In this article a social constructionist approach to information technology (IT) literacy is introduced. This approach contributes to the literature on IT literacy by introducing the concept of IT self as a description of the momentary, context-dependent, and multilayered nature of interpretations of IT competencies. In the research literature, IT literacy is often defined as sets of basic skills to be learned, and competencies to be demonstrated. In line with this approach, research on IT competencies conventionally develops models for explaining user acceptance, and for measuring computer-related attitudes and skills. The assumption is that computerrelated attitudes and self-efficacy impact IT adoption and success in computer use. Computer self-efficacy measures are, however, often based on self-assessments that measure interpretations of skills rather than performance in practice. An analysis of empirical interview data in which academic researchers discuss their relationships with computers and IT competence shows how a self-assessment such as “computer anxiety ” presented in one discussion context can in another discussion context be consigned to the past in favor of a different and more positive version. Here it is argued that descriptions of IT competencies and computer-related attitudes are dialogic social constructs and closely tied with more general implicit understandings of the nature of technical artifacts and technical knowledge. These implicit theories and assumptions are rarely taken under scrutiny in discussions of IT literacy yet they have profound implications for the aims and methods in teaching computer skills.

Nations Secretariat is a vital interface between global policies in the economic, social and environmental spheres and national action. The Department works in three main interlinked areas: (i) it compiles, generates, and analyses a wide range of economic, social and environmental data and information on which States Members of the United Nations draw to review common problems and to take stock of policy options; (ii) it facilitates the negotiations of Member States in many intergovernmental bodies on joint courses of action to address ongoing or emerging global challenges; and (iii) it advises interested Governments on the ways and means of translating policy frameworks developed in United Nations conferences and summits into programmes at the country level and, through technical assistance, helps build national capacities. NOTE The views expressed in the present paper are those of the authors and do not imply the expression of any opinion on the part of the United Nations Secretariat concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Symbols of United Nations documents are composed of capital letter combined with figures. Mention of such a symbol indicates a reference to a United Nations document.

This is a chapter about power in groups and organizations. In the following pages, we suggest that the analysis and exploration of the complexities of organizational power by managers and workers is both necessary and useful. We begin by discussing three of the prominent theoretical perspectives on power from the literatures of social and organizational psychology and critical management studies. We then outline some of the dilemmas and challenges faced by executives, managers and workers around empowerment, disempowerment and organizational democracy. Then, building on the seminal works of Follet, Deutsch, Tjosvold, Clegg, Mumby and others, we offer a framework of organizational power which views power as a multifaceted phenomenon; as thoughts, words and deeds which are both embedded within and determining of a complex network of relations, structures and meaning-making processes at different levels of organizational and community life. Such a framework enables us to understand the relational aspects of power and authority within the context of the macro structures and ideologies that give them meaning. It can also help identify those domains in organizations where the potential for sharing cooperative power is, in fact, not