Learning Processes in User Training:
The Case for Hermeneutics
Maung K. Sein
University of Agder
Service Boks 422
4604 Kristiansand S, Norway
+47 3814 1617
Maung.K.Sein@uia.no
ABSTRACT
While the maturing research literature on training has generated
increasingly sophisticated and more comprehensive theoretical
models, the actual process through which users learn to use a
system remains a relatively neglected area. The extant literature
that has paid attention to processes have conceptualized these as
structures and examined them through variance studies. In this
paper, we address this knowledge gap by advancing hermeneutics
as a lens to depict the process through which users come to learn
about the system. We explain the hermeneutic process, situate it in
a training context and illustrate our conceptualization by
interpreting a specific training program at a large organization.
Based on our findings, we argue that hermeneutics is an
appropriate lens to view training and outline how a training
program can be designed according to hermeneutic principles.
Categories and Subject Descriptors
K.6.1 [Project and People Management]: Training
General Terms
Human Factors.
Keywords
User training, hermeneutics, learning processes, training process.
1. INTRODUCTION
Over the last 3 decades or so, training research in IS has thrived
and gradually matured. Training research by nature is relevant,
and it has become more theoretically grounded and rigorous.
Comprehensive conceptual models (e.g. [1], [2], [3]) have been
developed that are invaluable to “..summarize and integrate
existing research and theories and to guide future research ..” [2],
p 687. In keeping with this healthy trend, each successive
conceptualization and re-conceptualization has built upon prior
models and in doing so enhanced them. New theoretical
perspectives have been added. For example, Gupta and Bostrom
[2] brought in adaptive structuration theory to the training area
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for
personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are
not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that
copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy
otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists,
requires prior specific permission and/or a fee.
SIGMIS-CPR’10, May 20–22, 2010, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Copyright 2010 ACM 978-1-4503-0004-9/10/05...$10.00.
Stig Nordheim
University of Agder
Service Boks 422
4604 Kristiansand S, Norway
+47 3814 1610
Stig.Nordheim@uia.no
and thus enveloped the training context squarely in the
“mainstream” IS scholarly discourse. Concepts and processes that
have hitherto been black boxes have been opened and we have
drilled down to more basic and elementary aspects of training.
However, the overwhelming paradigm has remained positivistic
and followed a variance approach. The IS literature has
predominantly emphasised models that are rational and have
emphasised reasoned actions. These models fail to capture the
broader and more complex processes at work, while people are
engaged with technologies [4], [2]. Even models that have sought
to take a process perspective have been essentially variance in
nature. Case in point is the Technology Mediated Learning
(TML) model proposed by Gupta and Bostrom [2]. They very
rightly point out that a focus on the learning process is missing
from existing research [2].
We fully concur. Yet, in addressing this knowledge gap, they end
up taking a variance perspective by conceptualizing the learning
technique as a “structure” and operationalizing it as an ordinal
variable with levels of complexity. What is still missing is the
actual learning mechanism. Sure, structures are appropriated and
as Gupta and Bostrom [2] show, can perhaps even be measured.
But how does this appropriation happen? What is the process that
the learners follow in appropriating learning structures?
In this paper, we propose that the learning process may be based
on and viewed in terms of hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is a
philosophy about understanding, interpretation and how to
achieve knowledge [5] and captures the main processes at work.
Its potential has been argued, both in IS research [6] and in IS
design and use [7]. We argue that the training process can be
aligned with this hermeneutic view of the mental processes, and
eventually this can be the platform to develop specific training
methods and techniques.
The rest of the paper is structured as follows. After a brief
overview of hermeneutics and its concepts, we map the training
concepts to the hermeneutic concepts. Next, we situate our
arguments in the training literature by using a well known
knowledge-level framework developed by Olfman et al. [8]
(Figure 3). In the following section, we illustrate how
hermeneutics can shape the training process by analyzing a
specific training program in a software vendor company. The
target system of the training was “eCollaboration” a set of tools
meant to support collaborative activities. We conclude the paper
by discussing implications for practice and research.
2. HOW DOES HERMENEUTICS
CONTRIBUTE?
The potential of hermeneutics has been argued, both for IS
research [6] and for IS design and use [7]. Although there are
different approaches to hermeneutics [9], we follow Gadamer’s
[5] philosophical hermeneutics. The reason is that hermeneutics
as a philosophy is about understanding, interpretation and how to
achieve knowledge. Originally developed to understand text,
specifically religious text, it is now a recognized and accepted
approach to achieve and explain understanding.
