Table I Summary of technology... | Emerald Publishing

Table I

Summary of technology appropriation literature

Key literature	Conceptual underpinning	Limitations and scope for further advancement
DeSanctis and Poole (1994) – Adaptive Structuration Theory	The theory is built on Giddens’ structuration theory. It suggests that faithful appropriation leads to more effective use of technology. Hence, the spirit inscribed in technology determines its use and leads to emergent structure. Subsequent literature (Gopal et al. 1992; Donner, 2006) advances and applies the theory	The theory assumes a deterministic role of technology and does not entirely support user-end adaptation and changes
Orlikowski (1992) – Duality of technology and technology’s interpretive flexibility	While this theory is also built on structuration theory, Orlikowski suggests that technology does not have a stable structure, as its use evolves through the reciprocal and recursive influence between technology, individuals and social structure. Subsequent literature (Carroll et al., 2003; Dey et al., 2011) applies this concept to develop appropriation models	A more dynamic nature of technology use and appropriation can be understood from this theory and its subsequent applications in scholarly works. The models do not capture how the socio-cultural changes are reflected in the appropriation process and outcomes
Lindtner et al. (2012) – Cultural appropriation	The concept is rooted in the anthropological study of technology use. They define cultural appropriation as the way people in different socio-cultural backgrounds use and give meaning to technology	Lindtner et al. consider cultural appropriation as an alternative to, not as a subset of appropriation. This is a very narrow perspective that may limit the scope for a more holistic conceptualisation
Ylipulli et al. (2014) – Appropriation of new technology in public urban spaces	This mixed method empirical study attempts to conceptualise the complex nature of technology appropriation	While, the model is quite comprehensive, much emphasis has been placed on the components of the physical environment. Analysis of subtle inter-relations between emic and etic aspects of socio-cultural settings could have bolstered the conceptual underpinning
Aricat (2015) and Bar et al. (2007) – Technology appropriation resonates with socio-cultural and political dynamics	This stream of research considers appropriation as an outcome and reflection of complex socio-cultural and political dialectics. Bar et al. look at technology appropriation as marginalised communities’ response to Western innovation. Aricat argues that appropriation reflects migrants’ socio-economic status	These articles widen the scope of appropriation studies and place more emphasis on user-end dynamics than on design issues, and lend motivation to our study. However, both articles are context specific and could do more in making general contributions

Key literature	Conceptual underpinning	Limitations and scope for further advancement
DeSanctis and Poole (1994) – Adaptive Structuration Theory	The theory is built on Giddens’ structuration theory. It suggests that faithful appropriation leads to more effective use of technology. Hence, the spirit inscribed in technology determines its use and leads to emergent structure. Subsequent literature (Gopal et al. 1992; Donner, 2006) advances and applies the theory	The theory assumes a deterministic role of technology and does not entirely support user-end adaptation and changes
Orlikowski (1992) – Duality of technology and technology’s interpretive flexibility	While this theory is also built on structuration theory, Orlikowski suggests that technology does not have a stable structure, as its use evolves through the reciprocal and recursive influence between technology, individuals and social structure. Subsequent literature (Carroll et al., 2003; Dey et al., 2011) applies this concept to develop appropriation models	A more dynamic nature of technology use and appropriation can be understood from this theory and its subsequent applications in scholarly works. The models do not capture how the socio-cultural changes are reflected in the appropriation process and outcomes
Lindtner et al. (2012) – Cultural appropriation	The concept is rooted in the anthropological study of technology use. They define cultural appropriation as the way people in different socio-cultural backgrounds use and give meaning to technology	Lindtner et al. consider cultural appropriation as an alternative to, not as a subset of appropriation. This is a very narrow perspective that may limit the scope for a more holistic conceptualisation
Ylipulli et al. (2014) – Appropriation of new technology in public urban spaces	This mixed method empirical study attempts to conceptualise the complex nature of technology appropriation	While, the model is quite comprehensive, much emphasis has been placed on the components of the physical environment. Analysis of subtle inter-relations between emic and etic aspects of socio-cultural settings could have bolstered the conceptual underpinning
Aricat (2015) and Bar et al. (2007) – Technology appropriation resonates with socio-cultural and political dynamics	This stream of research considers appropriation as an outcome and reflection of complex socio-cultural and political dialectics. Bar et al. look at technology appropriation as marginalised communities’ response to Western innovation. Aricat argues that appropriation reflects migrants’ socio-economic status	These articles widen the scope of appropriation studies and place more emphasis on user-end dynamics than on design issues, and lend motivation to our study. However, both articles are context specific and could do more in making general contributions