Technostress Research: A Nurturing Ground for Measurement Pluralism?

Thomas Fischer, René Riedl

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

30 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Because technostress research is multidisciplinary in nature and, therefore, benefits from insights gained from various research disciplines, we expected a high degree of measurement pluralism in technostress studies published in the information systems (IS) literature. However, because IS research mostly relies on self-report measures in general, reasons exist to also assume that technostress research has largely neglected multi-method research designs. To assess the status quo of technostress research with respect to the application of multi-method approaches, we analyzed 103 empirical studies. Specifically, we analyzed the types of data-collection methods used and the investigated components of the technostress process (person, environment, stressors, strains, and coping). The results indicate that multi-method research is more prevalent in the IS technostress literature (approximately 37% of reviewed studies) than in the general IS literature (approximately 20% as reported in previous reviews). However, our findings also show that IS technostress studies significantly rely on self-report measures. We argue that technostress research constitutes a nurturing ground for the application of multi-method approaches and multidisciplinary collaboration.
Original languageEnglish
Article number17
Pages (from-to)375-401
Number of pages27
JournalCommunications of the AIS
Volume40
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 2017

Keywords

  • Technostress
  • Literature Review
  • Multi-Method
  • Strains
  • Measurement Pluralism
  • Stress
  • Stressors

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Technostress Research: A Nurturing Ground for Measurement Pluralism?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this