2.1 Hermeneutics and understanding
Following philosophical hermeneutics, the constitutive element of
all understanding is the hermeneutical circle (Figure 1). To quote
Gadamer [5], p 291,
“We recall the hermeneutical rule that we must understand the
whole in terms of the detail, and the detail in terms of the whole.
This principle stems from ancient rhetoric, and modern
hermeneutics has transferred it to the art of understanding. It is a
circular relationship in both cases. The anticipation of meaning in
which the whole is envisaged becomes actual understanding when
the parts that are determined by the whole themselves also
determine this whole. … The harmony of all the details with the
whole is the criterion of correct understanding.”
Figure 1. The hermeneutic circle
The hermeneutic circle points to an iterative way of
understanding, where one moves back and forth between the
whole and the parts. Understanding the whole comes from
understanding the parts, and vice versa. The principle of the
hermeneutic circle therefore suggests that all human
understanding is achieved by iterating between considering the
independent meaning of parts and the whole that they form.
Gadamer [5] asserts that the hermeneutical circle is not only valid
for understanding texts but applies to all understanding. The circle
is not finished before there is consistency, and understanding is
(inductively) substantiated by the coherence between the whole
and its parts. Moreover, the understanding achieved can always be
regarded as temporary, and is never to be considered perfect.
Gadamer is careful not to refer to the circle as a formal
methodology; rather it is a means to clarify the conditions under
which understanding can occur. He proposes three such
conditions: pre-understanding, prejudice, and horizons of
understanding. As we will argue later in this paper, these
conditions are especially germane to training. Below, we briefly
explain these concepts.
Pre-understanding is the general and provisional understanding a
person has of a phenomenon before the person concerned has
studied the phenomenon. In interpreting text, ”a person who is
trying to understand a text is always projecting. He projects a
meaning for the text as a whole as soon as some initial meaning
emerges in the text. Again, the initial meaning emerges only
because he is reading the text with particular expectations in
regard to a certain meaning. Working out this fore-projection,
which is constantly revised in terms of what emerges as he
penetrates into the meaning, is understanding what is there …
interpretation begins with fore-conceptions that are replaced by
more suitable ones.” [5], p 267. So Gadamer asserts that we
always have a pre-understanding that is a necessary part of our
evolving understanding.
Our pre-understanding is in turn based on our prejudices. They
determine how we at first sight understand a phenomenon. While
continually attempting tentative understandings, we immediately
assume something, due to our prejudices. For Gadamer, pre-
understanding and prejudice is not negative, it is simply a pre-
condition for understanding at all. The pre-understanding that we
meet a text or situation with, is marked by our own historical
situation. The fact that we live and experience in history, equips
us with prejudices. “We stand in traditions, whether we know
these traditions or not; that is, whether we are conscious of these
or are so arrogant as to think we can begin without
presuppositions – none of this changes the way traditions are
working on us and in our understanding.” [10].
Gadamer criticizes the idea that human reason can liberate itself
from prejudice and tradition, and that we, through self reflection,
can go beyond our historical context to know the phenomenon as
it is in itself. ”… if one goes on from this to draw the conclusion
that one can become transparent to oneself, that one can become
sovereign in one’s thinking and action, then one is mistaken. No
one knows himself or herself. We always already have a certain
character; no one is a blank sheet of paper.” [10]. The challenge is
how to distinguish “the true prejudices, by which we understand,
from the false ones, by which we misunderstand.” [5], p 299.
The complete set of a person’s prejudices is called the horizon of
understanding, a concept that comes from Husserl [5], p 245. This
is related to what is called a hermeneutical situation. To be in a
hermeneutical situation means to be inside a situation. Gadamer
defines the concept “situation” by saying that “it represents a
standpoint that limits the possibility of vision. Hence essential to
the concept of situation is the concept of horizon. The horizon is
the range of vision that includes everything that can be seen from
a particular vantage point.” [5], p 302. “… a hermeneutical
situation is determined by the prejudices that we bring with us.
They constitute, then, the horizon of a particular present, for they
represent that beyond which it is impossible to see.” [5], p 306.
“The horizon is seen as something into which we move and that
moves with us. Horizons change for a person who is moving.” [5],
p 304.
