we illustrate our arguments with examples of
how IS researchers have utilized Domestication
theory in their research. Finally we draw conclusions and suggest the likely future developments
of Domestication theory.
domesticAtion theory in
context
In this section we focus on theories that underpin
domestication of ICTs and that help to understand
technologies in everyday life. These theories are
discussed under the umbrella term – the social
shaping of technology.
social shaping of technology
Social research, studies of technological use and
ways of thinking about technology have tended
to focus on the effects of technology on society:
its impact, its implications, and so on. A ‘social
shaping’ or ‘constructivist’ approach to technology means to locate the technology as something
social, or a product of social interaction. Wajcman
(2004) explains that technology must be understood as part of the social fabric that holds society
together; it is never merely technical or social.
Rather, technology is always a socio-material
product, ‘a seamless web or network combining
483
What Use is Domestication Theory to Information Systems Research?
artefacts, people, organizations, cultural meanings
and knowledge’ (2004:106).
Studies emerged from more sociologicalrelated disciplines examining the social context
of use and agency of technology in everyday life.
The social shaping perspective emerged during
the mid-1980s through influential writings from
MacKenzie and Wacjman (1985, 1999), Bijker et
al. (1987) and Bijker (1995). This way of looking
at technology in society crossed the boundaries
of many disciplines including audience & media
studies, cultural studies, anthropological treatments of objects in everyday life and so on. Cockburn and Ormrod (1993) for example discuss how
in western culture, ‘technology’ is surrounded in
mystique neglecting everyday meanings involved
in the knowledge and practice of doing, making
and producing. The common link between these
studies is the rejection of technological imperatives on the emergence, use and transformatory
effects of technology in society, namely technological determinist accounts.
Technologically determinism suggests views
of the world that assume that technology can ‘fix’
social problems (van Dijk 2005), are decisive
‘agents’ of social change yet are somehow ‘aloof’
from the social world despite having enormous
social effects (Webster 2002). Technology then is
viewed as autonomous, coercing and determining
social and economic relationships. Technology is
a complex term embracing the physical artefact
(including how it is designed and configured);
it forms part of a set of human activities and
also incorporates what people know as well as
what they do (MacKenzie and Wajcman 1985).
Moreover history shows us that technologies do
not emerge without active involvement of users
who have to accept them as relevant and useful
in their everyday lives (Silverstone 2005) and in
these terms what technologies we have and how
they are used are not inevitable. Domestication
challenges a dominant viewpoint of the essentialist
assumptions held about technologies and those
that consume them.
484
This differs substantially from the dominant
understanding of technology which perceives
technology as distinct from social life, but with the
ability to radically change our lives in a utopian
or dystopian manner. This remains a powerful
and prevalent way of thinking about technology.
According to this determinist view, the potential for change lies in the invention of technology. This view of technology has until recently
dominated academic research. Technology has
been viewed as determining the development of
social structures. A social shaping of technology
(SST) perspective, in contrast, radically reverses
the views advanced by technological determinism advocates, emphasising that technologies
are embedded in the social (see Mackenzie &
Wajcman 1985, 1999). SST studies have shown
that technology does not develop to an inner
technical logic, but is instead a social product,
patterned by the conditions of its creation and
use. SST theory seeks to grasp the complexity of
socio-economic, cultural and political processes
involved in technological innovation and use, and
to move beyond narrow technical considerations.
It is becoming increasingly common as a way of
interpreting technology in IS research (Wilson
and Howcroft 2005).
Within the SST approach, one particular theory
addressing the relationship between technology
and society is of interest here: Social Construction of Technology (SCOT), developed by Wiebe
Bijker and Trevor Pinch (Bijker, 1995; Bijker et
al., 1987; Bijker & Kline, 1999). SCOT sought to
open up the technological artifact to sociological
analysis with respect to not just usage but also design and technical content (Wajcman 2000). This
theory focuses on a very significant point namely
‘interpretive flexibility’. This refers to the way in
which different groups of people involved with
a technology (different ‘relevant social groups’,
in Bijker and Pinch’s terminology) can have very
different understandings of the technology, including different understandings of its technical
characteristics (McKenzie & Wajcman, 1999:21).
What Use is Domestication Theory to Information Systems Research?
Users can then radically alter the meanings and
deployment of technologies (Wajcman 2000). The
notion of relevant social groups makes SCOT very
useful as a theory. Relevant social groups play a
vital role in the development of a technological
artefact and are defined as groups who share a
meaning of the artefact. This meaning can then
be used to explain particular developmental pathways. Typical groups might include engineers,
advertisers, consumers, and so on. These groups
are not static, and newly emergent groups can also
be identified within SCOT. Although relevant
social groups share a meaning of the artefact, for
example, young boys viewing computers as games
machines (Haddon, 1992), they may also share
other group characteristics. However, interpretive
flexibility does not continue forever. ‘Closure’
and ‘stabilisation’ occur, such that some artefacts
appear to have fewer problems becoming embedded in society. These can become the dominant
form of technology. The trend of technological
determinist studies predominantly in the IS field
led to utilisation of models that tended to be more
technology-focused.
modeling the Adoption and use of
icts
In this section we analyze deterministic models
of ICT adoption and use. We particularly offer
a critique of the Technology Acceptance Model
(TAM) given its widespread take-up in IS research.
Depending on the academic field, deterministic
theoretical concepts range from linear accounts
to more user focused adoption and use studies.
The technology diffusion model for example,
developed by Rogers (1995) focuses on profiles of
users and expects the technology to diffuse as it is.
This method typically uses the survey method to
gain quantitative and statistical data. In this way,
groups of people are packaged into easily managed
categories. In Rogers’ model from Diffusion of
Innovation (1995) we have five distinct categorizations of users: ‘innovators’, ‘early adopters’,
‘early majority’, ‘late majority’ and ‘laggards’.
What is interesting here is that users appear to
be privileged while non-users or informed rejecters are spoken about in terms of ‘missing out on
something’ and lagging behind those who have
followed the trend and ‘accepted’ the technology
– a deficiency model of ICT adoption. We now
explore this theme in relation to TAM.
technology Acceptance model
Davis (1989) developed a model to explain
computer-usage behaviour. The Technology
Acceptance Model (TAM) sought to explain
the determinants of computer acceptance and
to explain user behaviour across a broad range
of end-user computing technologies. The model
contains two key sets of constructs: (1) perceived
usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEOU)
and (2) user attitude. The basic hypothesis is
that acceptance of a technology is determined
by his or her voluntary intentions towards using
the technology. Further, attitudes tend to relate
to perceptions of its usefulness (Yousafzai et al
2007). TAM utilizes social cognition theories
such as the ‘Theory of Planned Behaviour’ and
the ‘Theory of Reasoned Action’. Yet a useful
critique of such social cognition models has been
provided by Ogden (2003). She agrees that they
are pragmatic tools but essentially flawed in their
conceptual basis. The models focus on analytical
‘truths’ and may create or change conditions and
behaviour rather than describe them.
Davis (1989) considered the strength of the
belief-attitude-intention-behaviour relationship
in order to predict actual behaviour and so PU is
influenced by PEOU. PU was initially applied to
organisational settings and how performance with
new IS may be affected (Yousafzai et al 2007).
Later the model was used outside the organisation in studies related to e-shopping and so on.
Yousafzai et al (2007) have analyzed 145 TAM
based studies in detail and compared conclusions
and interpretations of data collected. They note
485
What Use is Domestication Theory to Information Systems Research?
that in the papers they analyzed, over 70 external
variables have been considered alongside PU and
PEOU.
TAM research generally draws on behavioural
and social psychology literature and is mainly
quantitatively based. Technology use and adoption can therefore mean that the whole process
of technology adoption and usage is rooted in
individual psychology ‘obviating the need to
consider the social structures within which individuals necessarily operate’ (Adam et al 2004). In
their meta-analysis for example, Yousafzai et al
(2007) reveal that 41% of the TAM studies were
conducted with a student group and over 19%
were lab based.
One issue that is clear is that TAM is weakened
by its lack of focus on how perceptions are formed
or how they can be manipulated. The model was
developed for organisational contexts and is constrained in its consideration of social and cultural
factors and influences. Although from the TAM
model, the MATH (Model of Adoption of Technology in Households) (for example see Venkatesh
and Brown 2001) emerged, yet both have been
criticized as being one-dimensional and limiting
based on ‘rationalistic causal models’ (Cushman
and Klecun 2005). The models are unhelpful in
understanding what technologies and services
mean to people and how they are experienced in
everyday life (Haddon 2006), particularly void
of analyzing household interactions, gender and
other socially constructed relations. Green and
Adam (1998) have noted how little is considered
about the way in which ICTs impact on everyday
life in the home and in particular they observe
the gendered social relation of domesticity which
surround the use of ICTs and the negotiation
involved.
