The Concept of Appropriation as a Heuristic for Conceptualising the Relationship between Technology, People and Organisations

THE CONCEPT OF APPROPRIATION AS A HEURISTIC FOR CONCEPTUALISING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY, PEOPLE AND ORGANISATIONS Paméla Baillette CREGOR-Montpellier 2 University / GSCM-Montpellier Business School, Montpellier, France Tel/fax 04 68 66 22 63 pamelabaillette@yahoo.fr Chris Kimble University of York York UK kimble@cs.york.ac.uk Abstract The stated aim of this conf erence is to de bate the conti nuing evolut ion of IS in businesses an d other organisatio ns. This p aper seeks to c ontribut e to this deb ate by explorin g the concept of appr opriation from a number of differen t epistemological, cu ltural and linguistic viewp oints to allow us to exp lore 'the black box' of appropri ation and to gain a fuller understanding of the term. At the conceptual level, it will examine some of the different wa ys in which people have attemp ted to explain the relation ship between the objective and concrete fea tures of technology and the subjective and sh ifting nature of the people and organ isation within wh ich that techno logy is deployed. At th e cultural and lin guistic level the paper will examine the no tion as it is found in the Francophone lite rature, where the term has a long and rich histor y, and the Anglophone literatu re where appropriation is seen as a rather more specialist term. The pape r will conclude with some ob servations on th e ongoing nature of the d ebate, the value of reading beyond the literature with which on e is familiar and the rewards that come from exploring different historica l (and linguistic) viewpoints. 1. Introduction This paper will explore the rich and multi- laye red concept of appropriation as a way of examining the continuing evolution of id eas about how information systems relate to organisations and the people that work w ithin them . It will do this by comparing and contrasting, differing historical, cultura l and linguistic views of the concept of appropriation in general and the appr opriation of technology in particular. The paper consists of three main sections . Following this introductory section which provides some brief historical notes on the debate about the nature of rela tionship between technology, people and organisations , it outlines what m ight be called the traditional 'B ritish' view of appropriation, rooted in the work of Marx (Marx 1977) and Braverman (Braverman 1974; Braverm a n 1998). This rather one-dimensional view of appropriation is then contrasted wi th the far richer view of concept found in the French literature. The final section of the paper concludes with some observations on the ongoing nature of the debate and the va lue of reading beyond the literature with which one is familiar. 1.1 A brief history ... Probably the longest running deba te in the field of Information Systems concerns the nature of the relationship be tween Information Systems a nd Organisations. In m any ways, this debate itself is a continuation of the long-runni ng agency-structure debate in Sociology and Psychology, although certain features of information systems do give this debate a new twist. In the early days of information systems, the focus of the debate was largely on the effect that such systems had on managers (Kimble and McLoughlin 1995). For example, Leavitt and Whisler (1958) in an article entitled 'Management in the 1980s' made a number of predictions about the deve lopment of what they presciently called "information technology". These predictions included that "information technology" would lead to: (a) Top managers taking a far larger proportion of the innovating, planning and creative functions (b) Fewer middle managers, with m ost of those who remained being routine technicians rather than thinkers (c) Information systems allowing the top to control the middle, just as Taylorism allowed the middle to control the bottom, of the organisation In contrast a later article (Applegate et al. 1988), written as a direct response to the article by Leavitt and Whisler 30 years earlier, argues th at to merely react to new technology is a grossly inadequate response and suggests that managers sho uld not simply respond to technological changes but should actively use them to shape the orga nisation. The argument is that it is the role of managers to decide how to develop and use IT and that they should not allow themselves to be driven by the technology. These two positions, one based on notions of technological determ inism where the technology itself plays the key role, and the other, which argue s that people determine the effect of a technology not the other way round, dominated much of the thinking about information systems, people and organisations for som e time. However, in the late 1980s and early 1990s new ideas, such as the work of Kl