What this means is that the phenomenon we try to understand, can
resist our prejudices. And it is vital to be open in this respect
when encountering the text or phenomenon. Open enough to
reconsider one’s own prejudices, to achieve new understanding.
“In fact the horizon of the present is continually in the process of
being formed because we are continually having to test all our
prejudices.” [5], p 306.
 Table 1. Arguments for hermeneutics based on training issues
related to the learning process
Training issues Argument for hermeneutics
Users build a mental model of A mental model is the
the target system they are users’ horizon of
learning to use through (a) understanding at any stage
mapping via usage (simply using of learning. Hermeneutics
a system) (b) mapping via specify analogous processes
analogy (based on prior to the first two of these
experience with a similar system, mappings (a) encounter
and (c) mapping via training with a text and an
(based on a conceptual model of expanding horizon of
Figure 2. Horizons of understanding the target system) [11]. understanding, and (b) pre-
understanding. The third
(c) can be based on the
Encounters with a text or with a human being, imply an encounter hermeneutic circle.
between different horizons of understanding. This encounter
implies a tension between the two. “In a conversation, when we Learning of a system is described The hermeneutic conditions
have discovered the other person’s standpoint and horizon, his in terms of Assimilation Theory of pre-understanding and
ideas become intelligible without our necessarily having to agree and Theory of Subsumption both prejudices are constantly
with him” [5], p 303. “In the process of understanding, a real of which view meaningful modified as they are
fusing of horizons occurs - which means that as the historical learning as connecting new challenged by new
horizon is projected, it is simultaneously superseded.” [5], p 307. information with knowledge understandings of the
The encounter between two different horizons of understanding existing in a novice learner’s phenomenon.
can be illustrated by Figure 2. ‘X’ illustrates the dialogue with the memory [11]. This is echoed by
text, where the reader’s prejudices are tested and the reader’s Caladine [12] and Harper [4].
horizon may be extended. In an interview, ‘X’ represents the Humans strive for understanding, In hermeneutic terms this is
dialogue, where the reader’s prejudices are tested. and attempt to build integrated viewed as broadening a
meaning from their interactions horizon of understanding
Language is the medium used. “The fusion of horizons that takes
with the world [13]. Mapping via through encounters using
place in understanding is actually the achievement of language. …
usage implies that novice users language.
This understanding of the subject matter must take the form of
can acquire an initial mental
language. It is not that the understanding is subsequently put into
model of the system by simply
words; rather, the way understanding occurs - whether in the case
interacting with it and over time
of a text or a dialogue with another person who raises an issue
through more usage, this mental
with us - is the coming-into-language of the thing itself.” [5], p
model is enhanced [11].
378.
Human striving for meaning Hermeneutic circle iterates
Although hermeneutics historically is related to interpreting texts, include reformulations of between the parts and the
contemporary hermeneutics has expanded the scope of the term meaning, which shifts the whole.
text to include organizational phenomena [9], and information emphasis from discrete packages
system design and use [7]. In this paper, we apply it to training. of knowledge to interrelated
fusion of meaning within a
construct system [4].
2.2 Situating hermeneutics in the training
context Users’ beliefs, emotions and In hermeneutic terms, it is
cognitions are implicated in important to first focus on a
In the interest of conserving space, we refrain from presenting an
perceptions of IT usefulness, so whole that is meaningful
extensive review of training literature that is germane to our
it is important to provide training and thus motivates the user
paper. Instead, we situate key training issues in hermeneutic
programs that truly address the for training.
terms. Table 1 summarizes our mapping.
underlying motivations of users
[14].
According to Sternberg and In hermeneutic terms these
Wagner [15], knowledge is three processes of
acquired via three processes: (i) knowledge acquisition may
selective encoding as relevant be viewed as: (i) selective
and irrelevant information is encoding of the parts, (ii)
categorized, (ii) selective selective combination of the
combination as new information parts into a whole, and (iii)
 is integrated into a selective comparison with Module 4: Recommended ways to use SharePoint and eNet for
comprehensive cognitive one’s own pre-judgments, collaboration
structure, and (iii) selective which results in a modified
Module 5: Video conferencing
comparison as the relationship horizon of understanding.
between old and new information The training programme spanned 2 weeks, with 6 to7 hours of
is considered and integrated. coursework per week. It was recommended that everyone would
This is also the process inherent take at least module 1 and those who take module 3 would also
in assimilation theory [16]. take module 2.
