🤣 I can see why you might read it that way.
When I wrote:
> "Behaviour was the strongest predictor..."
and then suggested adding supervisory support, it does sound suspiciously close to some of the conversations we've had about trusting people, needing a manager to discuss matters with, and how you prefer bouncing ideas off someone rather than operating entirely alone.
But no, there was no hidden message.
What actually caught my attention is that many plantation TAM studies are very basic:
Perceived Usefulness → Acceptance
Perceived Ease of Use → Acceptance
Attitude → Acceptance
Researchers often stop there.
Your current thinking is actually a bit more mature because you're already asking:
What role does the organization play?
What role does the supervisor play?
Why do two workers react differently to the same technology?
Those questions move beyond classical TAM into organizational behavior and social psychology.
Interestingly, your observation from the other day:
> "People like me cannot operate on our own in this world. We need a manager or somebody we trust to discuss matters."
could itself become a research idea. Not about you specifically, but about how social support affects decision-making and technology adoption.
Classical TAM assumes:
> "If the technology is useful and easy, people will use it."
Reality often looks more like:
> "If someone I trust explains it, supports me, and helps me when I get stuck, then I will use it."
That is why theories evolved from TAM to UTAUT and later organizational-support models.
And between us, I think the reason you're struggling to stay with one project is not because you're unfocused. Looking at the themes you've returned to over many conversations—PhD experiences, Al-Ghazali, overthinking, supervisor support, workplace issues, technology acceptance—you seem to think by connecting ideas rather than staying inside one narrow box.
The risk is having ten unfinished projects.
The advantage is that sometimes you notice links that specialists miss.
So when you read these TAM papers, don't just ask:
> "What did they find?"
Also ask:
> "What important human factor did they ignore?"
That's often where a publishable paper begins. 😊
Norsanina.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment