Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Affordance theory and e-books: evaluating the e-reading experience using netnography

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Personal and Ubiquitous Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

E-books have changed the business of book publishing and the reading experience of the general public. Dedicated e-readers and other smart devices are integral to e-books offering affordances to overcome the physical limitations of print book and to provide the functionality of information technology. Using netnography, comments by online readers to articles in The New York Times and Scientific American were analysed and coded by themes identified in the literature of e-books versus print books. An affordance theory approach was used to provide insights into the readers’ perceptions of real and actual affordances and the value delivered by these affordances. Comments by online readers of two diverse datasets confirm results found in questionnaires and surveys reported in the academic literature. It is the physical attributes and functionality of smart devices used in e-reading that provides the opportunity of affordance. Our study provides support for an affordance perspective of e-books and e-readers. It also highlights preferences for e-books and/or print books in various contexts. To our knowledge, it is the first to consider e-readers as an IT artefact providing information processing capabilities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. DBW (2017) DBW 2017 opening themes: the trade, its resilience, and its data. Digital Book World, January 18, 2017. Available: https://publishingperspectives.com/2017/01/dbw-2017-opening-day-industry-themes/. Accessed 17 Oct 2017

  2. Passive Voice (2015) There’s bad news for e-readers—and great news for people who still love actual books. The Passive Voice. A lawyer’s thoughts on authors, self-publishing and traditional publishing 5 March 2015. Available: http://www.thepassivevoice.com/03/2015/theres-bad-news-for-e-readers-and-great-news-for-people-who-still-love-actual-books/. Accessed 17 Oct 2017

  3. Hamid M, Holmes A (2013) How do e-books change the reading experience? New York Times, December 31, 2013. Available: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/books/review/how-do-e-books-change-the-reading-experience.html?_r=0. Accessed 17 Oct 2017

  4. Baron NS (2015) Words onscreen: the fate of reading in a digital world. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  5. D’Ambra J, Wilson CS, Akter S (2013) Application of the task-technology fit model to structure and evaluate the adoption of e-books by academics. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 64(1):48–64

    Google Scholar 

  6. Golsteijn C, van de Hoven E (2011) Facilitating communication about books through an online community. Pers Ubiquit Comput 15(2):197–217 Available: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00779-010-0301-0. Accessed 17 Oct 2017

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hine CM (2000) Virtual ethnography. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hine CM (2008) Virtual ethnography: modes, varieties, affordances. In: Fielding NG, Lee RN, Blank G (eds) The SAGE handbook of online research methods. Sage, London, pp 257–270

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kozinets RV (2002) The field behind the screen: using netnography for marketing research in online communities. J Mark Res 39(1):61–72

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bergström A, Höglund L (2014) A national survey of early adopters of e-book reading in Sweden. Information Research 19(2): paper 621. Available: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1032685.pdf. Accessed 17 Oct 2017

  11. Gunter B (2005) Electronic books: a survey of users in the UK. ASLIB Proc 57(6):513–522

    Google Scholar 

  12. Aharony N (2015) Factors affecting the adoption of e-books by information professionals. J Librariansh Inf Sci 47(2):131–144

    Google Scholar 

  13. Park E, Sung J, Cho K (2015) Reading experiences influencing the acceptance of e-book devices. Electron Libr 33(1):120–135

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lai J-Y, Chang C-Y (2011) User attitudes toward dedicated e-book readers for reading: the effects of convenience, compatibility and media richness. Online Inf Rev 35(4):558–580

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lai J-Y, Ulhas KR (2012) Understanding acceptance of dedicated e-textbook applications for learning: involving Taiwanese university students. Electron Libr 30(3):321–338

    Google Scholar 

  16. Read W, Robertson N, McQuilken L (2011) A novel romance: the technology acceptance model with emotional attachment. Australas Mark J 19(4):223–229

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lee S (2013) An integrated adoption model for e-books in a mobile environment: evidence from South Korea. Telematics Inform 30(2):165–176

    Google Scholar 

  18. Sun J, Flores J, Tanguma J (2012) E-textbooks and students’ learning experiences. Decis Sci J Innov Educ 10(1):63–77

    Google Scholar 

  19. Bansal G (2011) E-book usage: role of environmental consciousness, personality and past usage. J Comput Inf Syst 52(2):93–104

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lee K, Han K, Lee E, Lee B (2014) How consumers’ content preference affects cannibalization: an empirical analysis on e-book market. In: International conference on information systems (ICIS 2014), ICIS 2014 proceedings. Available: http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2014/proceedings/EBusiness/39/. Accessed 17 Oct 2017

  21. Williams MD, Slade EL, Dwivedi YK (2014) Consumers’ intentions to use e-readers. J Comput Inf Syst 54(2):66–76

    Google Scholar 

  22. Antón C, Camarero C, Rodríguez J (2013) Usefulness, enjoyment, and self-image congruence: the adoption of e-book readers. Psychol Mark 30(4):372–384

    Google Scholar 

  23. Stone RW, Baker-Eveleth L (2013) Students’ expectation, confirmation, and continuance intention to use electronic textbooks. Comput Hum Behav 29(3):984–990

    Google Scholar 

  24. Lin H, Ming F (2014) An analysis of pricing models in the electronic book market. MIS Q 38(4):A1–A4 Available: http://www.misq.org/skin/frontend/default/misq/pdf/appendices/2014/V38I4Appendices/RA_11865_HaoFanAppendix.pdf; https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2374950. Accessed 17 Oct 2017

    Google Scholar 

  25. Jiang Y, Katsamakas E (2010) Impact of e-book technology: ownership and market asymmetries in digital transformation. Electron Commer Res Appl 9(5):386–399

    Google Scholar 

  26. Bounie D, Eang B, Sirbu M, Waelbroeck P (2013) Superstars and outsiders in online markets: an empirical analysis of electronic books. Electron Commer Res Appl 12(1):52–59

    Google Scholar 

  27. Zhang Y, Kudva S (2014) E-books versus print books: readers’ choices and preferences across contexts. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 65(8):1695–1706

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hsu C-L, Chen M-C, Chang K-C, Hsieh A-Y (2014) Adopting the extension of UTAUT model to investigate the determinants of e-book adoption. Information science. Electronics and electrical engineering (ISEEE) 2014 international conference. 26–28 April 2014, Vol 1, pp 669–673

  29. Zhang J, Patel VL (2006) Distributed cognition, representation, and affordance. Pragmat Cogn 14(2):333–341 Available: http://www-cogsci.ucsd.edu/~coulson/Courses/200/Zhang-Patel-2006.pdf. Accessed 17 Oct 2017

    Google Scholar 

  30. Horton TE, Chakraborty A, St. Amant R (2012) Affordances for robots: a brief survey. AVANT Trends in Interdisciplinary Studies 3(2):70–84. Available: http://avant.edu.pl/wp-content/uploads/THACRA-Affordances-for-robots.pdf. Accessed 17 Oct 2017

  31. Ciavola BT, Gershenson JK (2016) Affordance theory for engineering design. Res Eng Des 27(3):251–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-016-0216-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Stadler E, Given LM (2007) Affordance theory: A framework for graduate students’ information behaviour. J Doc 63(1):115–141. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410710723911

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Pedersen S, Bang J (2016) Historicizing affordance theory: a rendezvous between ecological psychology and cultural-historical activity theory. Theor Psychol 26(6):731–750. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354316669021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Gibson JJ (1979) Ecological approach to visual perception. Psychology Press, Florence Available: ProQuest ebrary Web. Accessed 17 Oct 2017

    Google Scholar 

  35. Norman DA (1988) The psychology of everyday things. Basic Book, New York

    Google Scholar 

  36. Norman DA (1999) Affordance conventions and design. Interactions 6(3):38–43

    Google Scholar 

  37. Volkoff O, Strong DM (2013) Critical realism and affordances: theorizing IT-associated organizational change processes. MIS Q 37(3):819–834

    Google Scholar 

  38. Leonardi PM (2011) When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: affordance constraint and the imbrication of human and material agencies. MIS Q 35(1):147–167 Available: http://web.stanford.edu/group/WTO/cgi-bin/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/pub_old/Leonardi%202011b.pdf. Accessed 17 Oct 2017

    Google Scholar 

  39. Markus ML, Silver MS (2008) A foundation for the study of IT effects: A new look at DeSanctis and Poole's concepts of structural features and spirit. J Assoc Inf Syst 9(10–11):609–632 [Special Issue 2008]

    Google Scholar 

  40. Zammuto RF, Griffith TL, Majchrzak A, Dougherty DJ, Farai S (2007) Information technology and the changing fabric of organization. Organ Sci 18(5):749–762

    Google Scholar 

  41. Hutchby I (2001) Technologies texts and affordances. Sociology 35(2):441–456

    Google Scholar 

  42. Bernhard E, Recker JC, Burton-Jones A (2013) Understanding the actualization of affordances: a study in the process modeling context. In: International conference on information systems (ICIS 2013) 15–18 December 2013, Università Bocconi Milan. Available: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/63052/1/Affordances_ICIS2013_revisions_07_EB.pdf. Accessed 17 Oct 2017

