Abstract
The extant discourse about mandatory IS use is not serviceable as a guide to evaluating the quality of such use as experienced by stakeholders. Many ‘down-to-earth’ issues that are crucial to such quality are overlooked. A new approach is required, which is based on what is meaningful in everyday life of use rather than on the abstractions used in academic discourse. Reasons why these abstractions are unhelpful are discussed and Dooyeweerd’s notion of modal aspects is proposed as a foundation for developing more serviceable approaches.

Keywords
Down-To-Earth, Mandatory Use, Dooyeweerd’s aspects

1. Introduction
In the era of technology, many organisations have made substantial investments in information system (IS) with the intention of increasing organisational performance. So the success or quality of IS use is often linked closely to the extent to which it contributes to organisational life, and IS use is one the important areas to be considered by management when implementing or evaluating any IS (DeLone& McLean, 1992; Venkatesh,et al., 2003).
Since the link with organisational performance is complex, broad concepts are often employed in an attempt to understand it. A common example is the extent to which an organisation deploys IT to support operational and strategic tasks (Ives &Jarvenpaa, 1991), and this is the key consequent variable in Davis’ (1989) technology acceptance model (TAM). IS use was among the most frequently used measured of success in 1992 and remained so for at least a decade (DeLone and McLean, 2003). Articles on IS use constitute around one third of the total publication space in the top IS journals, MIS Quarterly and IS Research (Barki, et al., 2007).
There are two problems. Much of this discourse is irrelevant when considering mandatory IS use (MISU) since the use is by definition 100%. So alternative concepts have been suggested, such as ‘intention to use’, which is the secondary output of TAM.Later many studies specifically focused on mandatory IS use (Ram & Jung, 1991; Lou, et al., 1995; Singletary, et al., 2002; Adamson & Shine, 2003; Ward, et al., 2005; Linders, 2006; Hennington, 2007; Lee & Park, 2008).

So why should there be yet another paper on mandatory IS use? The second problem with extant discourse, even on MISU, is that it doesn’t sufficiently express the reality of IS use on the ground.

Despite huge research in IS usage area, the use of the system is still not well understood (Mishra &Agarwal, 2009). Is it only a matter of time and incremental effort before IS use is understood? Yousafzai (2007) has collected 70 constructs related to perceived usefulness in IS use, so is it possible that IS use may be understood by rationalising them? Barki [2008] suggests four approaches to properly understanding the constructs, including defining them clearly, specifying dimensions and relationships, exploring their application to other contexts, and expanding their conceptualizaton.
Whilst such approaches might indeed help towards understanding of IS use, the present situation is reminiscent of some scientific endeavours that Kuhn (1970) observed that had reached a stage ready for paradigm shift. After a long period of incremental correction of previous views, an increasing sense of misfit between experienced reality and theories leads to a new approach to the area of reality, a new paradigm. The primary reason for this paper is to suggest a new way of looking at IS use; this focuses on what might be called down-to-earth (DTE) issues of mandatory IS use. The approach can perhaps be extended to non-mandatory IS use, so “MISU” is often rendered as “(M)ISU”.

In this paper, quality of IS use is conceived more broadly and yet also, paradoxically, in a more precise way, because of a pluralistic approach. In most literature, ‘good’ (or successful, beneficial, high quality) IS use is conceived in terms of the organisation whereas this paper also takes into account the individuals who live and work with, or are affected by, the IS. In most literature, the notion of ‘good’ is located in abstracted, predefined variables like amount of usage, intention to use or perceived usefulness (Davis, 1989), and the plethora of ‘external variables’ encountered in actual experience of IS use [Yousafzai 2007] are deemed meaningful only insofar as they contribute to the predefined variables. This paper reverses this, treating this plethora of ‘external variables’ as that which is truly meaningful, and the supposed abstract variables are defined by reference to, and as an outcome of, what occurs in everyday experience of IS use. In most literature ‘good’ IS use is seen as a goal to which everyday experience should be designed to contribute while in this paper, the ‘good’ is seen as an outcome of that everyday IS use. Most extant research in issues of IS use has been of a positivist nature; this paper takes a more interpretivist approach. Most literature focuses on issues of interest to researchers and the academic or management communities, whereas this paper focuses on issues that are meaningful to users and others who experience the IS in use.

Finally, most literature, including Barki [2008], presuppose that the constructs that are important are those that researchers and others are currently discussing, whereas this paper recognises that there might be many that are not obvious, either hidden behind extant constructs or completely overlooked.
This is one of two papers. This paper introduces the notion of down-to-earth (DTE) issues and provides a philosophical foundation; the companion paper (Ahmad &Basden, 2011) discusses how DTE issues can be researched in practice by discussing an empirical method. The structure of this paper is: First extant issues in (mandatory) IS use are collected together, then a vignette of daily experience of mandatory IS use is reviewed to reveal what down-to-earth issues might be like. The difference between these and extant concepts is discussed, to highlight problems with extant literature. A way of understanding the root of the problem in extant literature is offered by the philosophy of Dooyeweerd, which is introduced. Then the problems of extant approaches are discussed in these terms, to yield proposals for a new approach. This forms the foundation for a second paper, Ahmad &Basden(2011) but also background for Joneidy&Basden(2011), both of which are in the same collection.

2. Survey of literature
In order to evaluate specific cases of (mandatory) IS use as to their quality (and perhaps also to design IS, though this is not the focus here) it is necessary to work with a set of generic factors that are important contributors to high quality (M)ISU. Whether such factors constitute a formal or informal set is not of concern here, but it is necessary to go beyond narrative accounts of instances of use, because we wish to be able to apply the evaluation in other contexts and (re)design the IS innovatively for the future. The set of factors can be applied to a variety of stakeholders, but especially the (potential) primary users of the IS because it is these whose tacit and explicit knowledge of the IS and the tasks they perform is most crucial.

The set of factors should be comprehensive and place no prior restrictions on what it is meaningful to consider, whether these arise from prior prejudices of either the researcher or the researched or taken-for-granted assumptions. The researcher and researched together should be able to reveal anything that might be relevant. A reasonable place to begin is to look to the academic literature to provide factors to consider, because these will be produced by reflection across a variety of situations and will to some extent have been tested for salience (whether by positivist or interpretivist means does not matter here). The current literature relevant to mandatory IS use yields a host of factors, a selection of which is given in Table 1.

This is only a selection of the issues, but in its diversity one can see much confusion, ambiguity and overlap. So, as Barki [2008] points out, there is a need for guidelines regarding how constructs may be developed. Whereas he suggests four approaches (mentioned above) to improving such constructs, we suggest that it might be useful to consider a different approach.

3. Down-to-earth issues in (M)ISU
These issues fulfill the need to build a conceptual theoretical model (formal or informal) of mandatory IS use. While a unified theoretical model can indeed be constructed out of such issues [Venkatesh et al. 2003], it is doubtful how useful such a model would

be in practical evaluation of mandatory IS use. The types of issue found in the literature are not those encountered in everyday life of IS use.

That this might be so is indicated in Etienne Wenger’s vignette of a day in the life of Ariel, a medical insurance claims clerk, found in chapter 2 of Wenger (1998, p.18-34). Her job consisted of taking (paper) claim forms and entering them into the system, but this involved much interpretation and checking prior to the actual entry of data. It was, of course, important to get not only the data right but the information and intention, so that patients and providers (doctors) would receive their due, whether this was what they had claimed for or not. Use of the computer system is, of course, mandatory. Passages are selected below to illustrate DTE issues, and also to indicate how extant constructs cannot always address them adequately. The majority of Wenger’s book concerns his notion of communities of practice and his theoretical understanding thereof. While users of a particular IS might be seen to constitute a community of practice, this is not our main interest here. The vignette is used here, not in relation to CoP, but mainly because it provides a very realistic account compiled from careful, long-term anthropological and ethnographic observations, an account that users of mandatory IS like Ariel would recognise as accurate and appropriate.

3.1 Illustrations of Down-to-earth issues
Wenger’s vignette can be analysed in terms of the issues above, but doing so loses something – something that is important and meaningful to those involved in the IS use described. Here a number of excerpts are analysed in order to illustrate this claim. Each excerpt is given an identification number.

P1. “Ariel is well organized … What she tries to do is process easy claims fast during the morning and early afternoon and so get her ‘production’ out of the way. Once she has reached her daily quota, she uses the last few hours of the day to take care of ‘junk’ claims and to make phone calls … Ariel does this sorting before leaving so that her pile is ready for the next day”. (Page 21)

It is obvious that this organisation of her tasks makes IS use both more tractable for Ariel and more effective for her organisation. How might it be classified under the factors discussed in the extant literature? The nearest in Table 1 is Singletary et al.’s (2002) ‘personal innovativeness’, referring how she organises her day. But what Singletary means comes from Agarwal and Prasad (1998) as “individuals are characterized as ‘innovative’ if they are early to adopt an innovation”, referring to a technological innovation imposed from outside. Such a concept would therefore be of little help in recognising the importance of Ariel’s innovativeness, which is her own. Further, the success of this aspect of her use of the IS is not primarily due to what she did being innovative, but that she is “well organized” in ways that make sense in her situation of mandatory IS use. The following passage illustrates another factor that would be meaningful to users, the quality of information.

P2. “She enters first the type of service, then the name of the service provider, which leads her into the providers file: there she makes sure she checks that the provider’s address is correct since the insured has ‘assigned’ the benefits to be disbursed directly to the doctor. … Since the patient went to such a ‘preferred’ doctor, Ariel must remember to increase the rate of reimbursement from 80% to 85%.” (pages 22-3)

Information quality is mentioned by Linders (2006) and Lin (2010) but, to them, it is determined by accuracy, reliability and completeness. There are three reasons why this is not useful in practical evaluation or design, which are illustrated in the passage. First, these are rather static notions when compared with the “makes sure” and “must remember” in this passage. Second, they are more abstract, requiring further explanation as to what should be done during IS use. Third, some information is more important than others, and what determines whether the information is of low or high quality is not whether it is accurate, reliable and complete as such, but the reason why the information is important. The next passage also concerns information quality, again expressed as normative actions rather than attributes, but it does so in three ways.

P3. “She ignores a number of caution messages and moves to the next screen where she checks the address. It is important to make sure the address is correct so the check will reach its destination properly. You definitely will get a void if the address is wrong [which means she would have to enter the claim again].” (page 22)

One is that there are caution messages that are meaningless. The second is that she must act to ensure quality of the address, and the reason is given here. The third is that the system (whether human or technological is not made clear) is designed to prevent bad addresses getting through, which shows that quality of address is serious. This shows the diversity of types of information quality, which the collective term ‘information quality’ would not disclose. Duplicate information is also a matter of information quality, and Ariel checks this.

P4. “Now that claim looks like a duplicate, but Ariel can’t tell from the claim history on-line; she needs to check the original bill to see if the services covered are really the same.” (page 31)

The following three passages are about (perceived or actual) ease of use, whichis as diverse as information quality. The first ease of use arises because the data is readily available on the forms and seldom gives any surprises, so certain input actions become habitual.

P5. “The rest of the claim goes fairly fast: enter the code for the diagnosis, for the contract type, skip the coordination section, indicate the assignment of benefits.” (page 23)

The second refers to being able to judge beforehand what one needs to do.

P6. “… Of course, you never really know just by looking at the claim how involved it is going to be, because there can be surprises when you open the customer’s file on the system. But with some experience, you have a pretty good idea at first sight about how difficult a claim is likely to be”. (page 21)

The third is whether the way the system is designed makes it easy to forget the correct date, which reduces ease of use.

P7. “… she has to enter the year the claim is for and the date the claim was received, which was stamped in red by the clerical employee who opened the mail. It is easy to forget to do that because the system enters by default the date of the last claim processed” (page 22)

Here is an extreme example of (not) ease of use:

P8. “Now Ariel realizes that she will need to access information to answer this person’s question and that she will not be able to finish the claim she is currently processing before having to do so. She will have to `clear’ out of this claim and thus lose all the information she has already entered. This stupid system, you have to lose all your work every time you are interrupted and that’s pretty often.” (page 24)

There are many other types of ease of use, which is too general a factor to apply directly in evaluating or designing IS use. Davis (1989) recognises this in that he assumes those who employ TAM will nominate their own set of ‘external variables’ that feed into perceived ease of use. Yousafzai et al. (2007) have collected together 70 such variables but examination shows that these still are subject to the types of criticism we are making here. Green &Petre’s Cognitive Dimensions framework [1996] might offer external variables for ease of use, but they do not extend to the other factors listed above, and below we propose an approach that covers all issues.

P8 (having to lose data) might come under what Adamson & Shine (2003, p.444) call system quality; obviously a system that can access only one record at a time in such usage situations is of poor quality. But ‘system quality’ as conceived by Adamson & Shine (2003, p.444) would not pick this up, because it is concerned with “software bugs and errors, hardware or facility failures … poor input data quality.” The system “must be acceptably secure, accurate and reliable”. Often, as here, systems can be used in ways the designers did not anticipate, so there needs to be a certain generosity in design.

In several passages above, ease of use arises from what Singletary et al. [2002] call prior computer experience. Again, we find an issue that is not very informative because it covers too many different things including, as illustrated here, prior experience of judging overall difficulty and that certain portions of data are easy. The following passage shows a different type of prior computer experience: being able to detect the errors or the unusual features that demand special attention, distinguishing them from ordinary information.

P9. “Ariel types and writes impressively fast. Her eyes scan computer screens quickly, knowing what to look for. Check everything on this last screen and press enter.” (page 30)

The following is about prior experience, not the computer as such, but about the task, which is creating a story from the data, and not about what is correct but about what is reasonable.

P10. “You have to develop a good sense of how much is reasonable, juggling the whole thing to produce quickly a reasonable story. What makes a story ‘reasonable’ can’t be taught during the training class. Even her instructors acknowledged that trainees had to learn it “the right way” for now but that, once they got to the floor, they would learn the shortcuts.” (page 31)

The following short sentence exhibits four issues.

P11. “On the computer, she flips through the claim history to get an idea of how this has been handled so far.” (page 27)

Three are found in the earlier list: information quality (Ariel acts to enhance quality of her interpretation), perceived ease of use (she can ‘flip through’), perceived usefulness (the claim history is useful for her to understand). But none of these really express what is important in this use, even when taken together. What really makes her activity ‘successful’ is a factor not mentioned above: she goes beyond what is strictly necessary (the extra work of getting to know the claim history) and it results in better interpretations. Using the factors in Table 1, would both unnecessarily complicate analysis of this short statement and also miss the essential one.

Several examples of what Ram & Jung [1991] call help-seeking behaviour may be found in Wenger’s vignette. The first is quite straightforward, about what information to enter, and is what Ram & Jung had in mind.

P12. “On an ambulance claim, Ariel does not see a diagnosis. She goes over to Nancy, who tells her to find one that would do in the patient’s claim history” (page 30)

In the following, Ariel seeks help, not primarily to know what information to enter, but to obtain advice on what is appropriate and to support her own judgement.

P13. “Then she takes a look at the second void. What? But the patient was seen for headaches. And neurological exams for headaches are considered medical even if there is a secondary psychological diagnosis. Therefore the ‘psych’ maximum [presumably lower than the maximum for ‘medical’] does not apply. She had actually discussed this case with Nancy and Sheila. She even talked with Maureen, the back-up trainer, who helps people with difficult cases and had agreed with her conclusion.” (page 20-21)

The following could be seen as help-seeking behaviour, but it is not about information or how to use the system. It is about seeking to reduce one’s workload (justifiably so in this case).

P14. “It is ten to four; Ariel will be leaving in 20 minutes. She decides to stop dealing with her junk and to prepare her work for tomorrow. She goes to Sara, the assistant supervisor, to ask her for some work. When claims arrive at Alinsu, they are opened by the clerical unit and sorted by plans … Ariel pleads for an easy pile, reminding Sara of the difficult work she did in the beginning of the week. Sara gives her a pile from the City Hall … Ariel thanks her: tomorrow she will be able to make production early and then catch up on her junk.” (page 33)

While ‘help seeking behaviour’ might adequately express what is meaningful to an observing researcher, it does not do justice to the diversity of reasons why help is sought. What is important in mandatory IS use is not the behaviour of seeking help, but that help is received from others and what kinds of help are received. Sometimes, help is received without being sought, as in the following:

P15. “Next, she selects the customer’s son as the patient from a list of dependents. She is careful because it is easy to choose the wrong dependent; she got voided for this last month. She makes sure the son is under the age of 19. He is not, but there is a recent note from Patty on his file that he is a full-time student. Patty must have investigated it. She is reliable.” (page 22)

This would probably be missed by ‘help-seeking behaviour’. What is important about the help received is that Ariel does not have to do this work because Patty has done it for her, and that Patty is known to be reliable and what she does can be trusted. Here is another example of help received, which would also be missed because it is accidental and informal:

P16. “… Annette replies, “I think it’s ‘end of the month’.” But Joan corrects her, “No, they just changed it. It was in a memo last week.” Ariel overhears the conversation and makes a mental note.” (page 31)

Such learning occurs more in those who have an attitude of wanting to do their best in the work, than in those who couldn’t care less. A careless attitude causes trouble for others, as in the following passage:

P17. “In this case, she pays the claim and enters a claim note stating how much has been paid out of the limit so far. In this office, some people are good about notes and some are not. For instance, every time you change an address – something Ariel has already done three times today – you are supposed to enter a note to that effect, with the date and the source of the new address, so that another processor will not put the old address back in. Because not everybody does it, it causes trouble for other people.” (page 28)

It might be classified under what Ram & Jung (1991) call complaint behaviour, but that is not entirely appropriate. So might the fact that Ariel exclaimed “What! But …” in passage P13. But speaking about behaviour does not reveal what is important in both these cases, namely the feeling that what others do is unfair or ungenerous. It seems to be an issue that has been overlooked by the literature so far.

This may be classified under complaint behaviour (Ram & Jung 1991). Its importance to mandatory use is not the complaint itself so much as the reason for the complaint. In this case it is that Ariel might feel inconvenienced unfairly or even victimised. So the user turns against the system (combination of technical and human).

P18. “When they hit the key that indicates they are done, the computer system gives them a batch number. If the number ends with a D, no problem, it will just get paid and archived. If the number ends with a Q, the claim must be sent to quality review [which might reject it, and is seen as a black mark against one’s work] … She does not know exactly to what degree the appearance of a Q is determined by the type of claim being processed or by the way that she is processing it, but she heard that her supervisor can manipulate the system to send specific claims to quality review. Ariel has been getting a greater number of Qs than usual. As she gets this one, she complains aloud: “What? Another Q? That’s terrible!.” (page 30-33)

Help received can build up what Ram & Jung (1991) call skill in use, but there are other ways to this, such as learning shortcuts:

P19. “… got to keep processing moving, keep the cost per claim down, but this is the kind of shortcut you never get in training. Without them, there is no way the job could be done … In training, everything looks so strict and black-and-white. But on the floor, everybody learns the shortcut in order to meet production. For instance, in training, you are taught to start a claim by filling out the forms that will serve as cover sheets for microfilmed records. Yet much of the information on the cover sheets is never used and is redundant with the attached claim record. So experienced processors do not fill out the form completely; they wait until they have completed the entire claim”. (page 30)

Finally, the following passage concerns not the mandatory use of the IS as such but about the atmosphere of working.

P20. “There is a problem with the toll-free 800 number … Management has a suspicion that this number was given out by some processors to their acquaintances as a way of calling them free of charge. From now on, all phone calls exceeding fifteen minutes will be marked. Harriet senses the tension that her remark has brought into the meeting and is quick to clarify that the marking of these phone calls does not in itself constitute an accusation. … Still the subject seems delicate, and there is some grumbling and a few defensive remarks.” (page 25)

Such factors have an indirect impact on mandatory use, many positive but some negative. It is not clear however how they might be included in the factors listed in Table 1, nor even whether they should be. The mention of ‘grumbling’ suggests ‘complaint behaviour’ but this is minor and in no way expresses the main problem, which is located in attitudes of advantage-taking by “some processors” and attitude of suspicion Management.

3.2 The nature of the problem
It should be clear that there is a great difference between the issues illustrated in Wenger’s text, and the constructs in Table 1, discussed in the IS usage literature. Wenger’s issues seem more ‘down-to-earth’, and we can see immediately and intuitively how they might affect the quality of experience of (M)ISU, at both individual and organisational levels. By contrast, with many extant issues in Table 1 it is less immediately obvious how they might affect the quality of (M)ISU. Why is this? A number of reasons can be adduced.
One problem is that some of the issues are at an unhelpful level. These factors relate either to the development of the IS before use, such as ‘project risk’, or to the senior management’s view of the IS, such as ‘Existence of project champion’, ‘IT-management-process effectiveness’ and ‘results demonstrability’. Frequently the word ‘innovative’ indicates an unhelpful level; that something is innovative might be of interest to senior management who wish to enhance their own reputation, but is of little concern to the users (except when it makes work harder for them!). The kind of innovativeness that Ariel displayed in P1, which is relevant to users, is not within Singletary et al.’s [2002] use of the term and would not be of interest to senior management.
That `innovativeness` is meaningful at both levels – albeit in different ways – suggests that issues at an unhelpful level can be ‘translated’ into a form that is relevant to (M)ISU. Another example is the concept of project champion, who is “enthusiastic and commited individuals to overcome resistence to an innovation and promoting the innovation” might be translated to be someone who is enthusiastic and committed to the use of the system, inspiring others to see that what they are doing is worthwhile and important. If such translations are to be made, a basis on which to make the translation is needed.
‘Project risk’ is also at the wrong level, being of interest to senior management and IT implementors rather than users. It could be translated to the user context, by removing the word ‘project’, but this is still unhelpful for a different reason, discussed below.

A second problem is that some factors contain unhelpful connotations. Cultural connotations and assumptions within which the researchers or analysts operate, cause the analyst to focus on certain aspects of the situation and overlook others. In IS research the connotations are often technological and organisational. For example, in the literature, ‘help-seeking behaviour’ is assumed to refer to help with mastering the technology, because IS research is permeated with a central interest in technology in use. By contrast, in the Wenger vignette, help was sought for many other things that are still related to use of the IS, such as:
* to complete a form (P12)
* for vindication and ensuring the appropriate decision (P13)
* to reduce work load (P14)
* to keep to the rules (P16).

What was important to the quality of (M)ISU is not the activity of help-seeking itself but the reason why help is sought. Moreover, it matters little whether the help is sought or whether it is received in other ways, such as by being overheard (as in P16), in which case alertness and willingness to learn are important issues. To focus on ‘help-seeking behavior’ might be of interest to psychology researchers but is not, as such, so meaningful to users. The problem here lies in the unspoken technological and organisational connotations attached to concepts within the IS research community, because these restrict what is assumed to be meaningful in a way that does not necessarily reflect the researched situation. A way needs to be found to break open such connotations and assumptions.

A third problem is that of unhelpful abstraction. Some issues in Table 1 express something so general that the analyst cannot employ them in evaluation or design, without prior work to imagine the kinds of thing involved. Risk is an example of such an abstraction; risk means “the possibility of loss, injury, disadvantage or destruction” [Webster, 1975]. Since almost any type of thing can go wrong, the analyst would have to know the entire range of things that can go wrong before ‘risk’ is a helpful issue. It is seldom that such a condition is met, even when restricted to a particular context. All analysis involves abstraction of some degree; helpful abstraction is that which helps in sharply highlighting issues that are important to (M)ISU while unhelpful abstraction remains too general and depends on the analyst instantiating the generic issues from either an external list or their own experience before they can be useful. A way needs to be found to abstract from idiographic narratives to something precise in meaning. In P15 above we see Ariel trying to minimise risk (as researchers would put it) but it is very specific risk: of being voided. To Ariel, it is not risk as such that is important, but being voided.

The fourth problem is unhelpful combination. Some constructs express multiple types of issue. For example, computer self-efficacy expresses the ability to perform tasks successfully despite challenges. Not only is this not an easy term to explain, but it depends on several kinds of thing, illustrated by P4:
* the kind of challenge (possibility of duplicate claim);
* how important the task is (ensure appropriate payment, and prevent double payments);
* the process of surmounting the challenge (search for the original claim);
* willingness to make the extra effort to do this.

If these are fully specified, the difficulty for the analyst, during evaluation, is simply to remember and properly understand them all. The difficulty is increased enormously when, as is usual, the components of the combination are unspecified. A way needs to be found to separate out the issues that are meaningful in distinct ways, but without becoming overloaded with detail.

Finally, there are important issues that are missing from the literature, at least up to the present time. In Wenger’s vignette, P20 expresses attitudes of advantage-taking and suspicion, which affect the ISU. Attitude in particular is difficult to observe and measure (positivist research) or interpret (interpretivist research), and perhaps for that reason is seldom discussed in academic literature on (M)ISU. The literature will always miss things; for example, until Davis published his groundbreaking (1989) thesis on TAM, the human factors community focused on ease of use and ignored usefulness. A reliable way is needed to discover and think about issues that are often overlooked during practical evaluation.

3.4 Towards a new approach
At the root of all the problems described above is meaningfulness. DTE issues are those that are meaningful to users and the situation of use, including all its stakeholders. Each of the above problems may be seen in terms of meaning:
* Unhelpful level: Some extant issues are meaningful to the wrong people or roles, and not to users.
* Unhelpful connotation: Some extant issues are narrowed to their technological (or other cultural) meanings.
* Unhelpful abstraction: Some issues are too broad in their meaning.
* Unhelpful combination: Some issues combine multiple meaning that should be separated out conceptually.
* Missing: Some of what is meaningful in the situation of ISU is overlooked.

However, the problem that immediately faces us is the diversity of DTE issues, which seems limitless. Is it not unreasonable to expect researchers or analysts to think of them all? Many DTE issues depend on the specific situation and its specific context, the combination of which is unique. To approach DTE issues idiographically, as a plethora of individual instances would be too unwieldy and yet still omit many issues that are not meaningful to us. There needs to be some generality in the approach. But on what may generality be based?
There is a different approach to generality, which might provide a way forward: one that directly focuses on meaningfulness. The groundwork for this approach was laid out inthe philosophical investigations of the late Herman Dooyeweerd (1894-1977).

4. The contribution of Dooyeweerd’s notion of aspects
Basden (2008a) has suggested that IS use may be understood by reference to a suite of fifteen aspects initially proposed by Dooyeweerd [1984/1955], and suggested that, in principle, this suite of aspects should be able to cover all that is meaningful in IS use. It is proposed here that a Dooyeweerdian approach can both explain most of the ways in which the extant factors are unhelpful, and provide a way to reveal, study and discuss DTE issues such as are portrayed in Wenger’s vignette.

Grounded in a presupposition of creation, fall and redemption [Dooyeweerd 1979] Dooyeweerd held that all that occurs in the world, whether human, social or ‘natural’, is constituted in responses to diverse kinds of law (such as physical law, which is more determinative, and lingual, social and juridical law, which are non-determinative), that each different kind of (non-determinative) law defines a different kind of ‘good’ (or success or benefit; for example communicational good differs in kind from justice or generosity), that this law that has the character of promise (“If you do X then Y is likely to result”), that outcomes of what occurs are the combination of the results (Ys) of different kinds. Each kind of law (‘law-sphere’) is expressed in temporal reality as different aspects thereof. The desirability of outcomes is defined by reference to the innate norms of law-spheres, but achieving a given outcome involves human functioning across their whole range, and cannot be predicted nor fully controlled. However, Dooyeweerd held that when we function well in all aspects then the outcomes are likely to be healthy and beneficial in many ways, and this provides an approach on how to understand the implications of IS use. Moreover, each different basic kind of law is a kernel that also determines a distinct way of being meaningful.

Dooyeweerd delineated fifteen distinct aspects, or law-spheres, summarised in Table 3. It can be seen that they cover both natural,

human-cognitive, social and societal issues. This offers a way to link individual, DTE experience of IS users with organisational outcomes.

This provides a way of seeing the ‘down-to-earth’ issues, those issues that are meaningful to IS users and others, as diverse and meaningful and yet also constitutive of resultant quality of (M)ISU. Analysis involves separating out these aspects of any situation (e.g. of (M)ISU), both of the way in which users function and of the resultant outcomes.

The reader might justifiably ask why it is appropriate to consider Dooyeweerd. There are a number of reasons. The most important practical reason is the wider coverage of Dooyeweerd’s aspects. Many suites of aspects have been proposed, though under diverse terminology, including Hartmann’s [1951] strata, Bunge’s [1979] systems levels, Habermas’ [1986] action types, Maslow’s [1943] needs. All these may be seen as specialised subset’s of Dooyeweerd’s aspects. This means thatDooyeweerd’s suite is the most comprehensive.
In addition, Dooyeweerd’s notion of aspects is richer, in that to him aspects are not merely categories or strata, not merely types of thing or system, not merely types of action, not merely types of need. They are spheres of meaning and law, from which these may be derived. Being spheres of meaning, they provide a set of ways in which things may be meaningful, and hence a multi-aspectual ‘lens’ with which to view situations. Being spheres of law, they have an important normative component, enabling the analyst who employs them to address issues of good and bad, in addition to types of thing or activity. Dooyeweerd’s suite is directed towards everyday human experience rather than being an ontological theory. It is the outcome of a lifelong reflection not only on his own experience, but also on what thinkers have written over the past 3000 years. Finally, Dooyeweerd proposed philosophical tests for candidate aspects, especially the method of antinomy. Despite this, he was always cautious about claiming any ‘truth’ for his suite, recognising that every suite must be open to amendment.
This is perhaps why Dooyeweerd’s aspects have proven useful in many areas (for example, de Raadt 1989; Bergvall-Kåreborn&Grahn 1996; Winfield, Basden&Cresswell 1996; Eriksson 2001; Bergvall-Kåreborn 2001; Basden 2002a; Mirijamdotter&Bergvall-Kåreborn 2006; Basden& Wood-Harper 2006; Basden 2008a, Basden& Klein 2008; Basden 2010). They were designed primarily with the everyday, pre-theoretical attitude and experience in mind, but can be used as tools for theoretical analysis since theoretical analysis itself is part of the everyday reality that is governed by the aspects. They are aspects of everyday life, and this makes them admirably suited to understanding down-to-earth issues of IS use.