ing (1980; 1982) and ideas of Giddens and Orlikowski (Giddens 1984; Orlikowski and Robey 1991) began to open up a new, less deterministic view of this relationship. While few doubted that there was a lin k between information technology / information systems and changes in organi sa tional structures and the way in which people worked, there was little agreement, if any, about the underlying mechanism for those changes, or even what the changes were. For example, the pap er referred to above (Kimble and McLoughlin 1995) comments on the way that the notion of technology 'impacting' on an organisation can it self be seen as bias ing the debate in a particular direction. Consequently, the la nguage that is used when discussing these issues is often as much a source of the problem as a solution to it. It is into this background of disputed terms with conteste d m eaning that we introduce another term - appropriation. The sections th at follow will examine this term in more detail and from two distinc t social and cultural pe rspectives: that of the English speaking (Anglophone) literature and that of the French speaking (Francophone) literature. It is our hope th at this exploration can be us ed to throw some new light on to this old topic. 2 Braverman and Labour Process - a very 'British' view of appropriation There is a historically sp ecific notion of appropriation, and possibly one that is peculiar to Britain. It can be traced to the ear ly works of Karl Marx and the later interpretation of those works by Braverman (1974; 1998). 2.1 Marx Marx's notion of appropriati on is most clearly seen in his work 'Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844'. The argument is essentially that, under the economic and political conditions of capitalism , the more th e worker acquiesces to the demands of capital, the more they themselv es become a commodity and the more they become alienated from their esse ntial nature as a creative being. "The product of labour is labour whic h has been embodied in an object, which has become material: it is th e objectification of labour. Labour's realisation is its objectification ... th is realisation of labour appears as a loss of realisation for the workers; ob jectification as loss of the object and bondage to it; appropriation as estrangement, as alienation ... so much does the appropriation of the object appear as estrangement, the more objects a worker produces, the less he can possess." (Marx 1977, p68) And later "... thus the more the worker, by means of his labour, appropriates the external world, the more he deprives hi mself of the means of life." (Marx 1977, p 69) And again later "... appropriation appears as estrangeme nt, as alienation; and alienation appears as appropriation." (Marx 1977, p79) Thus for many the term appropriation becam e inseparable from the notion of 'taking something away' of 'the making of a thing into (private) property' . As Ashley and Plesch (2002) note: "... 'appropriation' emphasizes the act of taking; it is understood to be 'active, subjective, and mo tivated' ... The fundament ally active nature of appropriation is manifest in its etymology, from the Latin verb appropriare, 'to make one's own,' a combi nation of 'ad', meaning 'to', with the notion of 'rendering to', and proprius, 'owned or personal'. Beyond the simple acknowledgment of borrowi ng or influence, what the concept of appropriation stresses is, abo ve all, the motivation for the appropriation: to gain power." (Ashley and Plesch 2002, pp 2-3) 2.2 Braverman This theme of appropriation as loss and alienation was revived by Braverm an's 1974 analysis of the labour process (Braverman 1974) where it was argued that work in the twentieth century, under the economic c onditions of capitalism, represented an inevitable process of deskilling and subordination of labour. This 'de-skilling Hypothesis' and Braverman' s analysis of modern working practices was hugely influential at the time and, to some extent, c ontinues to shape much of the research on 'Labour Process Theory' today (Tinkler 2002). Like Marx, Braverman's approach was firmly ro oted in the notion of the appropriation of the product of surplus labour, alt hough Braverman's critique was directed specifically at Taylor's concept of Scient ific Managem ent. For Braverman, Taylor represented the key to unde rstanding the labour process, because he broke down the capitalist managerial imperative into its mo st basic elem ents. Braverman argued that technology is not simply designed to im prove production m ethods but to enhance managerial control of the produc tion process. T he result is that workers are 'deskilled' as their tasks become routinised; their know ledge and skills are separated from them and compartmentalised and they b ecome easie r to isolate, manage and control (Noble and Lupton 1998). Once again, the notion of appropriation is c oncerned primarily with the act of taking away, in this case taking away skills and knowledge from worker in order that they become easier to exploit. 