Learning occurs through using Understanding occurs
the system and is dependent on through encounters with the 3.2 Analysis using hermeneutic principles
the quality of interaction [17]. text or user interface using The analysis is based on the knowledge level framework
language. developed by Olfman et al. [8]. This framework is a good
candidate to demonstrate hermeneutic principles in training
because it is (a) a model of understanding of a system and (b) it is
composed of levels of knowledge structured as a hierarchy and
3. ILLUSTRATIVE CASE: TRAINING thus consisting of parts (the lower individual levels) and the
PROGRAM ON E-COLLABORATION AT whole (the higher “big picture” levels). Figure 3 presents a
REKER SOUTH slightly modified view of the knowledge levels where level 7 is
viewed as parallel and enveloping all other levels, and where the
To illustrate the applicability of hermeneutics to training, we
knowledge levels are turned upside down to give a more intuitive
analyse a case to explore whether a training effort at an
sense of lower and higher levels.
organization supported learning by facilitating iteration between
the whole and the parts.

3.1 Case description

The case organization is Reker South (RS – the name has been
disguised to preserve anonymity), a leading global provider of
engineering and construction services. The company is located in
Norway and is part of a larger enterprise. With annual revenues of
approximately USD 10 billion, RS has more than 22 000
employees and 9 000 contract staff in about 30 countries.
In the summer of 2008, RS decided to implement an initiative
termed eCollaboration. This essentially was applying a set of
tools for collaborating and supporting team work. The overall
eCollaboration training was targeted at managers, team leaders,
professional network facilitators, and experts participating in
global networks and projects. The assignment to conceptualize,
design and oversee the training program was given to an academic
from the local university who was spending a sabbatical semester
at RS. This academic in turn consulted one of his academic Figure 3. An adapted version of the knowledge levels of
colleagues (one of the authors of this paper) who had extensive Olfman et al. [8].
background in training research and practice. The resultant
training program heavily reflects many of the frameworks, Our case analysis is based on the knowledge levels in Figure 3
concepts and theoretical premises from training research that are and interpreted in hermeneutic terms. As part of the participants’
summarized in Olfman et al. [8]. A detailed description of the current horizon of understanding, there are a few pre-
training program is beyond the scope of this paper. It is sufficient understandings which are labelled pre-requisites. These include
here to simply outline the highlights of the program and describe the use of telephone and the MS Office communicator software.
in details those aspects that are relevant for our analysis. By adding a time dimension to the knowledge levels of Figure 3,
the course modules of RS’s eCollaboration training effort may be
The training was designed to improve the competence of RS’s mapped as illustrated in Figure 4. The meta-cognitive (level 7) is
employees on eCollaboration, by providing practical exercises on assumed to be part of all levels, but left out of Figure 4 due to the
typical eCollaboration user scenarios applying existing tools. time dimension.
Participants could take one or more of the following five course
modules:
Module 1: Introduction to eCollaboration practices at RS
Module 2: Smaller online meetings inside RS’s network
Module 3: Arranging and hosting meetings in- and outside RS’s
network

Figure 4. An illustration of course modules mapped to the
knowledge levels of Olfman et al. [8].
The ellipses in Figure 4 represent individual modules (module 1-
5) and illustrate the knowledge levels covered by the module. The
arrows illustrate how each module may be viewed as an iteration
between the higher levels (representing the whole) and the lower
levels (representing the parts). As we can see, the training starts
with module 1 which focuses on the whole (higher levels),
whereas modules 2, 3 and 5 elaborate different parts at level 2 and
1. Figure 4 also illustrates that the training programme lacks a
focus on the whole (level 5) again after the last session of module
3.
To further elaborate our analysis, we drill down to details in
Module 1. This is an overview of getting to know about
eCollaboration tools at RS. This may be viewed as an iteration
between a larger whole (level 5) and a smaller whole (level 3)
with constituent parts (level 2 and 1). The whole is here a
business conceptual (level 5) understanding of eCollaboration at
RS. The parts are user scenarios at a business procedural level
(level 3), such as participation in and contributing to a larger
virtual meeting while informing others about one’s online
availability. These parts at level 3 in turn also constitute a whole,
at a business procedural level. They consist of tool procedural
(level 2) parts, such as using the Outlook calendar, marking other
members in MS Communicator and using the eNet contact
information page. These level 2 parts in turn constitute another
whole, at a tool procedural level. The use of Communicator and
Outlook consist of a number of level 1 (command-based) menu
selections and mouse clicks. Following the hermeneutic circle
back to the whole again, means that after the level 1 parts are
taught, they are again viewed as parts in context of the whole tool
procedure (level 2). After completing each of the tool procedures,
each is again viewed as part of the whole user scenario at a
business procedural level (level 3). Finally each user scenario is
viewed as parts of the whole business conceptual (level 5)
understanding of eCollaboration at RS.