Technology acceptance is not necessarily
a voluntary activity, choice may not enter the
relationship and thus in an organisational setting, analysis of inequalities in power relations is
needed. In particular Adam et al (2004) criticize
the use of the TAM model in studies that comment
486
on gender difference in use and attitudes (see for
example Venkatesh and Morris’s (2000) study
of attitudes towards the employment of a new
software system). They suggest such studies are
problematic without reference to the widespread
literature analysing gender and technology as
cultural constructs and variables that should be
theorized and considered. Further criticism is also
of essentialism, with a strong tendency of ‘making men’s and women’s character and behaviour
seem, fixed and pre-determined, reproducing
and reinforcing well-known stereotypes’ (Adam
et al 2004). Cushman and Klecun (2005) further
critique the tendency of TAM to rely on supposed
rational decisions made by agents with the notion
of people as passive consumers. Individuals appear seemingly unchanged by adoption and use
of technology rather than viewing the relationship
as a social engagement.
domestication theory:
An Alternative View
Domestication theory offers an alternative to these
models and is essentially about giving technology
a place in everyday life. The domestication concept
enables researchers initially to understand media
technology use in the complex structures of everyday life settings, with attention to interpersonal
relationships, social background, changes and
continuities, but also to the increasingly complex
interconnection between different media, and the
convergence of different media technologies and
media texts.
Domestication traces the creation of meaning
in media from its inception (when the producers
and advertisers create certain meanings for new
media) to its later use (or non-use) and the meanings
that emerge. Thus, the emphasis is on consumption
as well as use. Domestication, both as a metaphor
and as an analytical concept, is used to find the
crossover where technologies and people adjust to
each other and find (or do not find) a way to coexist. Central to the domestication process is the
What Use is Domestication Theory to Information Systems Research?
often unconscious attempt to make technologies
fit into their surroundings in a way that makes
them invisible or taken for granted. This requires
mutual adjustment on behalf of both the users
and the technology, and is where social shaping
comes in to play. In essence, the person shapes
the technology to fit into his or her life.
Haddon (2006) gives a useful overview of the
use of domestication theory suggesting that it has
been concerned with research into adoption and
non-adoption of ICTs, time and space constraints
(e.g. see Richardson 2004), symbolic dimensions
of ICTs, the social consequences of ICTs and
understanding trade-offs between what is gained
and lost, social and cultural capital (Hynes, 2005;
Hynes and Rommes 2006) and the social shaping
of technology.
Hynes (2005) illustrates Silverstone et al’s
four aspects or ‘non-discrete elements’ used to
describe and analyse this system where the ‘moral
economy’ plays a central role: appropriation, objectification, incorporation and conversion. In the
appropriation phase, possession and ownership
are central. The acquisition of the technology is
the main activity or concern. A technology gets
appropriated as it is sold and then owned or possessed by a household. That is the point at which a
commodity crosses the threshold between public
and private, beginning its new life as a domestic object. Objectification tries to capture how
values, tastes or styles are expressed through the
display of the new technology. It involves both
a spatial aspect (where it is placed in the house),
and a temporal aspect (how it is fitted in the
time structure). However, the spatial aspect is
more central in this phase, ‘…physical artefacts,
in their arrangement and display, as well as…in
the creation of the environment for their display,
provide an objectification of the values, the aesthetic and…cognitive universe, of those who feel
comfortable or identify with them’ (Silverstone
et al., 1992:22–23). The incorporation phase
emphasises how ICTs are used, and the temporal
aspect is more central in the incorporation phase.
Silverstone et al. (1992) suggest that for an artefact
to be incorporated it has to be actively used, such
as in the performance of a task. The conversion
phase is concerned with the relations between
the households’ internal affairs and the public
domain or outside world.