5. A Dooyeweerdian account of unhelpfulness
Here we explore how Dooyeweerd might account for the problems discussed above, and offer ways of overcoming them.
That some issues are at an unhelpful level, focusing on what is meaningful to parties other than those involved in the day-to-day use of the IS, may be accounted for by Dooyeweerd’s recognition that all human beings function in the pistic aspect and hence will commit themselves to some origin of meaning. Origin of meaning can either be the entire range of aspectual meaning, as in everyday life, or can be narrowed down to a few or, in the case of reductionistic tendencies, to just one aspect. In many cases, the origin of meaning is determined by our role; for example senior management tends to focus on economic aspect (profits) and pistic aspect (reputation) and ISD project managers focus on formative aspect (technology) and economic aspect (budgets, deadlines). By contrast, in everyday life all aspects are important in principle. Even if individual users focus on certain aspects, the wide variety of users will ensure that most aspects are active. So the analyst needs to be aware of all the aspects at once, and not only those that happen to be important to their own research or to managers or IS developers.

Translation from the unhelpful, role-dominated level, to the everyday life of users can be assisted by Dooyeweerd’s aspects because, Dooyeweerd claimed, all human functioning occurs in response to a single common suite of aspects – the researcher, the manager, the IS developer, the user and all others. Translation may be effected by identifying which aspect mainly makes the unhelpful level issue meaningful, and then asking in what ways that same aspect might be meaningful in the user situation. For example, project champion is mainly of the pistic aspect (vision, commitment). The earlier suggestion of translating to a person who believes in the ISU and encourages others to do so, arose from asking how the pistic aspect might be important in maintaining high quality (M)ISU.

That issues might contain unhelpful connotations can likewise be accounted for by reference to certain meaning-spheres (aspects) being elevated and others overlooked. For example, the target of help-seeking behaviour can be issues that are meaningful in any sphere. But IS researchers, by being more acutely aware of the importance of technology (formative aspect) tend to more readily interpret this as help with technology. In Wenger’s vignette help is sought or otherwise received for things that are meaningful in other spheres, such as:
* completion of form (P12): lingual
* vindication and ensuring the appropriate decision (P13): pistic with juridical
* reducingworkload (P14): economic
* to keep to the rules (P16): juridical.

That one can expect a variety of aspects in the situation of (M)ISU comes from Dooyeweerd’s aspects being all present in the pre-theoretical engagement with the world, which is characteristic of (M)ISU.
Such targets of help, of or any other human behaviour, can be differentiated fairly easily by the aspects, without this becoming too onerous. The cultural connotations embedded in an extant concept can be made less problematic by first identifying which aspects they emphasise and then retargeting the concept towards the other aspects.

That some issues are unhelpfully abstract is accounted for, not by reference to abstraction as such, but to abstraction of multi-aspectual phenomena. (Abstraction is recognised by Dooyeweerd as central to research, and he discussed the conditions under which it is possible and valid [Basden 2011].) Under Dooyeweerd’s approach, most phenomena are qualified by a single aspect (for example, justice is juridical) but there are a few that cross all aspects (functioning, possibility, good, bad, knowing, being). Risk is one of these in that “the possibility of loss, injury, disadvantage or destruction” [Webster, 1975] includes not just one but two multi-aspectual concepts: possibility and bad. However, in P15, risk of being voided is very specific: voiding means a black mark against one (pistic aspect) and a lot of extra work (economic aspect). It is not risk as such, but the pistic and economic aspects that are of most importance to Ariel in her MISU. So, in abstracting from the idiographic narrative or situation, the analyst should not be content with abstraction as such but should always ask themselves whether the concepts or constructs that have been abstracted are sharply meaningful in one or perhaps two readily identifiable aspects, which have meaning to those being researched.

That some issues are unhelpful combinations may be accounted for by Dooyeweerd’s understanding of human activity as always involving all aspects. So when the analyst tries to fully analyse human activities they are likely to find a confusing host of aspects. Thus for example ‘computer self-efficacy’, as the ability to perform tasks successfully despite challenges, involves not only the following aspects:
* kind of challenge: analytic aspect;
* how important the task is: juridical aspect;
* the process of surmounting the challenge: formative aspect;
* willingness to make the extra effort to do this: ethical aspect
but more besides, such as self-confidence (pistic aspect), the excitement of some challenges (aesthetic aspect) and their nuisance value (economic aspect).

When faced with unhelpful combinations, it is useful for the analyst to separate out the distinct aspects of that activity, by asking what is meaningful to those being researched. One way to do this is to ask the researched about each aspect in turn, but that proves to be rather stilted and, though better than some extant approaches, fails to elicit the tacit knowledge that is important to the success of the work activity and is the taken-for-granted knowledge of the community of practice [Wenger]. Instead, it is preferable to approach the researched with questions and encouragement that help them to open up and express all that is meaningful to them, while the analyst has, at the back of her/his mind, an awareness of aspects, and then analyse what is said by reference to aspects. This approach is the main topic of Ahmad &Basden [2011].
That some issues are missing from consideration in the literature may be accounted for by saying that the research community has not yet found the aspect important. Dooyeweerd’s suite of aspects aspires to complete coverage of all possible distinct kinds of meaning and, though Dooyeweerd himself held that no suite “may lay claim to material completion” [Dooyeweerd 1955,II:556], nevertheless it seems more complete than most competing suites. So Dooyeweerd’s suite may be employed in checklist mode, to identify those spheres of meaning that are emphasised in the literature and those which are ignored. This is better carried out informally, with the researcher being always alert to which aspects are being given more emphasis and which, less. For example, the importance of attitudinal and pistic aspects, expressed in attitudes and deep beliefs makes the researcher more aware of attitudes of the management in Wenger’s vignette.

6. Discussion and conclusion
This paper suggests a new approach to studying (mandatory) IS use, using Dooyeweerd’s aspects (spheres of meaning) to reveal and understand down-to-earth (DTE) issues, which determine the quality of (mandatory) IS use. What is down-to-earth cannot be precisely defined because down-to-earth implies highly diverse and intuitive. Instead, it has been illustrated by a vignette from Wenger’s [1998] discussion of communities of practice. Barki [2008] suggests that constructs should be seen, not primarily as predefined attributes of a situation, but as arising from and constituted in actual human behaviours in the situation. A number of differences have been identified between the DTE issues illustrated there, and the extant issues. While a few of the extant constructs might be DTE, most of them tend to be unhelpful in their level, connotations, abstractions or combinations and even so important issues are overlooked.

The proposal here is to employ Dooyeweerd’s aspects as a lens with which view (M)ISU. While use of conceptual lenses is common in interpretivist IS research, those lenses are often theoretical and uni-aspectual (for example, when Adam et al. [2006] explicitly uses gender and technology theory as a lens) and often result in narrowed views. By contrast the lens offered by Dooyeweerd’s aspects is diverse and oriented to everyday intuition, and thus uniquely suited to DTE issues. By means of this it enables the analyst to be open to a wider range of down-to-earth issues than do theoretical approaches. As suggested above, the various types of unhelpfulness discussed above may be avoided in the following ways, by analysing which aspects make concepts meaningful and, where necessary, taking the following actions.
* To avoid unhelpful level, the analyst should check to what extent concepts that emerge are meaningful mainly to themselves, managers or IS developers rather than users. If so, these might be translated by identifying which aspect makes them meaningful, and then asking in what ways that same aspect might be meaningful in the user situation.
* Unhelpful connotations can be avoided if the analyst recognises which aspects their own community tends to emphasise and then retargeting concepts they identify towards the other aspects.
* To avoid unhelpful abstraction, the analyst should ensure that concepts that have been abstracted are sharply meaningful in one or perhaps two readily identifiable aspects, to those being researched, rather than being general.
* Unhelpful combinations can be avoided if the analyst looks, not for things (events or behaviours or structures) but for the way such things are meaningful and normative to those being researched.
* Missing issues may be highlighted by employing Dooyeweerd’s suite of aspects in checklist mode, to identify those spheres of meaning that tend to be ignored.

These principles may be applied to extant constructs, and Joneidy & Basden (2011) in this volume shows some of them in action. They might be more effective however if applied directly to qualitative analysis of the usage situation, as explored by Ahmad & Basden (2011). That approach does not begin with extant concepts, but suggests uncovering what is meaningful to users in their everyday IS use by reference to Dooyeweerd’s aspects.

The argument in this paper has, of necessity, been indicative rather than exhaustive. Therefore, more discussion of this kind is needed, as critique and possibly to refine the approach. Nevertheless, it opens up a new approach. Dooyeweerd provides a philosophical underpinning for not only understanding the nature of DTE issues, nor just showing their diversity, but also for explaining why the notion of DTE issues is needed for analysis and understanding of IS use.
This paper has not, however, provided empirical evidence of the validity of this approach. Some initial evidence is provided by two other papers in this collection. Joneidy&Basden [2011] employ Dooyeweerd’s aspects to examine extant constructs identified in IS research and collected by Yousafzai [2007]. That approach presupposes the extant concepts and provides incremental improvement on the current scientific position. Ahmad &Basden [2011] introduce a new way of approaching (M)ISU, a new paradigm. Instead of taking existing constructs, they use Dooyeweerd’s aspects to investigate directly the situations of (M)ISU to get behind what is expressed and to reveal hidden issues.
Though this paper has restricted itself to MISU in organisations, the aspectual approach might be extended. First, there is nothing in the approach that presupposes ISU is mandatory; so it might be extendible to understanding issues of voluntary IS use. Second, there is nothing that presupposes the users are in an organisational setting; so it might be extendible to non-organisational use, both individual use at home and global use. This suggests this Dooyeweerdian approach might be useful in understanding the less traditional versions of IS use, such as social networking, blogging, wiki’ing and game-playing. Such use is likely to be even more characterized by down-to-earth issues than is mandatory organisational IS use.

About the authors:
i. Andrew Basden – Salford Business School, University of Salford, Salford, UK – A.Basden@salford.ac.uk
ii. Hawa Ahmad – (h.ahmad@edu.salford.ac.uk / hawahmad@iium.edu.my) School of Business, University of Salford, United Kingdom; Kuliyyah Economics and Management Sciences, International Islamic University Malaysia

REFERENCES
Adam A, Griffiths M, Keogh C, Moore K, Richardson H, Tattersall A. [2006]. Being an ‘it’ in IT: gendered identities in IT work. European Journal of Information Systems, 15:357-78.
Adamson, I., & Shine, J. (2003). Extending the New Technology Acceptance Model to Measure the End User Informations Systems Satisfaction in a Mandatory Environment: A Bank’s Treasury. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 15(4), 441-455.
Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1998). A Conceptual and Operational Definition of Personal Innovativeness in the Domain of Information Technology. *Information Systems Research, 9*(2), 204-215.
Ahmad, H., &Basden, A. (2011). Down-to-earth issues in (Mandatory) Information System Use; Part II – Approach to Understand and Reveal Hidden Issues. – details to be supplied by IIDE/CPTS editor.
Barczak, G., Sultan, F. and Hultink, J. (2007), ‘Determinants of IT Usage and New Product Performance’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24 (6), 600-613.
Barki, H., Titah, R., &Boffo, C. (2007). Information System Use-Related Activity: An Expanded Behavioral Conceptualization of Individual-Level Information System Use. Information Systems Research, 18(2), 173-192.
Barki, H. (2008). Thar’s gold in them thar constructs. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 39 (3), 9-20.
Basden A. (2002a) “A philosophical underpinning for I.S. Development” pp. 68-78 in Wrycza S (ed.) Proceedings of the Xth European Conference on Information Systems, ECIS2002: Information Systems and the Future of the Digital Economy. University of Gdansk, Poland, 5-10 June 2002.
Basden A. (2002b). The Critical Theory of Herman Dooyeweerd ? Journal of Information Technology, 17, 257-269.
Basden A. (2008a). Philosophical Frameworks for Understanding Information Systems. IGI Global Hershey, PA, USA.
Basden A. (2008b) Engaging with and enriching humanist thought: the case of information systems. PhilosophiaReformata, 73(2), 132-53.
Basden A. (2010) How Dooyeweerd Can Engage With Extant Thought: Expanding Kleinian Principles in Information Systems Use Today. In: Goede R, Grobler L, Haftor DE (eds.) Interdisciplinary Research for Practices of Social Change. Proc. 16th Annual Working Conference of the Centre for Philosophy, Technology and Social Systems (CPTS), 13-16 April 2010, Maarssen, Netherlands.CPTS, Maarssen; BZ Repro, Haaksbergen, Netherlands. ISBN/EAN: 978-90-807718-8-8
Basden, A. (2011) Enabling a Kleinian integration of interpretivist and critical-social IS research: The contribution of Dooyeweerd’s philosophy. European Journal of Information Systems. 20, 477-489.
Basden A., Klein HK. (2008) New Research Directions for Data and Knowledge Engineering: A Philosophy of Language Approach. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 67 (2008), 260-285.
Basden A., Wood-Harper AT. (2006) A philosophical discussion of the Root Definition in Soft Systems Thinking: An enrichment of CATWOE. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 23, 61-87.
Bergvall-Kåreborn B. (2001) Enriching the Model Building Phase of Soft Systems Methodology. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 19, 27-48.
Bergvall-Kåreborn B., GRAHN A. (1996). Expanding the Framework for Monitor and Control in Soft Systems Methodology. Systems Practice 9, 469-495.
Boynton, A. C., Zmud, R. W., & Jacobs, G. C. (1994). The Influence of IT Management Practice on IT Use in Large Organizations. MIS Quarterly, 18(3), 299-318.
Bunge, M. (1979) Treatise on Basic Philosophy, Vol. 4: Ontology 2: A World of Systems, Reidal, Boston.
Chang, K.-C., Lie, T., & Fan, M.-L. (2010). The impact of organizational intervention on system usage extent. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 110(4), 532-549.
Davis, F. D. (1989), ‘Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology’, *MIS Quarterly,* 13 (3), 319-340.
De Raadt JDR. (1989) Multi-Modal Systems Design: a concern for the issues that matter. Systems Research, 6 (1), 17-25
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 60-95.
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success: A Ten-Year Update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 9-30.
Devaraj, S., Easley, R. F., &Crant, J. M. (2008). How does personality matter? Relating the five-factor model to technology acceptance and use. Information Systems Research, 19(1), 93-105.
Dooyeweerd H. (1955). A new critique of theoretical thought (Vols. 1-4). Jordan Station, Ontario, Canada: Paideia Press.
Dooyeweerd, H. (1979) Wedge Publishing Company, Toronto, Canada.
Eriksson DM. (2001). Multi-modal investigation of a business process and information system redesign: a post-implementation case study. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 18 (2), 181-196.
Green T R G, Petre M, (1996), “Usability analysis of visual programming environments: a cognitive dimensions framework”, Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, v.7, 131-174.
Habermas, J. (1986) The Theory of Communicative Action; Volume One: Reason and the Rationalization of Society, tr. McCarthy T, ISBN 1-7456-0386-6, Polity Press.
Hartmann, N. (1952) The New Ways of Ontology, Chicago, University Press.
Hennington, A. (2007). Understanding IS Impacts in Mandatory Environments: Usage, Compatibility Beliefs, Stress and Burnout. Paper presented at the Americas Conference Conference on Information Systems.
Holden, R. J. (2010). Physicians’ beliefs about using EMR and CPOE: In pursuit of a contextualized understanding of health IT use behavior. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 79(2), 71-80.
Ives, B., &Jarvenpaa, S. L. (1991). Applications of Global Information Technology: Key Issues for Management. MIS Quarterly, 15(1), 33-49.
Joneidy, S. &Basden, A. (2011). Exploring Dooyeweerd’s Aspects for Understanding Perceived Usefulness of Information Systems. – details to be supplied by IIDE/CPTS editors.
Kuhn, T.S. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Univ. Chicago Press.
Lee, T. M., & Park, C. (2008). Mobile Technology Usage and B2B Market Performance Under Mandatory Adoption. Industrial Marketing Management, 37(7), 833-840.
Lin, H.-F. (2010). An investigation into the effects of IS quality and top management support on ERP system usage Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 21(3), 335-349.
Linders, S. (2006). Using the Technology Acceptance Model in determining strategies for implementation of mandatory IS. Paper presented at the 4th Twente Student Conference on IT, Enschede, University of Twente.
Lou, H., McClanahan, A., & Holden, E. (1997). Mandatory Use of Electronic Mail and User Acceptance. Mid-American Journal of Business, 12(2), 57-61.
Maslow, A. (1943) A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.
Mishra, A. N., &Agarwal, R. (2009). Technological Frames, Organizational Capabilities, and IT Use: An Empirical Investigation of Electronic Procurement. Information Systems Research, 1-22.
Mirijamdotter A., Bergvall-Kåreborn B. (2006) An Appreciative Critique and Refinement of Checkland’s Soft Systems Methodology. pp.79-102 In: Strijbos S. and Basden A. (eds.) In Search of an Integrative Vision for Technology: Interdisciplinary Studies in Information Systems. Springer.
Ram, S., & Jung, H.-S. (1991). “Forced” Adoption of Innovations in Organizations: Consequences and Implications. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 8(2), 117-126.
Rouibah, K., Hamdy, H. I., and Al-Enezi, M. Z. (2009), ‘Effect of management support, training, and user involvement on system usage and satisfaction in Kuwait’, *Industrial Management & Data Systems,* 109 (3), 338-356.
Shih, Y. Y., & Huang, S. S. (2009). The actual usage of erp systems: An extended technology acceptance perspective. Journal of Research and Practice in Information Technology, 41(3), 263-276.
Singletary, L. L. A., Akbulut, A. Y., & Houston, A. L. (2002). Innovative Software Use After Mandatory Adoption. Paper presented at the Proceeding of 8th Americas on Information Systems (AMCIS).
Tong, Y., Teoy, H.-H., &Tanz, C.-H. (2008). Direct and Indirect Use of Information Systems in Organizations: An Empirical Investigation of System Usage in a Public Hospital. Paper presented at the International Conference on Information Systems.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478.
Ward, K. W., Brown, S. A., & Massey, A. P. (2005).Organisational Influences on Attitudes in Mandatory System Use Environments: A Longitudinal Study. International Journal of Business Information Systems, 1(1), 9-30.
Webster (1975). Webster’s Third Intenational Dictionary Unabridged. Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc, Chicago, USA.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Winfield MJ., Basden A., Cresswell I. (1996) Knowledge elicitation using a multi-modal approach. World Futures, 47, 93-101.
Yousafzai, Sh Y., Foxall, G R. and Pallister, J G.(2007), “Technology acceptance: a meta-analysis of the TAM: Part 1”, Journal of Modelling in Management,Vol.2 No.3, pp.251-280.
Yu, P., Gandhidasan, S., & Miller, A. A. (2010). Different usage of the same oncology information system in two hospitals in Sydney – Lessons go beyond the initial introduction. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 79(6), 422-429.

Abstract:
This paper proposes a new way of approaching mandatory information system use (MISU) to understand and reveal hidden issues which are meaningful in everyday life of system users. We call these Down-to-Earth (DTE) issues, and they are better at providing guidance for information system evaluation. Case study research in using information system was conducted on system users to demonstrate how DTE issues are formed. Unstructured interview was used as the main data collection method. Results show that the new way helps to understand in depth and reveal the hidden issues, which makes this approach more practical for system evaluation.

Keywords:
Down-To-Earth, Mandatory Use, Dooyeweerd’s aspects

1. Introduction
Information systems (IS) used in the organisation are seen to provide benefits in terms of increased productivity, and improved strategic positions and daily operations (Yoon & Guimaraes, 1995). Such benefits though are at the organisational level, whereas at the individual level, the system can provide benefit in helping individuals to complete job tasks and obtain evidence for decision making. To evaluate the benefits especially to individual system users it is important to look for meaningful issues in everyday life working experience (Basden, 2008).
Basden and Ahmad (2011) emphasize `meaningful issues’ in mandatory IS use (MISU), describing them as Down-to-Earth (DTE) issues. DTE issues are sensible and practical for system evaluation because they are specific in their context and easily understood by system users. Current debate in the field discussed the contrast between DTE issues and extant issues. Examples of extant issues are perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness (Davis, 1989; Shih & Huang, 2009), IS quality (Lin, 2010; Linders, 2006), management support (Chang, et al., 2010; Lin, 2010; Rouibah, et al., 2009; Shih & Huang, 2009) or computer self-efficacy (Adamson & Shine, 2003; Linders, 2006; Singletary, et al., 2002). Basden and Ahmad (2011) argue that, in providing guidance to practical evaluation of IS use, such extant issues are unhelpful in several ways: unhelpful level, unhelpful connotation, unhelpful abstraction, unhelpful combination, as well as missing many important issues.

‘Unhelpful level’ refers to issues that might be of interest to senior management, IS developers or researchers but have little direct meaning to users. Here, ‘users’ not only refer to direct users. They include all those involved in tasks and activities that in some way relate to the IS in use. Users are seen as social actors (Lamb & Kling, 2003), not just as individuals. ‘Unhelpful connotation’, on the other hand, refers to unspoken meaning imposed on concepts because of the cultural assumptions of researchers which differ from the assumptions made by users. ‘Unhelpful abstraction’ refers to issues that are too general, such as ‘risk’. Next, ‘unhelpful combination’ refers to issues that combine several important meanings that could and should be separated. Lastly, ‘missing’ issues refer to those that happen to have been overlooked by extant discourse because it has not yet recognised their importance even though they have been important to users.

Basden and Ahmad (2011) suggest that, instead of trying to understand IS use in such terms as above, we should do so in DTE terms. Unfortunately, DTE terms cannot be defined precisely since many of them are intuitive, but Basden and Ahmad (2011) illustrate them by using Wenger’s (1999) passage in vignette of a day in the life of Ariel, a data entry clerk. An example of Wenger’s passage,
“She enters first the type of service, then the name of the service provider, which leads her into the providers file: there she makes sure she checks that the provider’s address is correct since the insured has ‘assigned’ the benefits to be disbursed directly to the doctor. … Since the patient went to such a ‘preferred’ doctor, Ariel must remember to increase the rate of reimbursement from 80% to 85%.” (pages 22-3).

Analysis of this using extant literature might focus on perceived ease of use (Davis, 1989) or IS quality (Linders, 2006) for example, whereas to Ariel the important DTE issue is making sure she remembers something so that appropriate payment is made, and ease of use or IS quality merely help or hinder her in this. Basden and Ahmad (2011) suggest that the issues may be understood by reference to Dooyeweerd (1955), to a suite of fifteen aspects that are meaningful in everyday activities of system users and would suggest that the real issue of appropriateness is of the juridical aspect. However, Basden and Ahmad (2011) do not show how they obtain DTE issues in practical analysis. This is the purpose of this paper. The aim is to propose and discuss a new way to understand and reveal DTE issues in mandatory information system use (MISU) by system users.
The remainder of this paper is organised as follows: the research background covers how the extant constructs were formed and how they were analysed, research method used, attempts to use Dooyeweerd’s aspects, the findings and lastly the discussions and conclusions.

2. Research background
One way to overcome the unhelpfulness of extant issues is to try to reconceptualise them. Barki (2008) suggests four ways to do this, and Joneidy and Basden (2011) attempt that using Dooyeweerd’s aspects to reconceptualize extant constructs. This paper explores a different approach: to bypass extant issues altogether and find a method to analyse situations of IS use directly in a way that surfaces the DTE issues. To prepare for this requires understanding of qualitative research and why extant issues are unhelpful.

2.1 Review how the main contructs were formed
The extant issues (constructs) used in research by current researchers do not take into consideration the everyday working life experience of system users (Basden & Ahmad, 2011). Examples of studies not using issues based on what IS users think is important include those carried out by Chang, et al. (2010), Lin (2010), Shih and Huang (2009), Rouibah, et al. (2009) who use survey to test hypotheses about the relationship of issues towards IS usage. However, their issues were chosen issues by the researchers rather than being meaningful to users. In many cases, the chosen issues are based on previous research rather than on why such issues are important from the perspectives of users. For example, Yoon and Guimaraes (1995) emphasise the issue of management support but this has already been emphasized as important by other authors. Previous research also included issues used by Davis (1989) to develop his Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness.

The original source of issues is itself usually using prior theory. This is shown in the following examples:
* Constructs in Venkatesh et al.’s (2003) Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use Technology (UTAUT) model come from eight theoretical models, including Davis’ (1989) Technology Acceptance Model (TAM).
* Intention to Use construct of TAM comes from Fishbein & Ajzen’s (1975) Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), which comes from psychological theory.
* The Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use constructs, important as determinants of user behaviour as several theories indicate, include behavioural decision theory, self efficacy theory and adoption of innovation (Davis, 1989).
* The self efficacy in the Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) comes from theory of human behaviour (Compeau & Higgins, 1995).

Constructs that are based on theory are limited for two reasons. One is that theory limits itself to one or a very narrow range of aspects (ways in which reality is meaningful). The other is, as Clouser (1991, p. 51) explains, “once theories are formulated, tested and accepted by experts, they become the most authoritative standard for judging the truth of whatever they are about”, which further restricts research to the narrow range of aspects. Constructs based on such a narrow view are not adequate for revealing DTE issues, because DTE issues cover a very wide range of aspects of IS use and in trying to reveal them researchers should not be restricted by what is currently deemed authoritative. Instead, to reveal DTE issues requires a more intuitive approach, but one that is systematic.
Because extant issues are narrower in their scope than everyday life is, those who work with them find they must always keep adding other significant issues (e.g. ‘external variables’ added to Davis’ (1986) TAM) to enhance the explanation of the actual usage (Shih & Huang, 2009). A Meta analysis of the TAM by Yousafzai et al. (2007) showed about 70 constructs have been suggested to be included in the study of using TAM. With 70 constructs, the model becomes unwieldy and many of them overlap with others (Ahmad & Basden, 2008; Joneidy & Basden 2011).

2.2 Qualitative research and interviews
Quantitative methods such as survey with statistical analysis have been well established and widely used in research on issues relating to IS use (Trauth, 2001). But the quantitative ways of doing research only suit situations where sample size is large in order to generalize results to a large population. By contrast qualitative research focuses on a particular situation in detail (Myers, 2009, p. 9). Thus, investigation of human experience can best be done using qualitative methods (Polkinghorne, 2005, p. 2).
Myers (2009) states that, “If there is one thing which distinguishes humans from the natural world, it is our ability to talk! Qualitative research methods are designed to help researchers understand people and the social and cultural contexts within which they live”. This study is qualitative in its nature and the empirical data was gathered based on unstructured interviews with direct users rather than those at management level. This is because the majority at management level is not using IT frequently (Mahmood, et al., 2001) but indirectly via IT output produced by other people (Ang, et al., 2001).
The interview (or inter-view) is an exchange of views between two people talking about the common interest, one of whom is in the role of researcher (Kvale, 1996). Interviews allow the researcher to obtain better understanding of users’ everyday experience since people will have a variety of opinions, thinking and the rationale as to why they did certain things (Myers, 2009). They help to obtain the interviewee’s views and experiences in his or her own terms (Kaplan & Maxwell, 1994). Furthermore, a lot of data can be obtained from different angles and different types of questions can be answered by interviewees since different people will give different views (Myers, 2009). Also, through interview the researcher can approach the interviewees face to face and can clarify issues that are not clearly understood.
Open interviews encourage two-way communications rather than only one way as when questionnaires or structured interviews were used. Conversation can `give a feel’ (Watson, 1987, p. 53) on situations being studied. Conversation with system users, who directly experience use of the system, is the best way to gain understanding of everyday life activities of individual user. “Experience has a vertical depth, and methods of data gathering, such as short-answer questionnaires with Likert scales that only gather surface information, are inadequate to capture the richness and fullness of an experience” (Polkinghorne, 2005, p. 2). For these reasons, interviews are used in this study in order to uncover and understand the DTE issues of MISU, with questions designed to open up the users’ everyday experiences.

2.3 Interpretive and qualitative analysis
There is a wide range of literature that documents the procedures associated with analyzing qualitative data. Many of these are associated with specific approaches or traditions such as grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990), narrative analysis (Alvarez &Urla, 2002) and phenomenology (Wojnar & Swanson, 2007). However, DTE issues present particular challenges.

One of these is multiple meaning. Klein & Myers (1999) publish principles for interpretive IS research. Principle number six states the importance of multiple interpretations: “the different interpretations among the participants as are expressed in multiple narratives or story of the same sequence of events under study”. For DTE issues, however, it is not enough simply to collect multiple narratives because what people say does not always express all that is meaningful, and there are meanings hidden behind what they say that needs to be brought out. For example, when interviewing users on the issue of `support from supervisor’, the replies received might express complaints (or praises) but these might be limited to those that happen to be going round the situation of system use, while other issues related to this are left unspoken for various reasons. This is illustrated by Holden (2010), based on interviewees’ feedback such as “I can very quickly get the nuggets of information that I need, versus … looking around and asking the personnel on the floor, `Where is the old chart?’.” The researcher interpreted the statement as “Immediate access to information to speed up work”, but many issues remained hidden, such as relationships in the workplace and why nuggets of information are useful.
Current ways of conducting data analysis are through indentifying themes, formed directly from what is said by the interviewee, even though the issues that emerge at the end of the process might be abstractions from them. Jain and Ogden (1999, p. 1597) explain a typical process.

The interviews were audio taped and transcribed. The transcripts were read several times to identify themes and categories as recommended by Miles and Huberman (1994). In particular, all the transcripts were read by AJ and a subsample was read by JO. After discussion a coding frame was developed and the transcripts coded by AJ. If new codes emerged the coding frame was changed and the transcripts were reread according to the new structure. This process was used to develop categories, which were then conceptualised into broad themes after further discussion. The themes were categorised into three stages: initial impact, conflict, and resolution.

One problem with this kind of process, combining themes to make up sub-themes, is that it does not help to understand the multiple meanings of what have been said by interviewer. So a method of analysis is needed that is able not only to encourage the IS users to express their concerns openly but also to find the multiple meanings hidden behind what they actually say.

3. Research methods
This research seeks to gather as many user’s DTE experience as possible. Ten direct users participated in this study, in particular those who used the system directly for job completion and have been working with the organisation since the system was implemented in 2007. They were selected from among the middle and lower level staff since they used the system everyday. Managerial staff only used the system once in a while when they need it for reporting purpose.

3.1.The interviews
Interviews were conducted on these direct system users in a public service organisation under Local Enforcement Agency responsible for ensuring development and services to the community living within their authority. The type of system involved in this study is a system that captured the business process activities. Users have no choice but use the system to complete their job tasks (i.e. mandatory IS). Appendix 1 contains a brief description of the systems they used known as Local Government Information System (LoGIns), Financial Information System (FINIS) and Assessment and Valuation Information System (AVIS).