2.3 Some alternative conceptions The broadly Marxian conception of appropriation as loss influenced much of the work on the effects of 'new technology' in th e 1980s and beyond. However, from the mid 1980s onward, a new view of appropriation began to emerge in the Anglophone literature; this became known as the Soci al Shap ing of Technology (SST) movement. In the UK, this movement emerged as a criticism of the perceived determinism of Braverman's followers. For example, Hughie MacKay argued: "People are not merely malleable subject s who submit to the dictates of a technology: in their consumption, th ey are not passive dupes as suggested by crude theorists of ideology, but active, creative and expressive - albeit socially situated - subjects." (MacKay 1992, p 698) In an argument primarily direct ed at the de terminist natur e of much of the work up to that point he pointed out that much of this work had concentrated on the social forces underlying the creation of a t echnology and too lit tle on the way in which technology can be actively appropriated by its users. For example, MacKay quoting Good all (1983) argued: "A new device merely opens a door: it does not compel one to enter. Technologies facilitate, they do not determine." (MacKay 1992, p 701) While acknowledging that the appropriatio n of a technology cannot be entirely separated from it design and development, th e adherents of SST argue strongly for the role of the active and refl ective subject in the way in which a technology 'becomes used'. Meanwhile, in the US Rob Kling and Walt Scacchi (Kling and Scacchi 1980; Kling and Scacchi 1982) were also looking for new ways of thinking abou t the effect that technology might have on an or ganisation (and vice versa). While Kling and Scacchi never used the term 'appropriation' , it is clear that th eir interests focused on the links between what they term ed " computing and social life ". They state that most of the ideas in comm on use at that time (the early 1980s) were based on a highly simplified view that saw the effect a new technology had as simply a direct translation of certain specific techni cal attributes in to equally specific social outcomes; Kling and Scacchi term these appr oaches ' discrete entity models'. They note that discrete entity models can be useful but warn that too often: "Analysts who employ discrete entity models mistakenly assume that they are universal in their application." (Kling and Scacchi 1982, p5) As an alternative, Kling and Scacchi put fo rward their web model of computing to act as: "... a conceptual vocabulary for de scribing and explaining the social events pertinent to computing development and use" (Kling and Scacchi 1982, p 10) Although Kling and Scacchi do not make this point explicitly, they portray discrete entity models as being primarily concer ned with the technical dev elopment of systems: a situation where the subsequent use of a system is seen either as unproblematical or beyond the control of the analyst. Web models on the other hand focus on both the development and use of system s. This shift in emphasis not only allows the analyst to consid er the effects of ongoing inte ractions but also how the effects of a system may change over tim e, such as when people 'learn' to use and exploit the characteristics of a new system. While the ideas of Kling and Scacchi (1980; 1982), and later of McKay (1992), had some influence at the time, the broader concept of appropriation as use was never developed to the way it was in the Fren ch literature. Consequently, in the Anglophone literature at least, the notion of appropriation was left as a fairly specialist term in the vocabul ary of structuration theorists such as Giddens (1984) and De Sanctis (1994). 3. The concept of appropriat ion in the French literature From a Francophone point of view, the concept of appropriat ion does not pose any particular difficulties and is used freque ntly in everyday language (Bia-Figueiredo 2007). For example Carton et al. (2005), when discussing the appropriation of software tools, describe it simply as: "... the processes by which indivi duals bring an unknown object into everyday use" (Carton et al. 2005) The idea of appropriation when used in conjunction with information and communication technologies (ICT) is genera lly seen as having positive connotations and is widely used in all types of orga nizations. In contrast to many of the 'Anglophone' views above, it is com monly held view that it is desi rable to attempt to appropriate ICTs in order to make the best possible use of them. However, if the positive c onnotation of appropriation of ICT does not seem to arouse controversy, a common de scription of it is much mo re di fficult to find. Some define it as the outcome of a