Although innovation adoption has been given much attention in information systems (IS) literature, it has less to account for in user resistance. This chapter contributes to this ongoing debate through a bibliometric review of the user resistance research for the period 1978 to the first quarter of 2019 to provide a coherent overview of the recent research trends and theoretical cornerstones. The authors merged two approaches—co-citation analysis and bibliographic coupling—to (1) create a visualized network of articles that focus on ‘user resistance' and (2) to create distinct yet related clusters of articles related thematically. In the findings, they illustrate via the co-citation analysis that user resistance research builds on four main theoretical cornerstones: status quo bias and equity implementation theories, organizational change, social influence and perceived usefulness, power and politics. In conclusion, more research is needed on this theme from a developing economy perspective as IS adoption and usage gains maturity.
TopIntroduction
Introducing a new information system comes along with varied changes to how existing processes work. This equally affects how employees/users respond to such changes which are most often reflected in their work routines. These changes could be as small as installing a new feature or as big as making modifications to an existing system or as complex as deploying a new nationwide enterprise system (Bin Taher, Krotov, & Silva, 2015). Users in each regard respond to such varied changes in different ways ranging from an upfront rejection to discontinued use over time, delayed use or partial use of the system, or positively embracing and wholeheartedly using the new system. Either of the former reactions can derail the objective for introducing an information system (IS) or render the entire project a failure (Gesulga, Berjame, Moquiala, & Galido, 2017).
Unlike other studies that have focused more on pre-adoption issues, not much has been done on post-adoption, with less to account for in the discussion of user resistance. From the ongoing discussions on user resistance, several arguments posit for the practical and theoretical relevance of more insightful reviews on user resistance (Bhattacherjee & Hikmet, 2007a; Lee & Joshi, 2017).
Firstly, the literature on user resistance, as fragmented as it is now, has barely been given the needed attention when compared to other IS literature like the adoption of innovation (Hsieh, 2015). Secondly, the literature on user resistance has been projected from different theoretical perspectives over the years (Laumer & Eckhardt, 2010). While it appears to remain a phenomenon in almost every project implementation, its understanding is now gaining more prominence in IS literature building on different theoretical insights from behavioral and organizational theories. Suggestions have been made on the need for a “school of thought” approach aimed at consolidating already existing theories and knowledge (Laumer & Eckhardt, 2012; Gauthier & Lagacé, 2015). Thirdly, evidence from the literature discussed in previous reviews (Laumer & Eckhardt, 2012) shows user resistance research is yet to deliver consistent and clear findings that inform best practice and offers coherent advice to managers so far.
Over the years, there have been other reviews done on user resistance in IS (Ali, Zhou, Miller, & Ieromonachou, 2016; Haddara & Moen, 2017; Laumer & Eckhardt, 2012). What sets this review apart from the previous reviews on user resistance are the different perspectives discussed and methods used (quantitative analysis using co-citation analysis and bibliometric coupling).
In complement to the findings of other reviews, this study seeks to avoid the bias associated with qualitative reviews. The review by Ali et al. (2016) for instance focuses on causes of user resistance without much focus on model suggestions nor the theories and methods used in the measure of user resistance as an IS phenomenon. Haddara and Moen (2017) provide a review focused mainly on user resistance in the domain of ERP based on 11 articles and not a review of user resistance as a general IS phenomenon that considers other domains. Their study did not consider the methodologies and theories as well as geographical distribution. Laumer and Eckhardt (2012) qualitatively reviewed the literature on models and theories used in explaining user resistance in IS research to which barely any other study has done a similar review since 2012. Their study focused on the theoretical orientations and the main result of the publications in their review but not the overall landscape of user resistance as a research phenomenon in IS literature. This review, however, takes into account the level of applicability concerning discussions at the individual, organizational (micro), sectoral (meso), national (macro), and/or global levels (meta). It also considers the respective stages of applicability with regards to user resistance at the implementation and use/impact stages as well as the distribution by geographical regions and research focus.