Digital Probes as Opening Possibilities of Generativity

Jarvenpaa, Sirkka; Standaert, Willem

doi:10.17705/1jais.00516

Request a copy

Article (Scientific journals)

Digital Probes as Opening Possibilities of Generativity

Jarvenpaa, Sirkka; Standaert, Willem

2018 • In Journal of the Association for Information Systems

Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi

Permalink
https://hdl.handle.net/2268/242637

DOI
10.17705/1jais.00516

Files (1)Send to Details Statistics Bibliography Similar publications

Files

Full Text

Jarvenpaa_Standaert_Digital Probes for Generativity.pdf

Publisher postprint (839.17 kB)

Request a copy

All documents in ORBi are protected by a user license.

Send to

RIS BibTex APA Chicago Permalink X Linkedin

Details

Keywords :

Digital Probes; Generativity; Digital Technologies; Emotional Tensions; Formula E

Abstract :

[en] The information systems research on generativity promises unprompted, innovative inputs from uncoordinated audiences, whose participation with heterogeneous technological resources generates diverse outputs and opens new possibilities. The question is how to perpetuate the openness on which the outputs of generativity rely. We advance, as a potential mechanism of generativity, the concept of digital probes, which leverage human and technological resources in hybrid digital and physical environments. The aesthetically rich probes challenge values, identities, and practices, cultivating emotional tensions that can reveal previously unexplored and unimagined possibilities, resulting in novel ideas, thoughts, and expressions. The new possibilities reveal what is hidden; reconfigure practices; cross-appropriate technological and social resources; and thereby further expand what can be experienced, viewed, and imagined. Further, the new possibilities draw new actors that again view things differently and seek different experiences, thus fueling emotional tensions that in turn open new possibilities, without settling them. We illustrate digital probes and their effects at Formula E. Formula E is a new motorsports venture that leveraged eSports, social media, crowdsourcing, and driverless cars in digital probes to reveal and examine previously unimagined possibilities of what the world of motorsport could be in the digital era. We end by exploring future research directions.

Disciplines :

Management information systems

Author, co-author :

Jarvenpaa, Sirkka ^✱

Standaert, Willem ^✱; Université de Liège - ULiège > HEC Liège : UER > UER Management : Marketing and Strategy

^✱ These authors have contributed equally to this work.

Language :

English

Title :

Digital Probes as Opening Possibilities of Generativity

Publication date :

2018

Journal title :

Journal of the Association for Information Systems

ISSN :

1536-9323

Publisher :

Association for Information Systems, United States

Peer reviewed :

Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi

Available on ORBi :

since 02 January 2020

Statistics

Number of views

94 (5 by ULiège)

Number of downloads

3 (2 by ULiège)

More statistics

Scopus citations^®

Scopus citations^®
without self-citations

OpenCitations

Bibliography

Antonopoulou, K., Nandhakumar, J., & Henfridsson, O. (2016). Creating new value through repurposing digital innovations. Academy of Management Proceedings. Academy of Management.
Autio, E., Dahlander, L., & Frederiksen, L. (2013). Information exposure, opportunity evaluation, and entrepreneurial action: An investigation of an online user community. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5), 1348–1371.
Autio, E., Nambisan, S., Thomas, L. D. W., & Wright, M. (2018). Digital affordances, spatial affordances, and the genesis of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(1), 72–95.
Avital, M., & Te’Eni, D. (2009). From generative fit to generative capacity: Exploring an emerging dimension of information systems design and task performance. Information Systems Journal, 19(4), 345–367.
Barrett, M., Davidson, E., Prabhu, J., & Vargo, S. L. (2015). Service innovation in the digital age: Key contributions and future directions. MIS Quarterly, 39(1), 135–154.
Boehner, K., Vertesi, J., Sengers, P., & Dourish, P. (2007). How HCI interprets the probes. SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’07), 1077–1086.
Boland, R. J., Lyytinen, K., & Yoo, Y. (2007). Wakes of innovation in project networks: The case of digital 3-D representations in architecture, engineering, and construction. Organization Science, 18(4), 631–647.
Bowman, D., & Hovorka, D. S. (2017). Efficiency engine vs. entrepreneurial innovation: A conceptual comparison. Australasian Conference on Information Systems (pp. 1–11). ACIS.
Carlo, J., Lyytinen, K., & Boland, R. (2004). Systemic risk, information technology artifacts, and high reliability organizations: A case of constructing a radical architecture. International Conference on Information Systems Proceedings (pp. 685–696). AIS.
Chakraborty, S., Sarker, S. S., & Sarker, S. S. (2010). An exploration into the process of requirements elicitation: A grounded approach. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 11(4), 212–249.
Courtney, H., Kirkland, J., & Viguerie, P. (1997, November–December). Strategy under uncertainty. Harvard Business Review, 67–79. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/1997/11/strategy-under-uncertainty
Davidsson, P. (2015). Entrepreneurial opportunities and the entrepreneurship nexus: A re-conceptualization. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(5), 674–695.
Dunne, A., & Gaver, W. W. (1997). The pillow: Artist-designers in the digital age. Proceedings: CHI ’97 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems looking to the future. ACM.
Eaton, B., Elaluf-Calderwood, S., Sørensen, C., & Yoo, Y. (2015). Distributed tuning of boundary resoures: The case of Apple’s iOS service system. MIS Quarterly, 39(1), 217–243.
Faraj, S., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Majchrzak, A. (2011). Knowledge collaboration in online communities. Organization Science, 22(5), 1224–1239.
Fligstein, N., & McAdam, D. (2011). Toward a general theory of strategic action fields. Sociological Theory, 29(1), 1–26.
Fong, C. T. (2006). The effects of emotional ambivalence on creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 1016–1030.
Gaver, W., & Dunne, A. (1999). Projected realities: Conceptual design for cultural effect. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference, 600– 607.
Gaver, W., Dunne, A., & Pacenti, E. (1999). Cultural probes. Interactions, 6(1), 21–29.
Godin, B. (2006). The linear model of innovation. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 31(6), 639–667.
Hamari, J., & Sjöblom, M. (2017). What is eSports and why do people watch it? Internet Research, 27(2), 211–232.
Heaphy, E. D. (2017). “Dancing on hot coals”: How emotion work facilitates collective sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 60(2), 642–670.
Henfridsson, O., & Yoo, Y. (2014). The liminality of trajectory shifts in institutional entrepreneurship. Organization Science, 25(3), 932–950.
Huang, J., Henfridsson, O., Liu, M. J., & Newell, S. (2017). Growing on steroids: Rapidly scaling the user base of digital ventures through digital innovation. MIS Quarterly, 41(1), 301–314.
Kallinikos, J., Aaltonen, A., & Marton, A. (2013). The ambivalent ontology of digital artifacts. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 357–370.
Lusch, R. F., & Nambisan, S. (2015). Service innovation: A service-dominant logic perspective. MIS Quarterly, 39(1), 155–175.
Lyytinen, K., Yoo, Y., & Boland, R. J. (2016). Digital product innovation within four classes of innovation networks. Information Systems Journal, 26(1), 47–75.
Majchrzak, A., Logan, D., McCurdy, R., & Kirchmer, M. (2006). Four keys to managing emergence. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47(2), 14–18.
Martin, R. L., & Golsby-Smith, T. (2017, September– October). Management is much more than a science. Harvard Business Review, 128–135. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2017/09/management-is-much-more-than-a-science
McDougall, Z., & Fels, S. (2010). Cultural probes in the design of communication. ACM sigDOC’10 Conference on Design of Communication (pp. 57–64). ACM.