process, e.g. Pr oulx (2001b; 2001a; 2002) who considers the 'moment' of appropriation as the outcome of a sequential process, while others regard the term as applying to the pr ocess itself, for example, De Vaujany who states that: "Appropriation is a long process that begins well before the use phase of the object and continues long after the onset of the first routinisation of use." (De Vaujany 2005, p 33) De Vaujany refers to the initial phase of this process as 'pre-appropria tion'- the initial discussions and the evocation of the object, which is followed by a phase of 'original appropriation' where multiple socio-po lit ical or psycho-cognitive processes are activated within the organiza tion, with the possibility of tensions, subsequently eased by the introduction of new routines; finally, th e process of ends with the creation of a set of 'definitive' routines. Mastery: + The Soci al Constru ction of th e Object: Pre-approp riation Associat ed ideas: Perceptio n Evocation Concept ion Origina l A pp ro p riation Associated ideas: Use Evoca tion Lear ni n g Acceptance Routinisation 1 Associated ideas: Acceptance Routinisation Stability Routinisation 2 Re-appropriation Associated ideas: Use Reinterpre tation Lea rni n g Acceptan ce + Figure 1 The process of appropriation by a collec tive (De Vaujany 2005, p 34) Similarly, Massard (2007) also claims appr opriation is a proc ess: an organised phenomenon that evolves over time. This process is both individual, because it depends on the characteristics of each partic ipant or actor, and collective, because it promotes the emergence of new structures within the organisation. Massard claim s the term can cover three processes, each gi v ing rise to a result called a 'state' of appropriation: 1) A cognitive process 2) A process of construction, in the sense of a technology 3) A process of development of practice Massard argues that the examination of thes e thr ee processes will permit us to ente r into the 'black box' of appropriation and gain a more complete understanding of the term. We will follow Massard' s suggestion and briefly examine these three perspectives, illustrating each with som e examples taken from the inform ation systems field. 2.4 A cognitive process A number of studies of appropriation shar e a common cognitive approach to the topic (e.g. Piaget and Inhelder 1992). In the Francophone literature on the science of language, the science of education and in ergonomics, appropriation is seen as a process that allows an i ndividual to 'rebalance' ( rééquilibrer ) their internal cognitive structures following the distur bance in the env ironment, or to absorb new information from that environment. The term appropria tion is often em ployed in these disciplines in preference to terms such as 'acquisiti on' , adaptation', or 'learning' because it can encompass all of these concepts. For example, Guillevic (1988) em ployed this 'cognitive' approach to appropriation in his study of technology transfer and the psyc hology of work. For him, appropriation was seen as a process of regulation followi ng disruption from either external or internal factors such as f actors peculiar to the individua l or factors created by other individuals during the development or introduction of a new system of work. 2.5 A process of construction in the sense of a technology In the literature on the sociology and psychol ogy of work, appropriation is seen as the process by which an individual invests meaning and value in the use of a tool. The result of this process is characterised as th e gap or difference in use between that imagined by the creators of the tool, and that which was put into effect by the end users, or by the different uses made of the same tool by different groups of users in the same context. For example, when exam ining frameworks for the analysis of appr opriation of technical objects, Perriault (1989) argued that the logic of the creator/conceiver of an object is to create a framework that prescr ibes the use of the object whereas the logic of the user, seen as an autonomous and creative actor, is to invent a use for that object. Thus, the process of the appropriation of a tec hnical object or tool can be seen in the growing diversity of its use: the differences between the us es originally conceived of by the designer and those new uses invented by the users as the object is accepted in to their everyday lives. Similarly, Millerand (2003), in his study of electronic mail as a technology for learning among teachers and university resear chers, observed that to appropriate technology is: "... to choose between a group of possi ble (actions) and to reinvent one's machine" (Millerand 2003. p 15) The choice that Millerand refers to here is seen as a function of the m eaning given to the use of the technology and the im aginati on of the user. The meanings given to the use are the representations and the values th at the user invests in the use of a technique; the imagination of the user is th e way the user organises his/her individual practice according to the different possibilities of use. The result of this process is an identity constructed from these meanings and practices. 