Throughout, the users play a role in how the
technology is adopted, not only into the household
as a physical space, but also into the everyday
routines of the household members and their
perception of the technologies. The overall process is not a linear or closed one, ‘domestication
is practice, it involves human agency, it requires
effort and culture and it leaves nothing as it
is’ (Silverstone 2005:231) Re-negotiations are
common and assessments and uses can change
over time. Roger Silverstone has spoken about
the ‘double and interdependent character of the
meaningfulness of the mass media’, arguing that
we need to address, on the one hand, responses
to particular texts or genres brought to us by the
media and, on the other hand, the significance of
media technologies themselves in our daily lives.
He writes: ‘There is meaning in the texts of both
hardware and software’ (1991:189). This plays an
important role in the ways the technology is conceptualised. Sonia Livingstone (2007) and Maren
Hartmann (2006) provide useful analyses of the
concept of double and even triple articulation of
media technologies.
At the time of its first formulation, the domestication concept within the media studies framework quite crucially shifted the emphasis away
from a concentration on texts and reception, but
instead focused on the practices of use. This was
an important step in recognising and researching
the embeddedness of media consumption in wider
social practices, in everyday lives. The domestication concept also embraced the engagement with
the whole media environment and not just one
medium or even one text. Like other theories in
media studies that emphasise the partial power of
the audience in the interpretation of media content
(for example, Ang, 1991; Morley, 1992, 2000),
487
What Use is Domestication Theory to Information Systems Research?
domestication adds a similar element of partial
(and ambivalent) power to the user of technologies in general (and shifts the emphasis from the
content to the technology). The theory thus adds
perceptions concerning the artefact in question
to the process of appropriation and use of technologies (including the idea that sometimes only
parts of the technology are adopted or rejected,
even after the acquisition).
Silverstone et al. (1992) stress how meanings
of ICTs in formal and public life are actively
transformed and translated through negotiations
in the practices of everyday life in households.
Domestication of technology may be defined as
‘the family’s capacity to incorporate and control
technological artefacts into its own technological
culture, to render them more or less ‘invisible’
within the daily routines of family life’ (Silverstone et al., 1989:24).
As Silverstone and Hirsch (1992) have pointed
out, the household is a complex social, economic
and political space that powerfully affects both
the way technologies are used and their significance. We know little about the economic or social
context of the use of technologies in the home
and how ICTs are appropriated and consumed in
households, including the gender dimensions of
this and the negotiation involved (Green 2001).
Generally what findings there are suggest that
gender politics and sexual division of labour impact strongly on the use of domestic technologies
and the appropriation of electronic leisure (Green
and Adam 1998). Indeed:
The new debates on household technologies have
begun to engage not only with issues of power and
economics, but also with the issues of moralities,
choices and strategies within the nexus of family
and personal relationships (Habib and Cornford
2002:338)
The key challenge is the attempt to conceptualise how ICTs are culturally transformed to fit in
with the household’s own understanding of itself.
488
The aspect of family culture that technologies
are fitted into comprises what Silverstone et al.
(1989) call the ‘‘moral economy’’ of the family.
This concept is the starting point for a way of
analysing how technologies become part of the
household’s value system. ‘moral economy’ refers
more explicitly to:
…these families’ own way of working with the
social, economic and technological opportunities which frame their world, and which depend
on, contribute to and sometimes compromise the
ongoing structural forces for change which can be
observed and analysed on a macro-sociological
scale (Silverstone et al., 1989:1–2).
This implies that the uses and interpretations of
media texts or technologies in domestic contexts
will be negotiable – depending upon the material
and discursive resources which are accessed by
households and their members.
The acceptance, use and meaning of ICTs
in the context of everyday life of households is
central. The incorporation of ICTs into household
activities and routines, and thus into the social
organisation of the household, shapes and may
change the everyday life of these households.
At the same time, there is a clear impact of the
technologies on households themselves; patterns
of ICT acceptance, use and meaning construction
are shaped by the way people have organised their
everyday lives.
While the use of Domestication as an analytical
and methodological concept is well suited to the
domestic sphere and in particular in consideration
of personal engagement with technologies, it has
still yet to be tested on mass organisational levels
or extended to groups. Domestication continues
to be developed and applied to new contexts there
is still more work to do to make it an attractive
concept to broadly positivist analysts seeking to
quantify on a mass scale the impact of the adoption of technologies.