McMullen, J. S., & Shepherd, D. A. (2006). Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 132– 152.
Mitchell, T. (2015, December 8). China’s Formula E electric car circuit plugs into desire for clean air. Financial Times. Retrieved from https://www.ft.com/content/0345d326-9d89-11e5-8ce1-f6219b685d74
Nambisan, S. (2017). Digital entrepreneurship: Toward a digital technology perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 41(6), 1029–1055.
Nambisan, S., Lyytinen, K., Majchrzak, A., & Song, M. (2017). Digital innovation management: Reinventing innovation management research in a digital world. MIS Quarterly, 41(1), 223– 238.
Nylén, D., Holmström, J., & Lyytinen, K. (2014). Oscillating between four orders of design: The case of digital magazines. Design Issues, 30(3), 53–68.
Paavola, S. (2004). Abduction as a logic and methodology of discovery: The importance of strategies. Foundations of Science, 9(3), 267– 283.
Rai, A. (2017). Diversity of design science research. MIS Quarterly, 41(1), iii–xviii.
Reichertz, J. (2007). Abduction: The logic of discovery of grounded theory. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory (pp. 214–228). London: SAGE.
Rothman, N. B., & Melwani, S. (2017). Feeling mixed, ambivalent, and in flux: The social functions of emotional complexity for leaders. Academy of Management Review, 42(2), 259– 282.
Schultze, U. (2016). Performing cyborgian identity: Enacting agential cuts in second life. IFIP WG 8.2 Working Conference on Information Systems and Organizations Proceedings (pp. 182–197). Springer.
Shepherd, D., & Sutcliffe, K. (2011). Inductive top-down theorizing: A source of new theories of organization. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 361–380.
Short, J. C., Ketchen, D. J., Shook, C. L., & Ireland, R. D. (2010). The concept of “Opportunity” in entrepreneurship research: Past accomplishments and future challenges. Journal of Management, 36(1), 40–65.
Smith, W., Erez, M., Jarvenpaa, S., Lewis, M., & Tracey, P. (2017). Adding complexity to theories of paradox, tensions, and dualities of innovation and change: Introduction to Organization Studies special issue on paradox, tensions, and dualities of innovation and change. Organization Studies, 38(3–4), 303– 317.
Snowden, D. J., & Boone, M. E. (2007, November). A leader’s framework for decision making. Harvard Business Review, 68–76. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2007/11/a-leaders-framework-for-decision-making
Spinosa, C., Flores, F., & Dreyfus, H. (1995). Disclosing new worlds: Entrepreneurship, democratic action, and the cultivation of solidarity. Inquiry, 38(1–2), 3–63.
Spinosa, C., Flores, F., & Dreyfus, H. (1997). Disclosing new worlds: Entrepreneurship, democratic action, and the cultivation of solidarity. Boston: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
Srivastava, S. C., & Shainesh, G. (2015). Bridging the service divide through digitally enabled service innovations: Evidence from Indian healthcare service providers. MIS Quarterly, 39(1), 245–267.
Stein, M.-K., Newell, S., Wagner, E. L., & Galliers, R. D. (2015). Coping with information technology: Mixed emotions, vacillation, and nonconforming use patterns. MIS Quarterly, 39(2), 367–392.
Svahn, F., Mathiassen, L., & Lindgren, R. (2017). Embracing digital innovation in incumbent firms: How Volvo Cars managed competing concerns. MIS Quarterly, 41(1), 239–253.
Tilson, D., Lyytinen, K., & Sørensen, C. (2010). Digital infrastructures: The missing IS research agenda. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 748–759.
Vogus, T. J., Rothman, N. B., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Weick, K. E. (2014). The affective foundations of high-reliability organizing. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 592–596.
von Hippel, E. (1994). “Sticky Information” and the locus of problem solving: Implications for innovation. Management Science, 40(4), 429– 439.
Weick, K. E. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined imagination. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 516–531.
Wiesche, M., Jurisch, M. C., Yetton, P. W., & Krcmar, H. (2017). Grounded Theory methodology in Information Systems research. MIS Quarterly, 41(3), 685–701.
Yoo, Y. (2013). The tables have turned: How can the information systems field contribute to technology and innovation management research? Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 14(5), 227–236.
Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., & Lyytinen, K. (2010). The new organizing logic of digital innovation: An agenda for information systems research. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 724–735.
Yoo, Y., Lyytinen, K., Boland, R., Berente, N., Gaskin, J., Schutz, D., & Srinivasan, N. (2010). The next wave of digital innovation: Opportunities and challenges: A report on the research workshop “Digital challenges in innovation research.” SSRN Electronic Journal (June 8), 1–37. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstra ct_id=1622170
Zahedi, F. M., Walia, N., & Jain, H. (2016). Augmented virtual doctor office: Theory-based design and assessment. Journal of Management Information Systems, 33(3), 776– 808.
Zittrain, J. L. (2006). The generative Internet. Harvard Law Review, 119(7), 1974–2040.