The interview must allow the researcher to obtain ideas and feelings from users and enable both parties to discuss meaningful issues. The types of questions asked during the interviews were rather unstructured, more so in the full study than in the pilot study. The type of questions put to interviewees is important, so that they will not just say `Yes’ or `No’ but feel encouraged and stimulated to open up about what they find meaningful to them in their everyday work.

3.2 The pilot study
A pilot study was conducted to help decide who should be interviewed, how much access to the organisations the researcher was able to gain and to prepare the schedule (Avison& Myers, 2005). It also helped the researcher to expose herself to the organisations, enabled the research design to be reviewed, and to create a good relationship between those who will be involved in the study. The impression during first meeting is important to convince interviewees what benefits they can gain for their cooperation and assure them that there will be no effect if they refuse to cooperate. The pilot study also exposed the researcher to the types of system used in the organisation. The data collection aim was to get the overall idea of what sort of information the researcher can obtain and what types of questions are useful. The people involved during interview were one IT Officer and three system users. Three main things were learned during the pilot study, namely
(1) change for the full study,
(2) informing the process, and
(3) contributing to the results of the research.

First, most of the questions asked were related to the user interface and system performance and related to input and output processes. Basden (2008) calls this human computer interaction (HCI). And, how system usage affected their lives Basden refers to this as human living with computers (HLC). The latter description is considered more important in IS use. Second, the interview sessions were conducted in front of users’ computers while the interviewees continued doing their job, so full concentration was not possible during the interview sessions. There were interruptions from other staff, as well. Third, the questions were explicitly designed to try to cover all of Dooyeweerd’s aspects of the IS use, but this proved to be a constrain rather than stimulate the conversation, contrary to by Kane’s (2006) finding; see below.

3.3 The main study
The main study changed the scope of these three. Questions focused more on HLC matters, such as how family issues affected their work flow and how they handled personal matters, if any. Each interview session was conducted in a separate area or room so that the interviewee remained focused on matters discussed with the researcher as they share their experience about using the system. Also, this helped avoid any influence from either their superior or colleagues that might affect what the users would like to share. Except as discussed below, Dooyeweerd’s aspects were hardly used during the interview process, but kept at the back of the researcher’s mind only to ensure aspects were not overlooked by the researcher.
The interviewees’ opinions are important to clarify their experiential life as “it is a life-world where they lived, felt, undergone, made sense of, and accomplished” (Schwandt, 2001, p. 84). Therefore, in both stages of data collection, the researcher encouraged the interviewees to express their own opinion that reflected their experience in the past. This also helped in not losing the richness in explanation and interpretation.

3.4 The transcription process
The interviews were conducted in Malay. Translation process was carried out for the transcriptions to be translated to English language directly from the tape recordings. The sentences were translated by sentences. Example 1 shows how the translation process was done. Each sentence was translated from Malay to English.

Example 1 –  Malay language:
Question: Sudah berapa lama menggunakan sistem?
1. Guna system baru sebulan. Sebelum bahagian lesen saya kerja di bahagian penilaian.
2. Saya guna system LoGInS untuk semua berkaitan dengan permohonan lesen. Masa itu saya guna AVIS.
3. Sebelum kunci masuk, kena pastikan borang cukup dan dilampirkan sekali serta di sahkan.
4. Juga RM10 sudah dibayar oleh pemohon sebagai servis perkhidmatan. Saya tengok pada resit.
5. Kalau yang lebih RM10, ianya campur sekali dengan jenis lesen lain. Contoh untuk lesen sementara.
6. Bagi yang permohonan baru saya kena buka fail. Lesen ini hanya untuk setahun. Setiap tahun kena mohon.
7. Selain kerja ini, saya juga buat kerja lain dari arahan boss.

English language – Question: How long have you been using the system?
1. Used it for about one month. Before working with licence department I worked at valuation department.
2. I use LoGInS for everything related to business license application. That time I used AVIS.
3. Before keying-in into system, must ensure enough documents and attached together and certified, as well.
4. Also RM10 processing fees have been paid by applicants for services rendered. I refer to the receipt.
5. Ones which exceed RM10, are combined with other types of licences. Such as for temporary license.
6. For new application I need to open a file. This license is only for one year. Every year will have to apply
7. Other than this task, I also do other work instructed by my boss.

4. Attempts to use Dooyeweerd’s aspect during interviews and analysis
This exploratory research aims to apply Dooyeweerd’s fifteen aspects to gain a deeper understanding of users’ everyday life experience and reveal meaningful issues in their use of information system (Basden, 2008). Dooyeweerd’s suite of aspects is explained in Basden & Ahmad (2011). The term ‘aspects describes “a way in which a thing may be viewed or regarded; interpretation” (Dictionary.com). The word ‘thing’ in this research refers to users’ everyday life experience in using information system.
This section will cover how aspects were used to help in obtaining DTE issues. Researchers cannot assume that what users verbally say is relevant and what they did not say is irrelevant because users might overlook some important issues. There were two stages: interview and analysis. Dooyeweerd’s aspects were mostly used during the analysis and as background guidance only during most interviews.

4.1. Approaches during interviews
The interviews started with the researcher’s background and continued with explanation about the purpose of the interviews and links with the research. Then the researcher focused on user’s general background such as educational background, family background and the reasons for joining the organisation. This puts them at ease when sharing their experience. The researcher used four different tactics in the order shown below during the interview sessions to probe and discover meaningful issues in each individual user.

* First – developed questions based on Formative and Social aspects for the introduction part of the session.
* Second – showed a list of Dooyeweerd’s aspects.
* Third – approached the questions based on what is shared by interviewees, not based on aspects
* Fourth – applied Dooyeweerd’s aspects in the back of her mind after interviewees finished haring their experience on one issue to guide them to other issues if necessary.

These four tactics were used in combination with each other when the researcher conducted the interviews. They might be used in any sequence, though the first would always be first because the formative and social aspects provided useful introductory questions. The second tactic was soon abandoned when it became clear that it alarmed and constrained the interviewees.

The first tactic, using the formative and social aspects had as its main objective to open up a discussion for users to feel comfortable in sharing their experiences. Formative was used because it relates to interviewee’s task in using the system and to the system itself whereas social relates to roles and relationship between staff in the organisation studied. Table 1 shows the type of questions asked regarding each aspect. Most questions focused on job tasks because job task is the main aim and relates to system usage. Not all questions were asked of each interviewee, but they provided general guideline to the researcher to initiate the interview session.

The second tactic was to show a list of fifteen aspects to the interviewee. The researcher received negative response from the first interviewee who looked stunned and asked whether she needed to think of issues related to all the aspects. The researcher explained the aspects but the interviewee still refused to cooperate. Attempts to show the list of aspects during the interview was later abandoned.

In the third tactic the researcher did not approach the question based on aspects but based these on what had previously been shared by interviewees. As Ramachandran (2011) states, a general rule in discussion seems to be that “if you ask a good question, the answer should lead to additional interesting questions”. This leads to a situation where the researcher will pose further questions based on answers given earlier. As a result, this will further reveal other meaningful issues that the interviewees may not realise. This tactic also provides opportunities for extensive exposure to the mandatory IS use life-world (Nandhakumar & Jones, 1997). The researcher allowed the interviewee to voice out any new ideas, so the direction of discussion would sometimes change to track down a new issue given by the interviewee.

The first part of the question as shown in Example 2 below is related to the interviewee’s job tasks where he explained how his work started and what the outcome was. Once he prompted the word `public’, the researcher asked a question related to the public issue. At the end of the session, the researcher asked the interviewees if they had any other issues they want to discuss about system usage. This is to ensure that interviewees have nothing left in their mind that they want to share.

Example 2 – Question: Can you share with me your responsibilities related to the system?

Answer: (M5g) My work will start once clerk has done her part. With AVIS the work for Clerk becomes lesser but for me as technician there is more work to be done. What clerk needs to do is they will register the case through AVIS. Once it has been registered then I can proceed on my part to key-in all figures for calculation of tax assessment. Once AVIS calculates the tax assessment figures, I’ll forward to superior for approval before sending it to public for tax payment.

Question: How can the public make payment?

Answer: (M5h) If the public wants to make any payment, the counter service staff will login into AVIS to reconcile the figures. If they find the figures tally with the payment the counter service staff will process the payment.
(M5i) As you can see, AVIS is used by valuation department staff and also counter service staff. IT department has to limit the number of staff allowed to use AVIS at one time. Due to this, in some situation AVIS gets stuck and hangs while I’m still doing my work. At that point, I just have to wait since I cannot do anything. We have been facing this issue since 2007 and management needs more budget for IT investment so such problem does not occur again. Due to this we have to accept as what it is.

The fourth tactic was to ask questions based on any aspects that came to mind as significant. The knowledge of aspects was kept at the back of researcher’s mind rather than by showing the list to interviewees. During the fourth tactic, as Example 3 shows, the earlier conversation concerns issues of the interviewee doing a process of the application form. Then she mentioned, “do other task instructed by my boss”. This prompted the juridical aspect, to help in understanding whether the interviewee has been fairly treated by her boss giving tasks that had not been specifically mentioned in the job description. The explanation given shows that she has no problems doing other additional tasks given by her boss.

Example 3 – Question: In one day roughly how many forms did you receive?

Answer: (M6f) Not consistent, so far I received up to 20 new forms per day plus forms from previous applicants. Whatever I received in the morning I must make sure to complete it on the same day. However if I received it after 16:00 hours, I can complete it by tomorrow morning the latest. I also do other tasks instructed by my boss like preparing letter.
( Posted a question based on juridical aspect)

Question: In the licence department who else other than you does the same things especially keying-in information into the system?

Answer: (M6g) No one else. I’m the only one who will process the application for new license. Other colleagues will help if I’m on leave or on holiday. As I mentioned earlier not many forms to process so I can do it on my own. Sometimes it’s only 10 forms. So I think we don’t need more staff to do what I do currently. Normally I will walk to the counter and request the form so that my work will not be put on hold. If I wait for the counter service staff to pass it to me, they will normally do it around 10:00 hours or at 16:00 hours. For me it is too late to process the forms on the same day. No days without the forms. This will also keep me moving and I will not get bored, just sit at one place. During this time I can also chat with some of my colleagues just to say hi. You just imagine if I sit at my place from morning until the end of office hour surely I will feel bored and sleepy too.

4.2 Approach during analysis
Analysis is the final stage to hear the meaning of, understand and organise what has been said by interviewees. Analysis starts with the interpretation process of what interviewees said (Robson & Foster, 1989, p. 85). It is crucial to understand the meanings shared by interviewees, treating each interview as a unique situation, the researcher using their own intuition in responding to interviewee’s questions. In some cases, interviewees might have shared their `painful experiences’. Analysis can be exciting because of “continuing sense of discovery but can also be intimidating due to sheer amount of interview data that has to be understood” (Rubin & Rubin, 2004). The amount of data generated by qualitative methods is huge and the process of making sense out of pages related to interviews can be “overwhelming” (Patton, 1990).
Since this study is qualitative it dealt more with words than figures. Analysis consisted of two parts. Tesch (1990) was used as a guidance to develop an organising system for unstructured qualitative data from interview transcriptions and generate a list of issues under themes. These were then further analysed with reference to Dooyeweerd’s suite of fifteen aspects where the aspects helped find the DTE issues, especially those that were hidden.
In structuring the bulk of qualitative data Tesch (1990) was also used. He named the process of segmenting and categorizing data ‘de-contextualization’ and ‘re-contextualization’ (p. 115). All unstructured data of interviews that gave the same meaning were brought together to generate several themes of groups. The data was examined to understand what issues were discussed by interviewees and labeled (Patton, 1990). The following general steps were taken. Data transcriptions were read carefully to get the whole idea that had been shared by the interviewees and at the same time stating their main issues or topics.

* Once a set of interviews was finished, state all topics identified and continue with others.
* Any new topics revealed, update the list.
* Compiled groups from the sentences or passages that explain the same topic or issues.
* Formed groups.

Words uttered by interviewees make up the sentences to present a story. However, what has been said through words does not necessarily explain the real situation nor the reason why it is said. Words or sentences have `multiple meanings’ (Miles & Huberman, 1994). One type of multiple meaning was investigated by Austin as `Illocutionary act’: “uttering a sentence with a certain force.” Example: “I am going to do it” can be (can have the force of) a promise, a prediction, a threat, a warning and a statement of intention” (Searle, 1968). Therefore, analysis was not based only on the sentences but also on the need to understand the `multiple meaning’ of what is said by the system users and to uncover the semantic `behind’ the sentences explained by individuals.
This was achieved by using Dooyeweerd’s aspects. Each aspect is important in human activity in general, and thus in IS use, whether voluntary or mandatory. IS usage is seen by Dooyeweerd as human functioning in a number of aspects, each of which is a distinct sphere of meaning. These spheres of meaning make possible both the explicit meaning of the sentence and also its various illocutionary meanings. Hence, multiple meanings can be discovered and uncovered by reference to Dooyeweerd’s suite of aspects.
When reading the passages, the researcher looked for words or sentences that are meaningful to interviewees and at the same time incorporated aspects starting from Biotic up to Pistic (see Basden & Ahmad 2001, this volume, for the aspects). The earlier aspects – Quantitative, Spatial, Kinematic and Physical aspect – were not analysed since they are related to pre-human functioning, where no feeling is involved. The main question asked when analysing the passages was: Which aspect or aspects are meaningful for this particular issue? This was asked again on passages. The aspects were considered one by one.
During the analysis process, the researcher’s imagination of the situation contributed to have a feel for what is happening. The imagination helps in two ways: By imagination, aspects help to find other issues and by imagination any prior experience the researcher might have helps to see how new aspects might be relevant. The first author had earlier been employed in situations of mandatory IS use similar to those being researched, and so could feel as though in the shoes of interviewee. She would ask a question like: If I were the interviewee, why would such issue be meaningful? And, in what way it is meaningful? Using the imagination, the researcher’s prior experience helped to understand the interviewee’s concerns on system usage issue.
In general, the kernel meaning of each aspect may be grasped with our intuition, rather than by theoretical thought (Basden, 2008): this recommends the aspects as a tool for use in analysis because both researcher and interviewee can intuitively understand them. This way, aspects helped to understand and reveal DTE issues in IS use in both interview and analysis. Some examples of findings follow.

5. Findings

5.1 Identification of issues and groups from standard qualitative analysis
Table 2 shows the list of groups and issues identified from the interview transcription based on the general guideline of organising qualitative data by Tesch (1990). Table 2 not only includes IS use issues but also other related matters that might influence the way users used the system. If the researcher focuses on IS use matters only, there are circumstances in which other meaningful issues might have been overlooked, particularly issues that might be related to the way users use the IS. Examples include `dealing with public matters’ or `family commitment’. Public issue for example, does affect the user’s flow of work, sometimes. As the interviewee explained:

“I cannot really concentrate on my work because the public stand in-front of me. Sometimes to finish one file it takes up the whole morning lasting until lunch. Whatever the situation is we must entertain them. We did highlight to management to have one staff for license counter but the management did not approve it” (M6ak).

Dooyeweerd’s aspects were not used when groups were formed. This is because the meaningfulness of the groups listed in the table is life-world meaning that are built up from experience and other functioning in life.

5.2 Limitation in result form standard qualitative analysis
Some of the issues in Table 2 are already DTE issues, but many are not. As explained in the background of the study, extant qualitative analysis methods have limitations in revealing the hidden and multiple meanings of what has been said by interviewees. To overcome the limitation it was suggested that Dooyeweerd’s aspects be incorporated since human everyday activities are functioning in many aspects. Basden and Ahmad (2011) have explained the reason for using Dooyeweerd’s aspects to understand the meaningful issues in everyday experience of system users and give some justification for doing so.

Human life is seen as a complex, integrated functioning that can only be adequately explained by reference to all the aspects (Basden, 2002). This echoes Ozer and Yilmaz (2011) who state “to derive benefits from IT completely, it has to be discovered in all aspects”.
Dooyeweerd’s aspects are preferred to those of others for several reasons (Basden, 2001). Firstly, they have wider coverage since most aspects identified in the literature are a subset of the Dooyeweerd’s aspects, so Dooyeweerd helps to look for issues that have been overlooked. Secondly, Dooyeweerd’s set of aspects has been subjected to philosophical and historical scrutiny. Thirdly, Dooyeweerd himself spent a life’s work thinking about the aspects. However, Dooyeweerd (1955, Vol. II, page 556) made clear that any set of aspects, including his own, cannot be considered a final truth because separating them out depends on theoretical analysis; his set is only his best guess at the diversity of meaning.

Once groups had been compiled, Dooyeweerd’s aspects were incorporated to understand intuitively the everyday life activities of system users and to use aspects to discover and uncover deeper meaning on everyday issues. All groups were analysed by using the aspects. None of the groups were ignored because Dooyeweerd’s aspects help to reveal other issues in everyday life activities that interviewees themselves did not realise were meaningful that may be related to IS use. For example, `Family Commitment’ is not directly linked to system usage but if anything happens to the family, the system users are unable to focus on their work. Use of Dooyeweerd’s aspects generated the different perspective or angle to see how users deal with an issue like Family Commitment.

The next section will explain what had been found and how to employ Dooyeweerd’s aspects to understand multiple meanings and reveal hidden DTE issues.

5.3 Dooyeweerd’s aspects to understand and reveal DTE issues
It was found that aspects relate to issues generated by qualitative analysis in two main ways, each of which provides a different way of revealing DTE issues.

5.3.1 Aspect direct from issue/s
In some issues only one aspect was identified as being meaningful, and this aspect directly showed what is meaningful to the users. Such issues are already DTE, and no further analysis was done. For example:

Code	Issues	Passages	Aspect/s
SU7	Bored   with system features	(M9a3) A bit bored because of the interface.(M12q) LoGInS is very old system, sometimes I get bored. As you can see it is not very colourful. LoGInS use white background and black colour for the wordings.	(SU7a) Aesthetic – unhappy with the system feature and feeling bored (direct form issue)

 

Because users felt bored with the system features it gave the impression that interviewees felt unhappy with what they see and wished that the system could have better features instead. Boredom directly affects quality of MISU. The aspect that helps to understand the above situation is the ‘aesthetic’ since its kernel is style, enjoyment, interestingness and harmony.

Identifying which aspect makes the issue meaningful to users has two benefits. One is that it explains more clearly what it is about the issue that is meaningful to users. The other is that reference to its main aspect can help raise questions that can deepen further exploration. For example, if we were to ask how boredom with system features might be overcome, and we did not make reference to the aesthetic aspect, we would be tempted to add flashy colours (since colour is mentioned), but it is likely this would not solve the problem except for a few days. However, if we recognise that aesthetics is not just of user interfaces but of human living, and it concerns not just style but also with harmony and interest and enjoyment, then we might pose the question of whether use of the IS is harmonious with the rest of the users’ lives or not, and whether there is enjoyment or interest in the whole use, and see whether this is the cause of apparent boredom. Thus, though the issues found by qualitative analysis sometimes can be considered as DTE issues, aspects can deepen our understanding of them.

5.3.2 Aspects discover DTE issues from passages
The second way aspects are used is to understand the passage based on words clearly mentioned by interviewees. The word(s) were identified directly from passages.

Code	Issues	Passages	Aspect/s
SU2	Password	(M2g) I just need to use command to extract the information. What I must remember is my password and press ‘ENTER’ few times and that’s it.(M2g) I have to logout once I’m not using the system. This is important to protect our password. If other staffs use our password, we might be caught. But sometimes I forget, too.  (M11h) Password also bring difficulties to me, since we are using different system, surely we need different password. If too many passwords, we will forget. Even if we write somewhere at the end we misplace.	(SU2a) Lingual – password to login into system(SU2b)Juridical – users are responsible for protecting the password from wrong doing by unauthorised users because if not users themselves will be caught  (SU2c) Analytical – users need to think and choose which password is meant for information access   (SUd) Sensory – users need to remember the password since they are using more than one system

‘Password’, as shown in the table above is one example of the issues to users. Its most obvious aspect is the lingual, since users can only login into the system by using symbols either alphabets or numbers. Though perhaps useful to academic and technical literature, `password’, has limitations when considering DTE issues because this does not explain why it is a concern to users. The issue of password carries hidden connotations and might have multiple meanings of why the password is important.

To understand this further, the passages were analysed to understand the multiple meanings of issues, which are often hidden. Each sentence about password mentions one or more things that are of concern, and highlighting the aspect that makes that concern meaningful can bring it to light as a DTE issue. The juridical aspect brings to light the situation where users need to make sure the password is protected from use by other users. The analytical aspect brings to light the user’s need to choose and think which password is related to which particular system. The sensory aspect brings to light the mental activity of remembering or forgetting. The password functions in each of these aspects, each of which causes a different concern for users.
It is the user’s concern that makes an issue like ‘password’ important, and the aspects show the ways in which the issue can be Down-To-Earth (DTE) in mandatory IS use. The above analysis has shown that what is usually assumed to be a single issue password, is transformed into at least three DTE issues, each related to the meaning and normativity of its aspect. The analysis also shows that from the DTE point of view password is no longer a single issue. In such ways many of the issues in Table 2 were found to have multiple aspects that made them meaningful to users, each relating to something the users said. Once we understood the issues in depth, aspectual analysis helped to reveal hidden issues that are of concern to users.

6. Discussion and conclusions
6.1 Summary
This paper has discussed a new way of investigating mandatory information system use (MISU). It involves how to uncover and understand issues that are important in the everyday working life of system users using Dooyeweerd’s aspects: ‘down-to-earth’ (DTE) issues as introduced by Basden & Ahmad (2011). Sometimes DTE issues relate to formal tasks, sometimes to informal tasks, and sometimes to unofficial ways of using the IS that were not foreseen by system designers or implementers.
Largely unstructured interviews were conducted with system users. Dooyeweerd’s suite of fifteen aspects was used, mainly during analysis, to understand and reveal DTE issues. For each utterance of each interviewee, the main aspects (employed as categories of distinct ways in which things may be meaningful) were identified that make the utterance meaningful to, and in the context of, the interviewee.
Standard interpretive and qualitative analysis techniques can often miss them, but augmenting them with Dooyeweerd’s aspects helps reveal those that are hidden and provide deeper understanding of those that are not. DTE issues are not always easy to discover, partly because they are not anticipated by the theories that usually guide the researcher (theoretical reason), and partly because many are hidden behind what interviewees say (practical reason). Though some interpretive and qualitative analysis techniques, such as Grounded Theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), can often avoid the first problem by bypassing the theories, they still face the second.
This research contained both types of cases. A number of issues, such as `bored with system features’, are DTE issues discovered by qualitative methods, but by identifying the main aspect that makes them meaningful, our understanding of them can be deepened and widened (for example, beyond boring user interfaces, to boredom in the life of the users). Other issues identified by qualitative methods, such as password, are shown by aspectual analysis to hide a set of different concerns that are meaningful to users. Such hidden issues are revealed by identifying aspects that make what users say meaningful. It is the set of concerns that make the password an issue to users, rather than the password as such. This research thus demonstrates the facility of Dooyeweerd’s aspects to reveal DTE issues, so it will be used in a fuller study of MISU.

6.2 Limitations of this research
This research has demonstrated a method by which DTE issues may be revealed, but it exhibits limitations. One is that all the interviews were carried out in a single organisation. It is possible, therefore, that it was the organisational context that made Dooyeweerd’s aspects useful, and that they would be less useful in other organisations. This is unlikely because there was nothing in the Dooyeweerdian analysis that depended on, or presupposed, a particular organisational context. IS use in other organisations will be analysed in the full study.
Another limitation is that only one qualitative analysis method has been used, that of Tesch (1990) and that this had specific limitations that happened to be overcome by Dooyeweerd’s aspects. As Creswell (2007) states, “Unquestionably, there is no single way to analyze qualitative data. It is an eclectic process in which you try to make sense of the information. Thus the approaches to data analysis by qualitative writers will vary considerably”. It is possible that other methods, such as Grounded Theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), might reveal DTE issues without needing help from Dooyeweerd’s aspects. Whether this is so, remains to be explored, but initial indications suggest otherwise. Both Grounded Theory coding and Klein & Myers’ (1999) interpretation already assume that certain things are meaningful to the researcher. For example Lamb & Kling (2003) report use of Grounded Theory methods to reconceptualise the user as a social actor, and emerge with four main dimensions: affiliation, environment, interaction, and identity. A closer look, however, reveals that these four concepts were already identified in their discussion of extant theoretical discourse on IS use. Such dimensions are, according to Dooyeweerd, rooted in aspects as spheres of meaning, whether they are recognised or not, and usually omit several important aspects. So it is likely that Dooyeweerd’s aspects can enrich any qualitative analysis technique.

6.3 Strengths and contributions of this research
Whereas most qualitative analysis techniques try to reveal what issues are important, Dooyeweerd’s aspects focus on why they are important, and on their normative content (good / bad). As Habermas (1987) and others have pointed out, it is meaning and normativity that are important in the shared background knowledge of people (their life world), so Dooyeweerd’s aspects are uniquely attuned to the everyday experience of people. That Dooyeweerd’s suite of aspects cover, as far as is known, all ways of meaning and modes of being and functioning that are known gives it a flexibility that Cote et al. (1993) believe important to doing qualitative analysis.
Dooyeweerd’s approach inherently recognises the illocutionary meaning that is hidden underneath or behind what people express in their sentences, because he sees the sentences as human functioning in the lingual aspect rather than merely as sequences of symbols. Dooyeweerd’s suite of aspects helps us reveal this illocutionary meaning because the illocutionary meaning of sentences is what they mean within the (multi-aspectual) human activity in relation to which the sentences are uttered. Interviewees (IS users in this case) are seen simultaneously as individuals and also as social actors, as Lamb & Kling (2003) recommend.

“A chronic problem of qualitative research,” write Miles and Huberman (1994, p. 56), “is that it is done chiefly with words, not with numbers. Words are fatter than numbers and usually have multiple meanings”. Since, to Dooyeweerd, all things exhibit all aspects, multiple meanings are to be expected rather than seen as a troublesome exception. Dooyeweerd is thus commensurate with Klein & Myers’ (1999) principles of interpretive research; indeed these principles might benefit from Dooyeweerd more generally.

An important issue therein is the relationship between the researcher and the researched. To Dooyeweerd, both function as subjects to the same aspectual laws, the kernel meanings of which may be grasped by our intuition, though they cannot be grasped by theoretical thought. Aspectual meaning transcends cultures, so an intuitive grasp thereof can facilitate analysis across cultures. So Dooyeweerd’s aspects might offer a way towards some mutual understanding not only between the researcher and the researched, but also across different cultures. It may be noted that the authors of this paper come from Malaysia and the United Kingdom.
It might also be because of the intuitiveness of aspectual meanings that this approach seems able to reveal in a one-hour interview the kinds of things that it took (Wenger, 1999) a longitudinal ethnographic study to reveal. This approach might therefore offer efficiency and speed of analysis without sacrificing sensitivity to what is truly meaningful to the interviewees.

6.4 Conclusion
This paper can be interesting to both academician and practitioner. To the academician it, establishes a new approach to understanding, thinking about and discussing IS use: ‘down-to-earth’ issues. To the practitioner, it provides, in draft form, a method of analysing situations of IS use to reveal what is important and meaningful to the users rather than to, researchers, IS developers or senior managers for example, in the situation of use.
It might, however, be extendible in two ways. One is to ask whether Dooyeweerd’s aspects can be used other than with qualitative analysis. In particular, could Dooyeweerd’s aspects be used on their own to identify DTE issues? Winfield’s ‘Multi-aspectual Knowledge Elicitation’ method used Dooyeweerd’s aspects on their own to surface many meaningful concepts (Winfield, 2000; Winfield & Basden, 2006; Winfield, et al., 1996). However, to employ Dooyeweerd’s aspects with existing methods of qualitative analysis has advantages of capitalising on widely-known skills and also of being more understandable.
Another extension is to apply it not to current IS use, but to future or imagined IS use, such as in design. To employ Dooyeweerd’s aspects in design one would ask in what ways each aspect might manifest itself in the designed situation of IS use, perhaps with reference to aspectual studies of DTE issues in existing use. In either case, this research offers a way of finding out what is truly important in IS use, rather than trying to fit IS use into the mould of existing theory.

Appendix 1 – The information systems studied
There are various systems used and it is not an integrated type of system. The systems are known as Local Government Information System (LoGInS), Finance Information System (FINIS) and, Assessment and Valuation IS (AVIS). However, since the case study looks at the system that captures all business process, even though it is not integrated, it is still important and must be used by users who work in organisation. During the interview period, the organisation was in a process of implementing a new system known as e-PBT that will replace LoGInS. E-PBT is created by vendor that has been selected by the Federal Government and had to be used by all local authorities by end of 2010 (the interviews took place a year earlier).

AVIS is designed specifically for tax assessment calculation and valuation of assets until the issuance of bills charged to the related resident since 2008. FINIS is meant for accounting related until reporting the financial performance. LoGInS is a system that captured most of the business processes with other information not stored in AVIS and FINIS. LoGInS is the oldest system used, followed by FINIS and the latest system introduced is AVIS. AVIS is the only system that was designed by organisation’s personnel, who are well versed with the whole process of tax assessment. FINIS and LoGInS were customised based on user’s requirements.
Since the system is not integrated, all information needed was transferred manually, from AVIS to LoGInS then to FINIS. This causes difficulty. During the transmission of data there were cases where some data have been left out and figures were not the same as given by the source system. This matter currently is taken into consideration by management.