Iterations between the whole and the parts involved in module 1
may be rolled out along a timeline as illustrated in Figure 5, where
the following points are involved in the iterations:
(a) Participation (LiveMeeting, MeetMe) in a presentation by the
instructor that includes motivation for the training
(b) Contributing to a larger meeting result (text board tool).
Assigning oneself into appropriate course modules and into a
group of 3-4 persons
(c) Informing others about on-line availability. Outlook calendar
and MS Communicator – marking the other group members and
using eNet contact information page
(d) Documenting meeting results to the SharePoint server
(e) Booking a Communicator meeting with the group and the
instructor for Module 2. Use of Communicator and Outlook
(f) After the module everyone who participated in the session is
supposed to know the common recommended practices and tools
to be used by them for eCollaboration at RS. More specific goals
include knowledge of how to attend a bigger meeting session,
how to add contacts and how to contact a certain person in
Communicator.
Figure 5. An illustration of a hermeneutic process where an
individual module (No. 1) is mapped to the knowledge levels
of Olfman et al. [8].
Note that the movement up and down the knowledge levels in
Figure 5 represents iterations between the whole and the parts in
hermeneutic terms. Consider point (b) as an example. The whole
is at level 3 (business procedural), contributing to a larger meeting
result. This consists of level 2 (tool procedural) parts, such as
using the text board tool to assigning oneself into appropriate
modules and groups. Assigning oneself is again a whole (level 2),
which consists of level 1 (command or menu based) knowledge of
the individual steps involved.
Figure 5 also illustrates how a hermeneutic process may be
mapped to the knowledge levels. The stippled arrows illustrate
how over time the focus in the process moves between the levels
according to a hermeneutic iteration between the whole and the
parts. By situating the training in business practice, the tool
conceptual knowledge level (4) is accomodated for.
In summary, our analysis shows that:
• The knowledge levels concretize different notions of what
constitutes whole and part, relative to context. The knowledge
levels therefore facilitate an analysis of a teaching process based
on hermeneutic concepts.
• This analysis illustrates how module 1 in this case has a focus on
the whole and the parts (Figure 5), whereas the five course
modules together lack a focus on the whole at the end of the
training (Figure 4).
• Thus a hermeneutic process view in this case could have been
helpful in order to make sure that the training programme had
concluded with a focus on the whole (higher levels). Such a focus
could facilitate an understanding of the whole use of
eCollaboration in this case organization.
• After the training the participants’ horizon of understanding is
expected to be changed in terms of the training objectives, to
include an understanding of what are the common recommended
practices and tools to be used for eCollaboration at RS.
4. DISCUSSION
We have argued for hermeneutics in designing and planning user
training, based on its philosophy of how understanding occurs.
We have combined hermeneutic concepts with knowledge levels
in a case to illustrate some of the potential to describe a training
process.
4.1 Implication for practice
Our postulation about hermeneutics can be the basis for
developing training methods. In terms of the knowledge level
framework, training outcome is getting users to understand every
level. Training methods that have used this framework aimed at
achieving this by either employing a business led approach (thus
placing business motivational level at the forefront) or by using an
advance organizer or a conceptual model that specifically stressed
this higher motivational level. What has not been done is
reinforcing this relationship between the levels during the training
process.
We have argued that one way of doing so is through explicitly
using the hermeneutic circle. In order to do so, the first step is to
conceptualize the target system in terms of “parts” and a whole.
While we have used the knowledge level framework to illustrate
this, other perspectives in the training literature can also be
gainfully used. Examples are learning objects [18] which are
small chunks that can be combined to develop course structures,
and, the very concept of “chunking” [8].
Once the concepts of part and whole are established, the next step
is to facilitate the hermeneutic circle of learning by iterating
continuously between the parts and the whole. This can be done
through specific exercises or training tasks. A scenario to do so is
as follows. Situated in business practice, training starts with an
overview of a whole that makes sense to the learner, such as a
business process. Related to the knowledge levels of this whole is
at level 3, business procedural. It consists of level 2 (tool
procedural) work processes that the software supports. The work
processes constitute the parts of the whole business process. Each
work processes at level 2 may in itself be regarded a whole.