What Use is Domestication Theory to Information Systems Research?
methodology And
ApproAches to domesticAtion
reseArch
While the diffusion process is useful in the ways
it explains how technologies are appropriated,
the domestication process is more valuable in
the ways it provides insights into the intricate
processes whereby the user assigns meaning and
significance to the artefact, and how this is experienced by domestic users during the acquisition
and consumption of the technology. Meaning attribution is seen as a continuous process whereby
such meanings can experience renegotiation, and
even change altogether.
Methodologically studies have been mainly
qualitative – unsurprising given the centrality
of understanding the significance of ICTs to
people as well as ambiguities and contradictions
(Haddon 2006). Skepticism tends to be built into
the domestication approach (Silverstone 2005)
involving challenging industry assumptions and
highlighting implications of decisions as well as
presumptions of rationality and efficiency within
discourses of ‘consumer needs’. In IS research
therefore Domestication theory tends to fit with
the critical paradigm that aims to critique the
status quo and expose deep-seated structural
contradictions within social systems. It involves
a critical stance against ‘taken-for-granted’ assumptions and a dialectical analysis to reveal the
historical and ideological contradictions within
social practices.
Although a neglected area of research, nevertheless there are indications that Domestication theory is being used by IS researchers. For
example, Hynes (2005) found that Irish households engage in a complex justification process
to rationalize the purchase of the computer (and
internet). The main motivations were educational
purposes (both adult and children), peer pressures and wider social pressures from official
and commercial sources. Using Domestication as
methodological and analytical tool, Hynes found
that users (and even non-users) design their own
domestication process, no two experiences are
the same bringing about an overall rejection of
the ‘one size fits all’ adage so easily applied by
technological determinist hyperbole. This study
rejects the notion that computer users can be seen
as a homogeneous group but instead many social,
cultural, economic and political factors shape the
use of and engagement with computer and internet
technologies in everyday life.
Hynes and Rommes (2006) and Hynes (2003)
found that public IT courses were an important
factor that played a significant role in the domestication processes of users. It was found that
the design of the courses served as a catalyst in
the overall Domestication process when courseparticipants could easily translate the course curriculum and relate the material to their everyday
lives. IT Courses therefore needed to address both
the material and symbolic capital course participants brought with them to IT courses.
Hynes (2007) found that the application of
the domestication model resulted in quite diverse
negotiations of users’ domestication experiences.
In addition, the increased functionality of new
media and computing technologies brought about
renegotiations of those meanings that had been
previously ascribed to them. This research showed
that domestication is a fluid and dynamic process
unlike competing adoption and use models which
are rational, harmonious, liner and fixed. Furthermore, Hynes (2007) argued that domestication can
be applied as an analytical model which produces
rich, lived realities of the everyday experience of
living with technologies.
Richardson (2006; 2005a; 2005b) has found
that the approach has also been useful for feminist
research, since it focuses attention on the underresearched domestic context. With a lens on the
UK gendered household, she conducted a five-year
longitudinal study of ICT use in households and
family life detailing time and space constraints
and gendered domestic leisure that impacted on
motivational, material, skills and usage access.
489
What Use is Domestication Theory to Information Systems Research?
Women maintain primary responsibility for the
smooth running of the home and for the reproduction of domestic order and comfort. This means,
among other things, that domestic leisure remains
heavily gendered (Morley 2000). Green’s (2001)
studies of women’s leisure continue to show
time synchronization and time fragmentation
dominating most women’s lives leading them to
find ‘snatched’ spaces for leisure and enjoyment.
The research showed that a striking feature of
everyday lives is how little leisure time people
have or perceive themselves to have (Richardson
2006).
In these terms Richardson (2006) draws on
an aspect of the social shaping of technology
identified as underpinning Domestication theory,
that of the co-construction of gender and technology in understanding use of ICTs in a domestic
setting. In early gender and technology studies
the core argument was that technology is a key
source of men’s power and a defining feature of
masculinity (Wajcman 2004:6). Faulkner (2000)
has summarized the gender and technology arguments to involve how technology is gendered
because the ‘key specialist actors’ are men, that is
those who design new technologies. There is also
a strong gender division of labour based on a link
being specified between the idea of masculinity
and technical skill. Technical artifacts can also
be seen as being gendered both materially and
symbolically, though it is important to appreciate that there is considerable flexibility in use, so
technology is shaped by users and as such often
have usage not intended by the designers. Finally
the cultural image of technology is strongly associated with hegemonic masculinity despite the
mismatch between image and reality.
