October 2012 Volume 15 Number 4 - Educational Technology ...

for predicting an individual’s information systems behavior (e.g. Limayem and Hirt 2003; Kim and Malhotra 2005;
Limayem et al. 2007). In this stream of research, the term habits refers to the non-intentional (automatic) enactment
tendencies developed through the history of the individual, where particular stimuli trigger specific behaviors even
when the individual does not instruct himself/herself to behave in such a way (Thorngate 1976; Triandis 1977, 1980).
Thus, habit in terms of IS usage refers to the non-deliberate, automatically-inculcated response that individuals may
bring to IS usage (Limayem and Hirt 2003).
The aforementioned researchers have contributed insights to the study of IS usage behaviors. However, if we assume
that habit is a culturally-fixed mode that drives an individual’s social practices both in a group and in a particular
context (Weber 1922), then the question of how, why, and when people’s habits challenge their IS usage behaviors
remains unanswered. As Verplanken and Aarts (1999) propose, cultural habit is mind-set that improves the
perceptual readiness for habit-related cues, preventing an individual from being distracted and from adopting other,
less efficient courses of action. Moreover, cultural habit has become fixed through the activities conducted by group
members under a specific network over a long period of time. It is an artificial object in life. Durkheim (1911) points
out that once habits are endowed with power, they become the rules of conduct, and consequently, may become the
greatest obstacles to progress. Take, for example, old-fashioned corporal punishment, constantly present under the
influence of the power of habit. Weber (1922) asserts that uniform behaviors of a group are rooted in habits, and
habits are the tendency to allow actions that are unreflective and subjective to turn into long-term behaviors.
We consider that habits not only prompt peoples' behavior to conform to rules, but are also the source of rules. This
means that personal behavioral habits developed from pure, psychological inclinations are advanced into a kind of
binding experience. Although habitual behaviors do not occur randomly and an individual sometimes conducts his
behavior beyond the level of habit, we can be certain of a strong relationship between life and cultural habits in
different social groups (Camic 1986). This is because the products of the mind are a function of the social
communities of which people are a part (Markus 1991). According to scholarly discourse, cultural habits are not a
plethora of properties; they are rather molded by individuals in different social groups through social practice.
In light of this, it is important to explore the experience of teachers when they use a FSKSP to comprehend the
networks behind distributing and sharing phenomena. It is also vital to explore how, why, and when teachers, under
the cultural habit of traditional, long-established sharing networks, face the challenges triggered by the installation of
FSKSP, as well as the dilemmas and successful experiences encountered in the process. The findings of this research
may help to further our understanding of the challenge of cultural habit when combining the KSKSP’s technical and
social subsystems. Moreover, they serve as a good source of guidance for knowledge management administrators in
colleges when implementing IT as a FSKSP. Furthermore, for FSKSP system designers, the findings may assist them
in gaining the necessary understanding of possible conflicts arising between system features and cultural habits in
their work to enhance system feature design.
Habit, Cultural Habit, and Knowledge Distribution in the University Domain
Habit (Automatic behavior)
In this decade, the notion of habit has focused the attention of many IS researchers on the study of information
systems (IS) usage. Some of these researchers include Limayem and Hirt (2003), Kim and Malhotra (2005), and
Limayem et al. (2007). For example, Limayem and Hirt (2003) indicate that previous IS usage studies have
contributed to our understanding of many antecedent factors such as involvement, perceived ease of use, perceived
usefulness, and their relationship to intention. They argue that IS researchers also need to focus on factors “that are
internal to the individual, yet differ from the rational, deliberate, cognitive decision making the IS academy has
pursued thus far.” (p. 66). They introduce the notion of habit, which refers to the non-deliberate, automaticallyinculcated
response that individuals may bring to IS usage into a behavioral model integrating theoretical constructs
of TPB and a relevant subset of Triandis’ (1980) behavioral framework. The research findings highlight the
importance of considering both conscious (intentions) and subconscious (habits) factors in explaining usage
behavior.
Moreover, Kim and Malhotra (2005) compare two contrasting views in the literature on the nature of the automatic
use (habit) perspective and the instant activation perspective. They show that “according to the habit perspective,
automatic use occurs because of the force of habit without the formation of intention; thus, past use is believed to
weaken evaluation-intention-usage relationship. In contrast, the instant activation perspective posits that automatic
333