2.6 A process of formation of practice According to much of the Francophone mana gement science literature, appropriation is the process by which routines of the organisation are cons tructed based on the properties of the technology. Th e result of this pro cess is characterised by stability in terms of the structure of the organisation followin g the structural transform ations. For example, Prigent (1995) and Jouet ( 1993) both looked at th e appropriation of systems of electronic messaging in an orga nisation and viewed appropriation as an intermediate process be tween re presentation and practice where: "Representation is the 'way of seeing' and practice is 'the act of doing'." (Prigent 1995) This approach is very similar to that of De Sanctis and Poole (1994) who link Giddens' (1984) Structuration Theory and Ollman' s (1971) Marxist analysis of appropriation to argue that information t echnology triggers adap tive structurational processes which, over time, lead to chan ges in th e rules and resources that organisations use in social intera ction. 2.7 Summary of Francophone views The French literature has a very rich and di verse view of the con cept of appropriation: it can to be taken to mean either a process or its outcome. Where it is considered a process, the term can be used to ref er to both an individual proc ess and a collective process. Proulx for example (2001b; 2001a ; 2002) focuses on the behaviour of the 'human agent' or 'user' to characteri ze the appropriation of a technology as an individual process while other writers, su ch as Bianchi and Kouloumdjan (1985), Houzé (2000) and De Vaujany (2005), view it as a collective process. For example, Bianchi and Kouloumdjan claim that: "... a group, a population, appropriate a given system of communications to in order to give them the keys (technical, economic, cultural, etc) to gain access to other users. In th is way they implement the system in pursuit of their own goals." (Bi anchi and Kouloumdjian 1985, p 145-146) If the authors do not always agree on a co mmon definition of appropriation, most (e.g. Beaudry and Pinsonneault 1999; Isaac et al. 2006) recognize that it marks the integration of technology into the daily prac tice of users bringing benefits to both the individual and the organisation. For example, Beaudry and Pinsonneault (1 999) claim appropriation is a two dimensional process involving: 1. Integration of IT into on e's work system (or task) 2. Integration of IT into one' s work habits and routines The effect this has on individual's performance depends on the degree of appropriation: 1. If the level of appropriati on is high, then there are significant improvements in individual performance 2. If the level of appropriation is low then th ere is little o r no positive ef fect on individual performance 3. If the level of appropriation nonexistent then there is a negative overall impact on individual performance Even for those such as Proulx (2001a) who emphasise the mom ent of appropriation as the ultimate goal of some process, appropriati on is seen as a pos itive, e.g. adaptation to the available technology in a way that is relevant to an i ndividual' s own career progression or progress. Thus Proulx (2001a), highlights thr ee levels of appropriation that users can aspire to: 1. A minimum level of co gnitive and technical mastery of the object o r technical device 2. Integrating the social significance of the use of the technology in the daily life of the human agent 3. The possibility that creativity is facilitated by technology, that is that the use of technique allows the development of novelty in the lif e of the user This section has highlighted the importan ce of the notion of a ppropriation of to Francophone researchers: if the introduction of a new t echnology is well managed, appropriation marks a successful integration of that techno logy into the daily practice of users. 