Moving from this level 2 whole to the parts, training then focuses
on level 1 (command-based) knowledge needed to do the
commands that constitute the software support for the work
process.
The training alternates between the parts (i.e. commands at level
1) and the whole (i.e. the work process at level 2). After training
on a number of level 2 work processes, training focuses on how
these work processes together form a greater whole. They are part
of a business process (level 3).
Going through the hermeneutic circle can be done both within a
knowledge level and between them. For example, a syntax when
used in interacting with the system increases the depth of
understanding (depth of the horizon of understanding) of that
syntax. Then when we go back to the whole – i.e., the full
knowledge level framework and see where this part fits in the
whole. This strengthens the understanding of the whole. This also
increases the breadth of the horizon of understanding because a
user now sees what else is possible or required while using the
system. This will require possibly more functions and syntax to
be learnt. Thus we go back to the parts – another command from
the syntax level – and the circle continues to spiral.
A vital part of going through a hermeneutic circle is to get users to
consciously do so and reflect on the process. One way of doing
so is to use hermeneutic diaries [19]. Reflection and going
through a hermeneutic circle also addresses the “meta-cognition”
level of learning which has remained an unexamined aspect of
training. The process of alternating between the whole and the
parts is a process that can be applied to any context of
understanding. By making the process explicit and requiring
users to reflect on the process, this meta-learning process is
reinforced.
4.2 Implication for research
In order to illustrate our postulation, we have re-interpreted a
training program that was already conducted in an organization.
Such re-interpretation is a commonly used practice in IS research.
Examples include Lee’s [20] re-interpretation of a previously
published study to show that e-mail can be a rich medium or Cole
et al.’s [21] recasting of action research studies as design research
studies. By their very nature, such re-interpretations are
retrospective. Ours is no exception. We applied the hermeneutic
lens to gain a fresh understanding of a training effort that was not
designed with hermeneutic principles. It is therefore vital to stress
that the hermeneutic processes that we were able to unearth were
either (a) serendipitous or (b) perhaps used unconsciously because
hermeneutic is a “natural” process.
Whatever be the case, a genuine test for our postulation is to
actually carry out an action research study by implementing a
training program using hermeneutic principles in a real
organization. Fortunately, we have access to the same
organization described here – namely RS. We have been given
the opportunity to evaluate and redesign the next version of the
training program. We have eagerly accepted this opportunity.
Some intriguing perspectives emerge from the case. E-
Collaboration is a set of tools that is meant to support teamwork.
The training modules used a collaboration approach and thus the
tool procedural level is embedded in a recursive manner. It will
be interesting to explore the nature of understanding in such a
context. This is akin to “technologically grounded” view of
organizations [22] where the very core technology that an
organization produces defines and shapes an organization’s
culture.
As we emphasized in the introduction section, a prime motivation
for this paper was the lack of attention paid to the learning process
in the training literature. Even where process has been an integral
apart of training models (e.g. [2]), it has been conceptualized as a
factor which as a consequence has led to a variance approach in
studying training. What is needed is at least an equal emphasis to
processual studies, in line with the arguments made by Robey and
Boudreau [23]. Our analysis of the RS case illustrates the benefits
of taking an interpretive paradigm.
4.3 Concluding remarks
Our recast of RS’s training program in terms of hermeneutics is
itself a hermeneutic exercise. Our horizon of understanding of
training was based on our pre-understanding from the training
literature and our experience as researchers and trainers. We took
this understanding to help design RS’s training program. In doing
so, our horizon of understanding expanded. Then after the
training was conducted, the applicability of the hermeneutic
perspective occurred to us. We explored specific hermeneutic
concepts – such as pre-understanding, horizon of understanding,
and hermeneutic circle – and re-examined our understanding of
training in its entirety. We applied this understanding to re-
interpret RS’s training program. In going through this iteration,
our understanding of the training landscape expanded. We now
have an appreciation for the need to take a processual perspective
in doing training research.
We cannot think of many better ways to make a case for
hermeneutics. Rather, we will simply echo Churchman West’s
verdict on systems theory and suggest that at the very least
hermeneutics in training, “is not a bad idea”!
