Ngwenyama Lee 1997

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/236659224
Communication Richness in Electronic Mail: Critical Social Theory and the

Contextuality of Meaning
Article in MIS Quarterly · June 1997

DOI: 10.2307/249417 · Source: DBLP
CITATIONS READS
712 3,314
2 authors:
Ojelanki Ngwenyama Allen S. Lee

Ryerson University Virginia Commonwealth University
127 PUBLICATIONS 4,517 CITATIONS 86 PUBLICATIONS 8,522 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Ngwenyama, O. K., & Bryson, N. (1999). Making the information systems outsourcing decision: A transaction cost approach to analyzing outsourcing decision problems.
European Journal of Operational Research, 115(2), 351-367. View project
Axiological Challenges in the Digitalization of Society View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Ojelanki Ngwenyama on 02 June 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Communication Richness in Electronic Mail: Critical Social Theory and the Contextuality of
Meaning
Author(s): Ojelanki K. Ngwenyama and Allen S. Lee
Source: MIS Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Jun., 1997), pp. 145-167
Published by: Management Information Systems Research Center, University of Minnesota
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/249417 .
Accessed: 02/05/2013 18:21
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Management Information Systems Research Center, University of Minnesota is collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to MIS Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Thu, 2 May 2013 18:21:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Richnessof E-MailCommunication
communication,criticalsocial theory (CST), is

Communication introduced. The paper outlines (1) a CST-
Richness in based definition of communication richness
and compares it with positivist and interpre-
Electronic Mail: tivist definitions of communication richness
and (2) a CST-based social action framework
Critical Social Theory for empiricalstudy of organizationalcommuni-
cation in any media use situation. The CST
and the Contextuality definitionand frameworkare used in an inten-
sive investigation of an episode of the man-
of Meaning1 agerial use of electronicmail in a company to
illustratehow research on communicationrich-
ness can be conductedfromthe CST perspec-
tive. Thisillustrationalso points out the useful-
ness of the CST perspective in recognizing
By: Ojelanki K. Ngwenyama instances of communicationrichness in elec-
University of Michigan Business tronicmail communicationsthat would escape
School detectionin notjust the IRTperspective in par-
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1234 ticular,but also positivistand interpretiveper-
U.S.A. spectives in general. Finally, the paper con-
cludes by outliningthe potential for future IS
okn@umich.edu research on organizationalcommunicationand
informationtechnologyfromthe CST perspec-
tive. In additionto the specific contributionto
the developmentof a new theory of communi-
Allen S. Lee cation richness in electronic media, this study
Faculty of Management also contributesan example of CST research
McGillUniversity on IS and extends the domain of the CST-IS
Montreal,Quebec H3A 1G5 researchprogram.
CANADA
AllenLee@Management.McGill.ca
Keywords: Computer mediated com-
munication, critical social theory, media
richness, qualitative research, or-
ganizationalcommunication.
Abstract
Information Richness Theory (IRT) has ISRLCategories: ADO518,A10803, HAO801,
enjoyed acceptance by informationsystems DD02, AI00118
researchers throughout the last decade, but
recent unfavorableempiricalevidence has pre-
cipitateda shift away fromit and a search for a
new theory. Because of this shift, a new defini- Introduction
tion of communication richness is needed to
succeed the IRTdefinition.Since its inception, Research on managerial and organizational
IS research on communication richness has use of informationtechnologies has been cen-
been limited to the perspective of positivism tral to the field of information systems (IS)
and, more recently, interpretivism. In this since its inception. An importantline of this
study, a new perspective to the study of com- research is informationrichness theory (IRT,
munication richness in computer mediated Daft and Lengel 1986), which suggests that:
(1) richness (or leanness) is an intrinsicobjec-
1RobertZmudwas the acceptingsenioreditorforthis paper. tive propertyof informationtechnologies that
1997 145
MISQuarterly/June

serve as communicationmedia and (2) man- need to question the fundamentaland implicit
agerial use of these media can be described assumptionthat pervades much (althoughnot
and explained by this intrinsicproperty.Since all) IS research2 on communication richness
1986, IRT has been influential in both IS which holds (1) that the processing of data into
research and practice. Many IS doctoral stu- informationis primarily,if not exclusively, the
dents have researched it and many IS practi- job of computerhardwareand softwareand (2)
tioners have used it as a basis for their com- that the primaryrole of humanbeings is that of
munications technologies adoption decisions. "users"of both the output and the richness
However, recent empirical studies have pre- produced by the hardware-softwaresystem.
sented evidence that calls into question the Empiricalmaterialwillillustratethat the primary
validityof IRTand its frameworkfor manageri- "processing"of data into information,at least in
al decision making about electronic communi- the arena of managerialcommunicationinvolv-
cation media (EI-Shinnawyand Markus1992;
ing an electronicmailsystem, is performednot
Kinney and Watson 1992; Lee 1994; Markus by the hardwareor software,but by the human
1994; Rice 1992). As Markus (1994) has beings themselves. Itis throughthe process of
argued: "[T]he weight of informed opinion enactmentthat people, not electroniccommu-
seems to be shifting [away from IRT]in the nication media, bring about the richness that
direction of social definition theories."
they experience in their communications
Consequently, IS researchers are confronted (Weick1969).
with the need to replace the IRT perspective
on communication richness with a new one. The remainderof the paper is organizedas fol-
The importance of this endeavor cannot be lows. The next section provides a review and
overstated because one of the primaryobjec-
critique of information richness theory. The
tives of IS research is to provide sound theo- thirdsection outlines the basic ideas and limi-
retical foundations upon which organizations tations of the positivist and interpretivistper-
can make decisions about the management
spectives of currentIS research on communi-
and use of information technologies (Zmud cation richness. The fourthsection outlinesthe
1995). In this regard, this paper offers a new CST perspective on communicationrichness
perspective on how richness occurs in man- and explains what distinguishes it from posi-
agerial communication that uses information tivistand interpretiveperspectives. In this sec-
technology and an approachto empiricalstud- tion, a new definitionof communication rich-
ies on this issue.
ness from the CST perspective is offered and
A critical social theory (CST) perspective on an outlineof a theoreticalframeworkfor study-
communication richness is introduced. ing communicationrichness fromthis perspec-
Althoughseveral studies have been conducted tive is presented. In the fifthsection, the use-
on communication richness in electronic fulness of this CST approach to recognizing
media, they can all be classified as instances instances of people's enactment of coherent
of positivist research or, more recently, inter- meaning in their communication with each
pretive research. This study is the first to other-instances that would escape detection
approach research on communicationrichness in not just an IRTperspective in particular,but
in computer mediated communicationfrom a also positivistand interpretiveperspectives in
CST perspective. It is motivatedby an interest general-is demonstrated. In this paper, the
in clarifyinghow richness occurs in managerial approachto this analysis and illustrationis an
communication conducted via information intensive investigation (Weick, 1984) of an
technology and in contributingto the develop- episode of the managerial use of electronic
ment of a valid theory of communicationrich- mailin a company.The finalsection concludes
ness. Such a theory is importantbecause IS with implications for future IS research on
researchers have a vested interestin providing communicationrichness.
solid theoretical foundations for the manage-
ment and use of informationtechnologies in 2Thisassumptionalso pervades IS research on database
organizations(Zmud 1995). Further,there is a managementsystems (see Wyboand Lee 1996).
146 MIS Quarterly/June 1997

Richness of E-MailCommunication
A CriticalReview of are (1) face-to-face,(2) telephone, (3) person-

al documents such as letters or memos, (4)
InformationRichness impersonal written documents, and (5)
numericdocuments. The reason for richness
Theory differencesincludethe medium'scapacity for
immediatefeedback, the numberof cues and
Information richness theory (IRT) was originally channels utilized, personalization, and lan-
formulated to help address the question, "Why guage variety.... Face-to-face is the richest
do organizations process information?" (Daft mediumbecause it providesimmediatefeed-
and Lengel 1986, p. 554). In their articulation of back so that interpretationcan be checked.
IRT, Daft and Lengel advanced the notion that Face-to-face also provides multiplecues via
communication richness (or leanness) is an body language and tone of voice, and mes-
invariant, objective property of communication sage content is expressed in natural lan-
media. Due to their efforts and the work of oth- guage. Rich media facilitate equivocality
reductionby enablingmanagers to overcome
ers, this perspective gained wide acceptance
differentframes of referenceand by providing
and rapidly evolved to provide a theoretical
the capacity to process complex, subjective
basis for both IS research on and decision
messages.... Mediaof low richness process
making about electronic communication media. fewercues and restrictfeedback,and are less
For practitioners, IRT has served as a norma-
appropriate for resolving equivocal issues.
tive theory for the selection of communication However,an importantpoint is that media of
media. It provided a conceptual framework for low richness are effective for processing well
ranking media from the richest to the leanest. understood messages and standard data.
In this framework, the richness of any medium [Daftand Lengel 1986, p. 560]
and its ranking in the overall richness scale is
fixed, regardless of any and all differences in Although Daft and Lengel originally formulated
the individuals who use it and the organization- and proposed IRT to help address the question
al contexts where it is used. For IS of why organizations process information, the
researchers, IRT has served as a predictive focus of IRT gradually shifted away from the
theory for empirical studies on how managers organizational context toward individual man-
make communication media choices. In this agers, their media choices, and the messages
later role, IRT's ranking of media on a richness they exchange. Markus (1994) observes that
scale allowed for the derivation of predictions even though it has evolved, "information rich-
about peoples' media choices. IRT posits that ness theory remains an individual-level rational
individuals would choose media higher in rich- choice explanation of behavior" (p. 523).
ness for those managerial tasks higher in Indeed, IRT has been tested by focusing on the
equivocality or ambiguity. The following quota- behaviors of individuals in laboratory experi-
tion from the original formulation illustrates ments, where the use of informationtechnology
IRT's theoretical perspective: is abstracted completely from any real life orga-
nizational setting. However, the results of the
Informationrichness is defined as the ability numerous empirical tests conducted on IRT
of informationto change understandingwithin
have not been favorable. Markus (1994) can be
a time interval. Communicationtransactions
that can overcome differentframes of refer- credited with what is arguably the most impres-
ence or clarify ambiguous issues to change sive empirical refutation of IRT to date. Based
understandingin a timelymannerare consid- on both quantitative and qualitative evidence
ered rich.Communicationsthat requirea long that she collected on the behaviors of man-
time to enable understandingor that cannot agers whom she observed at her field site,
overcome differentperspectives are lower in Markus summarizes that "their actual media
richness. In a sense, richness pertainsto the use behavior was inconsistent with the [infor-
learningcapacityof a communication. mation richness] theory. In particular, man-
Communicationmedia vary in the capacityto agers, especially senior managers, used the
process rich information. ... In order of [electronic mail] medium more intensively than
decreasing richness, the media classifications the [informationrichness] theory predicts and in
MISQuarterly/June1997 147

a mannerthat the theory regardsas ineffective as IRT,social definitiontheories such as struc-

and hence unlikely"(p. 518). turation,social constructionof technology and
institutionaltheories, emphasize the emergent
Otherempiricalstudies have also reportedevi-
properties or social determinantsof behavior
dence that contradictedIRT'sarguments. For
(cf. Markus1994, p. 508). Other social defini-
example, evidence of e-mail communications tion theories that have been proposed for the
that, even according to IRT'sown criteria,are study of communicationrichnessare the "social
rich, not lean, has been presented (Markus influencemodel"(Fulket al. 1990); the "emer-
1991). No support has been found for IRT's gent network perspective" (Contractor and
assumptions of symmetryand nonmonotonici-
Eisenberg1990); and the "genretheory"(Yates
ty and only mixed support for its "general and Orlikowski1992). Recently, yet another
hypothesis that task analyzability influences alternative,the "channelexpansion theory"has
the relationship between media usage and
been offered (Carlson and Zmud 1994).
performancecomponents"(Rice 1992, p. 493). Common to these alternative explanations is
No empiricalsupporthas been found for IRT's
their rejectionof the idea that communication
predictionthat "[i]ndividualswill preferto com-
richness is an invariant,objective propertyof
municate via v-mail than e-mail in situations
the communicationmediumitself, independent
requiring the exchange of information to of the social context where the communication
resolve equivocality"(EI-Shinnawyand Markus
takes place. On the contrary,these alternative
1992, p. 97). Instead, evidence to the contrary
has been found: that is, the individuals pre- explanationsall regardcommunicationrichness
ferred e-mail (EI-Shinnawyand Markus1992, or leanness as followingnot fromthe properties
p. 99). No evidence was found to support of the communication medium alone, but as
IRT's prediction that "differences in decision emerging from the interactions between the
time and consensus, change as a functionof people, and the organizationalcontext.
the interaction of medium and task" (Kinney
and Watson 1992). Although not specifically
performing a test of IRT, one study (Zuboff
1988) reported the presence of richness Positivist and Intrepretivist
("socialitythat infuses professionalexchange," Perspectives
p. 376) in communicationthat uses e-mail and
computer conferencing-a richness that IRT As stated in the introduction, all previous
would predict not to occur. Evidence has also research on communicationrichness in elec-
been presented of how managerialcommuni- tronicmedia can be classified as instances of
cation using e-mail was still capable of being
positivist and interpretivist research. An
rich, despite the fact that e-mail has all the overviewthe underlyingtheoreticalfoundations
lean media characteristics that IRT predicts
of these two research perspectives is present-
would lead to lean communication(Lee 1994).
ed before outliningthe CST perspective. This
These are (1) lack of capabilityfor immediate
overview is relevant because a descriptionof
feedback; (2) a single channel which filtersout
these two research perspectives will help clari-
significantcues fromthe message's author;(3)
impersonalityand reduced language variety. fy how the CST perspectivediffersfromthem.
It will also help explain how CST can assist
Another sign that IS researchers are shifting researchers in developing a new theory of
away fromIRTis the alternativetheoreticalper- communication richness in electronic media
spectives that some of them have advanced to that overcomes the weaknesses of the posi-
explainthe richness observed in so-called lean tivist and interpretivist perspectives. Since
media. A landmark study that refuted IRT detailed expositions of positivismand interpre-
offered an alternative perspective, namely tivism already appear in the IS literature(Lee
social definition theories (Markus 1994). That 1991; Mumfordet al. 1985; Nissen et al. 1991;
study found that, in contrast to individual-level Orlikowskiand Baroudi 1991), discussion is
rationalchoice explanations of behavior such limitedto how these perspectives are manifest-
148 MISQuarterly/June1997

ed in IS research on managerialcommunica- ness, "[i]nformation richness is defined as the

tionthat uses informationtechnology. abilityof informationto change understanding
withina time interval"(Daft and Lengel 1986
quoted above), is conducive to the study of
Thepositivistperspectiveon managerialcommunicationfroma quantitative,
positivistperspective. Consistent with the nat-
communication richness ural-science model, communicationin IRT is
conceptualizedas a physical process of trans-
Positivismis also knownas the "natural-science portingmeaning from one person to another.
model of social-science research"because it This conceptualization has been labeled the
proceeds to implement, in social science, the "conduit" metaphor of communication
image of how research proceeds in physics, (Contractorand Eisenberg 1990). Accordingto
biology,and other naturalsciences. Likenatur- IRT,a communicationmediumoperates like a
al-science theories, social-science theories conduitthat transportsmeaning from one per-
based on this model must conformto the rules son to another, as if the meaning were some-
of formallogic (of whichthe rules of mathemat- thing physical. Further,it holds that any differ-
ics are a subset) and the rules of experimental ence in the meaning received could not be an
and quasi-experimentaldesign. The rulesof for- improvement but only a loss, due to noise,
mal logic govern how a researcher may relate interference,or other deteriorationin the "sig-
the formal propositions of a theory to one nal" during the course of its transmission.
another.3The rules of experimentaland quasi- Where the conduittakes the formof text (such
experimentaldesign govern how a researcher as e-mail), deteriorationin the signal would be
may relate the propositions, not so much to said to occur from (1) the lack of immediate
each other, but to the empiricalrealitythey are feedback, needed to correct errors in the
intendedto explain. These rules of experimen- transmission; (2) the filtering out of social
tal design pertainto proceduresfor testing pre- cues; (3) the confinementto a single channel;
dictions and hypotheses, where examples of (4) the lack of personalization; and (5) the
these proceduresare those associated withlab- reductionin language variety.Based on these
oratoryexperiments,field experiments,statisti- considerations, IRT considers face-to-face
cal experiments, and natural experiments. interactionsto be the richestmediumand doc-
Whetherthe propositionsare quantitative(tak- uments (includinge-mail)to be the leanest. As
ing the form of mathematical statements) or a "conduit," the face-to-face mediumis consid-
qualitative (taking the form of verbal state- ered superior to documents for transporting
ments), they typicallydepict the subject matter meaning fromthe sender to the receiver with-
in terms of independent and dependent vari- out any loss in the "signal"(for instance, loss
ables. It is by satisfyingthese two sets of rules of facial expressions and othersocial cues).
that positivistsocial-science research conforms
to the natural-sciencemodel. Strict application of the positivist natural-sci-
ence model in social science research (includ-
Almost all of the past empiricalstudies of IRT ing IS research)has restrictedthe subject mat-
have been conducted from the positivist per- ter of inquiry.A dimensionof the subject matter
spective of the natural-sciencemodel. Inthese that social scientists examine, that naturalsci-
studies the phenomenon of managerial com- entists do not examine, is what the fieldof phe-
municationthat uses informationtechnology is nomenologycalls the "lifeworld." The lifeworld,
framed in terms of quantifiable independent among other things, is the worldof conscious-
and dependent variables, and hypothesis test- ness and humanlycreated meanings. "Unlike
ing, typicallyinvolvinglaboratoryexperiments atoms, molecules, and electrons, people create
and statistical inference. The definitionof rich- and attach their own meanings to the world
aroundthem and to the behaviorthatthey man-
ifest in that world"(Lee 1991, p. 347, referring
3Therulesof algebrafortransformingmathematicalproposi- to Schutz 1973). Atoms, molecules, electrons,
tions and relatingthem to one anotheris a good illustration
of this. and other objects of natural-scienceinquirydo

not "mean" anything to each other (Schutz sages they sent to one another(Markus1994).
1973). However, people-who are integralto But Lee goes beyond the positivistperspective
the subject matter of the social sciences-do by noting that communicationthat uses infor-
mean somethingto each other. Inthis way, the mation technology involves the creation and
world of humanlycreated meanings, however interpretationof symbols by human beings,
"subjective"they may be, is an integralpart of ratherthan just the physicaltransportingof bits
the subject matterthat the social scientist stud- througha conduit.The interpretiveperspective
ies. Because of this, "thesocial scientist must considers the capacities of the sender and
not only collect facts and data describingpurely receiver to enact and apprehend richness in
objective,publiclyobservableaspects of human "messages"(signals) as centralto the study of
behavior . . . but also the subjective meaning communicationrichness.As with most interpre-
this behaviorhas for the humansubjects them- tive approaches, the central idea in Lee's
selves"4 (Lee 1991, p. 347). These subjective hermeneuticapproach is "mutualunderstand-
meanings constitute a differentsubject matter ing"-the phenomenonof one person's reach-
fromobjectivefacts and requireresearch meth- ing an understandingof what another person
ods that have no counterpartsamong those of means.
the naturalsciences. Consistent with this defi-
ciency of positivism'snatural-sciencemodel is In summary,interpretiveand positivistresearch
the fact that almost none of the positivist IS invokestarklycontrastingimages of the human
studies that have tested IRTthroughlaboratory beings who communicatewith each other via
experiments either report or discuss, in any information technologies.The positivistIRTper-
detailedway, the content of what theirresearch spective, in depictingcommunicationas a physi-
subjects actuallysaid or meant in the course of cal process of transportinga materialsubstance
theircommunicationswithone another. from one person to another person througha
conduit,treatsthe latterpersonas nothingmore
than a passive receptacle of the transported
symbols. Incontrast,the interpretiveperspective
perspectiveon
Theinterpretivist (Lee 1994; Markus1994) treats a person not
communicationrichness merelyas a passive receptacle,but as an intelli-
gent being in a shared social context who can
Recognizing some of the limitationsof posi- transformwhatever"lean"wordsand cues he or
tivism, a few IS researchers have introduced she receives into an understandingof what the
interpretivismto the study of richness in man- speaker or writermeant. IS researchthat takes
agerial communication that uses information a positivistIRTperspectiveconceptualizescom-
technology.Interpretivism gives explicitrecogni- municationrichness as a function of channel
tionto the lifeworld,the very subjectmatter,that capacity(i.e., the flow througha conduit),while
does not fit positivism'snatural-sciencemodel. IS research that takes an interpretiveperspec-
Ituses research methods such as those associ- tive conceptualizescommunicationrichness as
ated with ethnography,participantobservation, a function of mutual understanding(i.e., one
and hermeneutics, all of which give explicit person's reaching an understanding of what
recognitionto the world of consciousness and another person means). The followingsection
humanlycreated meanings. A recent study of examines how a thirdresearch perspective-
communicationrichness employs the interpre- critical social theory (CST)-conceptualizes
tive traditionof hermeneutics to interpretthe communicationrichness.
meanings that managers themselves enact in
theiruse of e-mail (Lee 1994). In anotherstudy
mixes positivism (involvinghypothesis testing)
and interpretivism to examine what some man- A Critical Social Theory
agers themselves meant in the e-mail mes- Perspective
4Thesubjectmatterto whichthe methodsof positivism'snat-
There are many excellent reviews of critical
ural-sciencemodelof researchare well suitedto studying. social theory both in IS, general management