About the authors
i. Hawa Ahmad – (h.ahmad@edu.salford.ac.uk / hawahmad@iium.edu.my) School of Business, University of Salford, United Kingdom; Kuliyyah Economics and Management Sciences, International Islamic University Malaysia
ii. Andrew Basden  – (sbs@basden.demon.co.uk) School of Business, University of Salford, United Kingdom

REFERENCES

Book
Basden, A. (2008). Philosophical Frameworks for Understanding Information Systems. Herschey, PA, USA: IGI Global.
Clouser, R. A. (1991). The Myth of Religious Neutrality: An Essay on the Hidden Role of Religious Belief in Theories (Publication., from University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, London:
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approach (2nd ed.): Sage Publications Ltd.
Dooyeweerd, H. (1955). A New Critique of Theoretical Thought (Vol. I-IV). Jordan Station, Ontario.: Paideia Press (1975 edition).
Fishbein, M., &Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behaviour: An Introduction to Theory and Research: Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research: New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Habermas, J. (1987). The Theory of Communicative Action; Volume Two: The Critique of Functionalist Reason: McCarthy T, Polity Press.
Kane, S.C. (2006). Multi-aspectual Interview Technique (MAIT). Doctoral Thesis, University of Salford, Salford, U.K.
Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. United States of America: SAGE Publications.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Source Book (2nd ed.). Newbury Park CA: Sage.
Myers, M. D. (2009). Qualitative Research in Business & Management. Great Britain: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin., I. S. (2004). Qualitative interviewing : The Art of Hearing Data (2nd ed.): London : SAGE.
Schwandt, T. A. (2001). Qualitative inquiry: A dictionary of terms (2nd ed.): Sage.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (Eds.). (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques: Sage Publications, Inc, Newbury Park.
Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative Research: Analysis types and software tools. Bristol: Falmer Press.
Trauth, E. M. (2001). The Choice of Qualitative Methods in IS Research: Idea Group Publishing

Journal Articles
Adamson, I., & Shine, J. (2003). Extending the New Technology Acceptance Model to Measure the End User Informations Systems Satisfaction in a Mandatory Environment: A Bank’s Treasury. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 15(4), 441-455.
Ahmad, H., &Basden, A. (2008). Non-discretionary use of information system and the technology acceptance model. Paper presented at the 4th IRIS Postgraduate Conference, Salford, United Kingdom.
Alvarez, R., &Urla, J. (2002). Tell me a good story: using narrative analysis to examine information requirements interviews during an ERP implementation. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 33(1).
Ang, C.-L., Davies, M. A., & Finlay, P. N. (2001). An Empirical Model of IT Usage in the Malaysian Public Sector. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 10, 159-174.
Avison, D., & Myers, M. (2005). Reseach in Information Systems: A Handbook for Research Supervisors and their Students: McGraw-Hill.
Barki, H. (2008). Thar’s Gold in Them Thar Constructs. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 39(3).
Basden, A. (2001). A Philosophical Underpinning for IT Evaluation. Paper presented at the Eighth European Conference on Information Technology Evaluation.
Basden, A. (2002). A Philosophical Underpinning for ISD. Paper presented at the European Conference of Information System, Gdańsk, Poland.
Basden, A., & Ahmad, H. (2011). Down-To-Earth Issues in (Mandatory) IS Use; Part I – Types of Issue. Paper presented at the Proceeding of the 17th IIDE Annual Working Conference, Maarssen, Nerthelands.
Chang, K.-C., Lie, T., & Fan, M.-L. (2010). The impact of organizational intervention on system usage extent. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 110(4), 532-549.
Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer Self-Efficacy: Development of a Measure and Initial Test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189-211.
Cote, J., Salmela, J. H., Baria, A., & Russell, S. J. (1993). Organizing and Interpreting Unstructured Qualitative Data. Sport Psychologist, 7(2), 127-137.
Davis, F. D. (1986). The Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems: Theory and Results. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, United States of America.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
Holden, R. J. (2010). Physicians’ beliefs about using EMR and CPOE: In pursuit of a contextualized understanding of health IT use behavior. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 79(2), 71-80.
Jain, A., & Ogden, J. (1999). General practitioners’ experiences of patients’ complaints: qualitative study. BMJ, 318(7198), 1596.
Joneidy, S., & Basden, A. (2011). Exploring Dooyeweerd’s Aspects for Understanding Perceived Usefulness of Information Systems. Paper presented at the Proceeding of the 17th IIDE Annual Working Conference, Maarssen,Netherlands.
Kaplan, B., & Maxwell, J. A. (1994). Qualitative research methods for evaluating computer information systems. In: J. G. Anderson, Aydin, C.E. and Jay, S.J. (Ed.), Evaluating Health Care Information Systems, Methods and Applications: Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Klein, H. K., &Myers, M. D. (1999). A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 23 (1), 67-94.
Lamb, R., & Kling, R. (2003). Reconceptualizing Users As Social Actors In Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly, 27(2), 197-235.
Lin, H.-F. (2010). An investigation into the effects of IS quality and top management support on ERP system usage – Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 21(3), 335-349.
Linders, S. (2006). Using the Technology Acceptance Model in determining strategies for implementation of mandatory IS. Paper presented at the 4th Twente Student Conference on IT, Enschede, University of Twente.
Mahmood, M. A., Hall, L., &Swanberg, D. L. (2001). Factors Affecting Information Technology Usage: A Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Literature. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 11(2), 107-130.
Nandhakumar, J., & Jones, M. (1997). Too Close for Comfort? Distance and Engagement in Interpretive Information Systems Research. Information Systems Journal, 7, 109-131.
Özer, G., &Yilmaz, E. (2011). Comparison of the theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned behavior: An application on accountants’ information technology usage. African Journal of Business Management 5(1), 50-58.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2 ed.): Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (2005). Language and meaning: Data collection in qualitative research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 137-145.
Ramachandran, V. S. (2011). Face to Face. Resonance, 88-99.
Robson, S., & Foster, A. (1989). Qualitative Research in Action: Edward Arnold.
Rouibah, K., Hamdy, H. I., & Al-Enezi, M. Z. (2009). Effect of management support, training, and user involvement on system usage and satisfaction in Kuwait. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 109(3), 338-356.
Searle, J. R. (1968). Austin on Locutionary and Illocutionary Acts. The Philosophical Review, 77(4), 405-424.
Shih, Y. Y., & Huang, S. S. (2009). The Actual Usage of ERP systems: An Extended Technology Acceptance Perspective. Journal of Research and Practice in Information Technology, 41(3), 263-276.
Singletary, L. L. A., Akbulut, A. Y., & Houston, A. L. (2002). Innovative Software Use After Mandatory Adoption. Paper presented at the Proceeding of 8th Americas Conference on Information Systems.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478.
Watson, G. (Ed.). (1987). Writing a Thesis: A Guide to Long Essays and Dissertations (First ed.). London and New York: Longman.
Wenger., E. (Ed.). (1999). Communities of practice : learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge Cambridge University Press.
Winfield, M. (2000). Multi-Aspectual Knowledge Elicitation. Unpublished PhD, University of Salford, Salford.
Winfield, M. J., & Andrew, B. (2006). Elicitation of Highly Interdisciplinary Knowledge: Springler Science+Business Media Inc.
Winfield, M. J., Basden, A., &Cresswell, I. (1996). Knowledge elicitation using a multi-modal approach. World Futures, 47, 93 – 101.
Wojnar, D. M., & Swanson, K. M. (2007). Phenomenology: An Exploration. J Holist Nurs, 25(3), 172-180.
Yoon, Y., &Guimaraes, T. (1995). Assessing Expert Systems Impact on Users’ Jobs. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(1), 225-249.
Yousafzai, S. Y., Foxall, G. R., &Pallister, J. G. (2007). Technology Acceptance: A Meta-analysis of the TAM: Part 1. Journal of Modelling in Management, 2( 3), pp. 281-304.

Website
Dictionary.com. Assessed 8th February 2011. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aspects?r=66

Abstract
Discussion of the likely effects of ethical issues of Information System Development (IS Development – ISD) on information system units is sparse and does not present a coherent picture. In this regard, throughout this theoretical study, it is tried to apply Dooyeweerd’s suite of aspects to ethical issues of ISD in order to explore and analyse their consequences of functioning regarding good and bad of applicable aspects. Conducting this analysis is describing that ethical functioning will result in diverse types of good which are distinguishable by referencing each to specific Dooyeweerd’s aspects. This functioning also implicates a given situation in which sacrifices such as effort, pleasure or etc is involved as thus extra good will be created. In this context, the distinction between the conception of bringing (extra) good by ethical functioning and merely preventing bad by juridical functioning is clarified throughout applying Dooyeweerdian aspectual analysis.

Keywords:
Ethical Issues, Ethical Functioning, Dooyeweerd’s Aspects, IS Development (ISD), Extra Good

1. Introduction
Ethical principles have been always assumed as part of everyday life and problems and issues emerged by ignoring them have been also discussed by different scholars (Stahl, 2007, 2008). Ethical issues can be studied in relation to professional life as well (Gotterbarn, 1992, Stahl, 2008). This includes ethical principles in information system (e.g. McDonald, 2007) and the information system development areas (Rogerson, et al, 2000; Cohen and Cornwell, 1989; Wu, et al., 2001; Warren, 2006). Gotterbarn (1992) debated that professionals must be aware of ethical issues in their profession in order to restrict the possibility of their occurrence. Charlesworth and Swery (2002) argued that IS professionals should be aware of ethical issues that both generally and specifically can affect their works, organizations and related stakeholders.
However, as studies show and also explicitly highlighted by some scholars (e.g. studying difference between ethical and legal issues by Pollack and Hartzel, 2006), discussions of consequences of ethical issues suffers from blending with other subject areas such as moral issues, legal issues, social issues and etc. Besides, different studies in this field (e.g. McDonald, 2007) and ethical issues frameworks that formulated by disparate institutes (e.g. ACM Code of Ethics) demonstrate the importance of discussing consequences of ethical issues in ISD.
However, the treatment of ethical issues lacks an overall coherence, and there is still need to discuss the effects of ignoring and breaking ethical issues in ISD. Understanding those consequences can help IS developers and information system units be aware of possible problems they might face in information system projects. To discover those consequences, an understanding of ethical functioning that embraces the wide diversity of issues and their consequences is required. For this aim, we have first studied and employed several existed ethical issues frameworks outlined by scholars or (related) institutes. And in the second step, those ethical issues are analyzed by the means of Dooyeweerd’s suite of aspects which consists of fifteen irreducible yet related aspects. The meanings of aspects can indicate the main properties and behaviours of ethical issues and the laws of aspects can address their way of functioning and highlight good and bad consequences.

It is worthy to point out that ethical issues are not limited to selected ethical issues discussed in this study. That is, the aim of this paper is not extending or modifying ethical issues but authors intend to highlight the consequences of breaking or ignoring ethical issues by selecting some of existed ones.
We expect that this brief theoretical study, can highlight the role of ethical issues in ISD and draw involved IS developers’ attention to include ethical issues in Information System (IS) projects in adjustment with other important factors.

2. Ethical Issues of ISD
2.1 Review of ethical issues
Following Mason’s (1986) debate about ethical issues of information era – PAPA: Privacy, Accuracy, Property, and Accessibility – many researchers constructed their studies based on this structure either explicitly (e.g. Pollack and Hartzel, 2006) or implicitly (e.g. Rogerson et al., 2000). Over the years more studies have proposed new dimensions to PAPA (Thomson and Schmoldt, 2001). Other frameworks were developed, such as one based on obligations (Johnson, 1985 stated by Oz, 1992) and some institutes such as Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), the British Computer Society (BCS), and The Australian Computer Society (ACS) (Thomson and Schmoldt, 2001). Table 1 summarises some of these.

Framework		Source
PAPA	Privacy, Accuracy, Property, Accessibility	Mason, 1986
Extended PAPA	PAPA+ Quality of Life, and the Use of Knowledge in Organizations	Forester and Morrison, 1994 and Bella, 1992
Obligations	Obligations to society, employer, clients, and colleagues and professional and organizations	Johnson, 1985
ACM Code of Ethics	Contribute to society and human well-being, …	http://www.acm.org/about/code-of-ethics
BCS Code of Conduct	The Public Interest, Authority, …	http://www.bcs.org/server.php?show=nav.6030
ACS Code of Ethics	Priorities, Honesty, …	http://www.acs.org.au/index.cfm?action=show&conID=coe

 

Table 1. Framework of Professional Ethical Issues

Some of these ethical issues are common among all frameworks, some have been stated in different wordings but their descriptions and characteristics are similar, and some are specific to certain frameworks.
In the PAPA framework, the emphases are on protecting dignities of individuals and avoiding of indignities of deprivation of information literacy (Mason, 1986). In an extension, quality of life is focused on job satisfaction, health, safety and emotional concerns, and overall satisfaction. (Forester and Morrison, 1994 stated by Thomson and Schmoldt, 2001)
In the obligations framework, IS professionals through their interactions with society, employers, clients, colleagues, and organization need to be responsible for updating their own knowledge and that of involved stakeholders, applying practical knowledge into their work, and being involved in improvements. Important characteristics include respect, dignity, being objective, being protective and supportive, confidentiality and trust, intelligibility of language, avoiding conflicts of interest, and lawfulness. They should not abuse their own expertise and experience. (Johnson, 1985 stated by Oz, 1992)

The BCS professional code of conduct and ACM code of ethics have quite similar focuses in which the professional must be aware of public health, safety and environment, legitimate rights of third parties (colleagues, organization, employer, public, and even competitors). Important characteristics include: lawfulness, dignity and respect, violations because of discrimination on inappropriate grounds (race, colour, ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, age and disability), resource accessibility, avoiding conflicts of interest, being supportive, and involvement in improvements, harmony and integrity with others, updating and using related knowledge, evaluation and self-assessment. There must be no abusing of lack of knowledge and experience in others.
The ACS Code of Ethics has also investigated a variety of ethical issues for IS professionals in relation to clients, employers, and colleagues. IS professionals are responsible for priorities they might set for others’ interests and needs in relation to their own, providing enough information to stakeholders for involving them, awareness of stakeholders’ needs and interests, honesty in justification and evaluation of stakeholders, presenting and using real knowledge and skill they have, social implications which protect health, feelings and safety of work, privacy, avoiding unfair treatment of others, ensuring overall satisfaction and quality of life, professional development and updating knowledge and skill of involved stakeholders and of themselves. They should look into the way professionals are interacting with each other and their clients to respect ideas, avoid abuse of others’ works and reputation, and avoid direct or indirect dishonesty and fraud by cooperating with hustlers.

2.2 Consequences of ethical issues
Central to the above discussions of ISD ethics are norms of which ISD professionals should be aware and be guided by (Mason 1986; Forester and Morrison, 1994; Bella, 1992; BCS; ACM; ACS ), responsibilities they should take on (Johnson, 1985; BCS; ACS; ACM) and behaviour of professionals (BCS; ACS; ACM). But there has been little discussion of consequences of breaking (or indeed upholding) ethical principles.
There have been various theoretical (e.g. Thomson and Schmoldt, 2001; Chapman, 2006) and practical (e.g. Wood-Harper, et al., 1996; Rogerson, et al., 2000; Davison and Loch, 2002; McDonald, 2007) studies during last decades on how and whether ethical issues can affect information system development process. From most of these investigations we can conclude that regardless of the structure information system units take for their profession, the application of ethical principles is a must for them. Gotterbarn (2002) argued that information system developers need to enlarge the risk analysis boundary to include ethical issues as part of their risk assessment, because his cases showed that ignoring ethical issues (besides social and political issues) resulted in impractical software applications and the need for IS developers to continually modify their products, which problems can drive organizations out of business. In older studies like Oz (1992) and Wood-Harper et al. (1996), there have been debates that ethical considerations can uphold information system units and professions in terms of good reputation and respect.

However, in most of these studies (including those in section 2.1), there has not been adequate debate about the consequences of ethical issues. First, discussion of consequences has tended to be divorced from discussion of norms, behaviour and responsibility, with the attendant danger of sliding into a purely utilitarian view of ethics. Second, limited types of consequences have been discussed, and there is no clear means of widening the diversity of issues. For example, in the current volume, Krishnan Harihara & Basden (2011), along with their (2010, 2009), show how idolatry of technology can harm e-government projects, bringing harmful effects on society when it is implemented. The idolatry is by politicians, senior managers but also by IS developers, so the issue is relevant to ISD; should this be brought into the debate on ethics of ISD and, if so, how? Third, there seems to be two discourses in ISD ethics, one about evils to be prevented (e.g. Gotterbarn, 2002), the other about good that ethical behaviour can bring (e.g. Wood-Harper et al. 1995), with no clear link between them. Related to this, ethical issues are confused with moral (Stahl, 2007) or legal (Pollack and Hartzel, 2006) or social (Laudon & Laudon 2009) issues.

This paper offers an approach that might address these shortcomings. It is based on the philosophy of Dooyeweerd (1955) and carries out a systematic study in an attempt to demonstrate how all these issues may be set within a coherent framework that provides a basis for considering consequences of ethical issues in ISD.

3. Introducing Dooyeweerd’s aspects
The Dutch philosopher (1894-1977) Herman Dooyeweerd delineated fifteen different aspects, which can be understood as “spheres of meaning” and “spheres of law”. In the former one, the emphasis is on how things can be meaningful and this meaning is expressed in the existence, properties and rationality of things and in the latter one, the focus is on goodness, badness and functionality of things. Table 2 shows Dooyeweerd’s aspects, what we understand of their meaning and some typical examples of good and bad functioning and repercussions. For more on Dooyeweerd’s aspects, see chapter III of Basden (2008).

Aspect	(Meaning)		Example Functioning (Good / bad)	Example Repercussions (Benefit / Detriment)
MATHEMATICAL ASPECTS
Quantitative aspect	(Discrete amount)		Being-amount	Numeric order
Spatial aspect	(Continuous extension)		Spreading	Simultaneity
Kinematic aspect	(Flowing movement)		Moving	Dynamism
PRE-HUMAN ASPECTS
Physical aspect		(Fields, Energy, mass)	Causality	Persistence
Biotic/organic aspect		(Life, organism)	Life functions	Health, Growth
Sensitive/psychic		(Sensing, feeling, emotion)	Sensitivity	Interaction with world
HUMAN ASPECTS
Analytical aspect	(Distinction, concepts, Abstraction, logic)		Distinction / Blurring	Confusion / Clarity
Formative aspect	(Deliberate shaping, Technology, skill, history)		Planning, constructing / Laziness	Achievement, Structure / Failure, Mess
Lingual aspect	(Symbolic signification)		Truth-saying / Deceit	Understanding / Misunderstanding
SOCIAL ASPECTS
Social aspect	(Relationships, roles)		Respect, Friendship / Hostility	Organisations / Enmity
Economic aspect	(Frugality, resources; Management)		Frugality / Profligacy	Prosperity / destitution
Aesthetic aspect	(Harmony, delight)		Orchestration / Frenzy	Beauty, Fun, Interest / Grotesqueness, Boredom
SOCIETAL ASPECTS
Juridical aspect	(‘Due’, appropriateness; Rights, responsibilities)		Responsibility, appropriateness / Oppression, inappropriateness	Justice / Injustice
Ethical aspect	(Attitude, Self-giving love)		Generosity, humility / Selfishness, Greed	Goodwill / Defensiveness, More greed
Pistic/Faith aspect	(Faith, commitment, belief; Vision of who we are)		Belief, Loyalty / Disloyalty, Idolatry	Trust, Dignity / Distrust, Decline

 

Table 2. Dooyeweerd’s Aspects: Meaning, Good and Bad

It is important to notice the difference between Dooyeweerd’s technical concept of ‘ethical’ and the concept of ‘ethical’ as loosely discussed in the ISD literature. Dooyeweerd’s concept is to do with attitude, of self-giving versus self-interest, while ‘ethical’ in ISD academic discourse covers both this and also what Dooyeweerd calls juridical, namely ensuring rights and appropriateness; these are discussed below.

There are several reasons why Dooyeweerd’s approach might enrich the discourse on ethics in ISD. Much of today’s thinking on ethics has roots in such thinkers as Aristotle or Kant. Dooyeweerd claimed they had not been critical enough and he went deeper in attempting to understand the nature of the world and of human beings and activity in the world. He began from a very different root, that of Creation, Fall, Redemption (CFR) rather than the dualistic roots of Greek philosophy (Form v. Matter), Scholastic philosophy (Nature v. Grace) or Humanist philosophy (Nature v. Freedom), which always have, he argued, led to problems in understanding and discussing ethics. (He called these roots ‘religious’, but with a very specific meaning that should not be confused with creeds and religious systems.)
Starting from the CFR root led him to see created reality as having two sides, not only all that exists and occurs as concrete, ongoing actuality (what he called subject side or fact side) but also a law side (laws that pertain and enable all existence and occurrence). The law side is composed of ‘laws’ of the aspects. These however are not to be confused with social norms, nor with authoritarian demand or determinative causality, but take the form of promise; for example, a law-promise of the lingual aspect might be expressed as “If we abide by the syntax of the language we are using we will be better understood”. In this way functioning always has consequences, these cannot be separated from each other, and both are inherently connected with norms (the good and bad defined by each aspect). Professional behaviour in ISD is seen as multi-aspectual human functioning (functioning in every aspect simultaneously and in a coherence that is located the human subject), so this can never (and so should never) be divorced from norms and consequences. Each aspect yields irreducibly distinct norms, types of functioning and types of consequence.
His approach to ethics may be founded in the idea that functioning in line with the laws of all aspects is, and leads to, good, while dysfunction in any aspect is, and leads to, bad. Because of being rooted in CFR, he held that no aspect contradicts another in this sense, so it is possible in principle to fulfil the norms of (and be, and bring, good in) every aspect. His thought can give a philosophical basis for questioning, for example, the common assumption that being ethical is inimical to economic viability (and vice versa). Not only so but good functioning in one can actually enhance functioning in another aspect; for example ethical functioning in business and society can establish sustained viability and prosperity.

Dooyeweerd’s notion of aspects arises from his notion of law and subject sides; his suite of fifteen aspects arose because of his roots in CFR, which allows for the possibility of a cohering diversity, in contrast to the dualistic presuppositions, which always act as motivation to reduce diversity to one or two basic principles.
In particular this approach enabled him to distinguish the ethical from either the juridical or the pistic, which can bring clarity to discussion of ‘ethics’ in ISD, which tends to conflate them. Refer to Table 2. That the ethical cannot be reduced to the pistic implies that, though one’s beliefs (credal or ideological or presupposed) might have some impact on what one holds to be right and wrong, ultimately the ethicality of self-giving and attitude cannot be absolutely determined by such beliefs; nor vice versa.

Distinguishing ethical from juridical aspect is particularly important for discussion of ISD ‘ethics’. The juridical aspect is concerned with appropriateness and with human responsibility for maintaining what is appropriate. In particular, in the context of human functioning (such as in ISD), we are responsible for helping to ensure retribution, i.e. rewarding ‘good’ and punishing ‘bad’ either by individual action or by setting up social effective structures such as social norms or formal rules and regulations. All this achieves, however, is to prevent bad occurring. The ethical aspect, by contrast, introduces ‘extra’ good into temporal reality that cannot be explained by the ongoing operation of juridical consequence. As shown on left-hand side of Figure 1, functioning in the ethical aspect involves taking pains (even making sacrifices) to bring good to others that would not otherwise occur. Sacrifice might be of time, money, effort, convenience, pleasure, rights or anything else, and in this way ‘extra’ good-for-others enters the public sphere.

Both juridical due and ethical extra good-for-others are of diverse kinds, which may be understood in terms of target aspects. Figure 1a shows this. This provides a conceptual framework with two benefits. First, the juridical due can be distinguished from ethical extra good, second the diversity of each can be explored systematically. Both juridical due and ethical self-giving are always directed toward some specific kind of normativity, each distinct kind of which is itself distinguished from others by reference to the aspects, as indicated in the middle of Figure 1.

Most discussion of ‘ethics’ in ISD is juridical in nature in that it is concerned with preventing bad and ensuring rights (for example, privacy, accuracy, property, accountability, honesty) rather than bringing about extra good, though a minority of the literature recognises this (such as good reputation (Wood-Harper et al. 1995) and ‘quality of life’). Most discussion of responsibility, obligations, norms, professional behaviour centres on the juridical aspect. Discussion of consequences, however, is more open to the ethical aspect, because ‘consequences’ usually speaks of something positive, a good-for-others that would not otherwise have happened, rather than mere prevention of a negative.

This, then may be a way to integrating the two pools of discourse, without forcing either to be reduced to the other. This delineation of types of good-for-others for which we give of ourselves provides a rich starting-point for discussion of ethical functioning, enabling us to discuss the conditions necessary for each kind of good, the consequences of procuring each kind of good-for-others, and the consequences of not doing so, as in the right-hand side of Figure 1.
To test whether this approach has any potential, the next section considers most of the ‘ethical’ issues discussed in the ISD literature (whether juridical or ethical from a Dooyeweerdian sense) from the point of view of aspects. Since each aspect is reasonably well understood in general terms, we can bring this understanding to bear on discussions of ethical issues. Can an aspect (sometimes more than one) be readily assigned to express the main meaning and normativity of each, and can doing so reveal consequences that can be linked to norms, functioning and responsibility?

4. Analyzing ethical issues using Dooyeweerd’s aspects
In section 3, Dooyeweerd’s aspects were proposed as a way of thinking about ethical issues. Besides, throughout section 2, different frameworks of professional ethical issues were demonstrated in table 1 and until the end of section; each of them was discussed in more detail. Thus, in order to analyze ethical issues, table 1 and its related information from section 2 is employed in this section. Meanwhile, before applying Dooyeweerdian thinking to them, where appropriate, similar ethical issues of different frameworks are combined, for example “applying practical knowledge into their work from” in obligation framework and “using relation knowledge” in BCS professional code of conduct and ACM code of ethics and “presenting and using real knowledge and skill they have” in ACS Code of Ethics are all combined under the name “Applying practical knowledge, skill and experience”. After briefly describing them, we identify in which aspect they are most meaningful as good or bad, discuss the consequences of functioning in that aspect in relation to these issues, based on general understanding of aspectual repercussions such as discussed in Basden (2008). By doing this, a systematic consideration of ethical issues is demonstrated. Followings are arranged based on ordering of Dooyeweerdian grouping of aspects (available in table 2 in section 3 – Mathematical aspects are not discovered in analysis. The reason is provided in Discussion section).

A) Pre-human aspects
– Concerning mental and physical health and safety of individuals, organization and society: Mental and physical health and safety are psychic and biotic issues, and any detriment here makes people less able to work effectively. So IS developers should take pains to consider the wider biotic and psychic consequences of the applications they are developing (such as computer games).
– Quality of life, Overall satisfaction: IS developers by the means of their artefacts should contribute to improve public quality of life, and increase overall satisfaction. Though quality of life and satisfaction can cover most aspects, here we focus on its psychic aspect of emotion, since this affects the individual’s interaction with the world.
– Being protective and supportive for colleagues, employers, and customers: Such support and help is both psychic and pistic in nature in that it is a feeling and also a dignity of the other. Giving more support and help than is due means treating the other as worthwhile and enhances confidence, but failing to give support undermines these pistic qualities.

B) Human aspects
– Being objective: IS developers must understand what they are doing and why, aware of the concepts and logic they encounter during their projects. This is analytical good. Any confusion or opacity about their tasks, the aim of those tasks, the necessary tools and technologies for conducting them, and so on can result in confusion and doubt. A self giving attitude will take pains to enhance such clarity.
– Acquiring and updating knowledge, skill, and experience: Skills and experience are of the formative aspect, and can enhance achievement by those who possess them. So helping others to acquire them brings extra formative good. Not doing so can make individual failures and organizational mess more likely.
– Applying practical knowledge, skill and experience: Application is a formative functioning. IS developers who make use of practical knowledge can improve the quality of their work. Failure to achieve is the result of impractical application of any of those elements.
– Being involved in improvements in organizations and society regarding IS: IS developers should be involved in activities that can change and improve the current situation in organizations and society; activities such as being innovative in developing IS, producing knowledge, sharing knowledge and etc. The main aspect here is formative. A self-giving attitude leads us to expend extra formative effort, and the structure of society becomes more dynamic and ability to respond to the new, but a self-centred or self-protective attitude discourages and hinders effort and ossifies society.
– Educate, inform and provide enough information about IS so that stakeholders and the public are involved: Providing information is lingual functioning, but the main aspect here, which this serves, that of getting others to contribute, is formative. When others feel unable to contribute this saps their morale and less is achieved.
– Intelligibility of language in communication with others like colleague and employers, avoiding direct or indirect dishonesty: This is of the lingual aspect. Honest, intelligible communication enhances many other aspects, such as mutual understanding, better sharing and management and trust, and is thus worth the extra (ethical) effort. Dishonesty and unintelligibility destroy these.

C) Social aspects
– Respecting and protecting ideas, expectations, privacy, and work of others (colleagues, customers, etc.): IS developers need to be aware of others’ needs and ideas. This is the social aspect, in that mere awareness is not enough, since they should respect them as well. The social dysfunction of disrespect destroys friendships and even communities, including that which is the ISD project.
– Justification and evaluation of others: While justification seems juridical and evaluation, analytical, the reason for these is of the social aspect, so that IS developers maintain good relationships with others, stand in appropriate roles, and have appropriate expectations of stakeholders. If this fails, then animosity can result.
– Accurate and proper resource accessibility: IS developers need to access properly and accurately organizational (virtual or real) resources. This concerns resources, so is meaningful in the economic aspect. As Table 2 shows, appropriate access to resources enhances prosperity but inappropriate access can result in destitution which, for IS, can mean failure of project or organisation.
– Avoiding organizational or individual conflict of interest, Awareness of stakeholders’ needs and interests, Priorities they might set for others’ interest and needs and their own interest and ability, Harmony and integrity with colleagues, employers, organization, customers, and society: This concerns various types of harmony, so is of the aesthetic aspect. IS developers might prefer things different and find others problematic but they should not ignore others and should adjust and integrate with their colleagues, customers, employers, organizational rules and aims, and even society needs and expectations. Such harmonization does not mean putting own needs and preferences aside but rather a focus on balance and flexibility. Failure of people to tune themselves with others can bring about unpleasant, disagreeable, and insensitive relationships and interactions, and yet further disharmony in the team.