3. Summary and conclusions This paper has briefly reviewed the concep t of appropriation as it appears in the Anglophone and Francophone literature; in particular, the way it is used in conjunction with the appropriation of (informa tion) technology. Such a review m ust, of necessity, be partial and incomplete. It will also inevitably be open to suggestions that it takes a complex topic and turns it into tw o oversimplifies cultural stereoty pes. The authors recognise these ri sks; they offer this paper not as a definitive study but more as a heuristic - a device that the reader might use to illuminate certain issues o r topics that had not b een noticed previously. Having said our mea culpas , we will now attempt to summarise the two positions we have outlined and draw some conclusi ons about the value of the exercise. Although the term clearly shar es the sam e etymological r oots, it seems reasonably clear that the same term represents two divergent concepts in the two bodies of literature. Broadly speaking, in the Anglophone lite rature appropriatio n is associated with something being taken from another: with one person (or group) gaining power at another expense. In contrast, appropr iation in the Francophone literature is about taking something into one's self, without th e overtones of depriving others by the act of doing so. Applied to information systems, this re sults in the largely Anglophone view (e.g. Braverman 1974) that information systems can be seen as a way of appropriating the skills and knowledge of others for the be nefit of a few. While this notion of appropriation is somewhat dated, it still shape s and influences the debate in the Anglophone literature - if only by omission. For exam ple, in the Francophone literature authors such as Beaudry and Pinsonneault (1999) and Proulx (2002) have no problem discussing how users 'appropriate' info rmation systems in the se nse that they integrate such system s into their daily live s to the benefit to both the individual and the organisation. Is there a similar concep t that could be depl oyed in the UK or US literature on the topic? Finally, we conclude with a few general observations about the ongoing nature of the debate about technology and organisati ons and with some comments about the rewards that come from e xploring different historical (and linguistic) viewpoints. As we have seen, the debate has been part of IS literature fo r at least 50 years: probably as long as the notion of an inform ation system has existed! Arguably, this can be seen as part of a l onger debate about the nature of agency and structure in organisations. W hatever the truth of this, it is unlikely tha t the matter will b e settled in the near future, if ever. If this is the case, what value can we a dd by introducing a new term? The answer, to some extent, lies in the work of Edward Sapir (Sapir 1958) and Benjamin Lee Whorf (Whorf 1956). According to what is now called the Sa pir-Whorf hypothesis, our thinking is determined by language we used (i.e. linguistic determinism) and people who speak different languages perceive the wo rld differently and ar e able to think and reason about it in different ways (k nown as linguistic relativity). Put at it sim plest, this states: "... the structure of a human bei ng’s language influences the manner in which he understands real ity and behaves with re spect to it" (Carroll 1976, p 23) The example most often given to illustrate this is the "Eskimos have 9 / 12 / 15 different words for snow" example, which st ates that because Eskimos have an extended vocabulary to describe snow, they can recognise feature of snow that others cannot and act accordingly. The analogous argument for inform ation systems is that by gaining a better understanding of richness of the concep t of appropriation in the Francophone literature, we can gain n ew insights into the relationship be tween information system s and organisations that we would not have be en able to express previously. This is much the same argument that Kling and S cacchi (1982) used when they attem pted to introduce their 'Web Models' in the early 1980s which they described as: "... a conceptual vocabulary for de scribing and explaining the social events pertinent to computing devel opment and use" (Kling and Scacchi 1982, p 10) As we have seen, there are real differences in the way this conc ept is viewed in Anglophone and Francophone literature, so it is not so much as case of " plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose " but more a case of " vive la différence "! 4. References Applegate, L. M., J. I. Cash Jr., et al. (1988). "I nformation Technology and Tomorrow's Manager." Harvard Business Review 66 (6): 128-136. Ashley, K. and V. Plesch (2002). "The Cu ltural Processes of "Appropriation"." Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 32 (1): 1 - 15. Beaudry, A. and A. Pinsonneault (1999). Adv ancing the Theory of Infusion: An Appropriation Model of the Infusion Process. Cahier du GreSI . Montréal, Canada. Bia-Figueiredo, M. (2007). Revisiter le concept d’appropriation des TIC à l’aune du mouvement du logiciel libre. 12ème Colloque de l’AIM . Lausanne, Suisse. Bianchi, J. and M.-F. Kouloumdjian ( 1985). Le concept d’appropriation. L'espace social de la communi cation (concepts et théories) . A. M. Laulan. Paris, France, Retz : 143-149. Braverman, H. (1974). Labor and Monopoly Capital: T he Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century . New York, Monthly Review Press. Braverman, H. (1998). Labor and Monopoly Capital: T he Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century . New York, Monthly Review Press. Carroll, J. B. (1976). Universalism versus Relativism in Language and Thought . Proceedings of a Colloquium on the Sapir-Whorf Hypotheses., The Netherlands, Mouton and Co. Carton, S., F. X. De V aujany, et al. (2005). Des dy namiques institutionnelles aux dynamiques micro-sociales: ré flexions sur l’appropriation des objets de gestion informatisés. De la conception à l'usage: vers un management de l'appropriation des outils de gestion . F. X. De Vaujany. Paris, Editions M anagement & Société. De Sanctis, G. and M. S. Poole ( 1994). "Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptative Structuration Theory." Organization Science 5 (2): 121-147. De Vaujany, F. X. (2005). De la pertinence d’une réflexion sur le management de l’appropriation des objets et outils de gestion. De la conception à l'usage: vers un management de l' appropriation des outils de gestion . F. X. De Vaujany. Paris, Ed itions Management & Société. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge, Polity Press. Goodall, P. (1983). "Design and Gender." Block 9 : 50 - 62. Guillevic, C. (1988). Transfert de tec hnologie et psychologie du travail: l’appropriation de l’outil, Université de Toulouse. PhD . Houzé, E. (2000). L’appropriati on d’une technologie : une approche structurelle d’un groupe virtuel. 5ème Colloque de l’AIM . Montpellier, France. Isaac, H., A. Leclercq, et al. (2006) . "Adoption and appropriation: towards a new theoretical framework. An exploratory research on mobile technologies in French companies." Systèmes d’Information et Management 11 (2). Jouet, J. (1993). Usages et pratiques des nouveaux outils de communication. Dictionnaire critique de la communication . L. Sfez. Paris, PUF. Kimble, C. and K. McLoughlin (1995). "C omputer Based Information Systems and Managers Work." New Technology, Work and Employment 10 (1): 56 - 67. Kling, R. and W. Scacchi (1980). "Computing as Soci al Action: The Social Dynamics of Computing in Complex Organisations." Advances in Computers 19 : 249 - 323. Kling, R. and W. Scacchi (1982). "The Social Web of Computing: Computer Technology as Social Organisation." Advances in Computers 21 : 2 - 90. Leavitt, H. J. and T. L. Whisler (1958). "Management in the 1980s." Harvard Business Review 36 (6): 41 - 48. MacKay, H. (1992). "Extending the Soci al Shaping of Technology Approach: Ideology and Appropriation." Social Studies of Science 22 (4): 685 - 716. Marx, K. (1977). Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 . Moscow, Progress Publishers. Massard, N. (2007). Le processus d’appr opriation d’un progiciel de gestion intégré par l’utilisateur final: ve rs une compréhension des facteurs d’influence menant aux bonn es pratiques attendues, Université de La Méditerranée, Aix-Marseille 2. PhD . Millerand, F. (2003). L’ appropriation du courrier électronique en tant que technologie cognitive chez les ens eignants chercheurs universitaires: vers l’émergence d’une culture numérique. Faculté des Arts et des Sciences , Université de Montréal. PhD . Noble, G. and D. Lupton ( 1998). "Consuming work: com puters, subjectivity and appropriation in the university workplace." The Sociological Review 46 (4): 803-827. Ollman, B. (1971). Aliennation: Marx’s Conception of Man in Capitalist Society , Cambridge University Press. Orlikowski, W. J. and D. Robey (1991) . "Information Technology and the Structuring of Organizations." Information Systems Research 2 (2): 143 - 169. Perriault, J. (1989). La logique de l’usage. Essai sur les machines à communiquer , Flammarion. Piaget, J. and B. Inhelder (1992). La psychologie cognitive, Que sais-je? Presses Universitaires de France. Prigent, V. (1995). "L’appropriati on d’une nouvelle technique de communication dans l’entreprise." Humanisme et entreprise (212): 81 - 102. Proulx, S. (2001a). Les formes d’ appropriation d’une culture numérique comme enjeu d’une société du savoir. Gouvernance et usages d’Internet: vers un nouvel environnement normatif? G. E. Montréal, Université de Québec à Montréal : 139-145. Proulx, S. (2001b). Usages de l’Internet: la ‘pensée-réseaux’ et l’appropriation d’une culture numérique. Comprendre les usages de l’Internet . G. E. Paris, Presses de l’Ecole Normale Supérieure : 139-145. Proulx, S. (2002). "Trajectoires d’us ages des technologies de communication: les formes d’appropriation d’une cult ure numérique comme enjeu d’une société du savoir." Annales des Télécommunications 57 (Mars - Avril): 180-189. Sapir, E. (1958). The Status of Linguistics as a Science. Culture, Language and Personality . D. G. Mandelbaum. Berkeley , University of California Press. Tinkler, T. (2002). "Spectres of Ma rx and Braverman in the Twilight of Postmodernist Labour Process Research." Work, Employment and Society 16 (251): 251 - 281. Whorf, B. L. (1956). Sc ience and Linguistics. Language, Thought and Reality . J. B. Carroll. Cambri dge, MA, MIT Press.