These issues were linked to analysis that did
not take the family as a gendered institution for
granted and further placed the research within the
dominant discourse of the ‘digital divide’ which
in the UK centered on engagement with ICTs in
a ‘meaningful way’ as defined by government.
This research challenged the technological determinism of corporate and governmental visions of
490
the future. It gave voice in particular to women’s
experiences in the home.
The research undertaken by Richardson (2006;
2005a; 2005b) showed that technologies and the
gender structures which contribute to the shaping
of women’s work in the public sphere and ‘consumption work’ in the home are therefore mutually
constitutive - neither is autonomous, immutable
or determinate. Webster (1995) discusses how
women come to perform tasks which carry an
imprint of their socially constructed roles both
within the family and workplace. Hynes (2005)
adds another dimension in terms of how the routines and habits of everyday life are shaped by the
use of technology and how in turn the technology
is shaped by everyday life and indeed often the
gender dimension is ignored here. So the concept
of domestication is seen as expressing a process
of shaping a technology to an acceptable form
within the family (Hynes 2005). Domestication
theory therefore helped understand the household
as a site of consumption, reproduction of labour
power and formation of gender relations.
In conclusion to how the domestication concept
can be used effectively in IS research it provides
a frame to contextualize studies and is a tool to
understand the perspective and environment of
empirical data. It does not take technology for
granted and allows multiple interpretations for a
more in-depth and rich understanding of technology use in everyday life.
conclusion
This chapter has contributed to a neglected area
of information systems research namely applying
the concept of domestication to understand socioeconomic change where it matters and is taken
for granted ‘in the intimate spaces of the home
and household’ (Silverstone 2005:231). In practice
the era of ubiquitous computing involves much
more than the spheres of design, development or
end-user implementation. ICTs involve dynamic,
mutually shaping relations and application of
What Use is Domestication Theory to Information Systems Research?
domestication theory means giving technology
a place in everyday life.
We have placed Domestication theory in the
context of the Social Shaping of Technology originating in the IS reference discipline of Sociology.
We then offered a critique of other approaches to
the use and adoption of technology more popular
as a theoretical model for IS researchers. The TAM
model for example is clearly growing in its use
by Information Systems researchers. We provide
evidence from Yousafzai et al (2007) for example,
who provide a meta-analysis discussing 145 papers
published on TAM. Systematic critiques of this
model are rare (see Cushman & Klecun 2005 and
Adam et al 2004 for exceptions). Yet we have
argued that it is important to apply more than a
deficiency model of ICT adoption for academic
study to offer in-depth and consequential research
to this important area. Application of TAM in IS
research in our view has led to essentialist analysis
of who does what and why with technology and
a lack of analysis of power relations associated
with technology usage.
Domestication research highlights a dominant
viewpoint of the essentialist assumptions held
about technologies and those that consume them.
The future and what technologies we have and
how they are used is not inevitable and critical
interpretation means a shift in focus from what appears to be self-evident, natural and unproblematic
on the one hand and what can be interpreted as
the freezing of social life, irrational and changeable on the other (Alvesson and Skoldberg 2000).
Moore (2003) describes the corporate versions
that seek to produce corporate identities presenting a future that is ultimately knowable through
expertise resting on the valued endpoint of competitive advantage. She continues to highlight the
inexorable logic of future-orientated technological
determinism.
Domestication theory is one of the only
theoretical approaches that explores the complex
processes of adoption and especially the use of
technologies into and in everyday life. New developments suggest that the domestication framework
considers interactions with wider networks outside the home and also is increasingly discussing
‘professional domestication’ for example through
telework and home working (Pierson, 2006). This
is important as the boundaries between home
and work are increasingly blurred with the need
to understand how ICTs fit into (or not) existing
work patterns (Haddon 2006).