D) Societal aspects
– Avoiding unfair treats to others: IS developers should avoid unfair treatment of others, whether this is unearned treats or paying too little attention to others. The issue is appropriateness, which is of the juridical aspect. Inappropriateness leads to injustices.
– Avoid discrimination on basis of colour, ethnic origin, etc: Whereas the act of discriminating between people as analytic functioning is good, this issue concerns the basis on which discrimination occurs, that it should never be inappropriate criteria, nor should it results in injustice. So this is of the juridical aspect. A person is a diverse collection of ideas, beliefs, expectations, physical and emotional characteristics, language, understanding level, capabilities, talents and many other factors that make that person unique, and any attempt to reduce them to characteristics like ethnicity is unjust. IS developers should recognise the multi-aspectual nature of human beings, and treat them with due respect on this account. The consequence of this is not only juridical (injustice) but also pistic, in depriving people of dignity.
– Respecting laws and rules, legitimate rights of organizations’ products, services and third parties: Laws and rules are constructed to make organizations and society manageable. As part of society and member of organizations, IS developers should obey laws and rules. This is the juridical aspect, and dysfunction here puts everyone’s rights and due in danger.
– Avoiding abuse of others’ work and reputation, No abuse of own expertise and experience, or lack of knowledge and experience of others: Issues of abuse are of the juridical aspect, whether of one’s own or others’ concerns. Abuse, as a form of oppression, impairs people’s rights of having contribution or dignity and honour.
– Not cooperating with those who perpetrate fraud: IS developers should be loyal to their organization and society: This is a pistic/faith matter. Loyalty enhances trust, confidence and dignity, but disloyalty destroys these. An IS developer can be disloyal for various reasons, including receiving no credit for what they are doing and not being valued. Taking pains to ensure others are valued is ethical functioning that generates pistic good.
– Self-valuation and self-assessment: Evaluating personal abilities and knowledge is a good way for IS developers to understand their weaknesses and faults, but to do this properly requires an attitude of humility, which is a good in the ethical aspect, since it is a self-giving. If they do not criticize themselves with such an attitude, they cannot gain a clear picture of their own weaknesses and strengths, wrongs and rights. Here, the ethical functioning of self-giving leads to an ethical good.
– Confidentiality and trust in others like customers, colleagues: In a trust-based environment, people can work with more confidence and certainty, which is an important pistic good. Lack of trust between IS developers and colleagues, customers, or employers, hinders communication, which itself hinders the entire project.
– Protecting dignities of individuals, organization, and society: Dignity, at any level, is a pistic good. Failing to protect dignity of others leads to dysfunction in many aspects, including antagonism and inconstancy.

All over this analysis, all Dooyeweerd’s aspects from biotic to pistic where applicable are used to clarify consequence(s) of each ethical issue. These are also various kinds of good or bad related to IS use and IS development. Whereas juridical functioning tries to prevent the bad occurring, ethical functioning not only does this but also aims at increasing the positive good. In any given situation, there might be several types of good-for-others that can be enhanced, and any of them will be useful. It is ethical functioning that creates this extra good.

5. Discussion and conclusion
Ethics is part of human life that can guide us in our functioning (Stahl, 2007), including professional life, and especially that of IS developers (Wu, et al., 2001). However, information system units might not clearly include ethical principles in their structures. Studies show that breaking or ignoring them can cause various types of problems in IS projects but understanding of consequences, their diversity and how they link with responsibility, norms and behaviour is in its infancy.
This study has demonstrated that by viewing extant ethical issues through the multi-aspectual lens of Dooyeweerd, possible consequences of each issue may be revealed. This is because, by virtue of Dooyeweerd’s notion of a transcendent law side, human functioning cannot be cannot be divorced from consequences and so discussion of each should always involve the other. Further, both functioning and consequences are intimately tied to norms and responsibility, and with his notion of aspects Dooyeweerd can address all four. So the normative issues of (Mason 1986; Forester and Morrison, 1994; Bella, 1992), the responsibility and obligations of (Johnson, 1985), the professional behaviour of (various codes of conduct) and the consequences of (Thomson and Schmoldt, 2001; Chapman, 2006; Wood-Harper, et al., 1996; Rogerson, et al., 2000; Davison and Loch, 2002; McDonald, 2007) may all be understood and integrated within a single framework.
The study has also demonstrated the capacity of Dooyeweerd’s suite of aspects to cover a wider variety of types of norm, responsibility, behaviour and consequence. Third, preventing evil and bringing extra good are both acknowledged by Dooyeweerd, one understood as juridical, the other as ethical. His aspects provide the basis for both keeping them conceptually distinct (because aspects are irreducibly distinct) and recognising the relationship between them (via his notions of inter-aspect relationships and multi-aspectual human functioning).

This study is only indicative, not exhaustive, so more work is needed to develop discourse about ethics in ISD along these lines. For example, why is it that certain aspects occurred more frequently than others in the above analysis? There might be three reasons. One is that our analysis was biased in favour of those aspects; this is unlikely. Another is that in ISD it is these aspects that are naturally most important. That would be expected of the formative aspect, but possibly not of the pistic. The third is that the current discourse on ethics is skewed in favour of certain aspects by the culture that underlies it. Dooyeweerd’s aspects can highlight such imbalances, as a stimulus to further research and guide where to most fruitfully direct future effort. In this context, as can be seen, every aspect from biotic to pistic is found in the above analysis. The three mathematical aspects and the physical aspect would not be expected to appear because they do not differentiate between good and bad. However it is also clear that certain aspects appear more frequently than others, especially the formative, juridical and pistic, which occur four times each.
A fuller study needs to be carried out, especially by people from a variety of backgrounds, probably with empirical input and appropriate empirical controls. That remains future work. Such work could also be extended to exploring the conditions necessary for achieving each type of aspectual good.

The process of assigning a single main aspect to issues was relatively straightforward in most cases, but some cases were more challenging, requiring iterative reconsideration and sometimes the splitting of issues. Irreducibility of aspects can be a guide to make information system units aware that each ethical principle by itself is important and it must not be overlooked nor reduced to another one. Also, the relation between aspects can make IS developers and units aware of the link between ethical principles in a way that ignoring one of them will affect functioning of other principles. With this framework, information system units will be able to (re)formulate ethical principles of ISD in a more integrated manner that is aligned with alternative strands such as cultural, economical, social, emotional, and other factors. How alignment is achieved is discussed in Basden (2008).
In the meantime, the exercise above serves to demonstrate that this approach has considerable potential. It was relatively straightforward to find everyday examples of types of aspectual good and these can be related quite easily to extant discussion, to enrich that discussion. Because aspects are claimed by Dooyeweerd to transcend humanity, and indeed be the enablers of human living that is meaningful and good, they enable us to look forward to the future rather than be restricted to extrapolating from past experience. So, with Dooyeweerd’s aspects, innovative ways of thinking about both past experience and future possibility can be encouraged. Moreover, for the same reason, this approach should be applicable across different cultures; the two authors are from very different cultures: Iran and Britain. Thus we recommend this Dooyeweerdian approach to thinking about and discussing the variety of ethical issues and the consequences of breaking or fulfilling ethical principles.

6. Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Professor. Anita Mirijamdotter, Dr. Christina Mörtberg and Dr. Lars Eric Ljung of Linnaeus University for their stimulating teaching on ethics of IS and helpful discussions, without which this paper would never have been possible, and would like to express appreciation to Dr. Päivi Jokela for all her support.

About the authors
i. Samira Atashi – School of Computer Science, Physics and Mathematics, Linnaeus University, Växjö, Sweden – satei08@student.lnu.se
ii. Andrew Basden – Salford Business School, University of Salford, Salford, UK – A.Basden@salford.ac.uk

REFERENCES
ACM Code of Ethics, [Online] Available at: http://www.acm.org/about/code-of-ethics [Accessed Sept-Nov 2010]
ACS Code of Ethics, [Online] Available at: http://www.acs.org.au/index.cfm?action=show&conID=coe [Accessed Sept-Nov 2010]
Basden A. (2008). Philosophical Frameworks for Understanding Information Systems, Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global (IDEA Group Inc.)
BCS Code of Conduct, [Online] Available at: http://www.bcs.org/server.php?show=nav.6030 [Accessed Sept-Nov 2010]
Bella, D.A. (1992). Ethics and the credibility of applied science. In: Reeves, G.H., Bottom, D.L., Brookes, M.H. (Technical coordinators), Ethical Questions for Resource Managers. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-288, pp. 19–32.
Chapman, C.N. (2006). Fundamental Ethics in Information System. Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Science, PP. 1- 5
Charlesworth, M., Swery, D. (2002). Ethical issues in Enabling Information Technologies. Proceedings of the 2002 annual research conference of the South African institute of computer scientists and information technologists on Enablement through technology, PP. 163- 171
Cohen, E., Cornwell, L. (1989). A Question of Ethics: Developing Information System Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 8(6), pp. 431-437
Davison, M.R., Loch, K.D. (2002). Professional Ethics in Information Systems. Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
Dooyeweerd H. (1955). A new critique of theoretical thought (Vols. 1-4). Jordan Station, Ontario, Canada: Paideia Press.
Forester, T., Morrison, P. (1994). Computer Ethics, MIT Press, Cambridge.
Gotterbarn, D. (1992). The use and abuse of computer ethics. In: Bynum, T.W., Maner, W. And Fodor, J.L. (Eds), Teaching Computer Ethics, Research Center on Computing and Society, Southern Connecticut State University, pp. 73-83.
Gotterbarn, D.W. (2002). Reducing Software Failures: Addressing the Ethical Risks of the Software Development Lifecycle. Australian Journal of Information System (AJIS), 9(2). pp. 155-165
Johnson, D.G. (1985). Computer Ethics, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
Krishnan-Harihara, S., Basden, A. (2009). Understanding failures in e-government: Idolatry as a lens. In: Basden, A, Eriksson D, Strijbos, A. (eds.) The Problem of System Improvement: Proceedings of the 13th and 14th Annual Working Conference of the CPTS. Maarssen, Netherlands. ISBN: 978-90-807718-6-4.
Krishnan-Harihara, S., Basden, A. (2010). Is idolatry a suitable tool to test e-government? pp. 107-125, In: Goede R, Grobler L, Haftor DE (eds.) Interdisciplinary Research for Practices of Social Change. Proc. 16th Annual Working Conference of the Centre for Philosophy, Technology and Social Systems (CPTS), 13-16 April 2010, Maarssen, Netherlands. CPTS, Maarssen; BZ Repro, Haaksbergen, Netherlands. ISBN/EAN: 978-90-807718-8-8.
Krishnan-Harihara, S. & Basden, A. (2011). Using Dooyeweerd’s aspects to enrich our understanding of Idolatry. In: Haftor, D.M. and Van Burken, C.G. (eds.) (2011) “Re-Integrating Technology and Economy in Human Life and Society”, Proceedings of the 17th Annual Working Conference of the IIDE, Maarssen, May 2011, Volume II, Amsterdam: Rozenberg Publishers
Laudon, J.P., Laudon, K.C. (2009). Management Information Systems: Managing the Digital Firm, Prentice Hall
Mason, R.O. (1986). Four Ethical Issues of the Information Age. MIS Quarterly, 10(1), pp. 5-12
McDonald, C. (2007). Embedding Ethics in Systems Development. 18th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, pp. 680-685
Oz, E. (1992). Ethical Standards for Information Systems Professionals: A Case for a Unified Code. MIS Quarterly, 16(4), pp. 423-433
Pollack, T.A., Hartzel, K.S. (2006). Ethical and Legal Issues for the Information Systems Professional. Proceedings of the 2006 ASCUE Conference, pp. 172-179
Rogerson, S., Weckert, J., Simpson, C. (2000). An ethical review of information systems development and the SSADM approach. Information technology & people, 13(2), pp. 121-136
Stahl, B.C. (2007). Reflective responsibility for risk: A critical view of software and information systems development risk management. International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management, 7(3), pp. 312-325
Stahl, B.C. (2008). Researching Ethics and Morality in Information Systems: Some Guiding Questions. Twenty Ninth International Conference on Information Systems, pp. 1-17
Thomson, A.J., Schmoldt, D.L. (2001). Ethics in computer software design and development. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 30(1-3), pp. 85–102
Warren, M. (2006). Ethics in Information Systems. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 13(2), pp. 167-168
Wood-Harper, A.T., Corder, S., Wood, J.R.G. and Watson, H. (1996). How we profess: the ethical systems analyst. Communications of the ACM, 39(3), pp. 69-77
Wu, X., Rogerson, S., Fairweather, N.B. (2001). Being Ethical in Developing Information Systems: An Issue of Methodology or Maturity in Judgement. Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 1-9

Abstract
The development of water policy is characterized by the involvement of many actors. These actors have different interests, knowledge, values, cultural backgrounds, perceptions and so on. Often, these differences result in policy controversies that interfere with the implementation of water policy. Controversies arise and are dealt with in multi-actor interactions. The communication of water managers directly influences the development of these controversies. However, the literature on environmental policy and governance does hardly address the dynamics that occur in the interactions between stakeholders. This paper gives insight into the communication strategies that water managers apply in conversations with other actors and how these strategies affect the course and outcome of an interaction. A case study reveals that the observed water managers use two different types of strategies to deal with different and incompatible views of their conversation partners: frame amplification and frame incorporation.

Keywords
Interaction, Framing, Alignment, Conversation, Change

1. Introduction: policy controversies
The development and implementation of water policy involves the involvement of many actors. The need for collaboration is based on the notion that the resources, responsibilities and competencies for water management are scattered over a multitude of institutional layers and private actors (Rault, 2005). The collaboration between actors comprises the discussion of issues, the transformation of relationships and responsibilities, the connection of competences, the formation of networks and the development of a collective memory (Forester, 1999). During the collaboration, it is most likely that policy controversies arise, because of the many differences between the actors involved (Schön and Rein, 1994). Actors have different interests, knowledge, values, cultural backgrounds, perceptions and so on. As soon as actors start to communicate, these differences start to complexify their interaction. In this paper, we consider the policy implementation as an on-going negotiation process where actors negotiate alignments (Aarts and Leeuwis, 2010). This process shapes the development and implementation of policy. During their interactions, actors give rise to policy controversies and feed and settle them. As the initiator and owner of the policy process, a water manager has find a way to deal with the differences that drive the policy process. Issues are fragmented and sometimes conflicting, the roles and responsibilities of the participants are not clear, as is the policy process itself. Furthermore, the multi-actor interactions take place in different institutional contexts, which means that the social rules to deal with differences are not shared among the participants. Instead, the participant themselves co-develop their roles and the rules for engagement. This implies that the communication of a water manager matters. It can create or close spaces for change in the process. This paper aims to gain insight into the communication of a water manager as a representative of a public authority and how this affects the policy implementation. However, the literature on environmental policy and governance treats these interactions as black boxes. A common approach in this literature is to consider the policy process as a learning process, whereby actors fill in knowledge gaps (Agyris, 2003) and start a deliberation (Habermas, 1981) on conflicting societal values supported by effective means of communication (Newig, 2010). It remains unclear however, how such a learning process functions in the every day practice of environmental governance.

By this study, we make a start to open up this black box in order to gain insight into the course and outcome of interactions. This involves a shift from a macro level that considers institutions and organisations towards a micro level that considers interacting individuals. The theory of interactional framing suits our aim. The framing concept ‘draws the attention to the concrete interactions where actors bring in their conceptions of problems and possible solutions, and how they affect each other’s frames in and through a developing relationship’ (Dewulf et al., 2005: p.117).

Interactional framing
According to Goffman (1974) people frame a situation when they answer the question: ‘What is it that is going on?’ Our interpretation of a situation is based on ‘principles of organization’. These are the principles we see at work, when we enter a situation. For instance, when we enter into a conversation we use social principles when we introduce ourselves to the conversation partners. Or we use linguistic principles when we want to make ourselves clear to the other conversation partners. These principles shape our actions; they ‘govern social events and our subjective involvement in them’ (Goffman, 1974: 10).
The concepts of frame and framing have been applied by researchers in several fields including psychology (Levin et al., 1998), sociology (Benford and Snow, 2000), communication (Scheufele, 1999) and decision making (Schön and Rein, 1994). The concepts have enabled researchers to grasp differences in meaning between individuals, groups and organisations and to explain course and outcome of interactions on an individual and institutional level. The literature on framing can be divided in two strands (Dewulf, 2009). The strand of ‘cognitive framing’ considers frames as cognitive representations or mental structures that guide the actions of people. The source of the frames is between the ears. There is also a strand that considers framing as the continuous effort of interacting people to align their frames. Frames are interactional co-constructions that shape short term and long term situations. (Dewulf, 2009). The source of the frames is between the noses. Our conceptual model of interactions builds on this second strand of literature.
Frames shape situations. This brings in a strategic element. ‘To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment’ (Entman, 1993: 52). Out of innumerable possible definitions, people choose specific descriptions in order to accomplish goals through interaction in a specific context (Van Lieshout and Aarts, 2008). These goals might be ‘goals in interaction’ such as the definition of a problem, its causes and accompanying solutions. People also use frames also to attain ‘interactional goals’, such as the acknowledgement of their identity by the other conversation partners.

We regard the framing of people-in-interaction as a dynamic, iterative process. On the one hand, interactional frames shape situations. On the other hand, co-constructed situations shape the frames of the people in interaction (Aarts and Van Woerkum, 2006). This creates a dynamic whereby people continuously (re)construct the content and process of their interaction. This approach stresses the discursive aspect of interaction. The communication of conversation partners highlights certain aspects and thereby indicates how a situation should be understood (Drake and Donohue, 1996). The interactional frames that people put forward function as communicative devices to negotiate meanings and alignments (Aarts et al, 2010). People use language to accomplish things. Interactional frames are actions that ‘shape how issues are keyed and what dimensions are channelled for discussion’ (Putnam and Holmer, 192: 147). In this way, conversation partners define and delimit the context for their interaction.

Types of frames
So far, we have defined the concept of framing and now turn to the question: What’s getting framed?’. In line with Dewulf et al. (2009), we distinguish three general types of frames that enable to gain insight into the content of interactional frames. Firstly, we distinguish issue frames that aim to negotiate the meaning of issues in interactions. These frames define and delimit problem definitions and accompanying solutions Secondly, we distinguish relation and identity frames that aim to shape the relationship between conversation partners. Conversation partners use these frames for identity work. The frames can take the form of statements of one’s own identity (identity frame) or they can take the form of the identity of the other conversation partners (characterization frame). Both identification and characterization develop a certain relationships. Moreover, interlocutors can employ relation frames whereby they explicitly qualify their mutual relationship, for instance in terms of trust or power. Thirdly, we distinguish process frames by which people negotiate the meaning of their interaction, for instance as a dispute, as an effort for joint problem solving, or as an informal meeting. This conceptual distinction enables us to grasp the sense making of participants in an interaction. It helps us to identify what frames a water manager uses when he interacts with other stakeholders.

Dealing with differences: frame alignments
In this paper, we focus on the interactions that take place in policy processes. In these interactions, the representative of a public authority has the interest to find support for the implementation of policy. This implies that he has to deal with the differences that arise in these interactions. In this paper, we consider the framing of the representative as an interaction strategy in order to deal with different, and often incompatible frames. While asking questions, making objections, or making jokes the representative co-defines the issues to be discussed, co-develops his relationship with the other participants and/or co-constructs the meaning of the interaction. This involves labour. Thus, we understand the framed categorizations, and thereby constructed similarities and differences with previous frames, as situated boundary work (Horton-Salway, 2001). We express the agency of a frame with the concept alignment, that we define here as the discursive labour of a frame on a previous and incompatible frame. Examples of such strategies are: the incorporation of a previous frame, the ignorance of a previous frame or the accommodating to a previous frame. In this manner, we can use the concept of alignment as a suitable indicator to gain insight into the way a representative of a public authority deals with differences in particular interactions.

The research on interactional framing is primarily aimed to study interaction patterns and how these patterns raise, persist, or reduce conflicts (Van Lieshout, 2008; Idrissou, 2011). This study brings the research on frame differences a step further by developing a typology of alignments and using this typology to interpret the communication of a representative of a public authority and how this affects the interaction. We characterize alignments by the extent in which they are sensitive to previous and incompatible frames. Benford and Snow (2000), who study the development of collective action frames of social movements, argue that frames are created by two basic interactive, discursive processes. The first is frame articulation. This involves ‘the connection and alignment of events and experiences, so that they hang together in a relatively unified and compelling fashion’ (Benford and Snow, 2000: p.623). The second is frame punctuation. This involves ‘accenting and highlighting some issues, events, or beliefs as being more salient then others’ (ibid). Both articulation and punctuation are ways to deal with differences. They differ in the sensitivity for differences. High sensitiveness creates a connection between two incompatible frames. As such, the framed differences can become part of the interaction. Instead, low sensitiveness leads to the disconnection between two incompatible frames. We performed a case study to find out whether the sensitivity of alignments makes sense as an indicator for the communication of a representative of a public authority and as an explanation for the effect of this communication.

Research methodology
The central research question in this paper is: what are the frame alignments of a water manager-in-interaction and what is the effect on the course and outcome of the interaction? Our aim is to gain insight into the way a water manager makes sense of these interactions and how this affects the course and outcome. In order to answer this question we performed a case study in The Netherlands. In this case we observed the interactions of a project manager of a water board, a regional water authority responsible for both water quantity and water quality management. This project manager is responsible for the realization of a ‘high water zone’ around a village in a polder area. This measure is one of the outcomes of an interactive policy process, described by Lamers et al., (2010). The high water zone enables the water board to lower the water level in the polder area without damaging the houses in the village. The dams prevent the decrease of the ground water level underneath the buildings in the village. Otherwise, there is a risk of serious damage to the older buildings in the village that are built on wooden piles. Once the piles come above the ground water level, they start to rotten and this causes the buildings to subside, or even to collapse. However, this threat only counts for the older buildings in the village. The more recent buildings are built on concrete piles. The zone is created by the construction of dams in watercourses on the properties that lie at the border of the village. The decision of the water board to lower the water level is necessary to maintain a dry zone in the peat soil of the polder area between the ground water level and the surface level. The peat soil continuously settles down, which causes a decrease of the yield of the farming land in the polder area. The challenge of the project manager is to find support by property owners (both farmers and private house owners) to construct dams on their properties. The project manager brings in colleagues and a consultancy bureau to support him in the negotiations with the farmers and private persons.

Our case study is a type of discourse analysis, or the close study of language in use (Wetherell, 2001). We analyzed two negotiations. The first one between the project manager who is accompanied by a colleague and a farmer. The second one between a consultant (representing the water board) and a house owner. In these negotiations, both the farmer and the house owner mention their difficulties with the construction of dams on their property, which is incompatible with the framing of the representatives of the water board. We performed a comparative analysis to interpret the frame alignments of the water managers and to compare the effects of these frame alignments on the course and outcome of the interaction. We focussed our analysis on pieces of the interaction, where the stakeholders mention their difficulties. Then we identified for each utterance the frames that the speaker puts forward: an issues frame, an identity frame and/or a process frame. Consequently, we analysed the function of the frame by relating it to previous frames. Next, we indicated the type of alignment and finally we studied the effect of these frame alignments on the subsequent framing by both conversation partners. Our interpretation of the frames, is based on six semi-structured interviews: with the project manager, with his colleagues, with a farmer and a house owner. The observed interactions and interviews were audio-taped and transcribed. Also, we had informal talk with the three representatives of the water board we followed in the negotiations. The internal validity of our claims is enhanced by their plausibility for the development and outcome of the negotiation processes. Moreover, our findings have been discussed with and were recognized by the project manager. This internal validity is sufficient for our aim to gain insight into the processes by which a water manager creates and represents his frames and how this affects the interaction in a unique case.

Results
In the case study, we found that the water managers in both negotiations used different types of frame alignment: frame incorporation and frame amplification. In the sections below, we argue for these findings. Thereby, we use two illustrative and symptomatic fragments.

Frame incorporation
The first fragment illustrates how the project manager (P) extents his frame, and thereby incorporates the frames of a farmer (F). In this fragment, also a colleague (C) participates in the discussion. The fragment starts with F, who explains his concern with the planned dam on his property. Then, we see that P en F jointly reframe this issue, careful but determined. They bring forward alternative frames, that construct the issue as an unpleasant but insurmountable side-effect of a necessary action for the higher, that is public good.

We start our argument by an analysis of how P and C manage to reframe the issue brought forward by F. Subsequently, we proceed our argument by an examination of how P and C extend the alignment of their issue frame by the construction of the identities of both themselves and of their conversation partner.

Alignment of issues
In (1) and (3) we see that F puts forward his problem. He fears that the dams on his property will raise the ground water level in the access area of his pasture. In their response, both C and P make clear that they recognize the concern of F. In (2) C supplements the utterance of F and thereby signals that he understands the issue. Besides, P confirms in (4) the difficulty of the matter at the start of his response. The recognition is the first stage of their alignment with the issue frame of F and creates a common point of departure for the interaction that follows.
In (4) P continues the reframing by managing the expectations of F: “This doesn’t imply that we ever find a perfect solution”. This is the second stage of the frame alignment. In this utterance P makes clear to F that he intends to hold on to the realization of the high water zone in this village, despite unpleasant and prohibitive side-effects. In this way, P reframes the issue of F without discrediting the seriousness of this issue. It is interesting to pay some attention to the way P introduces his point of view. As we have seen above, P started in (4) to confirm the difficulty of the matter. However, P did not specify the difficulty. In his utterance, he copies the word “always” which F might give the impression that P confirms the difficulty of his issue. However, a closer look learns that P relates the difficulty to another issue, i.e. the separation of the water system. According to P, the primary issue is not that the edges of the pastures become wet. Instead, the issue is to realize the high water zone, despite negative side-effects such as the effect on the drainage of the edges of the pastures within the high water zone. This is a typical water management issue. P cannot agree with the issue as framed by F, since the logical solution of this issue is to abandon the intended construction of a dam on the property of F. The very reason for this interaction is to find support for this dam. Thus, P bridges his different and incompatible issue frame by taking over the notion of the ‘difficulty’ of the matter. In conformity with F, P makes this ‘difficulty’ also his personal concern when he says: “since you separate the water system.” He thereby equals the personal involvement to solve the issue. Then, P turns his attention to solve the incompatibility of their frames.
In the third stage of the frame incorporation, P elaborates the legitimacy of his issue frame over the issue frame of F. In (4), he involves F in the decision making process of the water board. He frames the consideration between the advantage of the high water zone for the buildings and the disadvantage for the farming land. In this way, P connects the private problem of the farmer to a public assessment framework. P chooses thereby for an economic ‘principle of organization’ (Goffman, 1974). The (intangible) benefit of the high water zone to prevent damage to the buildings in the villages outweighs the costs of the damage to the on end edges of farming land. The wording of P subtly underlines the legitimacy of this argumentation. P says: “If you ask someone to estimate” (4). In this remark P introduces a neutral party who confirms his statement. Furthermore, P says: “Therefore, it is decided to” (4). In this remark P does not specify the decision-maker, to underscore that the application of the economic criterion is universal and therefore self-evident.

Alignment of identities
P and C accompany the frame incorporation in (2) to (4), with identity frames and characterization frames. In the analysis below, we distinguish the identities and characterizations they use to support their frame of the issue, and which they use to support their discussion.

The identities and characterizations related to the issue frame
When P develops the public assessment framework, he thereby puts forward the identity of the water board as a transparent and accountable decision maker and as such has to make appraisals in complex situations. P introduces the water board as a third party at the background of the discussion. Later on, we see how P uses this separation between himself and the water board to extent his frames beyond the frames of F. When P stages the water board, he also constructs an identity to F. This is the identity of a good citizen, who understands that the public return in terms of the prevented damage to the buildings in the high water zone, outweighs the costs of individuals. This characterization matches the issue ‘to maintain the separation of the water system’ as framed by P. F is linguistically pulled out of his role as a concerned farmer, the identity he put forward in (1) and (3). Then, P proceeds the characterization of the farmer F as a stakeholder, who benefits from the lowering of the drainage level by an increase of the yield of his land in the polder area. He says in (4): “…a private house owner says, we do it for the farmers…” The message is that as a farmer, he has to take into account the benefits when he considers the costs of the high water zone. P mentions this characterization indirectly, since he presents these house owners in his reply. The included voices of this fourth party, underscore the validity of the characterization of the farmer F as a stakeholder. When P puts farmers and private house owners on stage, he constructs the identity of the water board as a spectator of their struggle. With that, he shifts the responsibility for the decision to create a high water zone to the ‘real’ problem owners. In his rhetorical question “for whom do you do it?” (4), P already indicates the problem ownership. By this question, he pictures a relationship between problem owners and problem solvers. In other words, by making a decision the water board has solved the problems of both farmers and private house owners. Then it is not fair to hold the water board responsible for the negative side effects of the high water zone. In fact, P refers F here to the private house-owners to discuss his issue.

The identities and characterizations related to the discussion of the issue
In addition of the analysis above, we find that P develops identities and characterizations that support their discussion. This already starts with the short supplement of C to the introduction of the issue by F. The word “drainage” in (2) does not only functions as a part of a problem description. More importantly, it constructs the identity of an understanding and helpful listener, who takes the concerns of F seriously. This is a functional identity, when a frame needs to be fit in a larger frame. P develops in (4) the identity of an accessible discussion partner, who shares his considerations and dilemmas. In this way, F can identify himself with P as someone who is concerned. When P asks the rhetorical question: “How do you do it?” (4), he constructs himself as an executor of the decision of the water board. This question also characterizes F as an emphatic conversation partner who is able to consider an alternative point of view. However, P does not tie himself up with this willing and reasonable identity. He also puts himself forward as a dyed-in-the-wool project manager, who is acquainted with the strategies of stakeholders by which they try to push away their responsibility. In this way, P discourages F identify himself as a victim; an identity that F easily can elaborate from the identity of a concerned farmer.

Language at work
Our analysis shows that C and P strategically use frames to find support from F to realize a dam on his property. In utterance (4), P does quite some linguistic work to extend his frames beyond the frames of F. The kernel of his strategy is to separate the issue from the discussion of the issue. With regard to the issue, the farmer (and the private house owner) is constructed both as a problem owner and as a stakeholder who benefits from the high water zone. The water board is constructed as a problem solver, with the task to decide on struggles between the stakeholders in the public interest. With regard to the discussion, P identifies himself on the one hand as an experienced executor of the decision of the water board and on the other hand as an understanding listener who takes the concern of F seriously. This strategy enables him to be both hard on the matter and soft on the relationship. P summarizes and confirms this strategy in a semi-structured interview. P mentions both the shift of the responsibility for the high water zone and the personal touch in discussing this responsibility. “It becomes more a kind of service of the water board. It is more like: you might not be aware of it, but you are going to have a problem. We recognize that en we warn you and we offer a solution. That’s quite a different approach then: the water board wants to realize here dams for a high water zone.”