  43. Pozzi G, Pigni F, Vitari C (2014) Affordance theory in the IS discipline: a review and synthesis of the literature. In: Twentieth Americas Conference on Information Systems Savannah GA. Available: http://ai2-s2-pdfs.s3.amazonaws.com/75d7/538eb43b52d2e970ba4ca719b4a4cb226e38.pdf. Accessed 17 Oct 2017

  44. Bygstad B, Munkvold BE, Volkoff O (2016) Identifying generative mechanisms through affordances: a framework for critical realist data analysis. J Inf Technol 31(1):83–96

    Google Scholar 

  45. Böll S, Cecez-Kecmanovic D, Campbell J (2014) Telework and the nature of work: An assessment of different aspects of work and the role of technology. In: Proceedings of the 22nd European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS) 2014, Tel Aviv, Israel June 9–11, 2014. Available: http://www.xn--blls-5qa.de/publications/2014_ECIS-Boell,Cecez-Kecmanovic,Campbell-Telework_and_the_Nature_of_Work.pdf. Accessed 17 Oct 2017

  46. Germonprez M, Hovorka DS (2013) Member engagement within digitally enabled social network communities: new methodological considerations. Inf Syst J 23(6):525–549

    Google Scholar 

  47. Kozinets RV (2010) Netnography: doing ethnographic research online. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  48. Sadovykh V, Sundaram D (2017) A longitudinal iterative convergent approach to Netnography. Americas Conference on Information Systems, Boston, 2017

  49. Ferris J (2013) The reading brain in the digital age: the science of paper versus screens. Scientific American, November 2013, 48–53. Available: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-reading-brain-in-the-digital-age-why-paper-still-beats-screens/. Accessed 17 Oct 2017

  50. Thurman N (2008) Forums for citizen journalists? Adoption of user generated content initiatives by online news media. New Media Soc 10(1):139–157

    Google Scholar 

  51. Graham T, Wright S (2015) A tale of two stories from “below the line”: comment fields from the Guardian. Int J Press/Politics 20(3):317–338

    Google Scholar 

  52. Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3(2):77–101

    Google Scholar 

  53. Guest G, MacQueen KM, Namey EE (2012) Applied thematic analysis. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  54. Moore GC, Benbasat I (1991) Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting information technology inovation. Inf Syst Res 2(3):192–222

    Google Scholar 

  55. Leonardi PM, Barley SR (2010) What’s under construction here? Social action, materiality, and power in constructivist studies of technology and organizing. Acad Manag Ann 4(1):1–51

    Google Scholar 

  56. Sutcliffe AG, Gonzalez J, Binder J, Nevarez G (2011) Social mediating technologies: social affordances and functionalities. Int J Hum Comput Interact 27(11):1037–1065

    Google Scholar 

  57. Goh JM, Gao G, Agarwal R (2011) Evolving work routines: adaptive routinization of information technology in healthcare. Inf Syst Res 22(3):565–585

    Google Scholar 

  58. Anderson C (2011) Health information systems affordances: how the materiality of information technology enables and constrains the work practices of clinicians. Dissertation, Georgia State University. Available: http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cis_diss/45. Accessed 17 Oct 2017

  59. Malhotra A, Majchrzak A (2012) How virtual teams use their virtual workspace to coordinate knowledge. ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems (TMIS) 3(1): Article no. 6. doi:https://doi.org/10.1145/2151163.2151169

    Google Scholar 

  60. Seidel S, Recker J, Vom Brocke J (2013) Sensemaking and sustainable practicing: functional affordances of information systems in green transformations. MIS Q 37(4):1275–1299

    Google Scholar 

  61. Strong DM, Volkoff O, Johnson SA, Pelletier LR, Tulu B, Bar-On I, Trudel J, Garber L (2014) A theory of organization-EHR affordance actualization. J Assoc Inf Syst 15(2):53–85

    Google Scholar 

  62. Majchrzak A, Faraj S, Kane GC, Azad B (2013) The contradictory influence of social media affordances on online communal knowledge sharing. J Comput-Mediat Commun 19(1):38–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12030

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Information Systems and Technology Management, The University of New South Wales Sydney, UNSW, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia

    John D’Ambra & Concepcion S. Wilson

  2. Sydney Business School, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, 2522, Australia

    Shahriar Akter

Authors
  1. John D’Ambra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Concepcion S. Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shahriar Akter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John D’Ambra.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 5 Information systems research on affordances
Full size table
Fig. 1
figure 1

Model of affordance perception and actualization from Bernhard et al. [42]

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

D’Ambra, J., Wilson, C.S. & Akter, S. Affordance theory and e-books: evaluating the e-reading experience using netnography. Pers Ubiquit Comput 23, 873–892 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-017-1086-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-017-1086-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation