006 - Investigating the emergence of electronically enabled

Prévia do material em texto

Investigating the emergence of electronically enabled
environmental collaboration: an ANT study in multiple
contexts
Author:
Aoun, Chadi Fares
Publication Date:
2010
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26190/unsworks/23098
License:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/au/
Link to license to see what you are allowed to do with this resource.
Downloaded from http://hdl.handle.net/1959.4/45091 in https://
unsworks.unsw.edu.au on 2023-01-08
http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.26190/unsworks/23098
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/au/
http://hdl.handle.net/1959.4/45091
https://unsworks.unsw.edu.au
https://unsworks.unsw.edu.au
 
Investigating the Emergence of Electronically 
Enabled Environmental Collaboration: 
An ANT Study in Multiple Contexts 
 
 
 
 
Chadi F. Aoun 
 
 
 
 
Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the award of 
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 
 
 
 
Information Systems, Technology and Management 
Australian School of Business 
The University of New South Wales 
 
 
 
2010 
 
 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
ii 
Originality Statement 
 
‘I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and to the best of my knowledge it 
contains no materials previously published or written by another person, or substantial 
proportions of material which have been accepted for the award of any other degree or 
diploma at UNSW or any other educational institution, except where due acknowledgment is 
made in the thesis. Any contribution made to the research by others, with whom I have 
worked at UNSW or elsewhere, is explicitly acknowledged in the thesis. I also declare that 
the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my own work, except to the extent that 
assistance from others in the project’s design and conception or in style, presentation and 
linguistic expression is acknowledged.’ 
 
 
Signed …………………………………………….......... 
 
Date …………………………………………….............. 
 
 
 
Copyright Statement 
 
‘I hereby grant to the University of New South Wales or its agents the right to archive and to 
make available my thesis or dissertation in whole or part in the University libraries in all 
forms of media, now or hereafter known, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. 
I retain all proprietary rights, such as patent rights. I also retain the right to use in future 
works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or dissertation. I also authorise 
University Microfilms to use the abstract of my thesis in Dissertations Abstract International 
(this is applicable to doctoral theses only). I have either used no substantial portions of 
copyright material in my thesis or I have obtained permission to use copyright material; 
where permission has not been granted I have applied/will apply for a partial restriction of the 
digital copy of my thesis or dissertation.’ 
 
 
 
Signed …………………………………………….......... 
 
Date …………………………………………….............. 
 
 
Authenticity Statement 
 
‘I certify that the Library deposit digital copy is a direct equivalent of the final officially 
approved version of my thesis. No emendation of content has occurred and if there are any 
minor variations in formatting, they are the result of the conversion to digital format.’ 
 
 
Signed …………………………………………….......... 
 
Date …………………………………………….............. 
 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
iii 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
To Antoinette, Freddy, Scarlett, and Nui 
 
And to Uncle Elie 
 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
iv 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
 
 
Working on a PhD has been an enlightening endeavour. In many ways completing 
this thesis, while being the unlimited objective during my earlier years, has evolved 
to an important first step on an ongoing journey of learning and discovery – my 
calling towards ‘an examined life’. 
I would like to thank my supervisors, Professor Dubravka Cecez-Kecmanovic and 
Dr. Deborah Bunker, for their support and guidance through the crucial steps of this 
ongoing journey. I truly and sincerely thank them for their constructive feedback and 
dedication. I will always value their collegiality, wisdom, and friendship. 
Special thanks to all the brilliant academics who formally and informally reviewed 
and constructively commented my research at UNSW. Particularly, I would like to 
thank Professor Karlheinz Kautz and Associate Professor Fethi Rabhi for their 
insights and advice. I thank my fellow PhD students at SISTM for their friendship, 
feedback, and support, and wish them all the very best in their lives and studies. I also 
thank the participants who chose to take part in my research. 
I thank my family for their support and many sacrifices, without which I would never 
have had this opportunity. I particularly thank my mother Antoinette for teaching me 
the value of education, my brother Freddy for believing in me, and my sister Scarlett 
for supporting me. 
I am eternally grateful for my uncle Elie whose influence I feel every day of my life. 
He has taught me the meanings of generosity, resolve, and determination, and 
supported me in achieving my dreams. I also thank my late grandfather Farid for 
inspiring me to live in happiness and contentment, and enjoy the simple things along 
the way. 
 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
v 
Last but not least, I thank my partner Nui, for sharing this immense journey with me. 
I thank her for her unwavering love and encouragement. This would not have been 
possible without her tremendous patience and support. The strength of will and 
character that she demonstrated in her own PhD journey has truly inspired my own. 
… and I thank God for this. 
 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
vi 
ABSTRACT 
 
 
This research explores how diverse and distributed organisations and individuals 
establish electronic collaboration and how such collaboration affects the creation and 
achievement of shared goals. This phenomenon is particularly striking in the context 
of environmental collaboration where Environmental Non-Governmental 
Organisations (ENGOs), governments, private organisations and community groups 
and individuals need to act together in order to deal with critical climate change 
issues. While research on collaborative technologies has been predominantly limited 
to laboratory settings and intra-organisational situations, this research context allows 
investigation of the roles and usage of collaborative technologies in complex 
situations in which numerous stakeholders with diverse interests cooperate to address 
pressing environmental problems. Furthermore, this research investigates the ways 
collaborative technologies are adopted by ENGOs and other stakeholders in different 
settings, thus, enabling better understanding of electronic collaboration and 
mechanisms of convergence towards joint actions. 
 
This thesis adopts a transdisciplinary perspective to study an Information Systems 
(IS) phenomenon: the adoption and utilisation of collaborative technologies by 
diverse stakeholders mobilised towards creating and achieving shared goals. This 
phenomenon is explored through the study of ENGOs – key players in enacting 
electronic collaboration that involves diverse stakeholders in an environmental 
problem and bridge the gap between governmental initiatives and local communities. 
The thesis contextualises the environmental problem situation in three countries, and 
considers the multifaceted emergences of environmental collaboration from various 
local ENGO vantage points, through empirically exploring electronic collaborations 
and their outcomes. 
 
 
 
__________________________________________________________________________________vii 
A research approach, based on the Actor-Network Theory (ANT) was adopted in the 
study of the emergence of environmental electronic collaborations enacted by 
ENGOs in Australia, Lebanon, and Thailand. Qualitative data were collected, 
primarily through interviewees with ENGO personnel over the course of one year. By 
retracing the associations and the complex webs of translations taking place in the 
emerging actor-networks of diverse stakeholders and collaborative technologies, the 
thesis reveals how sociomaterial politics shapes (or obstructs) convergence towards 
shared goals and joint actions. The thesis thereby contributes to knowledge about the 
power dynamics and sociomaterial tensions inherent in multi-stakeholder adoption 
and utilisation of collaborative technologies in different contexts, with significant 
theoretical and practical implications. 
 