What is the effect?
Our final step in the analysis of this fragment is to consider the effect of the frame incorporation. Does P succeed to persuade F in this way to agree with the construction of a dam on his property? Again, we discuss issue frames and identity frames. In his response in (5) we find that F appeals to a rule of exception. This implies that he confirms the general rule of the realization of the high water zone. In other words, F indirectly acknowledges the frames of P where the zone is in the public interest and in his benefit. These frames discourage F to identify himself as a victim of the initiative of the water board. As a victim, F could easily ignore the request of the water board to construct a dam on his property. Here we find that frames shape what action should be taken by whom (Gray, 2003). P has succeeded to start negotiations with F on the realization of the dam. The framing of P has influenced the framing of F.

Frame amplification
The consultant in the second negotiation uses another type of frame alignment that we identify as frame amplification. Just like the previous fragment, the consultant (R) has to overcome an objection against the realization of a dam on private property, in this case the property of a house-owner (H). We see that R responds by amplifying his own framework of reference for the issue addressed by the house-owner. This causes an alienation between the participants, which is exemplified in the fragment below.

We start our argument by an analysis of how R contrasts his issue frames with that of H. We proceed by an examination of how R aligns his identity to the identity of his conversation partner.

Alignment of issues
The fragment starts when H carefully formulates his problem with the planned dam. In his view, the measures of the water board on his property will cause “a considerable flow underground” (1). Then, R extracts this strip of talk (Goffman, 1974) as the cue for his response: “…the difference is still minimal”. Here R refers to a difference in the water level as a result of the dam that the water board has planned to realize in the water course on the property of H. According to R, the height of the difference determines the ground water flow. Since the difference will be small, also the flow will be minimal. Thus, R brings forward in (2) an alternative frame, by which he reasons away the issue of H. R already announces the frame amplification when he says: “Yes, but…” However, H is not satisfied with the response and does a new attempt to clarify his concern for the stability of his garden. H copies the frame amplification in (2) that he introduces with: “sure enough” (3). In (4) again R reasons away the concern of H for his garden. He points to a principle used by the water board to determine the minimal distance between a house and a dam. This distance is necessary to prevent a lowering of the groundwater level beneath the house and thereby possible damage. In (5) H names the frame amplification, when he mentions their different points of view. In this way, he brings their discussion of the issue to the discussion. This intervention invites R to discuss the differences, instead of maintaining his framing of the problem at hand. Thereby, H proposes a solution, i.e. the construction of a culvert. However, for the third time in this fragment, R does not go into the issue frame of H. This is a clear case of frame amplification.

Alignment of identities
In the analysis of the identity and characterization frames, we distinguish between the identities and characterizations that relate to the issue and those that that relate to the discussion of the issue.

The identity and characterization frames related to the discussion of the issue
A characteristic difference with the water managers in the first fragment, is that R limits himself to the discussion of the issue. Even though R does not bring up identities, he does align himself to his conversation partner. In this fragment, R presents himself in the discussion as an expert. As such, he relies on the legitimacy of his understanding of the water system. This becomes clear in the casualness by which he applies expert knowledge to the situation: the minimal difference of the water level (2) and the minimal distance from the planned dam to the house (4). Notably, during the whole negotiation, R uses expert language to explain the necessity of the high water zone and the functioning of the planned dam. The presumed legitimacy of his expert knowledge also becomes clear by the authority of his responses in which he reasons away the concerns of H. His undertone seems to be: I know it (better). In contrast with R, H constructs his identity explicitly and speaks in the first person. In (1) he identifies himself as a modest layman, when he says: “With my limited view…” Possibly, this confirms R in (2) in his role as expert. However, when R reasons his concern away, H chooses a counter position as a future informed stakeholder. The fact that H in this matter identifies himself as a layman, does not mean that he has not an interest. H strengthens his position further when he constructs a we-group with his partner who also participates in this negotiation. Then, H couples his identity frame with a process frame, i.e. to appeal to a third party. This process frame also strengthens his position, since this frame attributes the power to H to decide when and how the negotiation will proceed. Now, H has taken over the control of the negotiation which is acknowledged by R in (6), where he confirms that H has an own position. Then, in (7) H uses the snatched control to characterize R as another stakeholder. With that, he renders harmless the casualty and authority of the expertise of R.

The identity and characterization frames related to the issue
In correspondence with F in the first fragment, H identifies himself as a concerned house-owner. His concern is that his garden will become swampy when the planned dam is realized. The colourful words in his issue frame underline his concern: ‘considerable flow underground’ (1), and ‘it is all very weak soil’ (3). These descriptions refer to the vulnerability of his property. In contrast, F leaves out any personal of professional involvement in his issue frame.

Language at work
Our analysis of this fragment, shows that H amplifies his frames. In each turn, H puts his own frames forward, without acknowledging the frames of his conversation partners. We distinguish three coherent characteristics of his communication. Firstly, that he concentrates on the framing of the issue, whereby he draws from his expertise on the water system. Secondly, that he ignores the concern of his conversation partner. His frames leave out any personal or professional relation with the issue. In this way, he constructs an objective expert identity. Thirdly, that he ignores to frame the process to discuss the realization of the dam. Implicitly, H constructs the interaction as an instruction, in which a knowledge-owner explains something to a knowledge-asker. Instead, R frames the process as a negotiation between informed stakeholders who are dependent on each other to realize their aims. In sum, the alignment of H ignores the differences with the framing of R. This is a form of frame amplification.

What is the effect?
Does R succeed to persuade H to approve for the construction of a dam on his property? Clearly not. The frame amplification by R, calls up frame amplification by H. The result is that the identity and characterization frames and the process frames deactivate the issue frames of R. The mutually developed expert – layman relationship in (1) and (2) creates an imbalance of power between the two participants. This relationship can only work under the condition that R is able to build trust, so that H is willing to accept his expert assurance that the dam will have no negative effects. However, R does the opposite when he takes his own expertise for granted and ignores the concern of H. Thereupon H corrects the imbalance when he proposes to appeal to his own expert in (4) and (7) and when he characterizes R as a pursuer of his interest in (7). Thus, R does not succeed to find support for the realization of the dams on the property of H. although probably the judgement of R is right. Moreover, at least one new round of talks seems necessary to find support. However, in the next round R will not meet a concerned property owner, but a sceptical and informed stakeholder.

Discussion and conclusion – Sensitive communication
In both negotiations the representatives of the water board had to deal with an incompatible frame. We found that the observed representatives of the water board aligned differently: either by frame amplification or by frame articulation. Frame amplification stresses the own representations and marginalizes the representations of the other. The observed water manager took his own definition of the issue at stake and his own expert identity for granted. Therefore he failed to connect the incompatible frames. Morgan (1997) addresses this effect, when he contends that self-reference hinders organizations to detect and respond adequately to developments in the environment. However, all communication is to an extent self-referring. Weick (1995) stresses that self-reference is essential for sense-making, since it enables us to generate tangible outcomes that help us discover what is going on. The point here is that apparently conversation partners can construct their identity in such a narrow way, that they become insensitive for responses that are out-of-frame (Goffman, 1974). This will hamper the connection between two incompatible frames and will stimulate separation and alienation. However, sensitive communication is not simple. Often, a certain identity has proven to be successful in the past (Morgan, 1997). And an identity can still be successful in the present, in other interactions. For example in discussions with peers. Besides, a broad or multiple identity creates ambiguity and it becomes harder for people to decide how to deal with a situation.

Frame incorporation seems an effective strategy to connect conflicting aims. We identified in our case three stages of incorporation: recognition, management of expectations, elaboration of the legitimacy of the extended frame. The difference with frame amplification is that the incorporation of a frame includes rather then excludes the frames of another participant. Sensitivity recognizes and develops the relationship between the participants. This results in our case study that the project manager succeeds to create a space for negotiation. Clearly, the frames of the consultant lack sensitivity. In sum, the (lack of) sensitivity gives a plausible explanation for the difference in the outcome of both interactions and is therefore a relevant distinction to gain insight into the dynamics of interactions.

About the authors
i. Pieter Lems – Department of Communication Science, Wageningen University, The Netherlands
ii. Noelle Aarts – Department of Strategic Communication, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
iii. Cees van Woerkum – Water board Groot Salland, Zwolle, The Netherlands

REFERENCES
Aarts, N. and Van Woerkum, C. (2006). Frame construction in interaction. In: N. Gould (Ed). Engagement. Proceedings of the 12th MOPAN International Conference. pp. 229-238. Pontypridd, UK: University of Glamorgan.
Aarts, N. and Leeuwis, C. (2010). Participation and power in natural resource management and rural development: reflections on the role of government. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 16: pp. 131-145.
Argyris, C. (2003). A life full of learning. Organization Studies 24: pp. 1178–1192.
Benford, R.D. & Snow, D.A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociolog. 26: pp. 611–639.
Dewulf A, Gray B, Putnam L, Lewicki R, Aarts N, Bouwen R and Van Woerkum C. (2009). Disentangling approaches to framing in conflict and negotiation research: A meta-paradigmatic perspective. Human Relations 62(2): pp. 155–193.
Dewulf, A., Craps M, Bouwen R, Taillieu T and Pahl-Wostl C. (2005). Integrated management of natural resources: dealing with ambiguous issues, multiple actors and diverging frames. Water Science and Technology 52(6): pp. 115-124.
Drake, L.D. & Donohue, W.A. (1996). Communicative framing theory in conflict resolution. Communication Research 23: pp. 297–322.
Entman, R. (1993). Towards clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43: pp. 51-58.
Forester, J. (1999). The Deliberative Practitioner. Encouraging Participatory Planning. Cambridge: Massachusets Institute of Technology.
Gray, F. (2003a). Framing of Environmental Disputes. In: Lewicki, R, Gray, F, and Elliott, M. (eds). Making Sense of Intractable Environmental Conflicts.Concepts and Cases. pp. 11-34. Island Press: Washington.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis. An Essay on the Organization of Experience. London: Harper and Row.
Habermas, J. 1981. The theory of communicative action: reason and the rationalization of society. Volume 1. Beacon, Boston, Massachussets, USA.
Horton-Salway, Mary (2001). Narrative Identities and the management of personal accountability in Talk about ME: A discursive approach to illness narrative. Journal of Health Psychology 6(2): pp. 247–259.
Idrissou, L., Aarts N, Van Paassen A and Leeuwis C. (2011). The Discursive Construction of Conflict in Participatory Forest Management: The Case of the Agoua Forest Restoration in Benin. Conservation and Society 9(2): pp. 119-131.
Levin, I.P., Schneider, S.L. & Gaeth, G. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 76: pp 149–88.
Morgan, G. (1997). Images of Organizations. Sage Publications: London
Newig, J., Gunther D and Pahl-Wostl C. (2010). Synapses in the Network: Learning in Governance Networks in the Context of Environmental Management. Ecology and Society 15(4): pp. 24. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art24/.
Pahl-Wostl, Kabat, C. H. and Möltgen, J. (2007). Adaptive and Integrated Water Management, New York: Springer.
Putnam, L. and Wondelleck, J.M. (2003). Intractability: Definitions, Dimensions, and Distinctions. In: Lewicki, R, Gray, F, and Elliott, M. (eds). Making Sense of Intractable Environmental Conflicts: Concepts and Cases. pp. 35-59. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Rault, K. (2008). Public participation in Integrated Water Management. A Wicked Process for a Complex Societal Problem. Cranfield University.
Reed, M. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biological Conservation 141: pp. 2417-2431.
Scheufele, D. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication 49: pp. 104–22
Schön, D.A., and M. Rein. (1994). Frame Reflection. Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies. New York: Basic Books.
Van Lieshout, M. and N. Aarts. (2008). Youth and immigrants’ perspectives on public spaces. Space and Culture 11(4): pp. 497-513.
Wetherell, M, Taylor, S, & Yates, S. J. (Eds). (2001). Discourse as Data: A Guide for Analysis, London: Sage.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lamers, M, Ottow B, Francois G and von Korff Y. (2010). Beyond dry feet? Experiences from a participatory water-management planning case in The Netherlands. Ecology and Society 15(1): pp. 14. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss1/art14/

Abstract
The degree to which people believe using a system will enhance their job performance: this is the definition of Perceived Usefulness (PU), one of the main constructs in Davis’ Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). TAM was specifically meant to explain computer usage behaviour and to predict individual adoption and use of new IT to answer the question of why people do not make more use of IT. Over the past two decades many studies reiterated the importance of PU by adding various constructs to it. However PU is regarded as a ‘Black Box’ that needs to be opened. Barki (2008) draws our attention to the importance of constructs and approximately 70 constructs related to PU have been collected by Yousafzai et al. (2007). However Barki argues for the reconceptualization of constructs. First we need to know what is important in each construct. Dooyeweerd’s philosophy of everyday life assists, by his suite of aspects, to find the meaning of each construct and to show a way of reconceptualizing constructs that overcomes seven problems with Yousafzai et al.’s set. This employs a new approach, which is expected to lead to a more penetrating understanding of IS usefulness.

Keywords:
Technology Acceptance Model, Perceived Usefulness, Dooyeweerd, Aspects, Construct reconceptualization.

1. Background
Fred Davis’ (1986) Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) was introduced and developed under contract with IBM Canada, Ltd. where it was used to evaluate the potential market for a variety of then emerging PC-based applications in the area of multi-media, image processing, and pen-based computing in order to guide investments in new product development (Davis and Venkatesh, 1995). TAM was specifically meant to explain computer usage behaviour and to predict individual adoption and use of new ITs (Davis, 1989) . It posits that individuals’ Behavioural Intention (BI) to use an IT is determined by two beliefs: perceived usefulness (PU), defined as “The degree to which an individual believes that using a particular system would enhance his or her job performance” (Davis, 1989), and Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU), defined as “The degree to which an individual believes that using a particular system would be free of physical and mental effort” (Davis, 1989). It further theorizes that the effect of external variables (antecedents or constructs), such as Design characteristics, on Behavioural Intention will be mediated by PU and PEOU. According to Davis, one of the key purposes of the TAM was to provide a basis for tracing the impact of external factors on internal beliefs, and this has implied that without a better understanding of the antecedents of PU and PEOU practitioners are unable to know which levers to pull in order to affect these beliefs and, through them, the use of technology.

1.1 Constructs in models of IS use
Over the last two decades, there has been substantial empirical support in favour of TAM (Lee et al, 2003) by adding various external variables to the salient beliefs and modifying the original model in different ways. However, TAM has recently been criticized severely by Benbasat and Barki (2007) stating that:

“The intense focus on TAM has led to several dysfunctional outcomes … TAM-based research has paid much attention to the antecedents of its belief constructs and diverted researchers’ main focus from Investigating and understanding both design and implementation-based antecedents … Many studies have reiterated the importance of PU with little attention to investigate what actually makes a system useful … That is to say PU and PEOU have been treated as “Black Boxes” and few have tried to open them … Also the effort to “patch up” TAM in evolving IT context have not been based on solid and commonly accepted foundation, resulting in a state of theoretical confusion and chaos.”

Over the years, constructs like Trust, Image, Self efficacy, Results Demonstrability, Implementation Gap, System Quality, Computer Anxiety and Perceived Enjoyment, have been regarded as the additions that have been made to TAM. Benbasat and Barki (2007) state that:

“It is clear from extensive work on TAM that usefulness is an influential belief; therefore, it would be fruitful to investigate the antecedents of usefulness in order to provide a design oriented advice. However, to be able to do so in a systematic fashion, we first have to develop taxonomy, or preferably a theory, of usefulness.”
This paper suggests a way of investigating the antecedents of usefulness.

Towards this end, Barki (2008), points to the importance of well-conceptualized constructs that their contribution to the advancement of knowledge is evident. However, most literature mainly focuses on ensuring and testing the validity of constructs and few guidelines are available for identifying interesting constructs and how to go about conceptualizing them. Too little attention is given to the early stages of construct development, during which they are conceptualized. Therefore Barki calls for attention to be given to clarifying the definition of constructs, specifying dimensions and their relationships, applying them into different context and expanding the concepts underlying them.

In this paper we aim to go through conceptualizing constructs that relate to PU, in hope of opening the “Black Box” of usefulness. Specifically, we make use of Yousafzai’s (2007) 70 collected constructs, to argue the need for a new approach. Following Barki’s (2008) proposal to reconceptualize constructs, an argument is made that Dooyeweerd’s notion of aspects may provide a fruitful approach. These aspects are then applied to a selection of Yousafzai’s constructs, to investigate their deeper meaning. At the end we discuss the results and provide pointers for future research. The readership of this paper is two groups: researchers and practioners interested in conceptualizing constructs and scholars interested in application of the fifteen aspects of Dooyeweerd.

1.2 Collected constructs of perceived usefulness
After years in which ease of use and user interface had been the major interest of the human computer interaction community, Davis’ (1989) Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) introduced clarity to the intuition that usefulness is fundamentally distinct from ease of use and cannot be reduced to it. As such seminal papers do, it received thousands of citations and spawned a sizeable research into finding such external variables. TAM and its variants have been validated many times by positivist research methods, each time introducing new external variables that determine Perceived Usefulness and/or Perceived Ease of Use.
Taking previous studies into account, Yousafzai et al. (2007) conducted a meta-analysis of the TAM based research, arguing that over the past two decades few studies have attempted to validate the full TAM model with all of its original constructs. From different researchers in different studies and contexts, they collected together many of the external variables, finding 70, most of which were antecedent to PU. To bring a little order to the complexity that 70 variables exhibit, they are categorized into three main groups, and a sizeable ‘Other’ group:

Organisational characteristics:
Competitive Environment, End-User Support, Groups’ Innovativeness Norm, Implementation Gap, Internal Computing Support, Internal Computing Training, Job Insecurity, Management Support, Organisational Policies, Organisational Structure, Organisational Support, Organisational Usage, Peer Influence, Peer Usage, Training, Transitional Support

System characteristics:
Accessibility, Access Cost, Compatibility, Confirmation Mechanism, Convenience, Image, Information Quality, Media Style, Navigation, Objective Usability, Output Quality, Perceived Attractiveness , Perceived Complexity, Perceived Importance, Perceived Software Correctness, Perceived Risk, Relevance With Job, Reliability and Accuracy, Response Time, Result Demonstrability, Screen Design, Social Presence, System Quality, Terminology, Trialability, Visibility, Web Security

User personal characteristics:
Age, Awareness, Cognitive Absorption, Computer Anxiety, Computer Attitude, Computer Literacy, Educational Level, Experience, Gender, Intrinsic Motivation, Situational Involvement, Personality, Perceived Developer’s Responsiveness, Perceived Enjoyment, Perceived Playfulness, Perceived Resources, Personal Innovativeness, Role With Technology, Self-Efficacy, Shopping Orientation, Skills and Knowledge, Trust, Tenure in Work Force, Voluntariness.

Other variables:
Argument for change, Cultural Affinity, External Computing Support, External Computing Training, Facilitating Conditions, Subjective Norms, Situational Normality, Social Influence, Social Pressure, Task Technology Fit, Task Characteristics, Vendor’s Co-operation
(Note: Navigation, Objective Usability, Perceived Playfulness and Cultural Affinity are external variables that have been added only to PEOU which is not the focus of this study.)
An opportunity is provided by their study to gain a broad and perhaps deep picture of usefulness. This study begins to critically analyse them. But in order to do this it is necessary to find a sound basis on which to make such critique.

2. Need for a new approach
We could, in principle, use all these 70 constructs as criteria by which to understand, judge and evaluate the usefulness of an IS. As soon as we try to do so, however, we find a number of problems.
The first and most obvious is that this set is completely unmanageable, even when categorized into four groups as Yousafzai does. We need an approach by which to manage complexity.
Secondly, even so, the list of constructs is not likely to be complete. Computer Attitude is included, but other attitudes are not mentioned. Religious belief can also play a part, such as with the Amish sect in America, who resist modern technology, but is not included. User Participation (Barki 2008) is also missing from the above list. We need an approach that encourages the discovery of missing constructs.
Thirdly, some constructs are over-specific to a particular author’s interest or a particular type of use, such as ‘Shopping Orientation’. We need an approach that discourages over-specific constructs.
On the other hand, other constructs are ambiguous, such as ‘Terminology’ and ‘Facilitating Condition’. Barki (2008) argues that ‘User Participation’ is interpreted in several ways as either behaviour or attitude, so that results from different studies contradict each other. We need an approach that cuts through ambiguity.
Fifthly, there are overlaps between some of these constructs. For example, the Facilitating Condition overlaps with Perceived Behavioural Control in the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), and Social Influence overlaps with Subject Norm in Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) that is the Origin theory of TAM. We need an approach that, of its nature, tends to avoid overlaps.
Sixthly, it may be questioned whether Yousafzai’s three categories (Organization, System, Person plus ‘Other’) is the most useful or appropriate categorization. Other categorizations are offered, such as near-term usefulness and long-term consequences (Chau 1996b), intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation and learning goal orientation (Saade 2007), and hedonic versus instrumental use (Van der Heijden 2004). This raises the question: on what basis is it useful to categorize the constructs, in order to manage the complexity thrust upon us by 70+ constructs? We do not want to arbitrarily select one categorization among many, and to employ all of them brings its own complexity. We thus need an approach by which construct categorization can be grounded on something more fundamental.
Finally, the majority of people exposed to these variables were students and sometimes knowledge workers in laboratory studies. Most studies were undertaken in the USA. It is not clear how well the constructs translate into other cultures and usage contexts. Gefen et al. (2003) suggest that TAM is not just for work-related activity, but also applicable to diverse non-organizational settings, and they redefine PU as “a measure of the individual’s subjective assessment of the utility offered by the new IT in a specific task-related context”. We need an approach that is applicable across many contexts.

In his article ‘Thar’s Gold in Them Thar Constructs’, Barki (2008) conveys the message that although there is much potential in the constructs, they need reconceptualization. This must occur before attempting to address the problems above. While by introducing new constructs researchers can contribute to research and practice in the IS field, they can also make an equally strong contribution by better conceptualizing existing constructs. He describes four parts to an approach to construct conceptualization:
Providing a clear definition. There are concepts that are often mentioned by researchers, which are either poorly specified or sometimes even undefined. These are candidates to become constructs as long as they are defined clearly and “deliberately and consciously invented or adopted for a special scientific purpose” (Kerlinger & lee 2000).
Specifying a construct’s dimensions and their relationship. Many constructs are multidimensional. For example, conflict can arise from disagreement, interference or negative emotion or a combination of these (Barki & Hartwick 2004). In order to reconceptualize constructs we need to identify the dimensions in each and determine the conditions under which all or only some are needed.
Exploring how a construct applies to alternative contexts. The third approach is to reflect how a given construct can apply in different contexts, such as technological, organisational or individual. For example, might each construct be valid in hedonic contexts as much as instrumental ones (Van der Heijden 2004)?

Expanding the conceptualization of a construct. Barki suggests that, instead of seeing constructs in terms of attributes and functions, they could be seen as constituted in human behaviours, which are diverse in kind. For example, system use is better seen as an amalgam of human behaviours: “the more a person engages in [Barki gives a list of behaviours here] the more the person is viewed to be making ‘use’ of the system” (p.15). System use, when seen in the traditional manner, is very narrow, but when seen as a set of behaviours, as a second-order formative construct, it becomes richer, and “rich measures are currently lacking in the IS literature.”
If we are to follow Barki’s advice, we need an approach that enables us to identify distinctly what is important in each construct, especially where this is multidimensional, which does not presuppose a certain context, and which can view constructs as constituted in a coherence of diverse human behaviours. One approach that facilitates all these is that based on modal aspects of the Dutch philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd.

3. Dooyeweerd’s philosophy
IS usage includes humans and IT, and so requires philosophy that acknowledges the possibility of genuine point of contact between technology and human beings. Being mostly of the life world, with the human being in the social context, usage requires a philosophy that affords dignity to everyday life and to what it means to be fully and socially human. Thus materialist and rationalist philosophies are unlikely to be helpful (Eriksson, 2001). To deal with the constructs of PU that are mostly of human origin but cross cultures, a philosophy is required to transcend and yet uphold the perspective of human stakeholders.
The importance of philosophy in this area is more highlighted by Basden (2001), who differentiated between benefits and detriments of employing IT in human application tasks based on the philosophy of everyday life introduced by Herman Dooyeweerd (1894-1977) who was a Dutch lawyer and philosopher. His philosophy was a reaction against the the Neo-Kantian trend in continental thought prevalent at that time. The result of his work may be organized into five distinct yet interrelated, domains of thought: the theory of religious ground motives, the modal theory, the theory of time, the entity theory or theory of individual structures, and the social theory (Eriksson, 2001). For the purpose of this study we found the modal theory worthwhile in meeting the research objectives.

3.1 Modal theory
The Modal Theory emerged from Dooyeweerd’s comprehensive studies of theoretical thought and its relation to human reality. Dooyeweerd maintained that our thought is based upon and bound to our experience and that this experience exhibited a number of distinct modalities (or levels, or aspects, or dimensions, or spheres) of organization or laws. Accordingly a modality emerges out of human interaction with reality which includes both perceptions and conceptions (Eriksson, 2001), and it is a particular type of knowledge that has its own unique and distinct characteristics. Dooyeweerd proposed 15 modalities (aspects of everyday life) which are listed below in Table 1 (the left column is aspects and the right column shows their kernel meaning):

Early aspects anticipate the later aspects (for example, the lingual anticipates the social) and later aspects give more meaning to earlier ones. Each aspect is a sphere of meaning that is centered on a kernel meaning. Dooyeweerd believed that kernel meaning of aspects cannot be defined by theoretical thought, but can be grasped by intuition. The aspects cannot be directly observed, but they are expressed in things, events, situations, and so on as ways these can be meaningful. All human behavior involves functionality in a variety of aspects, usually all the aspects. By this we do not mean that aspects are different parts of human behavior, but rather that they are different ways in which it occurs meaningfully. To Dooyeweerd “each aspect plays different but necessary part in making life richly good” (Basden, 2008). Therefore, all things within our experience make sense by reference to one or more of the aspects.

IS usage is everyday human experience with the system and so can be thought about in terms of aspects. Basden (2008) suggests that any software might be used for a wide range of purposes, each meaningful in various aspects. To give an example, although we might play a computer game for fun (aesthetic aspect), we might sometimes play it as a social activity (social aspect), sometimes to boost our image of ourselves (pistic), and so on. Basden (2008) introduces the concept of Human Living with Computer (HLC) as “what the users experience when employing the computer in everyday living. Aspects of living that might somehow be affected by, or affect, the use of the computer beneficially or detrimentally”, and to explain the structure of HLC we are concerned with how human being function in the aspects that are their everyday living.
Basden maintains that Davis (1986) consideration of HLC is narrow because its concern is restricted mainly to the formative and perhaps economic aspects of IS use. Widening the concern to all aspects is likely to enrich it. So the present study uses modal theory as a tool for finding and understanding the everyday life meaning of each construct added to PU.

3.2 Why Dooyeweerd modal theory is likely to be fruitful
Each construct has been suggested and devised because it is meaningful to its author. Since aspects are spheres of meaning, the meaningfulness of each construct may be explained in terms of one or more aspects. So we employ Dooyeweerd’s suite of aspects for reconceptualizing the constructs and tackling the various problems of Yousafzai’s list. Dooyeweerd’s suite can uniquely assist in conceptualizing constructs in the way Barki (2008) calls for, for the following reasons.
To provide a clear definition of a construct requires clear delineation of distinct types of meaning on which the definition can be founded. Discourse analysis can expose meanings but its clarity of delineation depends on the analyst being both highly skilled and devoid of bias so that one type of meaning is not mistaken for another. The former requirement would restrict construct definition to elite experts, while the possibility of the latter is thrown into question by thinkers as wide-ranging as Polanyi (1962), Habermas (1972), Foucault (1972) and Dooyeweerd (1955). By contrast, Dooyeweerd’s suite of aspects already provides a good delineation of meaning-types at a foundational level and, since each kernel meaning can be grasped by intuition, meaning-delineation is no longer restricted to experts. Moreover, Dooyeweerd presupposes bias in all human thinkers but aspects of his kind transcend it.
To investigate multiple dimensions of a construct in a systematic way depends on committing oneself to a pluralistic ontology. Those offered by Hartmann (1952) and Bunge (1979) do not easily allow for simultaneous multiple dimensions. Dooyeweerd’s aspects, by contrast, are present simultaneously in all things, so can be treated as dimensions, and their mutual irreducibility ensures that the dimensions are othogonal to each other.
To consider constructs across different contexts requires a basis for understanding differences in context. Dooyeweerd’s aspects provide this for contexts that are roles or reasons for using the IS. Instrumental use of an IS is dominated by the economic and formative aspects, while hedonic use is dominated by the aesthetic aspect of enjoyment and the psychic aspect of feeling; thus Dooyeweerd’s suite accommodates both of the uses highlighted by Van der Heijden (2004). However, Dooyeweerd’s aspects can go beyond this because there are yet other aspects, pointing to contexts of, for example, social use, lingual use, juridical use and so on. This avoids having to squeeze the diverse variety of use into only two contexts.
To consider widening the way constructs are conceptualized, from attribute-function concepts to something constituted in diverse human behaviours, requires a shift from a static substance-oriented philosophical foundation, such as emanated from ancient Greek thought, to something more dynamic. One contender is process philosophy (Whitehead) but this does not so easily allow for diversity. Dooyeweerd’s philosophy, like process philosophy, sees things as constituted in, and arising from, functioning, but has the advantage that the types of functioning that it recognises, which are aligned with the aspects, are diverse and distinct and yet inter-dependent. For these reasons, we will employ Dooyeweerd’s aspects in conceptualizing the constructs.

4. Research methodology
The research of which this study is part adopts an interpretivist rather than positivist approach, because its aim to not to test a theory but to gain understanding and insight: insight into what usefulness is. This study attempts to gain insight into how Dooyeweerd’s aspects might be used to gain such insight.

The activity in this study is to reconceptualize constructs from Yousafzai et al.’s (2007) collection. To do this, the source of each construct is sought, so as to obtain a good definition or characterization of the construct in original text. That text is analysed to find what is most meaningful in what it is trying to put across about concepts relating to IS use that are behind the construct and related items in source papers were used to check or fill out the meaning of the concepts. Dooyeweerd’s aspects are used as a reference point in this process, as a categorization of ways in which things can be meaningful, with each relevant phrase being subjected to the question “Which aspect(s) best expresses what this phrase is trying to say?” Aspectual interpretation happened based on our intuition. The result is identification of one or more important aspects for each construct. In case of any conflict between the main aspect extracted from definition and the aspect understood from source paper items, we relied on the meaning hidden in the source paper.