and social research literature(e.g., Alvesson oped a theory about communication,the theo-
and Willmott1992; Hirschheimand Klein1994; ry of communicativeaction. The CST perspec-
Lyytinenand Hirschheim 1988; Lyytinenand tive on IS research differs from positivist per-
Klein 1985; Mumby 1988; Ngwenyama 1991;
spective in the followingways:
Orlikowskiand Baroudi1991; Tice and Slavens
1983; White 1988). We will not replicatethose 1. It is sensitive to the lifeworldsof the organi-
reviews here, but we will outline some funda- zational actors and is oriented to interpret-
mental CST concepts and focus specificallyon
Habermas'theory of communicativeaction,the ing and mapping the meanings of their
basis of this study. The term "criticalsocial the- actions fromtheirperspective.
ory"was coined by Max Horkheimerwho, in
the 1930s, set out to contrastthe workof cer- 2. It adopts pluralisticmethods of inquirysuch
tain social theorists (Adorno,Fromm,Marcuse as participation,observation,and the analy-
and himself)fromthat of traditionalsocial theo-
sis of contextualdata.
ry, which developed along the lines the posi-
tivism (cf. Bernstein 1976; Frisby 1972).
Whereas traditionalsocial theorists see them- 3. Itdoes not separate (as wouldthe laborato-
selves as observers of social situationswhose ry experimentsof positivism)the subjects of
research is completed when they achieve a
inquiryfromthe organizationalcontext with-
sound explanationor understandingof it, criti-
in whichthey are situated.
cal social theorists believe that they cannot be
mere observers. CST researchers believe that,
by their very presence, they influenceand are 4. It recognizes that the organizationalcontext
influencedby the social and technologicalsys- is not only importantto meaning construc-
tems they are studying.Moreover,CST, in con- tion, but to social activity as well (cf.
trastto the positivistperspective,posits that (1)
there is a differencebetween observing nature Ngwenyama1991).
and observing people and (2) inquiryintosocial
activity should focus on understanding their Unlike the positivist perspective of IRT, CST
meanings from within the social context and views people not as passive receptacles of
lifeworldof actors. For criticalsocial theorists, whatever data or informationthat is transport-
the responsibilityof a researcherin a social sit- ed to them, but as intelligent actors who
uation does not end with the development of
assess the truthfulness,completeness, sinceri-
sound explanations and understandingsof it,
but must extend to a critique of unjust and ty, and contextuality of the messages they
inequitable conditions of the situation from receive. Forthis reason, we agree withand will
whichpeople requireemancipation. use the CST terms, human actor and organi-
zational actor,when we referto what positivist
This study uses the critical social theory of IS research refers to as "users"and "human
Jurgen Habermas (1979, 1984, 1987). One
reason for working within Habermas' frame- subjects." Finally, unlike most interpretive
workis that his work has had a greater impact approaches (e.g., Lee 1994), the CST per-
on the IS disciplinethan any other CST school spective requiresthe researcher to attend not
of thought. By adopting Habermas' critical only to the matterof mutualunderstanding,but
social theory, we will be buildingon a founda- also the matterof the emancipationof organi-
tion that has already gained recognition zational actors from false or unwarranted
among IS scholars (cf. Hirschheimand Klein beliefs, assumptions,and constraints.5
1994; Lyytinen1992; Lyytinenand Hirschheim
1988; Lyytinenand Klein1985; Mingers1981;
5Lee(1994) alludesto the possibilityof a reader'scomingto
Ngwenyama 1987, 1991; Ngwenyama and understandan authorbetterthan the authorknows himself
Lyytinen 1997; Truex 1993). Moreover, or herself, but his hermeneuticapproachstands indepen-
Habermas (1984, 1987) has already devel- dentlyof this concept.

Basic concepts of communicative the portrayaloffered by IRT's positivist per-

action spective and the interpretive perspective.
Neither of these two perspectives addresses
the validityof what is being communicatedin
Habermas' theory of communicative action
the first place, but this is exactly what is con-
describes four main types of intentionalbehav-
sidered to be pivotalin the CST perspectiveon
ior or social action: instrumental,communica-
communicationrichness.
tive, discursive, and strategic. Althougheach
action type has a specific focus and orienta-
tion, together they represent differentaspects
of human behavior in social settings. With
Organizational Contextuality
regard to this study, the four social action
types are significantfor the followingreasons. InCST, "social"in the term"socialaction"refers
First,in contrastto the positivistperspective in to the orientationof a person's action to other
IRT'sconduit metaphor,the four social action individualsand to the actionbeing embedded in
types depict human beings as active proces- an organizationalcontext. Through its social
sors or interpreterswho are not mere recepta- and institutionalstructures,the organizational
cles of meanings transportedto them, but who contextdefines, for all organizationalactors,the
create or enact the meanings that they come possibilities and potentialfor social action. In
to hold. Second, in contrast to the interpretive everyday interactions, an organization's poli-
perspective, the four social action types recog- cies, norms, and resources serve to enable,
nize that a person who reads, listens to, or oth- constrain, and sometimes outrightdetermine
erwise receives a message need not restrict what is properand improper,and to lend mean-
her meaning for the message to just mutual ing to the actions of individuals.The organiza-
understanding,but instead can be criticalof it. tionalcontext also defines the power, authority,
Froma CST perspective, communicationrich- and status relationshipsof the individualswithin
ness is not a functionof the channel capacity it. However, as intelligentand knowledgeable
as in IRT's positivist conception. Further,it is agents, organizationalactors can, withinlimits,
not restrictedto how well one person comes to choose to act in accordance with or against
understandwhat another person means as in organizationalnorms.To well-socializedactors,
the interpretivistconception. InCST, communi- the organizationalcontextis a taken-for-granted
cation richness involves not only understand- store of knowledge or a set of pre-interpreted
ing what the speaker or writermeans, but the patterns of meaning about the organization.
testing of validityclaims associated with the The organizationalcontext serves as a refer-
action type enacted by the speaker or writer. ence schema that enables actors to act and to
The results of the tests enable the listener or interpretthe actions of others. As actors medi-
readerto detect and analyze distortedcommu- ate action situations, they draw upon these
nications. By distorted communication we stocks of knowledge, as well as materialand
mean communicative acts that are false, nonmaterialresources of the organization. In
incomplete, insincere, or unwarranted. executing social actions, an actor relies upon
Communicationrichness in a CST perspective the fact that he or she shares every aspect of
is gauged not by channel capacity or by how the organizationalcontext withthe other actors
well a person recreates a meaning that anoth- involvedin the action situation.Thus contextu-
er person intends, but instead by how well a ality of social action has numerous practical
person, throughher assessment of the validity consequences for daily organizationallife and
claims made by the person communicatingto for researchers who observe it. The following
her, succeeds in emancipating herself from examples shouldclarifythis issue.
distortedcommunications.From this perspec-
tive, one realizes that any portrayalof human 1. It is because of contextualitythat, first, an
beings as simply ascribing face validityto the actor cannot simply construe any meaning
communications directed to them would be he would like for his own actions or the
unrealistic in CST. However, this is precisely actions of others and, second, an actorcan-

not simply exercise complete free will in own specific set of validityclaims. Therefore,
how she chooses to act. Hence a any actionby an individualcarrieswithit specif-
researcher cannot builda valid explanation ic claims of validity.Accordingto the theory of
or interpretationby examiningjust individual communicativeaction, breakdownsin commu-
factors alone. In fact, the sociologist C. nication occur when an actor fails to observe
WrightMills (1977, p. 67) dismissed such the norms or fails to apprehendthe actions of
research efforts as committingthe method- other actors. Thus, a breakdownraises doubts
ological errorof "psychologism." about the validity claims of the social action
being considered. Routine social interaction
2. Because of their shared organizationalcon- requiresthat organizationalactors monitorthe
text, even differentindividualswho hold dif- action situationswithinwhich they operate and
ferent opinions on the same matter and reflectupontheiractions and the actions of oth-
who are motivated by conflicting interests ers. When doubtarises in the mindof an actor
can end up with negotiated meanings for aboutvalidityclaimsof any action,the actorfirst
the same action and even choosing the enters a cycle of criticalreflection(Ngwenyama
same way in which to act. 1991) to test the claims. In testing the claims,
the actor draws upon his knowledge of the
organizational context (norms of interaction,
3. The same publiclyobservable behaviorcan
power, status relationships,etc.), the particular
have completely different meanings in dif- action situationitself, and the orientationof the
ferent social contexts. As has been stated, other person whose action is being contested.
"The same overt behavior (say a tribal
By criticallyreflectingin this manner,the actor
pageant as it can be captured by a movie can free himself not only from false or unwar-
camera) may have an entirely different rantedbeliefs and assumptionsabout the other
meaning to the performers.What interests person or her action, but also fromconstraints
the social scientist is merely whether it is a to enacting coherent meaning of the situation
war dance, a bartertrade, the receptionof a and taking appropriate counteraction. If the
friendlyambassador, or something else of actor is unable to redeem the claims via per-
this sort"(Schutz 1993, p. 54). sonal reflection,he can then enter into a dis-
course with the other party in order to clarify
4. The same publiclyobservable behavior(for and settle the issue. If the issue still cannot be
instance, an order or a command)could be settled in the discourse, other organizational
meaningfulwhen comingfromone person to actors are called into an open debate eitherto
another (such as from an Air Force Captain redeemthe validityclaims or to rejectthe action
to one of her troops), but not when involving and sanctionthis person.
a differentdyad (such as the presidentof a
universityand the presidentof the universi-
ty's facultyunion).Again,publiclyobservable
behavior alone is not meaningful;a social The Basic Types of Social Action
contextis necessary for itto have meaning.
We will now describe the four main types6 of
social action: instrumental, communicative,
6Theterm"type"refersto idealizations,or idealtypes. In the