 
 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
viii 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................... 1 
1.1.  RESEARCH BACKGROUND .............................................................................. 1 
1.2.  RESEARCH MOTIVATION ................................................................................ 2 
1.3.  RESEARCH AIMS AND QUESTIONS .................................................................. 4 
1.4.  RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH .................................................. 5 
1.5.  RESEARCH FINDINGS AND SIGNIFICANCE ....................................................... 5 
1.6.  DISSERTATION OUTLINE ................................................................................ 6 
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................... 9 
2.1  INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 9 
2.2  THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGE ................................................................. 10 
2.3  NGOS & ENVIRONMENTAL COLLABORATION ................................................. 15 
2.3.1  Defining NGOs ........................................................................................ 15 
2.3.2  Social Focus ............................................................................................ 16 
2.3.3  Access to Resources ................................................................................ 18 
2.3.4  Approaches .............................................................................................. 19 
2.3.5  Collaboration Among NGOs ................................................................... 20 
2.3.6  Collaboration with Government and Private Entities ............................ 21 
2.3.7  NGO & ICT ............................................................................................. 23 
2.3.8  Knowledge Gap in NGO Research ......................................................... 25 
2.4  FROM COLLABORATION TO E-COLLABORATION .............................................. 26 
2.4.1  Defining Collaboration ........................................................................... 26 
2.4.2  E-Collaboration ...................................................................................... 31 
2.4.2.1  E-Collaboration Technologies: Categorisation and Diffusion ........... 33 
2.4.2.2  Mass Collaboration in a Global Setting ............................................. 36 
2.4.2.3  Knowledge Gap in E-Collaboration Research ................................... 38 
2.5  ANT AND E-COLLABORATION ......................................................................... 39 
2.5.1  Introducing ANT ..................................................................................... 39 
2.5.2  ANT, Power, and Translation ................................................................. 42 
2.5.3  ANT & Agency ........................................................................................ 44 
2.5.4  ANT & the Diffusion of Innovation ......................................................... 45 
2.5.5  ANT, Society & Culture........................................................................... 47 
2.5.6  ANT and Environmental Collaboration .................................................. 49 
2.6  CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 50 
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ........................................... 52 
3.1  INTRODUCTION................................................................................................. 52 
3.2  ANT: ONTOLOGY AND EPISTEMOLOGY .......................................................... 52 
3.3  RESEARCH APPROACH AND STRATEGY ............................................................ 56 
3.4  THE CASE STUDY RESEARCH METHOD ............................................................ 57 
3.5  SELECTION OF CASE STUDIES ........................................................................... 58 
3.5.1  Similarities Among Countries Selected ................................................... 59 
 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
ix 
3.5.1.1  All Three Countries are Members of the IPCC ................................... 59 
3.5.1.2  Similar Ecological Challenges ............................................................ 59 
3.5.1.3  Similar Metropolitan E-Collaboration Enablers ................................ 60 
3.5.1.4  Personal Access to All Three Countries.............................................. 60 
3.5.2  Differences Among Countries Selected ................................................... 60 
3.5.2.1  Different Geographies – Size, Population, & Regions ....................... 60 
3.5.2.2  Different Stages of Human Development ............................................ 61 
3.5.2.3  Different Economical Challenges ....................................................... 61 
3.5.2.4  Different Political Challenges............................................................. 62 
3.5.2.5  Different Infrastructure Challenges .................................................... 62 
3.5.2.6  Different Social and Cultural Practices .............................................. 63 
3.5.3  Concluding Notes on Case Studies Selection .......................................... 64 
3.6  DATA COLLECTION .......................................................................................... 64 
3.6.1  Sources of Empirical Data ...................................................................... 64 
3.6.1.1  Participation Criteria ......................................................................... 64 
3.6.1.2  Identifying and Contacting Interviewees ............................................ 65 
3.6.1.3  Period and Loci of Data Collection .................................................... 67 
3.6.2  Interviews ................................................................................................ 68 
3.6.3  Documentation ........................................................................................ 71 
3.6.4  Observation ............................................................................................. 72 
3.7  DATA ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 73 
3.7.1  Data Coding ............................................................................................ 74 
3.8  ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS .............................................................................. 76 
3.9  CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 77 
CHAPTER 4 THE AUSTRALIAN CASE .................................................... 78 
4.1  CASE STUDY BACKGROUND ............................................................................. 78 
4.1.1  EnvironmentalIssues .............................................................................. 79 
4.1.2  National IT Infrastructure ....................................................................... 81 
4.1.3  ENGO IT Infrastructure .......................................................................... 82 
4.2  ENGO COLLABORATION DYNAMICS: THE EMERGENCE OF THE ACTOR-
NETWORK ................................................................................................................ 83 
4.2.1  Campaign Initiation ................................................................................ 83 
4.2.2  Campaign Implementation ...................................................................... 86 
4.3  ROLES OF COLLABORATIVE TECHNOLOGY ACTORS: MANIFESTATION OF 
COLLABORATION ..................................................................................................... 91 
4.3.1  Email as an Actor .................................................................................... 91 
4.3.2  Websites as Actors .................................................................................. 97 
4.3.3  Teleconferencing as an Actor................................................................ 104 
4.4  OPPOSITION AND RESISTANCE ....................................................................... 105 
CHAPTER 5 THE LEBANESE CASE ....................................................... 112 
5.1  CASE STUDY BACKGROUND ........................................................................... 112 
5.1.1.  Environmental Issues ............................................................................ 113 
5.1.2.  National IT Infrastructure ..................................................................... 114 
5.1.3.  ENGO IT Infrastructure ........................................................................ 116 
 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
x 
5.2  ENGO COLLABORATION DYNAMICS: THE EMERGENCE OF THE ACTOR-
NETWORK .............................................................................................................. 117 
5.1.1.  Campaign Initiation .............................................................................. 117 
5.1.2.  Campaign Implementation .................................................................... 120 
5.3  ROLES OF COLLABORATIVE TECHNOLOGY ACTORS: MANIFESTATION OF 
COLLABORATION ................................................................................................... 132 
5.3.1  Email as an Actor .................................................................................. 132 
5.3.2  Websites as Actors ................................................................................ 136 
5.3.3  Teleconferencing as an Actor................................................................ 144 
5.4  OPPOSITION AND RESISTANCE ....................................................................... 145 
CHAPTER 6 THE THAI CASE .................................................................... 150 
6.1  CASE STUDY BACKGROUND ........................................................................... 150 
6.1.1  Environmental Issues ............................................................................ 151 
6.1.2  National IT Infrastructure ..................................................................... 152 
6.1.3  ENGO IT Infrastructure ........................................................................ 154 
6.2  ENGO COLLABORATION DYNAMICS: THE EMERGENCE OF THE ACTOR-
NETWORK .............................................................................................................. 155 
6.2.1  Campaign Initiation .............................................................................. 155 
6.2.2  Campaign Implementation .................................................................... 159 
6.3  ROLES OF COLLABORATIVE TECHNOLOGY ACTORS: MANIFESTATION OF 
COLLABORATION ................................................................................................... 167 
6.3.1  Email as an Actor .................................................................................. 167 
6.3.2  Websites as Actors ................................................................................ 172 
6.3.3  Dataconferencing as an Actor ............................................................. 176 
6.4  OPPOSITION AND RESISTANCE ....................................................................... 177 
CHAPTER 7 ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION ............................................... 180 
7.1  INTRODUCTION............................................................................................... 180 
7.2  OVERVIEW OF THE CASE STUDIES .................................................................. 181 
7.2.1  The Australian Case .............................................................................. 181 
7.2.2  The Lebanese Case ................................................................................ 184 
7.2.3  The Thai Case ....................................................................................... 186 
7.3  COLLABORATIVE AGENCY: THE ENGO MOMENTUM .................................... 188 
7.3.1  ENGO E-Collaboration and Emergent Social Norms .......................... 190 
7.3.2  ENGO E-Collaboration & Affiliation ................................................... 193 
7.3.3  ENGO E-Collaboration & Locality ...................................................... 195 
7.3.4  Collaborative Agency as Emergent: The Multiple Characters an Actor 
Plays ………………………………………………………………………….………196 
7.4  COLLABORATIVE NETWORKS: TOWARDS CONVERGENCE .............................. 198 
7.4.1  Translation and Displacement .............................................................. 198 
7.4.2  Collaborative Technologies and Collaborative Objectives .................. 200 
7.4.3  Convergence Towards the International Actor-Network ...................... 202 
7.4.4  Network Evolution, Revolution, and Change ........................................ 203 
7.5  CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 207 
 
 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
xi 
CHAPTER 8 CONCLUSION ......................................................................... 209 
8.1  INTRODUCTION............................................................................................... 209 
8.2  OVERVIEW OF THE THESIS ............................................................................. 209 
8.3  THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ...................................... 211 
8.3.1  E-Collaboration Research .................................................................... 211 
8.3.2  Diffusion of Innovation Research.......................................................... 212 
8.3.3  ANT Research ....................................................................................... 213 
8.3.4  NGO Research ...................................................................................... 215 
8.3.5  Environmental Research ....................................................................... 215 
8.3.6  Green IS Research................................................................................. 216 
8.4  PRACTICAL CONTRIBUTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ........................................... 216 
8.4.1  ENGOs .................................................................................................. 216 
8.4.2  Policy Makers ....................................................................................... 217 
8.4.3  Local Communities ............................................................................... 218 
8.4.4  Technology Developers and Innovators ............................................... 219 
8.4.5  IS Discipline ..........................................................................................219 
8.5  LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................. 220 
8.6  FUTURE RESEARCH ........................................................................................ 220 
8.7  FINAL NOTE: WHAT ROLES CAN IS PLAY ...................................................... 222 
REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 223 
 
 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
xii 
LIST OF FIGURES 
 
 
Figure 1 Schematic framework representing anthropogenic drivers, impacts of and 
responses to climate change, and their linkages (IPCC 2007c, p.26) ........................ 12 
Figure 2 View of cases and associated interviews in NVivo ....................................... 74 
Figure 3 Partial view of selected tree nodes in NVivo ................................................ 75 
Figure 4 The identification of environmental issues ................................................... 84 
Figure 5 Intra-organisational problematisation ......................................................... 86 
Figure 6 Metropolitan and regional interrestment ..................................................... 89 
Figure 7 Enrolment of actors ...................................................................................... 90 
Figure 8 The identification of environmental issues ................................................. 118 
Figure 9 Preliminarily problematisation .................................................................. 120 
Figure 10 Jointly emergent problematisation ........................................................... 124 
Figure 11 Metropolitan and regional interressment ................................................. 126 
Figure 12 Enrolment of actors .................................................................................. 131 
Figure 13 Identification of environmental issues and problematisation ................... 159 
Figure 14 Metropolitan and regional interressment ................................................. 164 
Figure 15 Enrolment of actors .................................................................................. 166 
Figure 16 ENGO email communication .................................................................... 169 
Figure 17 Means of collaboration enacted by Australian ENGOs ........................... 182 
Figure 18 Means of collaboration enacted by Lebanese ENGOs ............................. 185 
Figure 19 Means of collaboration enacted by Thai ENGOs ..................................... 187 
 
LIST OF TABLES 
 
 
Table 1 Summary of key ANT concepts ....................................................................... 41 
Table 2 Interviewees per country/case study .............................................................. 67 
 
____________________________________________________________________ 
1 
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 
 
 
“The movement to stop global warming is a good example of mass collaboration in 
action. We’re in the early days of something unprecedented: Thanks to Web 2.0 the 
entire world is beginning to collaborate around a single idea for the first time ever - 
changing the weather. Climate change is quickly becoming a nonpartisan issue, and 
all citizens obviously have a stake in the outcome. So for the first time we have one 
global, multimedia, affordable, many-to-many communications system, and one issue 
on which there is growing consensus. Around the world there are hundreds, probably 
thousands, of collaborations occurring in which everyone from scientists to school 
children are mobilizing to do something about carbon emissions. The ‘killer 
application’ for mass collaboration may turn out to be saving the planet, literally.” 
(Tapscott and Williams 2008, p.X) 
 
1.1. Research Background 
 
Environmental collaboration is a complex phenomenon involving a multitude of 
stakeholders and resources. It is particularly challenging in the context of global 
warming, where stakeholders are dispersed across geographical, political, cultural, 
and linguistic boundaries and jurisdictions. Studying the means by which 
collaboration emerges in local settings may provide a valuable insight into the 
enactment of collaboration in multiple contexts, and the collaborative technologies 
deployed towards such an end. 
 
While electronically mediated collaboration is gaining much importance in today’s 
information intensive world, such importance is yet to be adequately reflected in IS 
research. Current research affirms that electronic collaboration (e-collaboration) has 
been driven by a common need to generate efficiencies through cooperative work, 
 
____________________________________________________________________ 
2 
along with the ever increasing ubiquity of electronic communication media (Qureshi 
and Keen 2005; Kock and Nosek 2005). As social agents become aware of the 
abilities and objectives of their counterparts across the globe, an appreciation of the 
collaborative potential is gaining significant traction (Hanson et al. 2006). However, 
“in spite of nearly 30 years of research, many phenomena related to e-collaboration 
still remain obscure and in need of clarification through empirical and theoretical 
research” (Kock and Nosek 2005, p.7). This has been dominated by research on the 
behaviours of collaborative teams using a single collaborative technology in intra-
organisational settings, and often investigated through artificial experimentation on 
non-stakeholding participants (Bajwa et al. 2005; Lewis et al. 2007; Kock 2008b). 
 
To counter this trend, this thesis considers real environmental collaborations enacted 
by Environmental Non-Governmental Organisations (ENGOs). ENGOs are well 
recognised for the fundamental role they play in bringing together community wide 
stakeholders in a voluntary and collaborative manner, in order to achieve 
environmental objectives (Richards and Heard 2005), as well as their innovative use 
of IT to overcome their resource limitations (Klemz et al. 2003). Such collaboration is 
not uni-dimensional, but is rather emergent through interactive and distinct processes 
and approaches. 
 
1.2. Research Motivation 
 
The primary motivation for this study arises from the growing significance of e-
collaboration, as well as the emerging interest in environmental issues particularly for 
societal, organisational, and governmental stakeholders (Hanson et al. 2006). At a 
fundamental level, information technologies play a key role in shaping our 
perceptions of the world we live in, and the means by which we act upon it (Serres 
1995, 2006). E-collaboration may therefore hold an important potential, given the 
wide spectrum of global environmental actors and the multidimensionality of 
decisions and their ramifications. New markets for carbon trading and for ‘green’ 
 
____________________________________________________________________ 
3 
jobs and products are also rapidly emerging, accelerated in part by the growing 
scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change, extreme weather events, and 
recent hikes in oil prices. This is coupled with a willingness from many governments 
around the world to tackle these issues while potentially stimulating economic growth 
and development through new environmental markets and products. Such endeavours 
necessitate collaboration among a wide spectrum of stakeholders, which may be 
mediated by the adoption and use of collaborative technologies. 
 
Another motivation is the very limited literature on e-collaboration in the 
environmental sector. Despite the global importance of current environmental issues, 
the diffusion and utilisation of e-collaboration among ENGOs have not yet been 
thoroughly explored. Although the need to undertake IS research in the 
environmentaldomain has been expressed by several IS researchers, particularly, the 
importance of integrating IS research within the issue of global warming (Desouza et 
al. 2006, 2007; Hassan et al. 2009), this is yet to attract significant research attention. 
 