5. Reinterpreting the constructs of PU
39 constructs are analyzed. For each one the main aspect is given and then possibility of having other aspects for them is examined.

Implementation gap
Implementation Gap in conceived by Chau (1996) as a possible gap between existing skills and knowledge that users have. The gap is meaningful as to be filled, which is a purposive action of achievement, a functioning in formative aspect. Other secondary aspects also play their part. The wider the gap between old and new skills, the longer will be the time likely to be needed for individual users to learn new skills and adapt to new work procedure which indicates his emphasize on time as a limited resource; that is a functioning in economic aspect. Responsibility for removing the implantation gap is juridical aspect and anxiety of users about the gap is a functioning in the sensitive aspect.

Internal computing support
Internal Computing Support is defined as “the technical support by individuals or groups with computer knowledge who are internal to small firms” (Igbaria et al, 1997). Little internal support for personal computing is available to users in small firms; however in small firms the lack of resources and technical sophistication precludes the creation of an information centre or PC support function. Informal support, in the form of help from users in other functional areas, manuals, purchased books, and help screens, is often the only form of support available. What seems meaningful to this is the going beyond what is due, a generosity, which is a functioning in ethical aspect. Important is the attitude of people who are to support the usage of the system. The quality of relationship among people is important in such Internal Computing Support, which suggests secondary functioning in social aspect.

Training
Training is an opportunity to learn about an innovation, thereby reducing uncertainty; also training enables the development of self-efficacy with respect to the innovation (Agarwal et al, 1996). As individuals become more skilled and comfortable in using the IS they better understand the it and its benefits (Riemenschneider and Hardgrave, 2003). This involves deliberate development and shaping of people’s skills, which is functioning in the formative aspect. Agarwal and Prasad (1999 and 2000) distinguish unstructured from structured training; structured training involves a precise idea of what is due to trainee and others (juridical aspect) while unstructured training involves self-giving (ethical aspect) and can be more fun (aesthetic aspect).

Internal computing training
Internal Computing Training refers to the amount of training provided by other computer users or computer specialists in the company (Igbaria et al. 1997). Prior research reported that training promotes greater understanding, favorable attitudes, more frequent use and more diverse use of applications in small firms. It is also reported that user training had a significant effect on the decision-making satisfaction of small firm managers who develop their own applications. Internal Computing Training is a functioning in the formative aspect because it is a shaping of the skills of people. Internal Computing Training also relies on people relationships (social aspect) and when it happens users are helped both in formal and in informal ways that shows juridical and ethical aspects respectively.

Job insecurity
Agarwal and Prasad (2000) report the result of a study focused on the issue of facilitating the movement of experienced programmers to become users of new programming languages. Job Insecurity is associated with the rapidly changing industrial structure and with greater susceptibility to innovations that are well publicized in the media. The main way that Job Insecurity is meaningful is in terms of financial resources, so it meaningful in the economic aspect. Also meaningful in Job Insecurity are people’s confidence in remaining in the market and being a bread winner (pistic aspect) and what should be there for people (juridical aspect).

Transitional support
Transitional Support in Chau’s (1996) study is about facilitating transition from the old to the new; in their study it refers specifically to software development and its tools. If such support is primarily dependent on generous attitudes then Transitional Support is meaningful in the ethical aspect. If Transitional Support is seen as what is due to users, it is meaningful in the juridical aspect. It involves a “network of support” involving formal and informal relationships among human beings, and hence has a social aspect too.

Accessibility
System Accessibility refers to the availability of resources for accessing the website, such as PC, modem and on-line services (Thong et al, 2002). Resources are meaningful in the economic aspect. Also this construct is meaningful in the juridical aspect, since the requisite resources are due to the users.

Access cost
Access Cost is defined by Shih (2004) to include the network speed and the cost of accessing the internet. For example the cost of accessing the web is an important part of searching costs for consumers using the e-market. Consumers prefer to evaluate the effectiveness of e-shopping based on its benefit and costs (Shih, 2004). This construct is meaningful in the economic aspect.

Compatibility
Compatibility is defined as “the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being consistent with the existing values, needs, and past experiences of potential adopters” (Moore and Benbasat, 1991; Agrawal and Prasad, 1997). This is another way of speaking of harmony in the sense of the aesthetic aspect. The juridical aspect tinge of due and obligation may also be sensed as a secondary aspect.

Convenience
Examining the subjects and constructs added to TAM in a more hedonic type of environment, Childers et al. (2001) believe that perception of Convenience is manifested by the opportunity to shop at home 24 hours, 7 days a week. Therefore interpreting this perception of convenience as an opportunity for users to save time is an economic aspect. They also state convenience includes `where’ a consumer can shop, which is the spatial aspect.

Image
Image refers to the perception that using an innovation will contribute to enhancing the social status of a potential adopter (Agrawal and Prasad, 1997), and Moore and Benbasat (1991) believe it to be one of the most important motivations in adopting an innovation. Social status is mainly a functioning in social aspect.

Output quality
In their studies, Davis et al. (1992) assert that “Quality is judged by observing intermediate or end products of using the system, such as documents, graphs, calculations and the like”. The perceived output quality was measured by asking subjects to rate the quality of each of the following types of documents: resume cover letters for job applications, class papers and reports, and personal correspondence. For measuring perceived output quality users were asked if the charts and graphs they would make with software X would be professional looking, or if by using software X the effectiveness of the finished product would be high or low. The main aspect that makes this meaningful is the lingual aspect.

Perceived complexity
Complexity is defined as “the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being difficult to use and to understand” (Moore and Benbasat, 1991; Thompson et al, 1991). Venkatesh et al. (2003) introduces the concept of Effort Expectancy that is defined as “the degree of ease associated with the use of the system” (Venkatesh et al, 2003) and believe that Perceived Complexity and Perceived Ease of Use capture the same concept. Thompson et al. (1991) see the complexity as a result of time required for learning, doing mechanical operations, and the time that is taken for normal duties of users. All this suggests that Perceived Complexity is meaningful in the economic aspect.

Response time
Response Time of, for example, a web site refers to the time that user spends on waiting to interact with a site. In their study Lin and Lu (2000) believe that Response Time of a web site is an important factor in affecting the user’s beliefs about it. They maintain that web page providers not only have to make the content informative and timely, but they also need to design a speedy web page by not putting in unnecessary data that as it might jeopardize the display time. Response Time is therefore meaningful in the economic aspect.

Result demonstrability
Result Demonstrability is defined as “the tangibility of the results of using an innovation” (Agrawal & Prasad, 1997), including their observablity and communicability (Moore and Benbasat, 1991). Both ‘demonstrability’ and ‘communicability’ suggest the lingual aspect. There is also a social aspect by virtue of involving human beings in the demonstration.

Trialability
Trialability is defined as “the extent to which potential adopters perceive that they have an opportunity to experiment with the innovation prior to committing to its usage” (Agarwal and Prasad, 1997). Trialability is involves deliberate formation of the relationship with the innovation, which is a functioning in the formative aspect. Secondary aspects include the lingual, because such experimentation involves recording and retrieving, and the juridical aspect because the opportunity to have a tested system is due to the users.

Visibility
Visibility is defined as “the extent to which potential adopters see the innovation as being visible in the adoption context” (Agarwal and Prasad, 1997; Thong et al, 2002). For instance, when an individual user sees an innovation on almost all desks in all other parts of the organisation, it is obvious enough for them to say they have observed that the technology “is being used” by the colleagues. It seems that this observation is not just limited to our eyes as one of the sensory organs that refer to sensitive aspect, but the individual is distinguishing the technology through the process in mind. Visibility is therefore meaningful in the analytical aspect.

Computer anxiety
Computer Anxiety is defined as “the tendency of individuals to be uneasy, apprehensive, or fearful about current or future use of computer” (Brosnan ,1999; Roberts and Henderson ,2000). This speaks of emotion, which is meaningful in the sensitive aspect. However the apprehension is often caused by a threat to some value that the individual holds essential to her/his existence as a personality, which is meaningful in the pistic aspect. The juridical aspect could also be meaningful in that the threat might be seen as a result of retribution.

Computer literacy
Computer Literacy is about individual abilities and tool experience (Igbaria et al,1997). This suggests the formative aspect, which is further supported by the fact that being computer literate has also a history; basic skills, intermediate skills and advanced skills. ‘Literacy’ also suggests a lingual aspect. As it is playing role in determining user status in the context it is the social aspect as well.

Educational level
This construct refers to the level of education that is indicative of the potential adopter’s ability to learn (Agarwal and Prasad, 1999). More sophisticated cognitive structures, perhaps acquired through higher education, lead to greater ability to learn in a novel situation (Agarwal and Prasad, 1999), which indicates the formative aspect. However, in reality the ability to learn anticipates more sophisticated cognitive structure (lingual aspect).

Gender
In their study, above all Gefen and Straub (1997) points to the gender differences and maintain that in socio-linguistic research gender is a fundamental facet of culture. Gender is most obviously of the biotic aspect. However, in showing show that mode of communication may be perceived differently by the sexes, there is a lingual aspect. Studies show that men and women tend to use and understand language in different ways (Venkatesh et al, 2003) and men tend to adopt a pattern of oral communication that is based on social hierarchy and competition than women do.

Perceived developer responsiveness
Perceived Developer Responsiveness (PDR) is defined as “the extent to which developers were perceived as being responsive to improvement suggestions and bugs reported by users” (Gefen and Keil, 1998). They emphasize the developer’s willingness to invest in their relationship with the users, moving beyond what is due to users and not limited to supporting in a formal way. Therefore PDR is a functioning in ethical aspect, with a secondary juridical aspect.

Percieved resources
Perceived Resources are “the extent to which an individual believes that he or she has the personal and organisational resources needed to use an IS” (Mathieson et al, 2001). Resources could be either tangible or intangible, and in either type they are treated as limited. This makes Perceived Resources meaningful in the economic aspect.

Role with technology
This construct’s complete name is Role with Regard to Technology and refers to whether the user’s primary responsibility is to be a provider or a user of technology (Agarwal and Prasad 1999). It has implications for their general level of experience with computing technology. Being either a provider or user, they have a social role in their own society and are in relationship with each other. Therefore, Role with Technology is a functioning in social aspect. As such Role with Technology reaches out to formative aspect due to the level of knowledge and skills that are determinant of different roles.

Shopping orientation
Shopping Orientation in O’Cass and French’s (2003) study could refer either to the economic aspect of obtaining resources, or the aesthetic aspect of recreational shopping. However apart from the O’Cass and French (2003) study it seems that orientation is not just restricted to these two aspects, but also points to the socializing tendency of shopping, which is the social aspect. There is also a sense of fulfilling an experience in the online shopping activity, such as is observed in websites like eBay. However, we conclude that in this study Shopping Orientation is of the formative aspect since, whatever other aspect is involved, the user is achieving a goal.

Tenure in workforce
Prior work suggests that older workers and those with greater company tenure are more likely to resist new technologies, and workers with less work experience were more committed to the changes caused by the new technology (Agarwal and Prasad, 1999). One could say it is functioning in formative aspect that is reaching out to number of days (quantitative aspect), age of employees (biotic aspect) and worth of workforce (economic aspect).

Voluntariness
Voluntariness is “the extent to which potential adopters perceives that adoption decision to be non-mandated” (Agarwal and Prasad, 1997). Primarily it is a functioning in the ethical aspect since it has a lot to do with willing attitude to choose what is not compulsory for them. However it could also be relevant to our courage (pistic aspect), and to what used to be a due before that (juridical aspect). It could be joyful (aesthetic aspect) or could be symbolic (lingual aspect).

Arguments for change
Argument for Change was measured then adopted by Jackson et al. (1997) to be added to Perceived usefulness. Argument in philosophy is the most basic complete unit of reasoning, or an atom of reason, but Argument for Change is more linked with communicating between people. Thus this construct is a functioning in the lingual aspect. Since it takes place among people it is a functioning in the social aspect too.

External computing training
This construct refers to the amount of training provided by friends, vendors, consultants, or educational institutions external to the company Igbaria et al. (1997). Compared with larger firms, small firms usually cannot afford to employ internal staff with specialized computer expertise, so to some extent they rely on support from outside the organisation. Given the information about the context of study, external computing training is a functioning in formative aspect. Also, one could argue that here formative aspect reaches out to the social aspect because of the relationships among people, to the juridical aspect, because of the contract that exists between two or more parties, to the ethical aspect because of the attitude that, for example, friends may show for helping their colleagues.

Facilitating condition
Facilitating condition is defined as “the degree to which an individual believes that an organisational and technical infrastructure exists to support use of the system” (Venkatesh et al, 2003). This construct was measured by asking questions concerning guidance which was available to the users in a selection of the system; specialized instruction concerning the system was available to the users; a specific person or group is available for assistance with system difficulties. These questions indicate that conditions that are facilitating the use of a system go beyond what is appropriate (i.e. juridical aspect) for the users, which suggests we could see this construct is a functioning in the ethical aspect.

Situational normality
Situational Normality is defined by Gefen et al. (2003) as “an assessment that the transaction will be a success based on how normal and customary the situation appears to be”. Gefen et al. (2003) suggest that Situational Normality is part of System Trust because, for example, perception of what is proper and normal in online shopping situation is helpful for shaping the trust between user and the system. Situational Normality thus assures people that everything in the setting is as it ought to be and that a shared understanding of what is happening exists. This suggests that Situational Normality is a functioning in the juridical aspect.

Subjective norm
Subjective Norm is defined as a “person’s perception that most people who are important to her think she should or should not perform the behaviour in question” (Fishbein and Azjen, 1975 cited in Venkatesh et al., 2003). In fact the emphasis is on the individual’s perceptions of normatively appropriate behaviour with regard to the use of system (Venkatesh et al, 2003; Venkatesh and Davis, 2000). Therefore the juridical aspect is an one important aspect that gives meaning to Subjective Norm. However, since social relationship play an important part, the social aspect is equally important.

Social influence
Social Influence has also been called ‘social pressure’ and ‘social norms’ by Thompson et al. (1991) and Venkatesh et al. (2003). Social Influence has its roots in Subjective Norm in the context of use, as is recognised in many studies. Social Influence, like Subjective Norm, is most meaningful in the social and juridical aspects.

Social pressure
Individuals may use micro computers not because of their usefulness or the enjoyment derived, but because of the perceived social pressure. Such pressure may be perceived as coming from individuals whose beliefs and opinions are important to them such as supervisors, peers and subordinates (Igbaria et al, 1996). They use the system because they think they will be perceived by the people who are important to them as technologically sophisticated. Igbaria et al. (1996) use Social Pressure to refer to Subjective Norm (Anandarajan et al, 2000 and 2002; Venkatesh and Davis, 2000)j, suggesting that both the juridical and social aspects are important.

Task-technology fit
Task-Technology Fit (TTF) is “the degree to which a technology assists an individual in performing his or her portfolio of tasks” (Goodhue and Thompson, 1995). It is the ability of IT to support a task, which implies matching of the capabilities of the technology to the demands of the task. If by fit we assume integration and matching between technology and task then it could bear the meaning of harmony that is the aesthetic aspect. However there is also an important juridical aspect, in that Task-Technology Fit contains an idea of obligation and appropriateness.

Task characteristics
Tasks are defined as “the actions carried out by individuals in turning inputs into outputs” (Goodhue and Thompson, 1995). Task itself is meaningful in the formative aspect, but the emphasis seems to be on distinguishing its characteristics, which means the analytical aspect is the main one. Task characteristics are those that inspire a user to rely on certain aspects of the IT, and is for a task of any type with any details and importance.

Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy is defined as “people’s judgment of their capabilities to perform a given task, which in turn determines which actions to take, how much effort to invest and how long to preserve” (Yi and Hwang, 2003). Such judgment may be seen as a functioning in the pistic aspect since it is a vision by people of who they are. This is confirmed by Yi and Hwang’s questionnaire, which mostly asked users about their confidence toward using the system.

Trust
Trust has many different definitions and connotations across research areas and usually takes place in highly uncertain situations between two parties (Suh and Han, 2002). Among different definitions, Trust is defined as “the willingness to depend on another party with having hoped to achieve a blossoming relationship is common” (Suh and Han, 2002 and 2003). Users believe in what they want to achieve and have reasonable confidence for their willingness to engage in using the system. Therefore Trust is a functioning in the pistic (faith) aspect.

Perceived enjoyment
Perceived Enjoyment refers to “the extent to which the activity of using a system is perceived to be personally enjoyable in its own right aside from the instrumental value of the technology” (Davis et al, 1992). The sense of enjoyment in using a given system helps people feel confident about their ability to successfully execute the requisite action. The enjoyment was examined by Davis et al. (1992) in terms of whether using the proposed system is fun or pleasant and if users find it enjoyable when they start working with it. Therefore, this construct is meaningful in the aesthetic aspect.

5.1 Summary of findings
Table 2 brings together the results from the above analysis. The first column shows all the analyzed constructs and the second column shows their main aspects. Main aspects were derived via aspectual analysis an understanding of their kernel meaning plus the intuition of the researcher. Notice that some constructs are the manifestation of two main aspects, which is mainly because the two aspects were considered as equally important to the desired construct. For many constructs there was a chance of finding other aspects.

6. Discussion
6.1 Aspects review
To have a better view of comparison between the different aspects the bar chart in Figure 1 presents Table 2 visually, showing how many times each aspect has been the main sphere of meaning for different constructs. Since only 39 of the constructs out of 70 were analyzed, these results must be taken as only indicative, so only brief discussion occurs here to indicate the kind of issues that might arise with a fuller study.

The first thing to notice is that three aspects are much more prevalent than others, the formative, economic and ethical. That is, the IS community has a tendency to formulate constructs that are meaningful in those three aspects more than in others. Why might this be? The interest in the formative aspect is easily explained by the fact that ‘usefulness’ is defined in ways that emphasise the formative aspect, such as “The degree to which an individual believes that using a particular system would enhance his or her job performance” (Davis, 1989), and we are dealing with technology. Interest in the economic aspect is easily explained by the fact that most construct-generating research has been carried out in the context of business, or at least organizational, requirements, and by the fact that TAM originally had a business purpose.

The high interest in the ethical aspect is somewhat surprising, in an industry and discipline that is not known for its ethical prowess. It should be noted, however, that ‘ethical’ to Dooyeweerd does not refer to corporate social responsibility nor what is usually deemed ‘ethics’ in IS, but refers to self-giving love, to generosity, to going beyond the call of duty, to attitude that is self-giving rather than selfish. The interest in the ethical aspect does not imply good functioning in it, but merely that those who created the constructs recognized its importance. The constructs that are defined mainly by the ethical aspect include Voluntariness, and four constructs by which the user feels supported in their use (Transitional Support, Perceived Developer Responsiveness, Facilitating Condition, and Internal Computing Support). Such support could be deemed of the juridical aspect (a right that users expect) but in practice users find generous support, with a good attitude, much more desirable, and this is of the ethical aspect.

Second, we ask why certain aspects are missing or low, namely from quantitative to psychic. This is explained by the fact that the first three are mathematical aspect and are seldom the most important aspects in human constructs. The physical, biotic and psychic are pre-human aspects, and of less interest when considering usefulness unless the application happens to relate to them.

Then attention may be given to the remaining aspects. That the social and lingual aspects are slightly higher might reflect the fact that research into usefulness relates to information (lingual aspect) in organizations (social aspect), but the full study might show something else. There seem to be no surprises other than the high interest in the ethical aspect.

6.2 Quality of constructs
Table 2 shows that many constructs are allocated one single aspect, but some are allocated several (multi-aspectual constructs). Among them there are constructs for them the main aspect is prone to the change, called ‘swinging constructs’.

6.2.1 Single aspect constructs
Table 2 shows thirteen constructs that are only one aspect. This implies they are meaningful mainly in one way, which suggests that these constructs are likely to be well-formed and aspectually clear and strong enough to be representative of one aspect. For example, Perceived Enjoyment is the aesthetic aspect, and Access cost is the economic aspect. Dooyeweerd does, of course, hold that all things exhibit all aspects when part of concrete situations, so for example Perceived Enjoyment is also formative (achievement that is enjoyed), but when generalized across situations, it is mainly one aspect that is meaningful in the case of these constructs.

Since aspects are irreducible to each other in their meaning, it follows that constructs meaningful in separate aspects should not be confused with each other; for example, Perceived Enjoyment (aesthetic aspect) should never be explained away in terms of Access Cost (economic aspect), nor vice versa, even though there might be some link between them. On the other hand, as discussed below, constructs that share a main aspect might be considered together.

6.2.2 Multi-aspectual constructs
Many constructs have more than one aspect in which they are meaningful, usually main one and some secondary ones. In some of these all aspects are necessary, and we call them multi-aspectual constructs. For example, Subjective Norm (SN) is a about the influence of people’s belief in our social environment on our behavioral intention. For this construct there are always at least two people as the prerequisite of shaping SN. So this is about ‘we’ (social Aspect) rather than ‘I’. SN is also about the importance we attribute to other’s norm, which demands an appropriate response (juridical aspect). Unlike swinging constructs (below), which lack clear explanation of their context, SN is always both Social and Juridical aspect in all contexts where it is relevant.

SN is relevant to compulsory use. In a context in which using a system is voluntary, SN does not make sense, because the juridical aspect of it fades away and its Social aspect is not as significant as the willingness (ethical aspect) to use the system. As we move from one context to the other, SN gives place to another construct, Voluntariness. This might account for why Davis (1989) excluded SN from TAM even though it is included in the Theory of Reasoned Action on which TAM is based.

6.2.3 Swinging constructs
For some constructs that exhibit more than one aspect it is not possible to decide which the main one is. For example, Transitional Support looks like a pendulum swinging between ethical and juridical aspects, and at the same time there are individuals or group of people with specific role and responsibilities and relationships (Social aspect) poking this pendulum from either side.
Likewise, Facilitating Condition is about factors in the environment that hinder or help the use, we have the swinging between ethical and juridical aspect. Unfortunately, the context in which facilitating conditions are tested is not very well described in Venkatesh et al, (2003), leaving some ambiguity. If help is offered by those who are paid to give it (help desks), this is juridical, but if it is offered generously beyond the call of duty, such as by hard-pressed colleagues, it is ethical aspect.
For Compatibility we chose aesthetic aspect but are not satisfied with it; it might be juridical if we are to match innovation with current needs and values. Internal Computing Supports swings between ethical and social. Job Insecurity swings between economic, juridical and pistic aspects.
The ambiguity of swinging constructs occurs because the sources did not have detailed information about the context, and we were not able to make up our mind what aspect could be the main one.

6.3 Reclassifying constructs
Yousafzai et al. (2007) groups the 70 constructs into three specific categories (organisational, system and personal characteristics), with many other constructs under ‘Other Variables’. The aspects may be used as more finely tuned categories, in which constructs are grouped according to which aspect makes them most meaningful. Table 3, which is Table 2 reversed, show which constructs have a given aspect as their main one.

This provides a more precise classification than Yousafzai, and has the advantage that there is no ‘Other’ category. Each construct is expected to be meaningful in at least one of the above ways. All three of Social Pressure, Social Influence and Subjective Norms exhibit both social and juridical aspects. It addresses Problem 6, in that it bases categorization on a philosophical reflection on spheres of meaning, from which all other categorizations arise. For example, hedonic versus instrumental use (Van der Heijden 2004) refers to use governed by the aesthetic versus formative aspects. Chau’s (1996) reference to near- and long-term repercussions refer to middle and later aspects since later aspects operate over longer timescales (Basden 2008).

The constructs that share an aspect might have an internal link between them, and this might assist understanding how they relate to each other. Thus, for example, Trust and Self-efficacy sharing the pistic aspect raises the question of whether they are linked. This brings a number of specific questions to the surface. For example, it may be that if users are confident they are able to use the IS, are they likely to trust themselves, trust others or trust the system? Raising such questions about constructs that share a main aspect could provide fruitful material for future research.

6.4 Towards a method for reconceptualizing constructs
Dooyeweerd’s aspects were applied to understanding the meaning of the constructs added to PU. Each of the 39 constructs has been ‘opened up’ by finding in which aspects it is most meaningful according to the author who introduced it. The meaning of these constructs has been made clearer and they have been reclassified in a way that brings to the surface some of the links between them. This allows us to reconceptualizing each in the four ways recommended by Barki (2008).

The exercise of assigning aspects to a construct forces us to clarify distinct meanings, which may be used to define it. For a single-aspect like Perceived Enjoyment (aesthetic aspect) this is quite straightforward, though the process of definition cannot cease once an aspect has been assigned. Doing so invites others to question whether other aspects are important – for example, it might also be a social and perhaps even pistic issue – but the clarity of such questioning and debate that follows is enhanced by having initially assigned an aspect.

When several aspects are found and assigned they can indicate the main dimensions of the construct (again making a clear proposal that invites critique). That the aspects are irreducibly distinct and yet also interrelated provides a basis for discussing the relationship between dimensions, and possibly for a richer discussion than even Barki envisaged. In particular, aspects are interrelated in respect of an entity, event or behaviour, since one aspect (qualifying aspect) governs the thing’s main reason for existence and another aspect (founding) governs the coming-into-being of the thing. For example, the qualifying aspect of Image is social and possibly pistic while its founding aspect is lingual.

With ‘swinging’ constructs the multiple aspects might indicate different contexts in which the construct might be applied. For example, Job Insecurity swings between economic, juridical and pistic aspect, depending on whether the main concern is to do with finance, rights or self-worth, which itself depends on context.

That some constructs are not attributes but are constituted as the outcome of human behaviors (Barki 2008) can be made clearer by aspectual analysis that sees the aspects as modes of (human) functioning. For example, social influence and social pressure are both social functioning, i.e. functioning governed by the social aspect. When we ask what is the difference between them, which we feel intuitively, we find we must bring in juridical functioning: pressure has the connotation of inappropriateness while influence can be more positive in that aspect.

This approach can address each of the seven problems exhibited by Yousafzai et al.’s (2007) collection of constructs.
* The unmanageability of Yousafzai et al.’s set: Dooyeweerd’s suite of aspects is more manageable.
* the list of constructs is not likely to be complete: Dooyeweerd’s suite of aspects aspires to cover the entire range of meaningfulness that generates constructs.
* Some constructs are over-specific in use or interest: Dooyeweerd’s aspects can show what is generic about them.
* Some constructs are ambiguous: Applying Dooyeweerd’s aspects helps to clarify meaning.
* There are overlaps between some of these constructs: Aspectual analysis can reveal where the overlap occurs and indicate how to resolve it.
* as centring on an aspect, and there are other aspects.
* Most studies were within a limited culture: Dooyeweerd’s aspects transcend culture.

6.5 On employing Dooyeweerd’s aspects
Applying Dooyeweerd’s philosophy to reconceptualizing constructs was not always an easy task. Dooyeweerd’s aspects are attuned to everyday experience so they are suited to analysing multi-aspectual situations of human activity because all aspects can be expected to be present. When they are applied to understanding extant constructs, which have been formulated as part of theory of, IS use, it might not be so easy. It is true that even these constructs exist and pertain within the horizon of the aspects, but those who formulated them have deemed certain aspects most meaningful, and the challenge is to find out which ones. Though words with which they are introduced give some indication, words carry many hidden connotations. For this reason it was important to seek out the original sources and try to work out what was meaningful to them.

Knowing the kernel meaning of each aspect was not enough for understanding what meaning each construct was conveying. Having a broader intuition of different central themes of each aspect and differences between neighboring aspects helped to understand each construct. Nevertheless, this study, of about half the constructs of Yousafzai (2007), demonstrates the feasibility of doing this and that this application of Dooyeweerd’s aspects has been fruitful to the new wave of opening PU’s ‘Black Box’ and especially of providing a way of reconceptualizing constructs.

7. Discussion and conclusion

7.1 Summary of research
This study discussed the possibility of applying Dooyeweerd’s aspects to Perceived Usefulness by seeking to understand in which sense the constructs added to PU as external variables are meaningful. When PU was questioned by scholars in the field, its complexity and vagueness became plain and Yousafzai et al. (2007) collected 70 constructs that resulted. To some extent, this opened the ‘Black Box’ of PU (Benbasat and Barki 2007), allowing us to look at what is inside it and letting all the complexities be revealed. But at the same time, it became a Pandora’s Box that released a lot of complexities. This study has demonstrated a way of opening the box that manages the complexities into fifteen aspects, in addition to possibly revealing other constructs which have not yet been discussed in the literature.

7.2 Limitation of this study and future work
The most obvious limitation of this study is that it covers only 39 of Yousafzai’s 70 constructs. This must be rectified before any sound reconceptualization and reclassification of constructs can be completed, but it is sufficient to show that this aspectual approach is promising, which is the aim of this paper. It might be, however, that some original sources are inaccessible.

Moreover, the analysis has been brief and indicative rather than exhaustive. Some residual ambiguity may be detected even in the aspectual analysis of the constructs. Much of the reason for this is that the original sources contained too little information to make the meaning of their constructs clear. Sometimes it was necessary to read between the lines. Some of the reason is that the exercise of aspectual analysis is ever a learning experience, which changes the analyst’s understanding of the very aspects s/he is applying. Dooyeweerdian aspectual analysis is a relatively new technique and a body of expertise is still being built up.

7.3 Contributions
The main contribution of this paper is to propose a method for reconceptualizing extant constructs of IS use, prior to carrying out the full reconceptualization. The method – aspectual analysis of constructs – operationalizes each of the four parts of Barki’s (2008) approach. It also potentially addresses each of the seven problems exhibited by the collection of constructs compiled by Yousafzai et al. (2007).

However, as a pilot for the fuller study, this study can indicate what kind of contribution can be made in the area of IS use, and especially in relation to Davis’ (1989) Technology Acceptance Model. Specifically, while TAM and related studies are mainly concerned with testing hypothetical links between predefined constructs, this study contributes to preparing the constructs for such testing, by reconceptualizing and even perhaps conceptualizing them. Dooyeweerd’s aspects provide the basis for a better categorization of constructs because they are fundamental ways in which things are meaningful. Since Dooyeweerd’s suite of aspects aspires to complete coverage of meaning, it provides a basis for identifying missing constructs. In its notion of interaspect coherence and of qualifying and founding aspects, Dooyeweerd’s philosophy provides a way of reflecting on the possible relationships between constructs. Finally, since the aspects are also spheres of law, each construct based on them will contain an innate normativity, rather than being purely descriptive, and this can perhaps yield models of IS use that are more useful in guiding evaluation and design. Though this study has confined itself to Perceived Usefulness, the method it explores could be applied to any other construct of IS use.

