This is the pre-copy-edited draft. Emendations and corrections resulted from copy-editing.

The Internet is a versatile technology that can be interpreted and used in many different ways. IS researchers and practitioners in both the private and public sectors need clearly to grasp the perspectives from which people make sense of the Internet. In this study, we present two contrasting perspectives in which people see and use the Internet—the utilitarian and social participation perspectives. In the utilitarian perspective, people see the Internet primarily as an efficient marketplace and as a convenient source of information. In the social participation perspective, the Internet is seen primarily as a conduit of communication that facilitates social interaction. We argue that these two perspectives represent two distinct modes of thinking that influence people’s decision to use the Internet and the purposes for which they use it. We examine the pervasiveness of these two perspectives in a survey study of a demographically representative sample of approximately 20,000 U.S households. Findings suggest that both the utilitarian and the social participation perspectives play important roles in acceptance and use of the Internet. In particular, we found that income levels affect the perspective in which people make sense of their on-line activities. People of high

The potential of Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) to enable new forms of social interaction and foster democratisation of decision making has raised much interest but has been challenged by contradictory research results. Conceived as a tool, CMC was examined in terms of its social effects thus indicating a degree of technological determinism. In this paper, we explore CMC as an extension of a productive social space of linguistically-mediated interaction, drawing on Habermas’s theory of communicative action. By examining the evidence from a field study of a university, we identify how participants appropriate CMC to produce a consultative discourse motivated by divergent agendas. This investigation helps us better understand communicative practice and concurrent tendencies of CMC towards encouraging and obstructing democratisation.

The effectiveness of traditional management education programmes, particularly those emanating from university business schools, has been questioned (e.g. Willmott, 1994: Clarke, 1999). Central to these critiques is the recognition that the pedagogic models underpinning much of contemporary management education are frequently incongruent with the needs of learning managers and the continuous change environment in which they operate. This paper describes the developmental outcomes of 45 HR managers undertaking a specifically designed management education programme premised on an adult learning model (Knowles, 1990) and set in the context of continuous organizational change (Weick and Quinn, 1999). The learning experienced fostered the development of meta-ablities (Pedler, 1994; Butcher, 1997), expanded perspective taking and the evolution of doubleloop learning approaches to real life organizational change. Quantitative evidence of these metadevelopments are presented and conclusions for management learning in rapid change environments are offered.

A case is presented for the active intervention of ethnographers in workplace settings they study. The author's reasons for this position are discussed, as is its links to various social theories; and some of the flaws in the position are addressed.

The paper discusses some of the aspects of poststructuralist thinking in relation to the cogency of field research and ethnographic methods of enquiry. Problems of the role of the author and the reliability of empirical material in providing access to “reality” are considered. This discussion is then extended to consider its implications for the construction of research stories involving interview accounts. This paper regards interviews as the prime technique used for data collection in qualitative case research. As a consequence it is deemed possible and indeed desirable to locate a theoretic discussion of the appropriate use of interviews as a technique and interview data as research material as centrally important to the crafting of research stories. Keywords * interview accounts * post-structuralism * case study * qualitative research * field research * methodology

Although both feminist theory and critical theory focus on social and economic inequalities, and both have an agenda ofpromoting system change, these fields ofinquiry have developed separately and seldom draw on each other’s work. This paper notes areas ofcommon interest. It assesses the validity ofcritiques offeminist theory, such as claims that it focuses on privilegedwomen and does not challenge existing hierarchical arrangements. Because these critiques do not accurately describe much of contemporary feminist scholarship, this paper argues that synergies between critical theory and feminist theory could and should be explored.

A critical research agenda for organisational performance measurement

Acknowledgement: Thanks are due to Richard Laughlin and fellow members of the Management Managers are continually under pressure to measure the performance of their organisation, but there is little empirical evidence about the impact of measurement on performance. Furthermore, many measurement tools and techniques lack clear theoretical foundations. This paper proposes investigations into neglected aspects of organisational performance measurement, reflecting the concern of managers and illustrating the potential impact of theoretical developments on practice. Issues about theory, epistemology and methodologies that accompany such a research agenda, are also raised. 1. Preamble This paper may be a bit unusual for a formal conference discussion as it concentrates neither on presenting empirical results, nor on developing theoretical explanations, but simply seeks to make the case for more of both of these. As such, it is ‘work in the early stages of progress ’ on which feedback on all aspects of the paper will be welcome. And as befits a primarily qualitative and subjectivist-inclined researcher, I felt it important to put the