In defining the significance of IS research, Richard T. Watson (Desousa et al. 2006, 
p.348) proposes that: “we need to get involved in solving societal problems, and in 
particular we need to consider the most pressing problem of our times, global 
warming.” He adds that, for moving the IS discipline ahead, “the most important 
problem we face is global warming, and we should be involved in some way in 
addressing this civilization threatening issue before it is too late, if it is not already” 
(Desousa et al. 2006, p.349). This view is supported by Donald McCubbrey who 
proposes that the IS community could contribute by identifying ICT-enabled 
solutions to tackle pressing societal problems like global warming (Desousa et al. 
2007). Raghupathi and Friedman (2009) also agree that IS studies that focus on 
critical social and economical issues, such as global warming, would contribute to IS 
research by increasing its relevance and transdisciplinarity. These calls are echoed by 
Hassan et al. (2009, p.6) who propose that “the IS community can take a more 
positive stance and promote itself as a provider of solutions to environmental 
problems.” 
 
____________________________________________________________________ 
4 
Moreover, while much attention has been devoted to macro-level environmental 
collaborations, encompassing scientific and governmental interactions, and 
culminating through the actions of the Intergovenmental Panel on Climate Change 
(IPCC), the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and the United Nations 
Environment Programme (UNEP), little is known about the how environmental 
collaboration emerges in national and local settings, and the role the collaborative 
technologies play within such contexts. The meso (e.g. national ENGO context 
collaboration) and micro (e.g. local e-collaboration mediated by an individual 
technology) levels are yet to receive adequate research attention. 
 
1.3. Research Aims and Questions 
 
Consequently, this research aims to explore how diverse and distributed organisations 
and individuals establish electronic collaboration and how such collaboration affects 
the creation and achievement of shared goals. More specifically, it investigates the 
context of environmental collaboration through an transdisciplinary perspective to 
study this IS phenomenon. This phenomenon is explored through the study of 
ENGOs in Australia, Lebanon, and Thailand. Given that collaboration is often 
manifested through the use of collaborative technologies (Harvey 2001), an 
investigation of these technologies would also assist in retracing the collaborative 
relationships that are emergent within the ENGO sphere of operation and influence. 
This will also provide a detailed insight into the role that e-collaboration plays in 
environmental collaboration. The research therefore focuses on the following 
questions: 
 
How do ENGOs adopt and use collaborative technologies to establish 
electronic collaboration with diverse and distributed stakeholders? And, how 
does such collaboration affect the creation and achievements of shared 
environmental goals? 
 
 
____________________________________________________________________ 
5 
1.4. Research Methodology and Approach 
 
To address these questions, I adopted an Actor-Network Theory (ANT) based 
perspective that ‘follows the actors’ – both human and non-human – as they construct 
their realities (Latour 1999). ANT proposes its own ontological and epistemological 
perspective which guide my research strategy. Rather than impose my own views and 
assumptions, I aimed to learn from the actors and faithfully reassemble their stories. 
Three national contexts were selected providing interesting contrasts to explore the 
emergence and convergence of environmental collaboration among multiple 
stakeholders. Qualitative data were collected, primarily through interviews with 
ENGO personnel over the course of one year. The data were coded and analysed and 
three cases presented on environmental collaboration in Australia, Lebanon, and 
Thailand. 
 
1.5. Research Findings and Significance 
 
The findings of this study reveal a distinct collaborative environmental agency 
emerging in each case-based actor-network, mediated by a unique set of collaborative 
technologies which are adopted and used towards e-collaboration among diverse and 
distributed organisations and individuals. By following the moments of translation 
(Callon 1986), the actor-networks were found to converge towards shared goals 
through the persistence of assemblages and translations, which distinctly emerged in 
each of the cases. However, these translations, associations, and assemblages were 
transient and volatile due to competing programs and opposition from other actors in 
the environmental actor-networks with their own agendas and objectives. 
 
The thesis thereby contributes to knowledge about the power dynamics and 
sociomaterial tensions inherent in multi-stakeholder adoption and utilisation of 
collaborative technologies in different contexts. As the first study to broadly 
investigate the emergence of ENGO e-collaboration, this research contributes to 
 
____________________________________________________________________ 
6 
exploring a real problem, involving diverse environmental stakeholders, and multiple 
collaborative technologies. It provides a novel contribution to research on e-
collaboration and adoption and utilisation of innovation by considering ‘innovation 
translation’ (Tatnall and Gilding 1999) as a sociomaterial power dynamic driving the 
diffusion and utilisation of collaborative technologies. The findings of this study may 
be of relevance to IS researchers, policy makers, and environmentalist alike, as they 
shed a new light on how environmental e-collaboration emerges and converges 
towards joint effect. 
 
1.6. Dissertation Outline 
 
This dissertation consists of 8 chapters. The current chapter briefly introduces the 
research background, motivation, objective, questions, methodology, findings and 
significance, as well as provide a brief conceptual and structural overview of the 
remaining 7 chapters. 
 
Chapter 2 
 
Chapter 2 provides a review of the literature as it pertains to this study. The chapter is 
divided into 4 main sections. The first section considers the environmental need for 
collaboration. It provides an overview of the environmental challenge introduced by 
global warming, which necessitates collaboration. The second section considers the 
roles that Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) play in such collaboration, and 
how IS could assist in enabling and enhancing NGO operations. The third section 
reviews the concepts of collaboration and e-collaboration, and the research challenges 
they present. The final section introduces ANT, which is adopted as the philosophical 
foundation for this study. The chapter concludes by presenting a summary of the 
limitations arising from prior literature, which necessitate further investigation 
through this study. 
 
 
____________________________________________________________________ 
7 
Chapter 3 
 
Chapter 3 introduces the ANT ontology and epistemology guiding this research. It 
goes on to discuss the research strategy, incorporating the case study research 
method, and its compatibility with the ANT approach. The criteria used for case 
selection are then discussed, followed by the data collection and analysis methods. 
The chapter concludes with discussing ethical considerations. 
 
Chapters 4, 5 and 6 
 
Chapter 4, 5 and 6 follow a similar structure. They respectively presentthe 
Australian, Lebanese, and Thai case studies. They commence by providing 
background details about each of the three countries, the environmental challenges 
facing these nations, and the IT infrastructure in each context. The emergence of the 
ENGO environmental actor-networks are then provided, followed by an empirical 
examination of collaborative technologies, and the collaborative associations they 
represent. The chapters conclude by presenting opposition and resistance to the 
ENGO environmental actor-networks in each country. 
 
Chapter 7 
 
Chapter 7 presents an ANT based analysis and discussion of the empirical findings 
from the three cases. The chapter commences by providing an overview of the 
collaborative technologies used in each case, the means by which these technologies 
are used, and the reasons behind such use. The chapter proceeds to further investigate 
the emergence of e-collaboration by considering two main issues: the emergence of 
collaborative agency in environmental actor-networks, and the convergence of actor-
networks towards a common environmental objective. 
 
 
 
 
____________________________________________________________________ 
8 
Chapter 8 
 
Chapter 8 presents an overview of the study and its key findings, followed by the 
theoretical and practical contributions that this study holds, and their respective 
implications. The study’s limitations and potential directions for future research are 
then discussed to conclude the thesis. 
 
The final chapter is followed by bibliography references. 
 
____________________________________________________________________ 
9 
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 
 
 
 
“Despite many decades of lobbying by scientists and environmental groups, climate 
change has only really captured the attention of national leaders over the past couple 
of years. A contributing factor has been the spread of network-centric advocacy 
supported by social technologies of Web 2.0. The capability of World Wide Web 
(WWW) to process information and knowledge and to support communication is now 
unprecedented. Climate change and environmental sustainability are issues where 
information and knowledge are vital, and social and cultural elements are critical. 
Advocacy groups on all sides of the debate are using ICT, the WWW and associated 
media to promote their causes.” (Hasan and Kazlauskas 2009, pp.159-160) 
 
2.1 Introduction 
 
In this chapter, I set out to provide a background to my study. Here, I first discuss the 
environmental challenge. This challenge is somewhat unique as it requires mass 
collaborative action to effectively address. The second section of my review 
considers NGOs and the roles they play in such collaboration. I then move on to 
discuss the concept of collaboration itself, and the recent emergence of e-
collaboration. The fourth section of this chapter presents the theoretical ANT 
foundation, and its potential in providing a rich and authentic insight into 
environmental e-collaboration. The chapter concludes by reiterating the research 
deficiencies witnessed in the literature from which my research questions are derived. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
____________________________________________________________________ 
10 
2.2 The Environmental Challenge 
 
“We must take a comprehensive approach to address the interconnected issues of 
economic growth and development, climate change, food and agriculture, and 
energy.” - Mr. Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary General of the United Nations (United 
Nations 2008, p.6) 
 
The earth’s climate has been the subject of many scientific studies. These studies 
were mostly isolated, segregated by academic disciplines, geographical boundaries, 
and political contexts. The prominence of environmental issues at the dawn of the 21st 
century, along with the technological advancements that characterised the 20th 
century, provided the will and the means for a thorough investigation into the earth’s 
climate. A broad multidisciplinary consolidation of the many isolated studies was 
required to ascertain natural variation and potential human impact on climate change, 
along with adaptation and mitigation measures. The Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1989 the by the World Meteorological 
Organisation (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), to 
provide stakeholders with objective, scientific, ‘broad and balanced’ information 
about climate change (IPCC 2010a). The IPCC’s mandate outlined in the United 
Nations (UN) General Assembly’s Resolution 43/53 on the 6th of December 1988 
also mandated the study of social and economic impacts of climate change, possible 
response strategies to climate change, and potential elements for inclusion in future 
international conventions on the climate (IPCC 2010a). 
 
Contrary to popular belief, the IPCC does not primarily conduct scientific research, 
but bases its assessment on peer-reviewed and published scientific literature. 
Thousands of scientists from all parts of the globe voluntarily contribute to the work 
of the IPCC (IPCC 2010b). Among the major accomplishments of the IPCC are the 
four Assessment Reports published in 1990, 1995, 2001 and 2007. The Assessment 
Reports have been hugely influential and have contributed to the creation of the 
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992, the 
 
____________________________________________________________________ 
11 
key international treaty to reduce global warming and cope with the consequences of 
climate change, as well as the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 (IPCC 2010a). 
The forth Assessment Report (IPCC 2007a) which took 6 years to complete, 
witnessed the collaboration of over 2500 expert scientific reviewers, and in excess of 
800 contributing authors and 450 lead authors from over 130 countries (IPCC 2007b). 
This was the result of a globally coordinated scientific effort exceeding an estimated 
US$ 5 billion per annum (Australian Greenhouse Office 2003a). In December 2007, 
the IPCC was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize together with Al Gore: 
 
"…for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made 
climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to 
counteract such change" (Nobel Foundation 2007). 
 
The IPCC fourth Assessment Report defines climate change as “a change in the state 
of the climate that can be identified (e.g. using statistical tests) by changes in the 
mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, 
typically decades or longer. It refers to any change in climate over time, whether due 
to natural variability or as a result of human activity” (IPCC 2007c, p.30). 
 
 
 
____________________________________________________________________ 
12 
 
 
Figure 1 Schematic framework representing anthropogenic drivers, impacts of and responses to 
climate change, and their linkages (IPCC 2007c, p.26) 
 
 
The report affirms that the interrelation between human and earth systems is very 
likely (with over 90% confidence) triggering anthropogenic drivers that lead to 
climate change and global warming. It is worthwhile noting that more recent research 
has demonstrated that the vast majority of climate scientist surveyed (97.4%) were 
convinced that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean 
global temperatures (Doran and Zimmerman 2009), highlighting an overwhelming 
scientific consensus. The current schematic framework in figure 1 above builds upon 
the findings of the third assessment report published in 2001, by adding counter 
clockwise linkages, implying that the constraining of global emissions could reduce 
the risks and the social impacts of climate change on society (IPCC 2007c). A brief 
summary of the IPCC key findings in the fourth assessmentreport indicates that: 
 
____________________________________________________________________ 
13 
• Warming of climate systems is unequivocal. 
• Warming is consistent with anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide (CO2) since 1750, 
now exceeding the natural range for the past 650,000 years. 
• With the current climate change mitigation policies, the emissions of greenhouse 
gases will continue to grow. 
• Warming tends to reduce terrestrial ecosystem and ocean uptake of atmospheric 
CO2, leading to an acceleration in warming. 
• The climate is already committed for warming over the next few decades. 
• More extreme weather patterns, higher sea levels, and drier climate in subtropics 
are likely to occur as a result of warming. 
(IPCC 2007a; Bogataj 2008) 
 
To counter such dire outcomes and a potentially catastrophic climate change by the 
end of the 21st century, global collaboration among all levels of stakeholders is 
required. This collaboration should aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 
particularly CO2, Methane (CH4), Nitrous Oxide (N2O) and Halocarbons (consisting 
of a group of gases containing Fluorine, Chlorine or Bromine) to a sustainable level, 
where emissions are commensurate with removal processes (IPCC 2007c). 
 
In contrast to the extensive collaboration that is occurring at the scientific level 
(Australian Greenhouse Office 2003a), intergovernmental and multi-stakeholder 
collaboration for implementing mitigation and adaptation strategies have been 
hindered by several issues. These include the decision-making timescale of the 
projections and the limited accessibility of scientific research to the lay-person 
(Hanson et al. 2006) as well as socio-political and economical issues, not least of 
which the recent global financial crisis (United Nations 2008). Many of these issues 
became evident in December 2009, during the UN climate change conference, in 
Copenhagen, where a compromise was reached in the form of the Copenhagen 
Accord demonstrating political will in support of the IPCC’s findings, yet committing 
members to non-binding targets and urging global cooperation in dealing with 
climate change. It states: 
 
____________________________________________________________________ 
14 
“1. We underline that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time 
[…] we shall, recognizing the scientific view that the increase in global temperature 
should be below 2 degrees Celsius, on the basis of equity and in the context of 
sustainable development, enhance our long-term cooperative action to combat 
climate change […] 
2. We agree that deep cuts in global emissions are required according to science, and 
as documented by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report with a view to reduce global 
emissions […] We should cooperate in achieving the peaking of global and national 
emissions as soon as possible […] 
3. Adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change and the potential impacts of 
response measures is a challenge faced by all countries. Enhanced action and 
international cooperation on adaptation is urgently required […]” . 
(Copenhagen Accord 2009, p.2) 
 
Although this acknowledges that collaboration is essential for dealing with the 
challenges posed by global warming, there is little elaboration or guidance on how 
such collaboration could transpire, particularly given that these resolutions require 
implementation at regional, national, and local levels (Richards and Heard 2005; 
United Nations 2008). The potential role of Information and Communication 
Technologies (ICTs), particularly, whether E-Collaborative Technologies could 
provide (or indeed are providing) mechanisms for such collaboration is not stated or 
evident in these environmental debates, negotiations, and resolutions. Freund’s (1997, 
p.281) call for “international collaboration to investigate technologies for reducing 
emissions of greenhouse gases, the root cause of the problem” is yet to be considered 
through the lens of collaborative technologies that could enable adaptation and 
mitigation measures through e-collaboration. 
 
 
 
____________________________________________________________________ 
15 
2.3 NGOs & Environmental Collaboration 
 
“NGOs are distinctive entities with important skills and resources to deploy in the 
process of international environmental cooperation” (Raustiala 1997, p. 219). 
 