The study might also make a contribution to Dooyeweerdian scholarship itself, in that it differs from several other studies. The field of information systems is highly interdisciplinary and hence can be an excellent exemplar for applying, testing and refining our understanding of the aspects in Dooyeweerd’s suite. Whereas Basden (2008) explores this possibility, it does so at a broad level, while this study is much more detailed. Whereas Basden (2008) generates ideas from Dooyeweerd’s philosophy itself, this study begins with the findings of an extant body of research. Eriksson (2001) applied Dooyeweerd’s aspects to specific situations, as a case study; this study applies Dooyeweerd’s aspects to abstracted, theoretical constructs. Basden & Wood-Harper (2006) apply aspects to constructs, but they are constructs devised by one thinker, Peter Checkland, and so exhibit a coherence and completeness, and also elegance, that comes from good reflective thought. By contrast, this study applies Dooyeweerd’s aspects to constructs arising from many disparate thinkers, a collection which is much more numerous and exhibits incoherence and incompleteness. In such ways, this study might make a contribution to understanding a practice of aspectual analysis.

7.4 This paper situated among others
Why is it useful to reconceptualize constructs of IS use that have been discussed in the theoretical literature? The reason is that IS use is still not well understood, (Mishra & Agarwal, 2009). What has been extensively studied, and for which constructs have been formulated, has not been IS use itself but acceptance of information technology, prior to on-going use. Unless IS use as such is well understood, the attempt to gain benefits from IS use will remain ad hoc and subject to high failure rates. As a result, IT gets a bad name and is resisted even when it has been accepted.

Many constructs related to technology acceptance are nevertheless relevant to IS use – for example Usefulness and Ease of Use themselves – even if they need reconceptualizing in such a context. This study is oriented to IS use rather than acceptance and, as a first step, has explored a method by which constructs can be reconceptualized. The next step is to make a fuller study of constructs, more expressly directed towards IS use itself. This can take in not only all 70 collected by Yousafzai et al. (2007) but also those investigated by the usage community inspired by Delone & McLean (1992) and similar thinkers.

However, all these presuppose extant constructs. Basden & Ahmad (2011) in this collection of papers argue that extant constructs are theoretically oriented and are of interest to researchers and managers rather than being oriented to the everyday experience of actual IS users and their work colleagues, and they suggest applying Dooyeweerd’s aspects directly to the situation of IS use itself. Ahmad & Basden (2011), again in this volume, explore a method for doing this. So those papers can complement this one. All three papers join together in exploring how Dooyeweerd’s aspects can help us understand IS use better.

The approach in those two papers tries to ignore extant constructs, and understand IS use directly, but perhaps at the cost of not being able to hold discourse with extant literature. The approach in this paper might not be so faithful to the actual situation of use, but it introduces Dooyeweerd’s aspects in a way that maintains discourse with the extant literature.

Acknowledgement
The Authors would like to thank Dr Beryl Burns for the valuable comments on this paper, and the participants in the 2001 IIDE/CPTS Annual Working Conference.

About the authors
i. Sina Joneidy – Salford Business School, University of Salford, Salford, UK. Sina.joneidy@gmail.com
ii.  Andrew Basden – Salford Business School, University of Salford, Salford, UK. A.Basden@salford.ac.uk

REFERENCES
Agarwal, R. and Prasad, J. (2000). A field study of the adoption of software process innovations by information system professionals, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 295-308.
Agarwal,R. and Prasad,J. (1999). Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new information technologies?. Decision Sciences, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 361-391.
Agarwal, R. and Prasad, J. (1997). The role of innovation characteristics and perceived voluntariness in the acceptance of information technologies. Decision Sciences, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 557-581.
Agarwal, R. Prasad, J. and Zanino, M. (1996). Training experiences and usage intentions: a field study of a Graphical Interface. International Journal of Human-Computer studies, Vol. 45, pp. 215-241.
Ahmad, H. & Basden, A. (2011). Down-To-Earth Issues In (MANDATORY) Information System Use: PART II – Approach To Understand and Reveal Hidden Issues.  In: Haftor, D.M. and Van Burken, C.G. (eds.) (2011) “Re-Integrating Technology and Economy in Human Life and Society”, Proceedings of the 17th Annual Working Conference of the IIDE, Maarssen, May 2011, Volume II, Amsterdam: Rozenberg Publishers
Anandarajan, M., Igbaria, M. and Anakwe, U. P. (2000). Technology acceptance in the banking industry. Information Technology and People, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 298-312.
Anandarajan, M., Igbaria, M. and Anakwe, U. P. (2002). IT acceptance in a less-developed country. International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 47-65.
Barki, H. (2008). Thar’s Gold In Them Thar Constructs. The DATA BASE for advances in Information Systems, Vol. 39, No. 3,pp. 9-20.
Barki,H. and Hartwick, J. (2004). Conceptualizing the construct of interpersonal conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 15, No.3, pp.216-244.
Basden, A. (2001). A philosophical underpinning for IT evaluation. Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on IT Evaluation, pp. 109-116.
Basden A, Wood-Harper AT. (2006) A philosophical discussion of the Root Definition in Soft Systems Thinking: An enrichment of CATWOE. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 23:61-87.
Basden, A. (2008). Philosophical Frameworks for Understanding Information Systems. Hershey, USA: IGI Global.
Basden, A. & Ahmad, H. (2011). Down-To-Earth Issues in (Mandatory) IS Use; PART I – Types of Issue. In: Haftor, D.M. and Van Burken, C.G. (eds.) (2011) “Re-Integrating Technology and Economy in Human Life and Society”, Proceedings of the 17th Annual Working Conference of the IIDE, Maarssen, May 2011, Volume II, Amsterdam: Rozenberg Publishers
Benbasat, I. and Barki, H. (2007). Quo Vadis, TAM?. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 211-218.
Brosnan, M. J. (1999). Modelling Technophobia: a case for word processing. Computers in Human Behaviour, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 105-121.
Bunge M, (1979). Treatise on Basic Philosophy, Vol. 4: Ontology 2: A World of Systems. Reidal, Boston.
Chau, P. K. (1996). An empirical investigation on factors affecting the acceptance of CASE by system developers. Information and Management, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 269-280.
Childers, T., Carr, C., Peck, J. and Carson, S. (2001). Hedonic and Utilitarian motivations for online retail shopping behaviour. Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77 No. 4, pp. 511-535.
Davis, F. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: theory and results. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA.
Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, Perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 319-340.
Davis, F., Bagozzi, R. P. and Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and Intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 14, pp. 1111-1132.
Davis, F, Venkatesh, V,(1995). Measuring User Acceptance of Emerging Information Technologies: An Assessment of possible Method Biases. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp.729-736.
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable. Information Systems Research, Vol.3, No.1, pp. 60-95.
Dooyeweerd H. (1955). A New Critique of Theoretical Thought, Vol. I-IV, Paideia Press (1975 edition), Jordan Station, Ontario.
Eriksson, D. (2001). Multi-Modal Investigation of a Business Process and Information System Redesign: A Post-Implementation Case Study. Systems Research and Behavioural Science, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 181-196.
Foucault, M. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge (tr. A.M. Sheridan Smith). London: Routledge.
Gefen, D. and Straub, D. W. (1997). Gender differences in the perception and use of e-mail: an extension to the TAM. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 389-400.
Gefen, D. and Keil, M. (1998). The impact of developer responsiveness on perceptions of usefulness and ease of use: extension of TAM. The Data Base, Vol. 29. pp. 35-49.
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E. and Straub, D. W. (2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: an integrated model. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 51-90.
Goodhue, D. L. and Thompson R. L. (1995). Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 213-236.
Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and Human Interests, tr. J.J. Shapiro. London: Heinemann.
Hartmann, N. (1952). The New Ways of Ontology. Chicago University Press.
Igbaria, M., Zinatelli, N., Cragg, P. and Cavaye, A. (1997). Personal computing acceptance factors in small firms: a structural equation model. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 279-302.
Igbaria, M., Parasuraman, S. and Baroudi, J. (1996). A motivational model of microcomputer usage. Journal of MIS, Vol. 13 No. 1,pp. 127-143.
Jackson, C.,Chow, S. and Robert, A. (1997). Towards an understanding of the behavioural intention to use an IS. Decision Science, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 357-389.
Kerlinger, F.N. and Lee, H.B. (2000). Foundations of Behavioural Research, 7th Edition. New York, NY: Thomson Learning
Lee, Y., Kozar, K.A. and Larsen, K.R.T. (2003). The Technology Acceptance Model: past, present, and the future. Communications of the AIS, Vol.12, pp.752-780.
Lin, J. C. and Lu, H. (2000). Towards an understanding of the behavioural intention to use a web site. International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 197-208.
Mathieson, K., Peacock, E. and Chin, W. (2001). Extending the technology acceptance model: the influence of user resources. The Database, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 86-104.
Mishra, A. N., & Agarwal, R. (2009). Technological Frames, Organizational Capabilities, and IT Use: An Empirical Investigation of Electronic Procurement. Information Systems Research, pp.1-22.
Moore, G. C. and Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an Instrument to measure the perceptions of Adopting an information technology Innovation. Information Systems Research, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 192-222.
O’Cass, A. and French, T. (2003). Web retailing adoption: exploring the nature of internet users web retailing behaviour. Retailing and Consumer Service, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 81-94.
Polanyi, M. (1962). Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. University of Chicago Press.
Riemenschneider, C. K. and Hardgrave, B. C. (2003). Explaining software development tool use with technology acceptance model. Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 41 No. 4,pp. 1-8.
Roberts, P. and Henderson, R. (2000). Information technology acceptance in a sample of government employees. Interacting with Computers, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 427-443.
Saade, R. G. (2007). Dimensions of Perceived usefulness: Toward Enhanced Assessment. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 289-310.
Shih, H. P. (2004). An empirical study on predicting user acceptance of e-shopping on the web. Information and Management, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 351-369.
Suh, B. and Han, I. (2002). Effect of trust on customer acceptance of internet Banking. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 1 No. 3. pp. 247-263.
Suh, B. and Han, I. (2003). The impact of customer trust and perception of security control on the acceptance of electronic commerce. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 135-161.
Thompson, R. L., Higgins, C. A., and Howell, J. M. (1991). Towards a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 1,pp. 125-143.
Thong, J., Hong, W. and Tam, K-R. (2002). Understanding user acceptance of digital libraries: what are the roles of interface characteristics, organisational context, and individual differences? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 215-242.
Van der Heijden, H. (2004). User Acceptance of Hedonic Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 28, No.4, pp. 694-704.
Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 186-204.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G. and Davis, F. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: towards a unified view. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 479-501.
Yi, M. Y. and Hwang, Y. (2003). Predicting the use of web-based information systems: self-efficacy enjoyment, learning goal orientation, and the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. 431-449.
Yousafzai, Sh Y., Foxall, G R. and Pallister, J G. (2007). Technology acceptance: a meta-analysis of the TAM: Part 1. Journal of Modelling in Management, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 251-280.

Abstract
This paper shows how Dooyeweerd’s aspects of reality are related to Goudzwaard’s notion of idolatry and discusses how Dooyeweerd’s aspects contribute to the understanding of idolatry as a cause of problems in e-government.
NOTE: This paper is a description of ongoing research. Work on the paper could not be completed because of family commitments and the authors request that it should be treated as ‘work in progress’. The authors would also like to express their apologies for any lack of clarity in the paper.

Keywords: Idolatry, Dooyeweerd, Aspects, ICT

1. Introduction
In relation to IS projects and particularly, e-government projects, several problems have been noted. Some researchers have identified idolization or idolatry of technology as a potential cause of the problems (Gauld & Goldfinch 2006; Heeks 2006). However, what idolization is has not been clearly explained. Krishnan Harihara & Basden (2008) developed Goudzwaard’s notion of idolatry to account for many of the problems in e-government projects that are related to idolization, and this gave precision of thought. Krishnan Harihara & Basden (2010) extended this by arguing that each element can take on a positive form, which is valid and may be expected to be present in successful projects. This made Goudzwaard’s notion of idolatry more complete as a tool with which to study e-government, relevant to both success and failure, but the tool was not operationalized. The current paper operationalizes the notion of idolatry, using Dooyeweerd’s (1955) notion of aspects, so that e-government projects and literature about e-government can be critically evaluated.

2. Background
Heeks (2006) identifies several attitudes that might be adopted towards ICT:
* Ignore: ICT is not seen as part of the reform agenda. Even when computers are available, they remain unused.
* Isolate: the procurement and deployment of ICT the sole responsibility of the technical staff.
* Integrate: understanding the potential of ICT, tempered by recognition that ICT can at best play a secondary role.
* Idolise: structuring the reform process around ICT. ICT forms the core of the business of government. We see this in the vision embodied in the term ‘transformational government’.
Heeks warns that wherever an attitude of idolisation is noticeable, the possibility of failure is very high. Though he gives some examples, he does not discuss the nature of idolisation.

The research is based on the following passage from Goudzwaard (1984, p.21):
“First, people sever something from their immediate environment, refashion it and erect it on its own feet in a special place. Second, they ritually consecrate it and kneel before it, seeing it as a thing which has life in itself. Third, they bring sacrifices and look to the idol for advice and direction. In short, they worship it. … Fourth, they expect the god to repay their reverence, obedience and sacrifice with health, prosperity and happiness.”

Idolatry is a problem to Goudzwaard because:
* Idolatry “distorts genuine norms and values” (p.24) in ways we might not otherwise wish for. “It defines goodness, truth, justice and love as that which serves the end.”
* An idol is an end that “indiscriminately justifies every means” (p.23). Increasingly, the means chosen are ones we would not normally agree with.
* That an idol has absolute authority over our lives means that it “demands that men, women and the environment continually adjust to the new laws of the continually developing means. If some aspect of the environment or humankind is ruined, this is justified as an unfortunate but necessary sacrifice. For the good cause: the happiness of all.” (p.25 )
* The idol “creates its own false enemies. The ideology declares anyone a traitor who because of his position or past forms an obstacle to the goal” (p.25).
* “Worship brings with it a decrease in their own power: now the god reveals how they should live and act” (p.21). “Soon, however, they become dependent on their own creation. No wonder: having given the creation its own life, it has a grip on them” (p.22).
* Basden (2008, p.332) adds that an idol delivers the opposite of what it promises.
As a result of all these, Goudzwaard says, the earth suffers (p.48), and in particular, “The poor developing countries are hit the hardest by the economic spiral” (p.90).

Goudzwaard’s characterization of idolatry contains ten elements, which are reinterpreted by Krishnan Harihara & Basden (2008) in the context of e-government. Krishnan Harihara & Basden (2010) argue that each element can take on a positive form, which is valid and may be expected to be present in successful projects. For example, in any innovation something is likely to be sacrificed, so the question is shifted to the motivation for, and nature of the sacrifice. Table 1 shows the elements and their idolatrous and valid forms.

Krishnan Harihara & Basden (2008, 2010) link these with extant academic literature and with reports of professional experience, and in (2010) examine three cases in detail.

This makes Goudzwaard’s notion of idolatry more complete as a tool with which to study e-government as a whole rather than only its failures. But questions remain. How can we use the elements above in practice to evaluate existing projects, critique proposals and plan for e-government? Are all the elements important? Why (not)? How do we know when and whether to ignore some? It is difficult to see how the above understanding can address those questions. It is necessary to understand each element more deeply, especially what it offers to the process of idolatry and why and when it is necessary.

3. A basis for understanding elements
Goudzwaard’s work was influenced by Dooyeweerd’s (1955) philosophical work, in particular its recognition of the religious root of all human activity. By ‘religion’ Dooyeweerd means “the innate impulse of human selfhood to direct itself toward the true or toward a pretended absolute Origin of all temporal diversity of meaning” (1955,I,p.57). This innate impulse pervades and affects all we do and are at a deep level; this is why idolatry has a deep effect on e-government and other projects and implementations. Religion in this sense is not confined to formal creeds, but refers to commitment and deep firm belief about who we are and what is most important.

This belief and commitment are one mode or aspect of human functioning, along with fourteen others. Each aspect or mode is irreducible to the others in terms of their meaning and norms, but they are mutually dependent when expressed in our concrete functioning as individuals in society and world. The fifteen aspects delineated by Dooyeweerd are as follows, with human functioning in each aspect in brackets:

* Quantitative: (functioning with quantity, amount)
* Spatial: (extending)
* Kinematic: (moving)
* Physical: (functioning with energy + mass)
* Biotic: (life functions)
* Sensitive: (sensing, responding; feeling, emotion)
* Analytical: (functioning with clarity)
* Formative: (shaping, planning and achieving; history, culture, technology)
* Lingual: (communicating or recording)
* Social: (relating socially, with roles)
* Economic: (frugally managing resources)
* Aesthetic: (harmonising, enjoying; fun)
* Juridical: (ensuring due; ‘retribution’, rights and responsibilities)
* Ethical: (self-giving love)
* Pistic: (believing; functioning with vision, aspiration, commitment, creed, religion)

From this perspective, both idolatry and its positive counterpart (e.g. commitment to the good) are primarily pistic functioning, but idolatry is dysfunction that harms while positive pistic functioning brings good.

Our functioning in later aspects depends foundationally on that in earlier ones, but it gives meaning and direction to our functioning in earlier ones. So, for example social functioning largely determines how we use language. So our pistic functioning affects all earlier aspects. Thus whether our pistic functioning in e-government is idolatrous or positive will affect our attitudes, our practice of justice, our view of harmony and fun, our economies, our interaction with people (e.g. citizens), our communication, our planning, our clarity of vision, and so on.

To Dooyeweerd, all human activity exhibits all aspects, though usually one aspect predominates. For example in writing, the lingual aspect predominates, but there are also a social and aesthetic aspects (taking account of for whom we write, and the style of writing). Idolatry or its counterpart, though primarily pistic, also involves functioning in the other aspects. The elements of idolatry might then be seen as qualified by different aspects as part of this. Therefore we employ Dooyeweerd’s aspects to understand the elements more deeply.

4. Developing the elements of idolatry
4.1 Positive and negative
To apply aspects to elements of idolatry, we ask what makes the element meaningful as part of idolatry or its positive counterpart. From the analytic aspect onwards, there can be both positive and negative. Table 2 shows the positive and negative in each aspect from the analytic aspect onwards; for more detail see Basden (2011).

4.2 Aspectual analysis of elements
Each element is analysed with respect to which aspect is most meaningful in its positive and negative versions. Elements of idolatry can exhibit aspects in two different ways – the same aspect for both the positive and negative side; different aspects for the positive and negative sides. In some cases, more than one aspect applies for the positive and negative side.

4.2.1 Severing
The positive side of severing is stressing the difference of the concept from its origins in the sense that it is a change for the better. There is no carving out of a new entity. Instead, the unsevered whole has the potential to come out of a previously subjugated state. This indicates the analytical aspect. Basden (2010) stresses that the kernel meaning of the analytical aspect is ‘distinction’. Distinction indicates independence. Such independence, Basden (ibid) says, enables us to undertake theoretical thinking so that we are able to conceptualize something as being distinctively meaningful. Such independence does not indicate absolute autonomy but conceptualization and reasoning. In relation to e-government, this enables us to understand that it is a beneficial change attained through selectively using ICT to meet governance objectives, and not a new entity plucked out of ‘old’ (non ‘e’) government.

The negative side of severing is a deliberate decoupling of the entity from its origins. It involves shunning and decrying the original, while glorifying the new decoupled form. The original is shunned not because it is inherently bad but because of hubris. Similarly, the glorification of the new decoupled form is not because it is inherently good (which it could be, but that has not been examined), but because of a fascination for it. This also indicates the analytical aspect. But the analytical aspect is here combined with the lingual activity of changing the terminology and language. In relation to e-government, this can be clearly seen. Often, the use of terms such as transformational government in relation to use of ICT indicates severing, and thus idolatry.

4.2.2 Refashioning
In the positive sense, refashioning is reforming a concept or system to get rid of its defects and inadequacies. This indicates improvement and innovation. At the root of this aspect are human activities such as designing, implementing structures and improving (Basden, 2010). So refashioning in the positive sense is formative. Basden (2010) opines that the good of this aspect offers the possibility that technology could help alleviate some societal problems. In relation to e-government, deploying ICT might help improve governmental functioning and could bring some positive change, but for that to happen there must be reform of the whole system of governance. That would indeed be beneficial.

Refashioning is negative an idolatrous when the context is changed to suit the newly carved out entity. This is also a formative function, but a negative formative functioning. In relation to e-government, this is changing governmental tasks and administrative practices to suit new technology led government. Basden (2010) quotes Schurman (1984) who argues that technology should not be guided by its own norms, which is undesirable. When governments become so technology focussed that, they drastically change ‘old’ government much to the detriment of the citizenry.

4.2.3 Erect in a special place
The positive dimension to erecting in a special place is treating a genuinely good idea as unique and special. This involves making a well considered distinction between that idea and others. This is analytical functioning. In positive erect in a special place, we see the analytical aspect in two ways; one, on the separating out of the ideal from its surroundings and also in the examination of the worth or value of the idea, which leads us to grant it a special place.

In the negative sense, erect in a special place is granting the severed idea or entity a position of power and privilege that it does not deserve. This indicates the juridical aspect working negatively. The juridical aspect opens up the possibility of granting some what is due to it. But that doesn’t necessarily involve granting that which is not due at the cost of not grating what it due to others. This is negative juridical. Governments focussed on e-government and the rapid deployment of ICT grant technology such importance that other important issues in relation to organisational factors and some of the adverse impacts of ICT deployment is often ignored.

4.2.4 Ritual consecration
Positive ritual consecration is realizing the importance of something and declaring or proclaiming its value. In practice, we see ritual consecration in statement or announcements about the idea; the setting of starting points and in the formal commencement of an activity. This formal activity is symbolic, but an essential preface to what follows and what led to it. This indicates the lingual aspect. In relation to e-government, consecration could be a positive thing if it means public proclamation or formal initiation of a system to further a genuinely beneficial goal.

Negative ritual consecration involves glorifying the idol, combined with castigating those who do not serve it. There are pronouncements about the importance of the idol and why it ought to be served. This is can be seen operating in the prestige ICT projects initiated by some governments. The commencement of such projects are marked by public announcements about how beneficial these projects would be and why they should be accepted and adopted by society. The announcements also declare why resources ought to be diverted from other areas to this project. Anyone who questions the value of the projects is declared as being against progress and development. Thus, negative ritual consecration is also a lingual function.

4.2.5 Kneel before it
In the positive sense, this involves submitting to the demands of a noble cause. That means the value of that cause is thoroughly accepted and this brings about the commitment to that cause. This is pistic functioning. There is deliberate acknowledgement of the value of that cause, and that determines what actions are taken.
In the negative sense, kneeling is both a declaration and an acceptance of the idol’s holiness. This is a kind of unquestioned and undesirable submission. It is accepting the mastery of the idol over us, much like slavery to the idol.

4.2.6 Life of its own
Anything having a life of its own means it is self-sustaining. On the positive side, where society has accepted the importance of an entity and its value there is the voluntary commitment and provision of resources to that cause. The granting of such resources is done without grudge. This is juridical functioning. The kernel meaning of the juridical aspect is meeting the the requirements of what is due. In relation to e-government, we see this in operation in the allocation of funds, appointment of personnel for the projects and the dedication of time and effort for realizing the project.

Life of its own operates negatively when the idol makes itself self-sustaining by usurping the resources it needs. The steps leading to the idol attaining a life of its own has such an influence on its followers that the idol is now in a position to demand any resources it needs and society grants it unquestioningly. In this manner, the idol is able to determine its own course of development. The idol thus begins to shape society in such a way it is able to progress, which might be in such a way the rest of society might be disadvantaged.

4.2.7 Bring sacrifices
If in pursuit of a noble cause, one were to make sacrifices it deserves appreciation. Such sacrifice could be in the form of granting resources and putting in effort in service of the cause. Such dedication of resources often exceeds the minimum resources needed for the project and may involve the diversion of resources from other activities and areas. This indicates ethical functioning. Baden (2010) explains that the ethical aspect presents the possibility of ‘extra goodness’ and going beyond the requirements of the juridical aspect. Functioning in the ethical aspect includes being hospitable, generous and good even at expense or disadvantage to ourselves.

Idolatrous sacrifice is often forced upon others. Such sacrifice involves renouncing giving up the good in service to the idol. In idolatrous sacrificing, the followers of the idol may cause much suffering and pain to themselves and to rest of society. They might do this without even realizing the impact of making such sacrifices because of the hold the idol has on them. Thus, the idol causes the bad to happen. This indicates negative juridical. Basden (2010) says the juridical aspect operates negatively when we see partiality and injustice. This we see in operation in idolatrous making of sacrifices.

4.2.8 Look to it for advice
Looking to something for advice is a positive thing when the entity is allowed to shed light on good principles. When this happens, policy is set around the noble cause because it helps achieve justice, peace and prosperity for everyone in society. In relation to e-government, this would mean the government listening to society to understand what society needs (and asks for) and working towards achieving it. The government listening to society is giving what is due to it. This indicates the juridical aspect.

Looking to something is a retrograde step when we unquestioningly allow the entity to dictate what we ought to do. Here the idol dictates not only what society ought to do in its service, but also how to conduct life in general. This means that commitment to the idol has blurred our logic and we do not examine the good and bad of the advice granted to us by the idol. Blurring of our logic indicates the lingual aspect, functioning negatively because commitment to the idol prevents proper understanding.

4.2.9 Worship
When we uphold the value of a noble cause and are committed to it, this is a positive step. Commitment indicates the pistic aspect. Hosman (2010) describes the case of a school in Uganda which was committed to providing computer training and improving the ICT skills of its pupils’. The school was able to successfully set up a computer lab for this purpose, despite constraints such as lack of adequate funding and unreliable power supply. Such commitment to a noble cause without any idolization of the technology itself brings about positive change.

The negative side of worship is absolutization of the cause. So commitment to the cause is not in service of a further greater good because an end in itself. In doing so, we resist what is good and noble. Here too, there is commitment. But the commitment is akin to absolutization and indicates the pistic aspect working negatively.

4.2.10 Summary
Table 3 summarises the above, showing Dooyweerd’s aspects are related to each of Goudzwaard’s phrases

5. Discussion & conclusion
This paper has so far shown how Dooyweerd’s aspects are related to Goudzwaard’s notion of idolatry. In doing so, this paper has sought to further one’s understanding of how idolatry operates in relation to ICT and e-government, in particular. This analysis of idolatry is important because it shows how the discussion on the problems and failure of e-government may be taken forward. It has already been shown that Goudzwaard’s notion of idolatry provides an excellent explanation of the problems (or negatives) of e-government. That being so, the question arises as to why we need to introduce aspects into this discussion?

To be a suitable theoretical framework for analytical use in the IS discipline, the framework should be able to explain both the positives and negatives. In other words, the framework should be able to explain the problems and show why and how the problems arise. The latter then points to a potential solution. In relation to e-government, idolatry provides an excellent explanation of the problems. It points to a fundamental reason who projects fail. As Krishnan Harihara & Basden (2010) have shown, some ICT initiatives do succeed. ICT and e-government indeed offer the potential to bringing about positive change in society. A common theme in the successful

projects is the lack of idolatry. But we believe that saying that lack of idolatry contributes to success, although quite correct, is only a partial explanation. Bringing aspects into this discussion shows how the positives might emerge through multi aspectual functioning. Thus this paper points to a potential solution to how the problem of idolatry may be overcome.

Yet another contribution of this paper is that it clarifies the meaning of the phrases Goudzwaard has used to define idolatry. The authors believe that the ideas presented in the following table could not have been arrived at without referring to Dooyweerd’s aspects.

This paper makes a number of contributions. First, it adds to Krishnan Harihara & Basden (2010) by showing how idolatry explains the negatives or problems in e-government. It also clarifies the meaning of each of Goudzwaard’s phrases by using aspects. Finally, it shows how Dooyweerd’s aspects enrich the discussion on idolatry in relation to e-government because of its ability to explain both the positives and negatives side of e-government.

About the author
i. affiliaties Subrahmaniam: Centre for Information Systems in Organization and Society University of Salford, Salford, UK – subrahma@gmail.com

REFERENCES
Basden A. (2008) Philosophical Frameworks for Understanding Information Systems. Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global (IDEA Group Inc.).
Basden, A (2011) ‘Presentation of Herman Dooyeweerd’s Aspects of Temporal Reality’ – International Journal of Multi-aspectual Practice, 1(1).
Dooyeweerd, H. (1955). A new critique of theoretical thought (Vols. 1-4). Jordan Station, Ontario, Canada: Paideia Press.
Gauld R. and Goldfinch S. (2006) Dangerous Enthusiasms: E-Government, Computer Failure and Information System Development. Otago University Press, New Zealand.
Goudzwaard B (1984) Idols of Our Time. Inter-Varsity Press, Illinois, USA.
Heeks R. (2006) Implementing and Managing eGovernment. SAGE, London, UK
Hosman L (2010) “Policies, Partnerships, and Pragmatism: Lessons from an ICT-in-Education Project in Rural Uganda” – Information Technology and International Development Volume 6, Number 1, Spring 2010, pg 48-64
Krishnan Harihara, S &. Basden, A. (2009) Understanding failures in e-government: Idolatry as a lens. In: Basden, A, Eriksson D, Strijbos, A. (eds.) The Problem of System Improvement: Proceedings of the 13th and 14th Annual Working Conference of the CPTS. Maarssen, Netherlands. ISBN: 978-90-807718-6-4.
Krishnan Harihara, S. & Basden, A. (2010). Is idolatry a suitable tool to test e-government? pp. 107-125. In: Goede R, Grobler L, Haftor DE (eds.) Interdisciplinary Research for Practices of Social Change. Proc. 16th Annual Working Conference of the Centre for Philosophy, Technology and Social Systems (CPTS), 13-16 April 2010, Maarssen, Netherlands. CPTS, Maarssen; BZ Repro, Haaksbergen, Netherlands. ISBN/EAN: 978-90-807718-8-8.