PurposeElectronic books (e-books) have been in the market for decades but have been unable to replace paper books. Previous studies on e-books have failed to identify significant factors affecting the adoption and diffusion of e-books. This study develops a theoretical framework to explain the adoption behavior of e-books from the perspective of user resistance.Design/methodology/approachAfter a pilot test with 50 e-book users, the research model is validated using a partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) technique. A web-based survey method is used to collect data from a sample of 350 people – selected from Korean e-book users and nonusers – during a week in March 2017. This study tests the reliability and validity of the integrated model of planned behavior and resistance theory and tests the hypotheses with bootstrapping resampling.FindingsThe results show that four barriers – usage, value, risk and image – cause resistance to change and users with higher resistance have lower intention to use. The moderating effect of self-efficacy between resistance to change and intention to use is confirmed. Self-efficacy interacts not only with the encouraging factors but also with resistance.Originality/valueThis study expands the understanding of users' adoption behavior of e-books by examining inhibiting factors using a novel integrated model. The findings of this research provide insights for digital product providers, especially e-book publishers, to understand why digital products have not been successful in the marketplace.
In: Al Lily , A E , Foland , J , Stoloff , D , Gogus , A , Erguvan , I D , Awshar , M T , Tondeur , J , Hammond , M , Venter , I M , Jerry , P , Vlachopoulos , D , Oni , A , Liu , Y , Badosek , R , Cristina Lopez de la Madrid , M , Mazzoni , E , Lee , H , Kinley , K , Kalz , M , Sambuu , U , Bushnaq , T , Pinkwart , N , Adedokun-Shittu , N A , Zander , M , Oliver , K , Teixeira Pombo , L M , Sali , J B , Gregory , S , Tobgay , S , Joy , M , Elen , J , Jwaifell , M O H , Said , M N H M , Al-Saggaf , Y , Naaji , A , White , J , Jordan , K , Gerstein , J , Yapici , I U , Sanga , C , Nleya , P T , Sbihi , B , Lucas , M R , Mbarika , V , Reiners , T , Schoen , S , Sujo-Montes , L , Santally , M , Hakkinen , P , Al Saif , A , Gegenfurtner , A , Schatz , S , Vigil , V P , Tannahill , C , Partida , S P , Zhang , Z , Charalambous , K , Moreira , A , Coto , M , Laxman , K , Farley , H S , Gumbo , M T , Simsek , A , Ramganesh , E , Birzina , R , Player-Koro , C , Dumbraveanu , R , Ziphorah , M , Mohamudally , N , Thomas , S , Romero , M , Nirmala , M , Cifuentes , L , Osaily , R Z K , Omoogun , A C , Seferoglu , S , Elci , A , Edyburn , D , Moudgalya , K , Ebner , M , Bottino , R , Khoo , E , Pedro , L , Buarki , H , Roman-Odio , C , Qureshi , I A , Khan , M A , Thornthwaite , C , Kerimkulova , S , Downes , T , Malmi , L , Bardakci , S , Itmazi , J , Rogers , J , Rughooputh , S D D V , Akour , M A , Henderson , J B , de Freitas , S & Schrader , P G 2017 , ' Academic domains as political battlegrounds : A global enquiry by 99 academics in the fields of education and technology ' , Information Development , vol. 33 , no. 3 , pp. 270-288 . https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666916646415
This article theorizes the functional relationship between the human components (i.e., scholars) and non-human components (i.e., structural configurations) of academic domains. It is organized around the following question: in what ways have scholars formed and been formed by the structural configurations of their academic domain? The article uses as a case study the academic domain of education and technology to examine this question. Its authorship approach is innovative, with a worldwide collection of academics (99 authors) collaborating to address the proposed question based on their reflections on daily social and academic practices. This collaboration followed a three-round process of contributions via email. Analysis of these scholars' reflective accounts was carried out, and a theoretical proposition was established from this analysis. The proposition is of a mutual (yet not necessarily balanced) power (and therefore political) relationship between the human and non-human constituents of an academic realm, with the two shaping one another. One implication of this proposition is that these non-human elements exist as political actors', just like their human counterparts, having agency' - which they exercise over humans. This turns academic domains into political (functional or dysfunctional) battlefields' wherein both humans and non-humans engage in political activities and actions that form the identity of the academic domain. For more information about the authorship approach, please see Al Lily AEA (2015) A crowd-authoring project on the scholarship of educational technology. Information Development. doi:10.1177/0266666915622044.
Academic cognition and intelligence are 'socially distributed'; instead of dwelling inside the single mind of an individual academic or a few academics, they are spread throughout the different minds of all academics. In this article, some mechanisms have been developed that systematically bring together these fragmented pieces of cognition and intelligence. These mechanisms jointly form a new authoring method called 'crowd-authoring', enabling an international crowd of academics to co-author a manuscript in an organized way. The article discusses this method, addressing the following question: What are the main mechanisms needed for a large collection of academics to collaborate on the authorship of an article? This question is addressed through a developmental endeavour wherein 101 academics of educational technology from around the world worked together in three rounds by email to compose a short article. Based on this endeavour, four mechanisms have been developed: a) a mechanism for finding a crowd of scholars; b) a mechanism for managing this crowd; c) a mechanism for analyzing the input of this crowd; and d) a scenario for software that helps automate the process of crowd-authoring. The recommendation is that crowd-authoring ought to win the attention of academic communities and funding agencies, because, given the well-connected nature of the contemporary age, the widely and commonly distributed status of academic intelligence and the increasing value of collective and democratic participation, large-scale multi-authored publications are the way forward for academic fields and wider academia in the 21st century. ; peerReviewed
This article theorizes the functional relationship between the human components (i.e., scholars) and non-human components (i.e., structural configurations) of academic domains. It is organized around the following question: in what ways have scholars formed and been formed by the structural configurations of their academic domain? The article uses as a case study the academic domain of education and technology to examine this question. Its authorship approach is innovative, with a worldwide collection of academics (99 authors) collaborating to address the proposed question based on their reflections on daily social and academic practices. This collaboration followed a three-round process of contributions via email. Analysis of these scholars' reflective accounts was carried out, and a theoretical proposition was established from this analysis. The proposition is of a mutual (yet not necessarily balanced) power (and therefore political) relationship between the human and non-human constituents of an academic realm, with the two shaping one another. One implication of this proposition is that these non-human elements exist as political actors', just like their human counterparts, having agency' - which they exercise over humans. This turns academic domains into political (functional or dysfunctional) battlefields' wherein both humans and non-humans engage in political activities and actions that form the identity of the academic domain. For more information about the authorship approach, please see Al Lily AEA (2015) A crowd-authoring project on the scholarship of educational technology. Information Development. doi:10.1177/0266666915622044.