2.3.1 Defining NGOs 
 
Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) play a fundamental role in society (Bryson 
1988; Brinkerhoff and Brinkerhoff 2002; Klemz et al. 2003; Wadhera 2006). NGOs 
are non-profit organisations that are often community based and oriented, hence why 
the terms Non-Profit Organisations (NPOs) or Community-Based Organisations 
(CBOs) are sometimes used in the literature. The term ‘Organisation’ is sometimes 
also substituted by ‘Institution’. Such terminologies arise from an NGO’s self 
definition in terms of its operational or organisational frameworks (Global 
Developmental Research Center 2010). For instance, the term NPO identifies an 
NGO based on its financial perspective only, while the term COB defines it 
depending on the community in which it is often based and usually exclusively 
serves, while ENGOs are identified by the ‘environmental’ domain in which they 
operate (Richards and Heard 2005; Global Developmental Research Center 2010). 
The governmental and academic literature uses such terms interchangeably. 
 
The World Bank’s report on NGOs (1990, pp.9-10) reflects on the vast array of NGO 
structures and activities, making NGOs harder to define: 
 
"The diversity of NGOs strains any simple definition. They include many groups and 
institutions that are entirely or largely independent of government and that have 
primarily humanitarian or cooperative rather than commercial objectives. They are 
private agencies in industrial countries that support international development; 
indigenous groups organized regionally or nationally; and member-groups in 
villages. NGOs include charitable and religious associations that mobilize private 
 
____________________________________________________________________ 
16 
funds for development, distribute food and family planning services and promote 
community organization. They also include independent cooperatives, community 
associations, water-user societies, women's groups and pastoral associations. Citizen 
Groups that raise awareness and influence policy are also NGOs" 
 
The UN broadly defines the entire non-profit sector as consisting of units that are: 
 
“(a) Organizations; 
 (b) Not-for-profit and non-profit-distributing; 
(c) Institutionally separate from government; 
 (d) Self-governing; 
 (e) Non-compulsory.” 
(United Nations 2003, p.18) 
 
Building upon this UN broad sectoral definition, the Australian Department of 
Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA) provides a more 
concise definition: 
 
“A nonprofit organisation is one formed to achieve a common goal or benefit, is 
member or public serving in nature, is based on voluntary membership and is 
prohibited from collecting or distributing profit.” (DCITA 2005, p.8) 
 
2.3.2 Social Focus 
 
Drucker asserts that “only the social sector, that is, the non governmental, non-profit 
organization, can create what we now need, communities for citizens-and especially 
for the highly educated knowledge workers who increasingly dominate developed 
societies” (cited in Klemz et al. 2003, p.216). Millar et al. (2004) add that NGOs do 
not exist in isolation, but rather emerge from communities and constituencies aspiring 
towards a common aim or objective. An NGO is therefore a social, institutional 
 
____________________________________________________________________ 
17 
mechanism to operationalise a collective aspiration, coupled with a predominantly 
voluntarily endeavour to achieve it. Theseaspirations may arise from the need for 
services due to the unavailability or departure of public organisations (Bryson 1988) 
making NGOs and their services indispensable (Klemz et al. 2003). Some examples 
of such services are provided by Klemz et al. (2003), and include the implementation 
of programs and policies to assist weaker sections of society, the front-line execution 
of governmental programs, the provision of educational services, and acting as a 
watchdog for society. It is however important not to overstate the claim that all NGOs 
are benevolent, as some may adopt questionable objectives and strategies (Leipold 
2000). 
 
According to Millar et al. (2004), NGO areas of concern can be divided into three 
broad categories: 
 
• Mutual assistance, inspiration, and general networking NGOs (e.g. the Rotary 
Club) 
• Advocacy and consequent political effect NGOs (e.g. the World Wildlife Fund 
[WWF]) 
• Assistance and community action oriented NGOs (e.g. the Oxford Committee for 
Famine Relief [OXFAM]) 
 
Miller et al. (2004) clarify that these three broad areas are not mutually exclusive, 
even though NGOs often demonstrate a clear focus on one of these categories. 
Indeed, NGOs usually fulfill multiple roles (Brinkerhoff and Brinkerhoff 2002). In 
order to achieve their objectives, NGOs often interact with a multitude of 
stakeholders including governmental agencies, politicians and social representatives, 
other NGOs, scientists, educational institutions, donors, and most importantly the 
communities from which they emerged and which they aim to serve. Bryson (1988) 
emphasizes that NGOs should exercise discretion for areas under their control, devise 
good strategies, and develop a sound and coherent foundation for decisions, in order 
to ensure responsiveness to stakeholders. Wadhera (2006) agrees and adds that a 
 
____________________________________________________________________ 
18 
strong focus on good and transparent governance is fundamental given NGOs’ 
sensitivity to ‘reputation risk’. 
 
While the scope of operation for the majority of NGOs is geographically limited to 
their local community base, many larger NGOs operate at a national, regional or 
global level (Klemz et al. 2003; Richards and Heard 2005; Global Developmental 
Research Center 2010). Overall, NGOs have a considerable societal grassroot 
representation. In the UK, for example, NGO membership outstrips that of political 
parties (Coxall 2001 cited in Richards and Heard 2005). This is due to the fact that 
NGOs are perceived as having integrity and compassion, which consequently 
increases their legitimacy and following (Leipold 2000). 
 
2.3.3 Access to Resources 
 
NGOs are often characterized as being resource poor (Bryson 1988; Leipold 2000; 
Hardy et al. 2003; Klemz et al. 2003; Millar et al. 2004; Richards and Heard 2005, 
Global Developmental Research Center 2010) with limited access to finances and 
skilled staff. This often leads to poor organisational infrastructure particularly among 
smaller organisations, mandating that they have to be selective in choosing strategies 
and objectives commensurate with their abilities (Richards and Heard 2005). Such 
poverty is compounded by the fact that many NGOs rely on volunteers (United 
Nations 2003; Bowman 2009) to undertake key tasks, which increases their 
operational uncertainty. This is somewhat compensated for by the enthusiasm and 
intrinsic motivation that many volunteers bring to their NGO work (Richards and 
Heard 2005; Howard and Swatman 2009). Although some NGOs employ a limited 
number of essential staff to undertake administrative or specialized functions, by and 
large, NGO personnel are volunteers (Bowman 2009). 
 
Moreover, NGO finances are often dependent on multiple – sometimes unreliable – 
sources including government grants and projects, donations and contracts from 
 
____________________________________________________________________ 
19 
public and private organisations, and donations from individuals (Klemz et al. 2003). 
Such unreliable revenue streams compromise an NGO’s ability to undertake 
prolonged and costly activities, like legal actions (Richards and Heard 2005). This 
resource poverty appears most acute for NGOs in developing countries when 
compared to those in developed nations. 
 
2.3.4 Approaches 
 
In their study of the approaches that ENGOs deploy to achieve their objectives, 
Richards and Heard (2005) report that media exposure, scientific research and 
political lobbying were perceived by ENGOs as most effective. While direct radical 
campaigning action was also considered as a useful option for NGOs, active 
participation in policy development was perceived as the preferred approach for long 
term change. A characteristic of campaigns according to Leipold (2000, pp.453-454) 
“is that they spring up when legality and legitimacy find themselves at odds with each 
other, so that certain groups claim legitimacy for their cause and deny this legitimacy 
to the prevailing powers. […] They derive their legitimacy from the popular support 
they enjoy and from the quality of information they provide.” 
 
