4.5 Article

Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology: A Synthesis and the Road Ahead

期刊

出版社

ASSOC INFORMATION SYSTEMS
DOI: 10.17705/1jais.00428

关键词

Theory Evaluation; Technology Acceptance and Use; Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT); Research Context; Literature Review; Multi-level Framework

资金

  1. Research Grants Council of Hong Kong [SBI11.BM04]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) is a little over a decade old and has been used extensively in information systems (IS) and other fields, as the large number of citations to the original paper that introduced the theory evidences. In this paper, we review and synthesize the IS literature on UTAUT from September 2003 until December 2014, perform a theoretical analysis of UTAUT and its extensions, and chart an agenda for research going forward. Based on Weber's (2012) framework of theory evaluation, we examined UTAUT and its extensions along two sets of quality dimensions; namely, the parts of a theory and the theory as a whole. While our review identifies many merits to UTAUT, we also found that the progress related to this theory has hampered further theoretical development in research into technology acceptance and use. To chart an agenda for research that will enable significant future work, we analyze the theoretical contributions of UTAUT using Whetten's (2009) notion of cross-context theorizing. Our analysis reveals several limitations that lead us to propose a multi-level framework that can serve as the theoretical foundation for future research. Specifically, this framework integrates the notion of research context and cross-context theorizing with the theory evaluation framework to: 1) synthesize the existing UTAUT extensions across both the dimensions and the levels of the research context and 2) highlight promising research directions. We conclude with recommendations for future UTAUT-related research using the proposed framework.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据