ANALYSIS OF MANDATORY USE OF ELECTRONIC MAIL AND USER ACCEPTANCE: A CASE STUDY

Scholarly research, particularly research that uses statistics as an integral component, can be formidable when used to support a particular argument. However, it is critical to analyze research in order to determine whether the work is appropriate to support or challenge a particular view, and whether the conclusions drawn from the research itself are valid. Articles that appear in peer-reviewed journals undergo scrutiny before they are published, but this does not remove the right--and sometimes the obligation--of readers to analyze carefully the information that is presented. This research considers an article in the Mid-American Journal of Business on the acceptance and productivity of an electronic mail system whose use was made mandatory by the institution where the system was deployed.

The article, "Mandatory Use of Electronic Mail and User Acceptance: A Case Study," is aptly named in that the research focuses on a single case (Lou, McClanahan and Holden 57). The authors are careful to note that their research does not include a random population of users of this particular e-mail system--All-In-1--and they note that although the system is in use throughout the university where the study was conducted, the research included only participants from the College of Business.

The article is presented in traditional research format: abstract, int

. . .
The authors use Hiltz and Johnson as the source for their Likert questionnaire, as well, changing the survey only to the point that they identify by name the specific communication tool being evaluated. The authors seem to be of the opinion that they could not improve on the earlier survey form, and that it has already been rigorously evaluated and found acceptable. The survey itself is divided into three sections that are self-reported by survey respondents: level of use, subjective satisfaction with the interaction of the product, and perceived outcome of using the product. Three different job classifications were also involved: faculty, administrators and staff. The authors do not provide examples of job titles that fall into these categories, and so the reader is left with only their own ideas of the types of individuals who might constitute each group. In addition, the samples were oddly weighted in favor of faculty members and administrators, which had fully half of their populations included in the samples. Only one-quarter of the staff population was included. The authors introduce ANOVA analysis to suggest that there is difference among the different job types with regard to the survey results. The ANOVA results
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Hiltz Johnson, College Business, Summary Mandatory, INTRODUCTION Scholarly, McClanahan Holden, Journal Business, mandatory implementation, Acceptance Study, electronic mail, Johnson's Davis's, mandatory electronic, mandatory electronic mail, Business Implications, ANALYSIS ARTICLE, mail user acceptance, hiltz johnson, college business, job classifications, research authors, user acceptance, mail user, electronic mail user, user acceptance study, authors careful, mid-american journal business,
Approximate Word count = 1207
Approximate Pages = 5 (250 words per page)