Richards and Heard (2005) also discovered that the majority of NGOs (over 70%) 
were using a combination of tactics consisting of five or more approaches. The 
approaches selected were perceived to be in-line with an ENGO’s capabilities and 
resources. This contrasts to Bryson’s (1988) earlier suggestions that NGOs are 
plagued by inadequate strategic planning and decision making. It seems that NGOs of 
the new millennium are becoming more strategically and tactically savvy. This has 
been particularly evident over the past decades, which experienced a dramatic 
increase in NGO complexity and sophistication (Brinkerhoff and Brinkerhoff 2002). 
 
 
____________________________________________________________________ 
20 
2.3.5 Collaboration Among NGOs 
 
“The reasons for [NGO] collaborating are clear: organizations should collaborate to 
gain access to combinations of resources that produce new or improved capabilities 
that allow organizations to do things they could not do alone” (Hardy et al. 2003, 
p. 325). 
 
The collaboration between one NGO and another is viewed as a double edge sword 
that presents opportunities and costs. Given their resource poverty NGOs could 
benefit from working with each other to achieve common ends, if there is congruence 
in their objectives and approaches (Tsasis 2009). NGOs sometimes collaborate with 
several partners to achieve different objectives (Hardy et al. 2003). NGOs may also 
form broader coalitions and networks to overcome their limitations (Carter 2001 cited 
in Richards and Heard 2005; Tsasis 2009) and to increase their influence and 
legitimacy (Leipold 2000; Richards and Heard 2005). On the other hand however, 
although NGOs do not display overt market competition, they still compete for 
resources, memberships and affiliations, donors, grants, sponsorships, contracts, 
endorsements, and media exposure that could provide them with a distinct and 
differentiated competitive edge (Hardy et al. 2003; Richards and Heard 2005; Tsasis 
2009). This could be threatened by joining a coalition. Larger NGOs may have to 
share the limelight with smaller ones, while smaller groups fear being swamped by 
their larger counterparts (Richards and Heard 2005). However, excessive competition 
between NGOs could weaken them and their ability to campaign, as well as damage 
their perceived moral high-ground (Leipold 2000). 
 
According to Tsasis (2009) competition and collaboration within the NGO sector 
should not be perceived as mutually exclusive, as organisations can simultaneously 
depend upon, and compete with each other, in a form of competitive interdependence. 
Collaboration, he advises, is drastically enhanced when there is a ‘domain consensus’which he defines as “the set of expectations for members of an organization and for 
other actors of what the organization will and will not do” (Tsasis 2009, p.11). Inter-
 
____________________________________________________________________ 
21 
organisational collaboration is also promoted in instances of interpersonal trust 
among members of NGOs. Adversely, competition intensifies if NGOs do not 
perceive any congruence between their strategies and objectives and where there is no 
trust among their members. 
 
Richards and Heard (2005) report that 84% of respondent ENGOs were eager to 
collaborate with other ENGOs that share similar objectives, while 81% reported that 
they were already part of such collaborative relationships. They also unveil other 
reasons for collaboration such as becoming aware of the endeavours of other NGOs 
and institutions, becoming a focal point for interactions with government, along with 
a diversification of strategies and approaches brought about by the different tactics 
that the collaborating NGOs deploy. For instance, some NGOs could be publicly 
confrontational while others display a conciliatory role in their work with government 
– playing ‘good’ cop, ‘bad’ cop – in order to achieve common objectives. Leipold 
(2000) advises that strategic collaborative campaigns should best be based on 
common NGO interest, be pragmatic and time limited, and involve a wide array of 
areas and expertise (environment, advocacy, development…). Richards and Heard 
(2005) also point out potential barriers to collaboration including disagreement on 
objectives or approaches particularly among international networks spanning multiple 
nations with diverse languages, political systems, and cultures. This, they advise, 
requires culturally savvy approaches to coalition building and campaigning. 
Nonetheless, this is complicated by the fact that NGO literature rarely mentions 
culture “and where “cross-cultural” is discussed, it is seen as an additional factor 
rather than an integral part of management” (Jackson 2009, p.444). 
 
2.3.6 Collaboration with Government and Private Entities 
 
NGO interaction with government was traditionally categorised based on the 
insider/outsider paradigm (Jordan 1998; Richards and Heard 2005). This paradigm 
arose from the binary approach that NGOs may adopt, where ‘insider’ implied a 
controlled collaboration with government usually within the confines of parameters 
 
____________________________________________________________________ 
22 
set by government. This, according to Leipold (2000) reduces an NGO’s 
independence. In contrast, ‘outsider’ groups remained outside such parameters, either 
by choice, through their preference of direct confrontational action (e.g. protests or 
legal action), or by their inability to attain insider status. Richard and Heard (2005) 
reveal that given the fact that the majority of current day ENGOs adopt multiple 
approaches often involving both confrontational and participative action, the 
traditional insider/outsider divide is no longer appropriate and has dissipated in 
favour of “a more pragmatic resource-based approach” (Richard and Heard 2005, 
p.38). They add that when considering NGO networks and coalitions the 
insider/outsider categorisation becomes exceptionally inappropriate given the myriad 
of approaches deployed. This has however, created accountability dilemmas for 
NGOs (Brinkerhoff and Brinkerhoff 2002). Traditionally, NGOs were accountable to 
their beneficiaries, members, and donors – their primary stakeholders. But through 
their collaborations with government, particularly if service delivery is involved, 
NGOs have expanded their scope of accountability to governmental agencies, the 
media, and the public at large. A dilemma therefore arises when the expectations of 
the primary stakeholders differ from those of collaborative partners and the broader 
community. 
 
Another issue developing from NGO-government collaboration is the institutional 
isomorphism that NGOs often undertake, leading to an emulation of their 
governmental partners. This highlights another dilemma for NGOs, between the 
retention and maintenance of their own identity and their close collaboration with 
government (Brainard and Siplon 2002; Brinkerhoff and Brinkerhoff 2002). 
 
At a broader international level, ENGOs are encroaching on environmental domains 
traditionally controlled by states (Raustiala 1997; Richards and Heard 2005). Their 
involvement in negotiating, monitoring, and implementing environmental decisions is 
becoming increasingly prominent (Raustiala 1997). Although states may be wary 
about the involvement of NGOs at the global stage, Raustiala (1997) suggests that 
states should welcome such involvement as it enhances their ability to regulate 
 
____________________________________________________________________ 
23 
globally while upholding their sovereignty. This is clearly evident through ENGO 
representations as observer organisations in IPCC plenary and working group 
sessions, conditional upon qualification and panel approval. The IPCC currently has a 
total of 74 NGOs, consisting of both UN and non-UN bodies, (IPCC 2010c), who 
may be invited to contribute to the IPCC work (IPCC 2006). For many NGOs 
however, this raises an issue of ‘glocalisation’, with NGOs striving to address the 
concerns of their primary stakeholders and constituents through a bottom-up thrust, 
while concurrently mandating policy and regulatory frameworks in a top-down 
approach (Brinkerhoff and Brinkerhoff 2002). 
 
Along with their collaboration with governmental institutions, many NGOs have 
established collaborations with the private sector (Leipold 2000). Miller et al. (2004) 
suggest that NGOs are positioned to generate mutual benefits should they choose to 
collaborate with multinational companies. This, they claim, could provide NGOs with 
a reliable revenue source along with potential political clout and reach, while 
providing multinationals with a localised market access, and improved image through 
affiliation. 
 