Norms of Social Action same way that Euclideangeometry'splantfigures,such as
circles or squares, are idealizations that actual physical
Habermas' theory of communicative action spaces can only be expected to approximate.Habermas'
posits that all social action assumes a basic set foursocial actiontypes are also ideals that real-worldcom-
of norms. The norms hold that actors are munications between people can only be expected to
allowedto express fullytheiropinionsand must approximate.But,as withall theoreticalconstructs,the rea-
son for definingthem is to facilitatethe research purposes
honor the outcome of open rationalargument. of namingand classifyingempiricalphenomena.
Further,each type of social action entails its

discursive, and strategic. Althougheach social order to another person have the authorityor
action type has a specific focus and orienta- standing withinthe organization to issue the
tion, together they represent differentaspects order in the firstplace? Validityclaims to effi-
of intentional human behavior in social set- ciency and effectiveness are also relevant
tings. In everyday organizational life, actors here. Withregardto effectiveness, the concern
easily shift from one social action type to is: Does the person who is executing the
anotheras they seamlessly interactin a web of instrumental action have the resources to
social activity.However,the theory of commu- make the action stick? This person may also
nicative action posits that when an actor exe- ponder the question: Is the action efficientfor
cutes a specific social action type, he/she must achievingthe requiredends?
be ready to defend the validityclaims associat-
ed with it. Table 1 summarizesthe actiontypes Communicative action is concerned with
and validityclaims. achieving and maintainingmutualunderstand-
ing (one person's coming to understandwhat
Instrumentalaction is behaviorthat is oriented another person means) among all those who
to attainingrationalobjectives. When employ- are involved in a coordinated organizational
ing this type of action, a person views her situation. Actors engage in communicative
opponent as if he were a mere object or orga- action to inform each other about states of
nizationalresource (ratherthan another actor) affairs,organizationalevents, decisions taken,
and attempts to manipulate the opponent to and so on. Communicative action assumes
act accordingto her wishes. Dependingon the that everyone in the action situationis an actor
authority and status relationships between in a social context (ratherthan a person who
these two persons within the organizational does not share the context or a person who is,
context, she could issue an orderto himor use as the positivist perspective in IRT's conduit
other means to obtain compliance. In tryingto metaphorportrays,a passive and unreflective
enact coherent meaning of the action and the object in a physicallandscape). Organizational
action situation,the person who is subjected to actors involved in communicative action
instrumentalaction will normallyreflect upon depend on a common language and a shared
the contextuality or appropriateness of the understandingof the organizationalcontext in
action (i.e., a basic validityclaimthat is associ- orderto enact meaningfromeach other'scom-
ated with this action type). The fundamental municativeactions. When the listener or read-
question is: Does the organizationalrelation- er of a communicativeact (e-mail, memo, let-
ship make such action appropriate? For ter, etc.) fails to understandit, she would nor-
instance, does the person who is issuing an mally reflect upon it and try (again) to enact
Table 1. Types of Social Action and Applicable ValidityClaims
Social
Action
Types ValidityClaims
Clarity, Contextuality,
Truthfulness
Completeness Appropriateness
SincerityComprehensibility Effectiveness
Efficiency
Instrumental Does Does Does
Action Apply Apply Apply
Communicative Does Does Does Can
Action Apply Apply Apply Apply
Discursive Can Can Does Does
Strategic Can Does Can Can
1997
154 MISQuarterly/June

some coherent meaning for it. The process of Strategic action is concerned with an actor's
enacting coherent meaning fromthe "text"is a influencingand transformingthe behaviors of
criticalreflectioncycle in which the reader/lis- others so as to conformto the actor's desires
tener tests the validityclaims of clarity, com- or goals. Like instrumentalaction, a person's
pleteness, contextuality, and truthfulness strategic action is also oriented to attaining
associated withthis type of action. The listener rationalobjectives. However, the person who
or reader would ponder questions such as: Is engages in strategic action treats her oppo-
the message clear; is there some jargonthat I nent not as a mere object or organizational
don't understand? Is the message complete? resource (which is the case in instrumental
What is the context of this message; how does action), but as another actor-a person capa-
it fit within the wider organizational context? ble of intelligent counteraction. People who
From the speaker's or writer's own perspec- execute strategic actions often try to exploit
tive, is his message true? If the reader or lis- and manipulateorganizationalinfluence,orga-
tener still does not enact a coherent meaning nizationalprocesses, resources, and "therules
or is unsure that her enacted meaning is of the game" to their advantage. Strategic
shared by the speaker or writer,she would ini- action may be open or covert, depending upon
tiate a discourse (discursive action) with the whether the conflictsituation is openly admit-
other person. ted or hidden.A well knownexample of covert
Discursive action is oriented toward achieving strategic action in everyday organizationallife
is "officepolitics."Typical examples of overt
or restoringagreement and redeemingvalidity
claims. Discursive action is initiated when strategic activityare negotiation and bargain-
ing. Participantsin strategic activityutilizeboth
organizationalactors need to achieve agree-
ment for joint action. In such a situation, the personal and organizational resources, such
individualswould generally engage each other as social status, authority, and items of
in a debate of the issues untilthey agree on a exchange value (time, expertise, etc.). They
course of action. The second general applica- also rely on knowledge of what is feasible to
tion of discursive action is restoringagreement achieve and knowledge of opponent's goals,
in situations of breakdown. When questions positions, and potentialfor counteraction.The
are raised about the validity of a person's primaryvalidityclaim associated with strategic
actions, the mode of interactionof the actors action is contextuality. The subject of a
involved with these questions generally shifts strategic act would ponder:Is the action legiti-
to discursive action. In such situations, the mate, given the organizationalcontext? Does
shared aim is either to re-establishconfidence the person who is executing a strategic action
in what is being said or done or to find rational to change my behaviorhave the formalorgani-
explanationsfor the actions whose validityhas zational standing or the moral authorityto do
been called into question. This requires that this in the first place? Strategic action is
the actors suspend (if only momentarily)their deemed legitimateand valid when it conforms
immediate objectives in order to search for to organizational norms, policies, authority
good reasons to justify or refute the validity structure, and "the unwritten rules of the
claims that are in question. Discursive activity game."When it does not conform,the person
unfoldsthroughcriticaldebate and argumenta- who is subjectto it can consider it "dirtytricks."
tion which forms the basis for joint decision
makingand agreement. Participantsof discur-
sive action draw upon a common medium of
communication, shared protocols for interac- Reading Communication
tion, and intuitive(a priori)knowledge of the Richness Fromthe CST
ground rules of discourse. Discursive action
typicallyevokes validityclaims of clarity and Perspective
contextuality and can also sometimes involve
additionalvalidityclaims of truthfulness and The CST definitionof communicationrichness
sincerity. (stated earlier) recognizes that, in attempting
1997 155
MISQuarterly/June

to enact coherent meaning from a "text,"a lis- social action types, and the set of validity
tener or reader can go beyond achieving a claims specific to each (cf. Table 1), describe
mutual understanding with the speaker or the situations where such assessments can
writer.The listeneror readeraccomplishes this take place and communication richness can
by criticalreflection,that is, assessing one or occur.
more validity claims pertaining to what the
speaker or writer expressed (cf. Table 1). Two importantpoints about this study's CST
Furthermore,a listener's or reader's reflection definitionof communication richness require
can lead her not only to the ordinaryoutcome elaboration.First,the CST perspective, as the
in which she comes to understand what the
interpretive perspective, conceptualizes the
speaker or writer means (i.e., mutual under- role of social cues (such as facial expressions,
standing), but also the critical outcome in
which she emancipates herself from distorted body language, and tone of voice) in a way
communicativeacts. An example of emancipa- altogetherdifferentfromthe positivistIRTper-
tion from distorted communicative acts can spective. IRT has presumed that more such
involve an instance of communicative action cues automaticallyentail the consequence of
where the listener does not accept the speak- more communicationrichness and that fewer
er's utterance at face value, but questions its such cues automatically entail the conse-
validityclaims and sees that it is incomplete, quence of less communication richness. In
false, unclear, or inappropriate.Anotherexam- contrast,the CST and the interpretiveperspec-
ple can involve an instance of either instru- tives make no presumptionof any direct rela-
mental or strategic action in which the reader tionship between the quantity of social cues
does not accept the writer'smessage at face and the level of communication richness.
value, but questions its validityclaim of contex- However,these two perspectives do acknowl-
tuality (appropriateness) and sees that the edge that social cues can contributeto com-
speaker has no formalorganizationalstanding municationrichness, but that there is no a pri-
to execute the action in question. ori reason to suppose that facial expressions,
The concept of emancipation from distorted body language, tone of voice, or other social
communication distinguishes the CST defini- cues are necessary conditionsfor communica-
tion of communication richness from earlier tion richness to readily occur. The second
positivistand interpretivedefinitions.The posi- importantpoint is that the CST definition of
tivistIRTperspective would recognize richness communicationrichness goes beyond both the
to occur even when the listener or reader positivistIRTfocus on features of the process
assesses no validityclaims and the communi- of communication (social cues and channel
cation was intentionallydistorted (i.e., incom- capacity)and the interpretivistfocus on mutual
plete, false, unclear, or inappropriate).This is understanding(the listener's or reader's com-
because IRT's conduit metaphor conceptual- ing to understandwhat the speaker or writer
izes the listener or reader as a passive recep- meant). In addition, the CST perspective
tacle even for any distorted communication focuses on the listener'sor reader's critiqueof
that is transportedto him or her. The interpre- the validityor rightness of what is being com-
tive perspective in the hermeneutic approach
municated and, if needed, the listener's or
(Lee 1994) would recognize richness to occur reader's emancipationof herself fromdistorted
even when the listener or reader achieves a
"mutualunderstanding"of a communicativeact communications.Table 2 summarizes the dif-
that is incomplete,false, unclear,or inappropri- ferences among the three definitionsof com-
ate. What CST research offers that positivist municationrichness. It also summarizes what
and most interpretiveresearch does not is the the CST perspective contributes that is new
recognitionthat communicationamong every- and differentfrom the other perspectives. In
day actors also involves their need to assess the next section, an empirical illustrationof
the validityor rightness of what is being com- communication richness from the CST per-
municated in the first place. CST's four main spective is presented.
156 MIS Quarterly/June 1997