A recurrent theme among advocates of technological deterministic perspectives that imbibe
notions of a culture of consumption is that consumers and users are ‘passive dupes’ and ‘impotent,
malleable consumers, unthinking and unprotesting in the face of media technology’ (Heap et
al 1995). Hynes (2005) also notes that study of
consumption of ICTs is often a number-crunching
exercise and ‘quantitative discourse’ pervades - in
other words trying to profile a typical user buying
a particular brand in a ‘technology-driven strategy’. Bourdieu (1998) suggests that these analyses
are a submission to the values of the economy
where a return to individualism means not only
blaming the victim for their own misfortune but
also an attempt to destroy any notion of collective
responsibility lest this may interfere with commercial interests. This represents an essentialist
view of people, households and technologies and
their use and the specific contexts, dynamics and
dimensions of inclusion or exclusion thus remains
under researched. We conclude that the household
has such a central role in our lives that there is a
great need to document, analyse and understand
changes that are occurring in the ways in which
people consume technologies in the domestic setting through their everyday lives (Hynes 2005).
Not to do so is to give into the corporate version
and vision of the future.
references
Adam, A., Howcroft, D., & Richardson, H. (2004).
A decade of neglect: Reflecting on gender and IS.
New Technology Work and Employment, 19(3).
491
What Use is Domestication Theory to Information Systems Research?
Alvesson, M., & Skõlberg, K. (2000). Reflexive
Methodology. London: SAGE.
gies: Media and Information in Domestic Spaces,
London Routledge.
Ang, I. (1991) Desperately seeking the audience.
London; New York: Routledge.
Haddon, L. (2006). The contribution of domestication research to in-home computing and media
consumption. The Information Society, 22(4).
195-203.
Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P. and Pinch, T. (eds)
(1987) The Social Construction of Technological
Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Bijker, W. E. (1995). Of Bicycles, bakelites, and
bulbs: Towards a theory of sociotechnical change.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1998). Acts of resistance. Against
the new myths of our time. UK: Polity Press
Cockburn, C., & Ormrod, S. (1993). Gender and
technology in the making. London: SAGE.
Cushman, M., & Klecun, E. (2005). How (can)
non-users perceive usefulness: Bringing in the
digitally excluded (Penceil Paper 7). London
School of Economics.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived
ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
Faulkner, W. (2000, June) the technology question
in feminism. A view from feminist technology
studies. In Proceedings of the Women’s Studies
International Forum.
Green, E. (2001). Technology, leisure and everyday
practices. In E. Green & A. Adam (Eds.), Virtual
gender. Technology, consumption and identity
matters. New York: Routledge.
Green, E., & Adam, A. (1998). On-line leisure.
Gender and ICT’s in the home. Information, Communication and Society, 1(3), 291-312.
Habib, L., & Cornford, T. (2002). Computers in
the home: Domestication and gender, Information
Technology & People, 15(2). 159-174.
Haddon, L. (1992) Explaining ICT Consumption:
The Case of the Home Computer, in Silverstone,
R. and Hirsch, E. (eds.) Consuming Technolo-
492
Hartmann, M. (2006). The triple articulation of
ICTs. Media as technological objects, symbolic
environments and individual texts. In T. Berker,
M. Hartmann, Y. Punie, & K. J. Ward (Eds.), The
domestication of media and technology (pp. 80102). Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
Heap, N. Thomas, R. Einion, G. Mason, R.
Mackay, H (eds) (1995) Information Technology
and Society: a reader London; Thousand Oaks,
Calif: Sage Publications in association with the
Open University.
Hynes, D. (2003). The role of computer courses in
the domestication of the computer. In Case study
for the strategies of inclusion: Gender and the
information society project (SIGIS).
Hynes, D. (2005). Digital multimedia use & consumption in the household setting. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Dublin City University,
Ireland.
Hynes, D. (2007). Applying domestication:
How the Internet found its place in the home. In
M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), Managing worldwide
operations and communications with information technology (pp. 799-801). Hershey, PA: IGI
Publishing.
Hynes, D., & Rommes, E. (2006). Fitting the Internet into our lives. In T. Berker, M. Hartmann,
Y. Punie, & K. Ward (Eds.), Domestication of
media and technologies. UK: Open University
Press.
Livingstone, S. (2007). On the material and the
symbolic: Silverstone’s double articulation of
research traditions in new media studies. New
media and society, 9(1), 16-24.
What Use is Domestication Theory to Information Systems Research?
MacKenzie, D., & Wajcman, J. (1985). The social
shaping of technology. London: Open University
Press.
Morley, D (1992) Television Audiences and Cultural Studies, London New York: Routledge
Morley, D. (2000), Home Territories (London;
New York: Routledge).
Moore, K. (2003). Versions of the future in relation to mobile communication technologies.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Surrey, UK.
Ogden, J. (2003). Some problems with social
cognitions models: A pragmatic and conceptual
analysis. Health Psychology, 22(4), 424-428.
Pierson, J. (2006). Domestication at work in small
businesses. In T. Berker, M. Hartmann, Y. Punie,
& K. Ward (Eds.), Domestication of media and
technologies. UK: Open University Press.
Richardson, H. (2005a). Consuming passions in
the global knowledge economy. In D. Howcroft &
E. Trauth (Eds.), Handbook of critical research in
information systems (pp. 272-299). Cheltenham,
UK: Edward Elgar.
Richardson, H. (2005b, December 11-14). Making
the links: Domestication of ICT’s in the global
knowledge economy. In D. Avison, D. Galletta,
& J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th
International Conference on Information Systems,
Las Vegas, Nevada.
Richardson, H. (2006, July). Space invaders:
Time raiders: Gendered technologies in gendered
UK households’. In J. Kendall, D. Howcroft, E.
Trauth, T. Butler, B. Fitzgerald, & J. I. DeGross
(Eds.), Social inclusion: Societal and organisational implications for information systems.
Springer-Verlag.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations.
New York: The Free Press.
Silverstone, R. and Haddon, L. (1996), 'Design
and the Domestication of Information and Communication Technologies: Technical Change and
Everyday Life', in Communication by Design:
the Politics of Information and Communication
Technologies, (ed.) R. Silverstone and R. Mansell
(Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Silverstone, R. (Ed.). (2005). Media, technology
and everyday life. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
Silverstone, R., Hirsch, E. and Morley, D. (1992),
'Information and communication', in Information and Communication Technologies, pp.44-74
(Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Silverstone, R. and Hirsch, E. (eds.) (1992),
Consuming Technologies: Media and Domestic
Practices (London: Routledge).
Silverstone, R., Morley, D., Dahlberg, A. and Livingstone, S. (1989), 'Families, Technologies and
Consumption: the household and information and
communication technologies', CRICT discussion
paper (Uxbridge, Middlesex: Centre for Research
into Innovation, Culture and Technology).
Silverstone, R. (1994), Television and Everyday
Life London: Routledge.
Van Dijk, J. (2005). The deepening divide. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Venkatesh, V., & Brown, S. A. (2001). A longitudinal investigation of personal computers in
homes: Adoption determinants and emerging
challenges. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 71-98.
Wajcman, J. (2000). Reflections on gender and
technology studies. In what state is the art? Social
Studies of Science, 30(3), 447-464.
Wacjman, J. (2004), Technofeminism WileyBlackwell. Webster, F. (2002). Theories of the
information society. London: Routledge.
Wilson, M., & Howcroft, D. (2005). Power,
politics and persuasion in IS evaluation: A focus
493
What Use is Domestication Theory to Information Systems Research?
on ‘relevant social groups’. Journal of Strategic
Information Systems, 14, 17-43.
Yousafzai, S. Y., Foxall, G. R., & Pallister, J. G.
(2007). Technology acceptance: A meta-analysis
of the TAM: Part 1. Journal of Modeling in Management, 2(3), 251-280.
Key terms And definitions
Domestication Theory: A theory developed
by Silverstone et al (1994) to interpret how technologies become part of everyday life.
Feminist Research: Field of research examining women’s political, cultural, social and
economic experiences
Gender: Social construction of identity and
roles based on normative values
494
Social Shaping of Technology: This approach
argues that the emergence and development of
technology is a social process and people and
their social arrangements are the crucial factors in
promoting change. This approach argues against
intrinsic characteristics inherent in technologies
determining their effect and use.
TAM: The Technology Acceptance Model
seeks to explain the determinants of computer
acceptance and user behaviour across a broad
range of end-user computing technologies. The
model contains two key sets of constructs: (1)
perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease
of use (PEOU) and (2) user attitude. The basic
hypothesis is that acceptance of a technology
is determined by his or her voluntary intentions
towards using the technology.
Technological Determinism: This approach
places technology as the pivotal factor in bringing about social change. Technologies are seen
as autonomous inventions that have direct effects
on social life.