2.3.7 NGO & ICT 
 
“Information systems (IS) play a critical role for non-profit organizations” (Klemz et 
al. 2003, p.216), not least of which is the global reach and influence provided by such 
systems in the age of globalisation (Millar et al. 2004). Barnett and Barnett (1999, 
p.23) insist that “the web must become an integral part of every non-profit 
organization’s communications strategies”. Here, Brainard and Siplon (2002) assert 
that the advent of the internet has revolutionised the NGO sector, enabling the 
emergence of many technology savvy, radically oriented, modernist NGOs. This, 
they suggest, has placed competitive pressures on traditional NGOs, forcing them to 
join-in, as a matter of competitive necessity. This has however, placed renewed 
pressures on governments as the objectives, approaches, and priorities of both NGO 
 
____________________________________________________________________ 
24 
groups were sometimes conflicting and contradictory, allowing governments to be 
selective regarding which to support. Consequently, the new radical NGOs were 
generally favored, as the internet enabled them to be more flexible, adaptable and 
timely in mobilising support to new courses of action, which proved a complex 
undertaking for their traditional counterparts who tend to lock-in to a particular 
approach. One of the ways this was achieved is by posting announcements on their 
website, listservs and electronic bulletin boards advising their supports to take direct 
action with their political representatives. This also allowed the modernists to easily 
engage with other NGOs to form coalitions – often posting links of like-minded 
NGOs on their websites. A third and fundamental shift came about through the 
substitution of ‘chequebook democracy’ withreal activism. The traditional model of 
members supporting a campaign by issuing a cheque to an NGO did not provide 
members with the opportunity to be directly involved. The new model enabled by the 
internet allowed members to contribute their knowledge, time, and experience, and 
became active participants in their support. This nurtured real ownership and 
passionate attachment to issues, which supporters could follow as they unfold, vote 
upon, and provide genuine feedback and advice about. Brainard and Siplon (2002) 
therefore proclaim that the internet has transformed passive donors to committed 
activists – a seismic shift in NGO operations. 
 
Klemz et al. (2003) categories the potential benefits of IS (including web-based 
systems) for NGOs, as internal and external. Internal benefits include better 
management of organisational resources, donors, financial records, and monitoring of 
activities for improved efficiency and productivity; while external benefits encompass 
improved dissemination of information to stakeholders, enablement of interaction 
with communities, provision of a mechanism for concerned members to raise issues 
directly to NGOs, eliciting of funding, as well as transparency towards donors and 
governmental institutions. Similar benefits have been reiterated in other studies (e.g. 
Leipold 2000; Brainard and Siplon 2002). Here, Klemz et al. (2003, p.220) caution 
that IS planning is an essential prerequisite to attaining such benefits and overall 
success, which is achieved through: 
 
____________________________________________________________________ 
25 
“• Distinguishing the organization from similar organizations 
 • Improving efficiency 
 • Providing a competitive advantage [and] 
 • Enhancing the organization’s reputation” 
 
However, the adoption and acceptance of ICT still pose significant challenges for 
many NGOs (DCTIA 2005; Howard and Swatman 2009). Zorn (2007) suggests that 
this is due to socio-political influences which play a stronger role than organisational 
resources or perceived benefits on the adoption of ICT among NGOs. Howard and 
Swatman (2009) propose that poor diffusion of ICT is due to technological, social, as 
well as organisational hindrances, including the intrinsic motivation driving NGO 
personnel, which need to be preserved or ideally enhanced via the introduction of 
technology. 
 
Klemz et al. (2003) found a significant awareness among 68% of respondent NGOs 
who indicated that IS improved their internal operational efficiency, but caution that 
NGOs experience an ‘ambiguity of performance’ as their real return on investment in 
IS is best indicated by their impact and capacity to achieve their mission rather than 
financial revenue measures. This may complicate NGO investment choices and their 
planning processes. Such complication is sometimes manifested through NGOs 
having ‘static electronic brochures’ that are not aligned with an NGO’s objectives, or 
used strategically to build online communities, garnish support, educate the public, 
and enrich fundraising (Barnett and Barnett 1999). 
 
2.3.8 Knowledge Gap in NGO Research 
 
“Despite much research on collaboration, the focus in the literature has been largely 
on the outcomes of collaboration. […] scant attention has been given to the social 
processes that underlie interorganizational collaboration [among NGOs]” (Tsasis 
2009, pp.5-6). 
 
____________________________________________________________________ 
26 
In spite of the studies reported above, the literature on NGOs is relatively scarce, 
particularly in relation to NGO collaboration and IS, and particularly when compared 
to the research on for-profit business entities. Miller et al. (2004) recommend further 
comparative research on NGOs in developed and developing countries, while Herman 
and Renz (1999) advise that the knowledge gap on NGO effectiveness, along with the 
complexities of defining effectiveness in this domain, requires research attention. 
Jackson (2009) stipulates that literature on how NGOs are actually managed is scarce, 
and argues for “a need for further empirical research through a cross-cultural, critical 
lens. When a wider view of the management and related literature than is normally 
found in the NGO literature is taken, understanding can be gained about the way 
knowledge is transferred […] and how hybrid systems of NGO management are 
developed locally through cultural crossvergence” (Jackson 2009, p.458). 
Specifically, Richards and Heard (2005) propose that little information is available 
concerning ENGO activities. This is particularly acute at the local level, where most 
ENGOs operate, given the environmental challenges emanating from climate change. 
Moreover, the roles that collaborative technologies play in environmental 
collaboration processes and the means by which they are deployed by ENGOs are 
poorly understood. 
 
2.4 From Collaboration to E-Collaboration 
2.4.1 Defining Collaboration 
 
Studies on collaboration often take the view that collaboration is a critical ingredient 
for joint successful task accomplishment (Qureshi and Keen 2005; Lewis et al. 2004). 
Benefits of collaboration mentioned in the literature include improved strategic 
performance, risk mitigation, resource sharing, enhanced flexibility and increased 
access to technological know-how (Phillips et al. 2000). However, in spite of such 
proclaimed merits, there is no consensus on what the term collaboration means 
(Montiel-Overall 2005). 
 
____________________________________________________________________ 
27 
The Merriam Webster Dictionary traces the term ‘collaborate’ to its Latin 
etymological origin collaboratus, meaning to labour together, first appearing in the 
year 1871. The dictionary defines the term as: 
 
“1 : to work jointly with others or together especially in an intellectual endeavor 
 2 : to cooperate with or willingly assist an enemy of one's country and especially an 
occupying force 
 3 : to cooperate with an agency or instrumentality with which one is not immediately 
connected” 
 (Merriam-Webster Dictionary 2009) 
 
It seems that the general meaning of the term did not drastically change over the past 
century, but was rather expanded to encompass an intellectual endeavour, intent, and 
willingness to cooperate. The definition also highlights an instrumental or agential 
cooperation between distinct collaborative parties brought together by such intent. 
 
More recently, many researchers have been interested in collaboration and how it 
manifests in multiple domains (Montiel-Overall 2005). Of particular relevance to this 
study is the prevalent use of the collaboration concept in the Information Systems 
domain, which spans across its manifestations in the organisational studies, 
behavioural sciences, and information technology (IT) literature. For instance, a 
definition proposed by Wood and Gray (1991, p.146) stipulates that: 
 
“Collaboration occurs when a group of autonomous stakeholders of a problem 
domain engage in an interactive process, using shared rules, norms, and structures, 
to act or decide on issues related to their domain.” 
 
This definition expands upon the one proposed in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. It 
identifies collaborators as stakeholders, holding an interest in resolving a particular 
problem situation. The definition presents an interactive and engaged mode of 
communication, which implies reciprocity and the use of shared rules and norms. 
 
____________________________________________________________________ 
28 
This perspective is congruent with Elliot (2006, p.1) who asserts that “collaboration is 
dependent upon communication, and communication is a network phenomenon”. 
Moreover, collaboration is presented as action-oriented leading to joint decision or 
endeavour towards a common cause.