Table 2. Comparision of Three Definitions of Communication Richness
Social cues (such as facial When the number of social When d

expressions, body language, cues increases (or commun
and tone of voice)... decreases)... res
... are neces- ... can con- ... the com- .. there is not ... featuresof
sary to tributeto, but munication necessarily the process of
maximize are not neces- richnesscor- any cor- communicatio
communica- sary to respondingly responding (such as the
tionrichness. maximize, increases (or change in the numberof
communi- decreases). communication social cues and
cation richness. the capacityof
richness. the medium).
Communi-
cationrich-
ness can
readilyoccur
even in the
totalabsence
of social cues.
Communi- ... the posi-

cationrich- tivistper-
ness from... spective in X X X
IRT'sconduit
metaphor:
... the inter-
Cl)
0 pretive
perspective
in the x x
hermeneutic
approachof
(b
D
Lee (1994):
---
... this study's
CST per- x X
spective:

An empiricalillustrationof the message set is 124; at 21:16, it is 124-143-

communicationrichness 147-148-151; and at 21:49, it is 124-143-147-
148-151-161. At each of these times, the
The empiricalmaterialused here is drawnfrom meaningthat Sheila enacts for 124 is different.
To emphasize the changes or the develop-
a case study of a company called HCP
ment in the meaning that Sheila enacts for
(Markus1994, p. 510). Whereas this material 124, we ask the reader to visit Tables 3a
was used in the case study to investigate the
meritsof IRT,the materialwillbe used here to through3c, so as to view 124 as Sheila would
view 124 at these successive points in time.
investigate how communication richness, as
conceptualized from the CST perspective, can For Sheila at time 16:23 (Table 3a), 124
emerge in the managerialuse of e-mail. Table begins with the meaning of a straightforward
3 should be studied before proceedingwiththe and routineinformationrequest (aboutwhether
rest of this section. HCP has a particulartrackingsystem) that Ted
makes to her. As Sheila's response in the form
The illustrationbegins by turningour attention of 143 (displayedin Table 3) allows us to inter-
to the meaning that Sheila enacts for 124, a
pret, Sheila's understandingof 124 at this time
message that Ted sends to her. Accordingto is that it is a routinematterand that there is no
CST, when one person interactswith another, indication of any serious problem requiring
eithercan engage in any or all of the following: more-than-routine attention.
communicative action, instrumental action,
strategic action, and discursiveaction, where a However,at time 21:16 (Table 3b), Sheila not
set of validityclaims (cf. Table 1) accompanies only receives another message from Ted
each of these action types. In this vignette, (151), but also receives copies of two e-mail
Sheila is engaging in communicative action. messages (147 and 148) that Mike had just
As explained earlier, communicativeaction is sent privatelyto Ted and that Ted forwardsto
concerned with achieving and maintaining Sheila along with 151. At this point, the mes-
mutual understanding among individuals sage set for Sheila grows to 124-143-147-148-
engaged in coordinated organizationalaction. 151. For Sheila, even though the set of words
Inprocessing the validityclaims accompanying with which Ted composed 124 remains con-
this communicativeaction, Sheila evolves her stant from time 16:23 to time 21:16, Sheila
own meaning for Ted's communicativeact in enacts a differentmeaningfor 124 at the latter
124. As explained in detail below, the result is time. The two forwardedmessages, 147 and
that communicationrichness, in this vignette, 148, and Ted's new message, 151, all place
involves not only the ordinary outcome in 124 in a new light:124 is no longer a straight-
which Sheila successfully "downloads" the forwardand routine informationrequest, but
semantic content of the e-mail message that emerges with the meaning of a diplomatically
other managers previously "uploaded" to stated assertion froma regionalvice president
HCP's computer (as IRT's conduit metaphor (Ted) that there is a serious problem that
suggests). Rather,the result is that communi- requiresmore-than-routineattention.Also, the
cation richness additionallyinvolves (as CST additionalmessages 147, 148, and 151 place
would explain) the critical outcome in which 124 in a broader,organizationalcontext; what
Sheila undertakes actions to test the validity 124 means to Sheila at this point depends not
claims of what is "downloaded"and, where only on the words with which Ted composed
necessary, to redeem these claims. 124, but also on the interests of other organi-
zational actors (Ted as well as Mike),as evi-
Observationsin this vignette are begun by not- denced in 147, 148, and 151.
ing that Sheila's understandingof 124 is not
solely a functionof the dictionarydefinitionsof Finally,at time 21:49 (Table3c), Sheila enacts
the words with which Ted composed 124, but yet another meaning for 124. At this point,
continues to develop and emerge as additional Sheila makes copies of 147, 148, and 151 and
messages join 124 over time. At time 16:23, forwardsthem along with a copy of 124 when

Richness of E-Mail Communication
Table 3. The Complete Set of Empirical Material for Investigation
Empirical Material from HCP, Inc. (Markus 1994)a

Mess. No. Date/Time From To Text
027 7/31 16:30 Mike Ted We are not adhering to the state law that requires payment w/i [within]30
days unless propernotificationis given of valid delays.
124 8/6 16:23 Ted Sheila, Sheila, I presume you are aware that the state of ... requires that we pay
Mike withinthirtydays. The [branch]is reportingthat we are not adhering to
this. Do you have a system in place to keep trackof this? Is there any
informationyou need from us? Please let me know? Thnaks! Ted
138 8/6 17:54 Mike Ted Thankyou thank you thank you
143 8/6 20:03 Sheila Ted, Ted, yes, we were aware of the 30 day requirement.We look at this
Mike everyweek to insure compliance. The only exceptions should be ....
Willgive you an aging [accounting report]tomorrow.Sheila
147 8/6 20:13 Mike Ted Ted, something is wrong. I am not saying Sheila is not correct, alll [all I]
am saying is that you and I are signing a lot of second and thirdrequests
as priorityprocessing and Kathy[one of Mike'ssubordinates] says ...
and Kathyis usually not wrong about this type of thing. Could it be that
the problem is that claims are just not getting ioged [logged] in upoo
[upon] receipt? In my auditingdays ... we found this to be common
when reportsshowed "allok"?
148 8/6 20:21 Mike Ted Ted, the more I thinkabout this, the more it bothers me, just look at all of
the recent 2nd and 3rd requests and all of the over 60days follouwps
from Kathy.I am going to have Kathysummarise the last 60 days. I will
not indicate toKathythe specifics of why I am requesting. This could be a
serious company wide problem.Willyou check (when ypur [you] receive
your aging) with Sheila to see if they have claims in hourse that do/are
not reflected in her aging. Thanks.
151 8/6 21:16 Ted Sheila Sheila, I dont agree [withMike]that is [claims are being] received but not
entered, although it could be, you would know. i tend to thinksome of
these are ap [accounts payable] problems, we will have to look at what
they [Mikeand Kathy]can send us for examples. the way i look at it we
are lookoinga t a problemthat mightbe there proactively. we will look
and see if we can find a problemor at least come to agreement on
status, will keep youpsoted [you posted].
{Note: Ted forwards copies of 147 and 148 when sending 151.}
161 8/6 21:49 Sheila Direct FYI[withprevious messages attached]
Subor-
dinate {Note: Sheila forwards copies of 124, 143, 147, 148, and 151 when
sending 161.}
162 8/6 22:20 Sheila Ted Ted, given the additionalexplanation.... and the fact that I agree, Kathy
is seldom wrong.... I willsee what I can see fromthis end. I['m]sure
none of us want another $14,000 interest charge! Sheila
I
aMarkusstates: "The messages have been reproduced with only minor omissions and with actual spelling and typing errors. Proper names
have been changed." Square braces, [ ], contain Markus'additions. The other braces, ( }, contain additions by the authors of this study. All
omissions (".. .")appear in Markus'own presentation of the messages. Markusoffers the followingdescriptionsof Ted, Mike,and Sheila:
Ted Josephs (a pseudonym) was one of eight Regional Vice Presidents (RVP)who reporteddirectlyto the CEO of HCP. Ted was responsible
for approximately400 employees in three remote districtslocated as far as 2,500 miles from Headquarters.Inthis position, he had the author-
ity and responsibilityto understandthe organizationas a whole... Ted was one of the first occupants of the RVP position when it was estab-
lished three years priorto data collection. Accordingto those I interviewedat HCP, his superiors, peers, and subordinates regard him as an
excellent manager (Markus1994, p. 513).
In his weekly reportfor the week priorto the message sample, Mike,one of Ted's direct subordinates, reportedthat HCP appeared not to be
in compliance with a state regulation in his jurisdiction.This obviously importantissue fell withinthe organizationalpurview of HCP's VP of
Customer Service (Sheila). Mike'sposition in the organizationwas such that he could not approach Sheila directlywith his concerns, but had
to rely on his superiorto do it for him. Afterreading Mike'sweekly reportand directinghis assistant to file it, Ted sent message #124 to the VP
of Customer Service with a copy to Mike(Markus1994, pp. 516-517).
MIS Quarterly/June 1997 159

Table 3a. The Message Set for Sheila at Time 16:23

124 8/6 16:23 Ted Sheila Sheila,Ipresumeyouare awarethatthe stateof... requiresthatwe
paywithinthirtydays.The[branch]is reporting
thatwe are notadhering
Mike to this.Doyou havea systemin placeto keeptrackof this?Is thereany
information
you need fromus? Please let me know?Thnaks!Ted
Table 3b. The Message Set for Sheila at Time 21:16

124 8/6 16:23 Ted Sheila, Sheila,Ipresumeyouare awarethatthe stateof... requiresthatwe
Mike paywithinthirtydays.The[branch]is reporting thatwe are notadhering
to this.Do you havea systemin placeto keeptrackof this?Is thereany
information you need fromus? Please let me know?Thnaks!Ted
143 8/6 20:03 Sheila Ted, Ted,yes, we wereawareof the 30 day requirement. We lookat this
Mike everyweekto insurecompliance.Theonlyexceptionsshouldbe ....
Willgiveyouan aging[accounting report]tomorrow. Sheila
147 8/6 20:13 Mike Ted is
Ted,something wrong. I am notsaying Sheilais notcorrect,alll[allI]
am sayingis thatyou andI are signinga lotof second andthirdrequests
as priority
processingandKathy[oneof Mike'ssubordinates] says ...
and Kathyis usuallynotwrongaboutthistypeof thing.Couldit be that
the problemis thatclaimsarejustnotgettingloged[logged]in upoo
[upon]receipt?Inmyauditingdays ... we foundthisto be commonwhen
reportsshowed"allok'?
148 8/6 20:21 Mike Ted Ted,the moreIthinkaboutthis,the moreitbothersme,justlookat allof
the recent2ndand3rdrequestsandallof the over60daysfollouwps
fromKathy.Iam goingto have Kathysummarisethe last60 days. I will
notindicatetoKathythe specificsof whyIam requesting.Thiscouldbe a
seriouscompanywideproblem.Willyoucheck(whenypur[you]receive
youraging)withSheilato see iftheyhaveclaimsin hoursethatdo/are
notreflectedin heraging.Thanks.
151 8/6 21:16 Ted Sheila Sheila,Idontagree [withMike]thatis [claimsare being]receivedbutnot
entered,althoughitcouldbe,youwouldknow.i tendto thinksome of
these are ap [accountspayable]problems,we willhaveto lookat what
they[Mikeand Kathy]can send us forexamples.the way i lookat itwe
are lookoingat a problemthatmightbe thereproactively. we willlook
andsee ifwe can finda problemorat leastcometo agreementon
status,willkeepyoupsoted[youposted].
{Note:Tedforwardscopies of 147 and 148 when sending 151.}
she sends her own message 161 to her direct ond, this is a serious problem for which she
subordinate (so that the message set grows to accepts responsibility (as evidenced by her
124-143-147-148-151-161). In copying 124,
delegation of it to her direct subordinate). Also
forwarding it, and appending two other mes-
sages to it, Sheila is appropriating 124 to suit confirming this interpretation is that, at time
her own purposes and hence, in this way, can 22:20, Sheila sends a new message to Ted
even be described as joining Ted as its co- (162) in which her statement, "Iwill see what I
author. Therefore, we can interpret that, for can see from this end," is an explicit sign to us
Sheila, 124 in 124-143-147-148-151-161
reflects her most recently enacted meaning (the authors and readers of this study) that
that, first, there is definitely a serious problem Sheila is indeed aware of a problem for which
requiring more-than-routine attention and, sec- she realizes she is responsible.

Table 3c. The Message Set for Sheila at Time 21:49

124 8/6 16:23 Ted Sheila, Sheila,Ipresumeyouareawarethatthe stateof... requiresthatwe
Mike paywithinthirtydays.The[branch]is reporting thatwe are notadhering
to this.Doyou havea systemin placeto keeptrackof this?Is thereany
informationyou needfromus? Please let me know?Thnaks!Ted
143 8/6 20:03 Sheila Ted, Ted,yes, we wereawareof the 30 day requirement. We lookat this
Mike everyweekto insurecompliance.Theonlyexceptionsshouldbe ....
Willgiveyou an aging[accounting report]tomorrow.Sheila
147 8/6 20:13 Mike Ted Ted,somethingis wrong.Iam notsayingSheilais notcorrect,alll[allI]
am sayingis thatyouand Iare signinga lotof second andthirdrequests
processingandKathy[oneof Mike'ssubordinates]
as priority says ...
andKathyis usuallynotwrongaboutthistypeof thing.Coulditbe that
the problemis thatclaimsarejustnotgettingloged[logged]in upoo
[upon]receipt?Inmyauditingdays ... we foundthisto be commonwhen
reportsshowed"allok"?
148 8/6 20:21 Mike Ted Ted,the moreIthinkaboutthis,the moreitbothersme, justlookat allof
the recent2ndand3rdrequestsandallof the over60daysfollouwps
fromKathy.I amgoingto haveKathysummarisethe last60 days. Iwill
notindicatetoKathythe specificsof whyIam requesting.Thiscouldbe a
seriouscompanywideproblem.Willyoucheck(whenypur[you]receive
youraging)withSheilato see iftheyhaveclaimsin hoursethatdo/are
notreflectedin heraging.Thanks.
151 8/6 21:16 Ted Sheila Sheila,Idontagree[withMike]thatis [claimsare being]receivedbutnot
entered,althoughitcouldbe,youwouldknow.i tendto thinksome of these
are ap [accountspayable]problems,we willhaveto lookat whatthey
[MikeandKathy]can send us forexamples.the wayi lookat itwe are
lookoingat a problemthatmightbe thereproactively.we willlookandsee
ifwe can finda problemorat leastcometo agreementon status,willkeep
youpsoted[youposted].
{Note:Tedforwardscopies of 147 and 148 when sending 151.}
161 8/6 21:49 Sheila Direct FYI[withpreviousmessages attached]
Subor-
dinate {Note:Sheila forwardscopies of 124,143, 147,148, and 151 when
sending 161.}
Drawing on the empirical material that pertains However, at time 21:16, the validity claims of
to how Sheila's enactment of her meaning for 124 are, in Sheila's eyes, called into question.
124 emerged and continued to emerge as Whereas initially (at time 16:23) it appeared to
Sheila that Ted was making a simple informa-
additional messages joined it over time, we
tion request about whether HCP has a particu-
may proceed to identify how Sheila's reaction lar tracking system ("The [branch] is reporting
to Ted's written discourse illustrates the CST that we are not adhering to this. Do you have a
definition of communication richness. First, system in place to keep track of this'), Sheila
observe that, at time 16:23, Sheila initially had experienced a breakdown in her initial under-
no reason to question what Ted was saying in standing of 124 when, at time 21:16, she
124. In other words, in what CST would call received messages 147, 148, and 151. An
Sheila's communicative action of trying to understanding of 124 as a simple information
request about whether HCP has a particular
achieve mutual understanding (i.e., developing
tracking system could not explain (again, from
an understanding of what Ted meant in 124), Sheila's perspective) Ted's behaviors at time
there was no factor prompting Sheila to exam- 21:16, such as (1) why Ted initiates renewed
ine what CST would call 124's validity claims. dialogue with her even after she had already

given a full answer (143: "Ted,yes, we were president and, therefore, as someone to be
aware of the 30 day requirement.We look at answered to?). Finally, Sheila succeeded in
this everyweek to insure compliance.')to what resolving or redeeming the validityclaims of
seemed to be a simple information request completeness, validity, and contextuality.
(124: "Doyou have a system in place to keep Considerthe action that Sheila initiates:"Iwill
trackof this?') or (2) especially, why Ted per- see what I can see from this end" (162). This
sists in his dialogue with her on this matterby action reflects Sheila's completion of her
his forwardingcopies of 147 and 148 to her- understandingof 124, by acknowledgingthat,
messages that a seemingly unrelated third rather than only asking about whether HCP
party (Mike)had composed and sent privately has a particulartrackingsystem, 124 was also
to Ted. In other words, these two behaviorsby asking her about what action she would be
Ted, which were no less observable to Sheila taking to correct a particular problem. This
than they are to us, served to bring about a actionalso reflectsSheila's clarification of her
breakdownin the meaning that Sheila had ini- understandingof 124, by realizingthat Ted's
tially enacted for 124. As explained earlier, a topic in 124 was not so much about a tracking
breakdown in understanding can call into system at HCP as it was about Ted's concern
question, in the case of communicativeaction, for her to carry out her responsibilities. Last,
a message's validityclaims pertainingto any this action also reflects Sheila's contextual-
or all of the following:completeness, truthful- ization of her understanding of 124, by
ness, clarity, and contextuality. In the acknowledgingthat 124's sender was not just
instance of 124, Ted's two behaviors call into any HCP employee making an information
question the validityclaims of completeness, request, but a regionalvice presidentthat she
clarity,and contextuality. needed to answer to and for whom she had to
adjust her behavior. For Sheila, it is this new
By raising the possibilitythat there was more context that raises for her the possibilityof a
to 124 than just a routine informationrequest new meaning for 124 as a strategic action,
from Ted about whether HCP has a particular ratherthan a communicativeaction, by Ted.
tracking system, the breakdown called into
question the completeness of what Ted was Far from being a passive receptacle for a
saying in 124 (i.e., what more did he have to fixed-formmessage that is transportedthrough
say on this topic?). By raising the possibility a conduitto her, Sheila was an intelligentactor
that this was not a straightforwardstatement able to interpret the received text so as to
fromTed asking for information(i.e., what CST complete, clarify,and contextualize this com-
wouldcall a communicativeaction by Ted), but municativeact. On the one hand, IRTwould
a diplomaticallyphrased statement from Ted lead to the (incorrect)conclusion that no com-
for Sheila to act on a serious problemfalling munication richness occurs in this instance.
under her responsibility(i.e., what CST would First, IRT's conduit metaphor would explain
call a strategic action by Ted), the breakdown that Sheila's understanding of 124 can be
called into question the clarity of what Ted nothing more than what Ted had ostensibly,
was saying in 124 (i.e., what was the topic in intentionally,and publicly expressed through
the firstplace?). his words in 124. Second, because IRTcon-
ceptualizes richness as a directfunctionof the
Through raising the latter possibility(that 124 quantityof social cues (such as facial expres-
could be a strategic action by Ted, ratherthan sions, body language, and tone of voice) in the
a communicative action by Ted), the break- process of communication,IRTwould predict
down also served to change or betterestablish that the total absence of such cues in Ted's e-
the organizationalcontext or the contextuality mailto Sheila wouldlead to littleor no commu-
of what Ted was saying in 124 (i.e., did Ted nication richness. On the other hand, this
send 124 in the same way that anyone else study's CST definitionof communicationrich-
with an information request at HCP would ness allows us to explain, instead, that Sheila
have, or did Ted send 124 using his formal can learn and reflect when confronting a
organizational standing as a regional vice breakdown in her understanding of 124 and
1997

then, by assessing 124 against certainvalidity ment on the significance of this matter. To
claims, furtherdevelop and redeem her under- move these three examples from mere specu-
standing-hence leading to the (correct)con- lation to full documentation, a researcher
clusion that communication richness does would need to document,for each of the three
occur. Furthermore, this richness manifests cases, not only any validity claims that the
itself not only in the form of the ordinaryout- actors themselves actually call into question,
come in which Sheila achieves a mutual but also any subsequent cycles of critical
understandingwith other organizationalactors, reflection in which an actor tests the claims
such as Ted, but also in the formof the critical and emancipates herself fromthose instances
outcome in which Sheila's learningand reflec- of distorted communications that her testing
tion (i.e., her examining and redeeming of detects. In general, as organizational actors
validityclaims) emancipate her from distorted shift naturallyfrom one social action type to
communications(whichwere distortedin terms another, they seamlessly interactin a web of
of completeness, clarity,and contextuality). social activitythat, to them, is daily organiza-
tional life and, as such, routinely presents
Note that the above illustrationof this study's opportunities for communication richness to
definitionof communication richness focuses occur.
on just one social action type: communicative
action. In ongoing, day-to-day organizational
life, communicationrichness can also arise in
cases involving CST's other social action Discussion and
types: instrumental action, strategic action,
and discursive action. Three speculations are Conclusions
briefly mentioned. First, for an instance of
instrumental action, one might develop an The motivationfor this study was to contribute
interpretationin which Mike, by sending 147 a new perspectiveto the discourse and search
and 148 to Ted, was treating Sheila as an for a new theory of richness in managerial
object (note that Mike himself never directly communicationthat is mediated by information
addresses Sheila in this message set), where technology. As IS researchers shift away from
this object was to be manipulated(whichMike informationrichness theory,we need to devel-
accomplished through Ted). Second, for an op a successor theory in order to informthe
instance of strategic action, one mightdevelop workof IS professionalswho design and man-
an interpretationin which Ted, in appending age informationtechnology to support man-
147 and 148 (the messages Mikesent private- agerial communication.This paper does not
ly to Ted) to 151 (Ted's own message to attempt to complete the entire task of estab-
Sheila), was treating Sheila as an intelligent lishingall aspects of a new theory on commu-
actor whom he sought to manipulate so that nicationrichness, but takes a step towardthe
she would comply with his ulterior motive development of such a theory by offering a
(whichwas to have Sheila begin investigating new definitionof communicationrichness. The
and correctingher own operations).Third,for paper's definitionis based on a CST research
an instance of discursive action, one might perspective,the significanceof whichwas clar-
develop an interpretation in which Mike, by ified by comparingand contrastingit to earlier
saying "Ted, something is wrong. . ." in 147 definitions of communication richness that
and "Ted, the more I think about this. .." in emerged from the research perspectives of
148, is revealingthat he realizes that Ted (and positivismand interpretivism. The firsttwo sec-
Sheila) might not have yet achieved a mutual tions of the paper presented a criticalreviewof
understandingwith him on the significance of the limitationsof IRTand outlined its current
what he himself earlier meant, in 027, regard- standing in the lightof the many efforts to test
ing the matter of the state law that requires it empirically.The paper also outlinedmany of
payment within 30 days; this realization the alternativesto IRTthat have been suggest-
accounts for his communicativeacts of send- ed. In the thirdsection, the paper discussed
ing 147 and 148, so as to help restore agree- the weaknesses of the positivistand interpre-
MIS Quarterly/June 1997 163

tive theoreticalfoundationsof currentresearch spective is instructivefor showing how organi-

on communicationrichness. The fourthsection zational members are more than just knowing
outlinedthe theoreticalperspective of the CST subjects; they are also actors-people who
approach and a social action frameworkfor are more than just passive receptacles for
empiricalanalysis. The fifthsection presented data or meanings that are somehow trans-
an empiricalanalysis of details about the asyn- ported or downloaded to them. They act to
chronous, physically dispersed computer contextualize a message by placing it within
mediated communication among Ted, Mike, institutionalarrangements in which they find
and Sheila. themselves: "People act in terms of their own
and not the observer's definitionof the situa-
The empirical material analyzed in this study tion"(Schutz 1964). In general, the CST per-
served to highlightthe majorconcepts in this spective points us toward a rich, multi-lay-
new CST perspective. In the Ted-Mike-Sheila ered, contextualized formulationof commu-
communication, we saw how communication nicative interactionin electronic media. When
richness emerged in the form of Sheila's people communicate, they do not send mes-
emancipation of herself from Ted's distorted sages as electronically linked senders and
communications,which followedher judgingof receivers. They performsocial acts in action
the validityor rightness of what Ted was say- situations that are normativelyregulated by,
ing. In contrast, by conceptualizingrichness as and already have meaning within,the organi-
a function of channel capacity, the positivist zational context. As organizational actors,
IRT perspective would not have predicted they simultaneously enact existing and new
richness to occur in the Ted-Sheila-Mikecom- relationships with one another as they com-
munication(owing to the thinness of the chan- municate. This CST approach is phenomeno-
nel capacity of e-mail). Also, by restricting logicallysensitive to the shaping and reading
communicationrichness to Sheila's achieving of action as meaningful. It does not treat
a mutual understanding of a message from meaning construction as a disembodied or
Ted (even when it was distortedcommunica- apoliticalactivity.The CST perspective allows
tion),the interpretive perspective would have us to investigate how organizational actors
missed the richness arising from Sheila's dis- formulate and reformulatetheir communica-
tancing and emancipationof herself fromTed's tions to achieve specific outcomes in action
distorted communications. Remarkably, nei- situations. Italso enables us to look closely at
ther IS research on communication richness the "how"and "what"of communicativeprac-
fromthe positivistnor interpretiveperspectives tice, in any type of media use situation.
has addressed the validityor rightnessof what
is being communicated,but this is exactly what Future CST studies of computer mediated
the CST perspective considers to be pivotalto communicationcan investigate:(1) how orga-
communicationrichness. nizationalactors use electronic media in for-
mulating and engaging in different types of
Another, related dimension that distinguishes social action; (2) what types of electronic
the CST perspective presented here from media enable and constrain specific types of
positivist and interpretive perspectives on action; (3) how power and status relationships
communication richness is the emphasis on are reproduced in electronic media; (4) how
people, who, as actors in a social or organi- the network of negotiated meanings upon
zational context, themselves "process"data which organizational work and interaction
into information.This image stands in contrast depend is constructedand maintainedin elec-
to the assumption of most IS research, that tronic communication.From a CST perspec-
the processing of data into informationis pri- tive, researchers can also investigate how
marily,if not exclusively, the job of computer organizationalactors read their politicalenvi-
hardware and software and that the role of ronments in skilled ways to reproduce power
the organizationalactor is limitedto "user"of relationshipswhile satisfying a complex set of
both the output and the richness produced by goals, values, commitments, and senses of
the hardware-softwaresystem. The CST per- self and others. A CST perspective also

enables researchers to explore whether com- Technology, J. Fulk and C. W. Steinfield

munications are achievements of mutual (eds.), Sage, NewburyPark,CA, 1990, pp.
understanding or the product of strategic 117-140.
action in which force is overtlyor covertlysub- Habermas, J. Communication and the
stituted for free and open discourse. Further, Evolution of Society, Heinemann Press,
researchers can also explore the contingen- London,1979.
cies of routine, everyday social interactions Habermas, J. The Theory of Communicative
and assess the ways in which the organiza- Action: Reason And Rationalization of
tional context and institutionalarrangements Society (1), Beacon Press, Boston, 1984.
render sense making and communication Habermas, J. The Theory of Communicative
problematicand politicallyvulnerable. Action: LifeworldAnd Social System (2),
Beacon Press, Boston, 1987.
Hirschheim, R. and Klein, H. K. "Realizing
References Emancipatory Principles in Information
Systems Development: The Case for
Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. Critical ETHICS,"MIS Quarterly(18:1), 1994, pp.
83-109.
ManagementStudies, Sage, NewburyPark,
CA, 1992. Kinney,S. T. and Watson, R. T. "TheEffectof
Medium and Task on Dyadic
Bernstein, R. The Restructuringof Social and
Political Theory, Harcourt Brace Communication," Proceedings of the
Thirteenth International Conference on
Jovanovich,New York,1976.
InformationSystems, J. I. DeGross, J. D.
Carlson, J. R. and Zmud, R. W. "Channel
Expansion Theory: A Dynamic View of Becker, and J. J. Elam (eds.), 1992, pp.
Media and Information Richness 107-117.
Perceptions," Academy of Management, Lee, A. S. "Integrating Positivist and
Best Papers, 1994, pp. 280-284. InterpretiveApproaches to Organizational
Contractor, N. S. and Eisenberg, E. M. Research," Organization Science (2:4),
"CommunicationNetworksand New Media 1991, pp. 342-365.
in Organizations," in Organizations and Lee, A. S. "ElectronicMail as a Mediumfor
CommunicationTechnology,J. Fulkand C. Rich Communication: An Empirical
W. Steinfield (eds.), Sage, Newbury Park, Investigation Using Hermeneutic
CA, 1990, pp. 117-140. MIS
Interpretation," Quarterly(18:2), 1994,
Daft, R. L. and Lengel, R. H. "Organizational pp. 143-157.
InformationRequirements,Media Richness Lyytinen,K. "InformationSystems and Critical
and Structural Design," Management Theory,"in CriticalManagement Studies,
Science (32:5), 1986, pp. 554-571. M. Alvesson and H. Willmott(eds.), Sage,
EI-Shinnawy,M. M. and Markus,M. L. "Media NewburyPark,CA, 1992, pp. 159-180.
Richness Theory and New Electronic Lyytinen,K. and Hirschheim,R. "Information
Communication Media: A Study of Voice Systems as Rational Discourse: An
Mail and Electronic Mail,"Proceedings of Application of Habermas' Theory of
the ThirteenthInternationalConference on Communicative Action," Scandinavian
InformationSystems, J. I. DeGross, J. D. Journal of Management (4:2), 1988, pp.
Becker, and J. J. Elam (eds.), Dallas, TX, 19-30.
1992, pp. 91-105. Lyytinen, K. and Klein, H. K. "The Critical
Frisby, D. "The Popper-AdornoControversy: Social Theory of Jrgen Habermas as a
The Methodological Dispute in German Basis for a Theoryof InformationSystems,"
Sociology," Philosophy of Social Sciences in Research Methods in Information
(2), 1972, pp. 105-119. Systems, E. Mumford,R. Hirschheim, G.
Fulk,J., Schmitz, J., and Steinfield,C. W. "A Fitzgerald and T. Wood-Harper (eds.),
Social InfluenceModelof Technology Use," North Holland, Amsterdam, 1985, pp.
in Organizations and Communication 219-232.
MISQuarterly/June
1997 165

Markus,M. L. "Is InformationRichness Theory InformationSystems Research (2:1), March

Rich Enough? or, How Managers Using 1991, pp. 1-28.
Email Cope with Lack of Richness," Rice, R. E. "TaskAnalyzability,Use of New
Anderson Graduate School of Media, and Effectiveness: A Multi-Site
of
Management, University California, Los
Exploration of Media Richness,"
Angeles, 1991. Organization Science (3:4), 1992, pp.
Markus,M. L. "ElectronicMailas the Medium 475-500.
of Managerial Choice," Organization
Science (5:4), 1994, pp. 502-527. Schutz, A. Collected Papers (2), Martinus
Mills, C. W. The Sociological Imagination, Nijhof,The Hague, 1964.
OxfordUniversityPress, London,1977. Schutz, A. Collected Papers (1), Martinus
Mingers,J. C. "Towardan AppropriateSocial Nijhof,The Hague, 1973.
Theory for Applied Systems Analysis: Tice, T. and Slavens, T. "Phenomenology,
Critical Social and Soft Systems Hermeneutics, and Critical Theory," in
Methodology,"Journal of Applied Systems Research Guide to Philosophy,T. Tice and
Analysis (7:1), 1981, pp. 41-49. T. Slavens (eds.), American Library
Mumby, D. K. Communication and Power: Association,Chicago, 1983, pp. 285-301.
Discourse Ideology and Domination,Ablex,
Truex, D. P. Information Systems
NJ, 1988.
Developmentin the EmergentOrganization,
Mumford,E., Hirschheim, R., Fitzgerald, G.,
and Wood-Harper, T. (eds.). Research unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Watson
Methods in Information Systems, North School of Engineering,State Universityof
Holland,Amsterdam,1985. New York,Binghamton,NY, 1993.
Ngwenyama, O. Fundamental Issues of Weick, K. E. The Social Psychology of
Knowledge Acquisition: Toward a Human Organizing,Addison-Wesley,Reading, MA,
Action Perspective of Knowledge Systems, 1969.
unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Watson Weick, K. E. "TheoreticalAssumptions and
School of Engineering, State Universityof Research Methodology Selection" in The
New York,Binghamton,NY, 1987. InformationSystems Research Challenge,
Ngwenyama, O. "The Critical Social Theory F. W. McFarlan (ed.), Harvard Business
Approach to Information Systems: School Press, 1984, pp. 115-126.
Problems and Challenges," in Information
Research: White, S. The Recent Work of JOrgen
Systems Contemporary Habermas:Reason, Justice and Modernity,
Approaches and Emergent Traditions,H.
E. Nissen, H. Klein and R. Hirschheim Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
(eds.), North Holland, Amsterdam, 1991, England,1988.
pp. 267-280. Wybo, M. D. and Lee, A. S. "Managerial
Ngwenyama, 0. and Lyytinen,K. "Groupware Understanding as Data Integration
Environments as Action Constitutive Technology," Working paper, Faculty of
Resources: A Social Action Frameworkfor Management,McGillUniversity,1996.
Analyzing Groupware Technologies," Yates, J. and Orlikowski, W. "Genres of
Computer Supported Cooperative Work: Organizational Communication: A
The Journal of Collaborative Computing Structurational Approach to Studying
(6:1), 1997, pp. 1-23. Communication and Media,"Academy of
Nissen, H.-E., Klein,H. K., and Hirschheim,R.
Management Review (17:2), 1992, pp.
(eds.) Information Systems Research: 299-326.
ContemporaryApproaches and Emergent
Traditions,North-Holland,Amsterdam and Zmud, R. W. "Editor' Comments," MIS
New York,1991. Quarterly(19:1), March1995, pp. v-viii.
Orlikowski, W. and Baroudi, J. "Studying Zuboff, S. In the Age of the Smart Machine:
InformationTechnology in Organizations: The Future of Work and Power, Basic
Research Approaches and Assumptions," Books, New York,1988.
1997

About the Authors Syracuse University;an M.S. in Computerand

InformationScience fromRoosevelt University;
Ojelanki K. Ngwenyama is assistant profes- and baccalaureatedegrees in engineeringand
sor of Computer InformationSystems at the computerscience.
University of Michigan Business School and
Docent in Computer Mediated Groupworkat Allen S. Lee is the Paul Pare Professorof MIS
in the Faculty of Management at McGill
Universityof Jyvaskyla, Finland.He is a critical
theorist whose work focuses on developing a University.He was an associate editorfor MIS
criticalunderstandingof the social construction Quarterlyfrom 1990 to 1994 and has been a
and implications of information technology senior editorsince then. His publicationsadvo-
applications. He has been an active member cate for the use of intensive research (includ-
of IFIP Working Group 8.2 since 1987. Dr. ing qualitative, interpretive, and case
Ngwenyama is co-editor of Transforming approaches) in informationsystems. He is a
Organizations With InformationTechnology, senior editorof MISQuarterlysupcomingspe-
North Holland, 1994; his papers have cial issue on this topic. As an undergraduate,
appeared in several scholarly journals. He he studied civil engineering at Cornell
holds a Ph.D. in Computer Science and Universityand as a graduatestudent, he stud-
Information Systems from The Thomas J. ied city planningat the Massachusetts Institute
Watson School of Engineering, State of Technology and the Universityof California,
University of New York; an MBA from Berkeley.
1997 167
MISQuarterly/June

View publication stats

Ngwenyama Lee 1997

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ngwenyama Lee 1997

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Communication Richness in Electronic Mail: Critical Social Theory and the

Article in MIS Quarterly · June 1997

Ojelanki Ngwenyama Allen S. Lee

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Axiological Challenges in the Digitalization of Society View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Thu, 2 May 2013 18:21:03 PM

communication,criticalsocial theory (CST), is

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Thu, 2 May 2013 18:21:03 PM

146 MIS Quarterly/June 1997

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Thu, 2 May 2013 18:21:03 PM

A CriticalReview of are (1) face-to-face,(2) telephone, (3) person-

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Thu, 2 May 2013 18:21:03 PM

a mannerthat the theory regardsas ineffective as IRT,social definitiontheories such as struc-

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Thu, 2 May 2013 18:21:03 PM

ed in IS research on managerialcommunica- ness, "[i]nformation richness is defined as the

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Thu, 2 May 2013 18:21:03 PM

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Thu, 2 May 2013 18:21:03 PM

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Thu, 2 May 2013 18:21:03 PM

Basic concepts of communicative the portrayaloffered by IRT's positivist per-

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Thu, 2 May 2013 18:21:03 PM

6Theterm"type"refersto idealizations,or idealtypes. In the

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Thu, 2 May 2013 18:21:03 PM

Table 1. Types of Social Action and Applicable ValidityClaims

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Thu, 2 May 2013 18:21:03 PM

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Thu, 2 May 2013 18:21:03 PM

156 MIS Quarterly/June 1997

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Thu, 2 May 2013 18:21:03 PM

Social cues (such as facial When the number of social When d

Communi- ... the posi-

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Thu, 2 May 2013 18:21:03 PM

An empiricalillustrationof the message set is 124; at 21:16, it is 124-143-

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Thu, 2 May 2013 18:21:03 PM

Table 3. The Complete Set of Empirical Material for Investigation

Empirical Material from HCP, Inc. (Markus 1994)a

MIS Quarterly/June 1997 159

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Thu, 2 May 2013 18:21:03 PM

Table 3a. The Message Set for Sheila at Time 16:23

Mess. No. Date/Time From To Text

Table 3b. The Message Set for Sheila at Time 21:16

Mess. No. Date/Time From To Text

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Thu, 2 May 2013 18:21:03 PM

Table 3c. The Message Set for Sheila at Time 21:49

Mess. No. Date/Time From To Text

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Thu, 2 May 2013 18:21:03 PM

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Thu, 2 May 2013 18:21:03 PM

MIS Quarterly/June 1997 163

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Thu, 2 May 2013 18:21:03 PM

tive theoreticalfoundationsof currentresearch spective is instructivefor showing how organi-

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Thu, 2 May 2013 18:21:03 PM

enables researchers to explore whether com- Technology, J. Fulk and C. W. Steinfield

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Thu, 2 May 2013 18:21:03 PM

Markus,M. L. "Is InformationRichness Theory InformationSystems Research (2:1), March

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Thu, 2 May 2013 18:21:03 PM

About the Authors Syracuse University;an M.S. in Computerand

This content downloaded from 141.117.79.62 on Thu, 2 May 2013 18:21:03 PM

You might also like