5. REFERENCES
[1] Bostrom, R. P., Olfman L. and Sein, M. K. 1988. End-User
Computing: A Research Framework for Investigating the
Training/Learning Process, in J. M. Carey (Ed.) Human
Factors in Management Information Systems, Norwood:
ABLEX, 221-250.
[2] Gupta, S. and Bostrom, R.P. 2009. Technology-Mediated
Learning: A Comprehensive Theoretical Model, Journal of AIS
(10:9), 686-714.
[3] Kang, D. and Santhanam, R. 2003-4. A Longitudinal Field
Study of Training Practices in a Collaborative Application
Environment, Journal of Management Information Systems
(20:3), 257–281.
[4] Harper, J. R. 2007. 'Please do not lean on the computer. It has
feelings too.': The relationships transferred by humans to
technology. University of Wollongong, School of Psychology,
PhD Thesis.
[5] Gadamer, H.G. 1989. Truth and Method, 2nd revised edition.
Continuum, New York.
[6] Cole, M. and Avison, D. 2007. The potential of hermeneutics
in information systems research. European Journal of
Information Systems (16:6), 820-833.
[7] Boland, R. J., Newman, M. and Pentland B. T. 2009.
Hermeneutical exegesis in information systems design and use.
Information and Organization, (Article in press, Oct 2009).
[8] Olfman, L., Bostrom, R P. and Sein, M. K. 2006. Developing
Training Strategies with an HCI Perspective. In P Zhang and D
Galletta (Eds): Human-Computer Interaction and Management
Information Systems: Foundations. Advances in Management
Information Systems (5), 258–283.
[9] Prasad, A. 2002. The Contest Over Meaning: Hermeneutics as
an Interpretive Methodology for Understanding Texts.
Organizational Research Methods (5:1), 12-33.
[10] Gadamer, H.G. 2001. Gadamer in Conversation: Reflections
and commentary. Edited and translated by R. E. Palmer. Yale
University Press.
[11] Sein, M. K. and Bostrom, R. P. 1989. Individual Differences
and Conceptual Models in Training Novice Users, Human-
Computer Interaction (4), 197-229.
[12] Caladine, R. 1999. Teaching for Flexible Learning: Learning to
apply the technology MOLTA. Abergavenny, Great Britian:
GSSE.
[13] Bouchard, T.J. and McGue, M. 2003. Genetic and
environmental influences on human psychological differences.
Journal of Neurobiology (54:1), 4-45.
[14] Karahanna, E. and Straub, D.W. 1999. The Psychological
Origins of Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease-of-Use.
Information & Management, (35:4), 237-250.
[15] Sternberg, R.J. and Wagner, R.K. 1989. Individual differences
in practical knowledge and its acquisition. In P.L. Ackerman,
R.J. Sternberg and R. Glaser (Eds.): Learning and Individual
Differences: Advances in Theory and Research. New York:
W.H. Freeman and Company.
[16] Mayer, R. E. 1981. The psychology of how novices learn
computer programming, Computing Surveys (13), 121-141.
[17] Santhanam, R. and Sein, M. K. 1995. Improving End User
Proficiency: Effects of Conceptual Training and Nature of
Interaction, Information Systems Research (5), 378-399.
[18] Shayo, C. and Olfman, L. 2006. The Learning Objects
Economy: What Remains to Be Done? In P Zhang and D
Galletta (Eds): Human-Computer Interaction and Management
Information Systems: Foundations. Advances in Management
Information Systems (5), 284-310.
[19] Mathiassen, L. and Purao, S. 2002. Educating reflective
systems developers. Information Systems Journal (12), 81–102.
[20] Lee, A. 1994. Electronic Mail as a Medium for Rich
Communication: An Empirical Investigation Using
Hermeneutic Interpretation, MIS Quarterly (18:2), 143-157.
[21] Cole, R., Purao, S., Rossi, M. and Sein, M.K. 2005. Being
Proactive: Where Action Research meets Design Research,
Proceedings of ICIS, 325-336..
[22] Leonardi, P.M. and Jackson, M. H. 2009. Technological
Grounding: Enrolling Technology as a Discursive Resource to
Justify Cultural Change in Organizations, Science Technology
Human Values (34:3), 393-418.
[23] Robey, D. and Boudreau, M-C. 1999. Accounting for the
Contradictory Organizational Consequences of Information
Technology: Theoretical Directions and Methodological
Implications, Information Systems Research (10:2), 167-185.