such cultures are more concerned with sticking with the
absolute truth and are considered as normative in their
thinking. Such individuals demonstrate more admiration for
traditions and are focused on achieving results in a quicker
time. The LTO value of KSA is 36 (whereas the UK is 51).
The cultures having a low value of LTO (36) show low
technology adoption (Al-Gahtani et al., 2007). As shown in
Fig. 4.2 that KSA has scores of 52 and the UK has 69 on the
indulgence dimension. This score for KSA is in the middle
and does not indicate a clear distinction of this dimension.
Hofstede (2010) discovered that in Saudi Arabia the PD
value (95) and UA value (80) are very high. These values
reflect that the Saudi society as a whole is not ready to accept
any kind of change and risk. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia is
extremely rule-oriented having strict laws and rules to
minimize the degree of uncertainty experienced.
4.8 Summary
Adoption of technology is a cultural issue. The organizations
using information systems are affected by a culture that
should be taken into consideration before integrating any
new technology in any organization (Im et al., 2011). Many
researchers argue that cultural variables need to be incorporated in technology acceptance models (Baptista & Oliveira, 2015; Lu & Lin, 2012) because information
technology used by the people is impacted by cultural values
(Im et al., 2011), and the strength of any model or theory can
be established by considering it across diverse cultures
(Al-Qeisi, 2009). In this regard, Hofstede (1997) argued that
culture has a remarkable influence on user-behavior and
cultural dimensions deliver a theoretical foundation for discovering the adoption of technology. Therefore, in line with
other researchers, such as (AL-Somali & Abdullah, 2012;
Nistor, Lerche, Weinberger, Ceobanu, & Heymann, 2014),
this study extends the UTUAT2 model with the Hofstede’s
cultural dimensions. Thus, this chapter examined the adoption of technology in the cultural context of higher educational institutions. We also discussed Saudi culture, cultural
theories, Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, and technology
adoption models.
References
Adler, N. (2001). International dimensions of organizational behavior.
South-Western Publication.
Al-Gahtani, S. S., Hubona, G. S., & Wang, J. (2007). Information
technology (IT) in Saudi Arabia: Culture and the acceptance and use
of IT. Information and Management, 44(8), 681–691. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.im.2007.09.002.
Al-hunaiyyan, A., Al-hajri, R., Alzayed, A., & Alraqqas, B. (2016).
Towards an effective distance learning model: Implementation
framework for Arab universities. International Journal of Computer
Application, 6(5), 87–102.
Al-Khatib, J. A., Vitell, S. J., Rexeisen, R., & Rawwas, M. (2005).
Inter-country differences of consumer ethics in Arab countries.
International Business Review, 14(4), 495–516. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ibusrev.2005.04.001.
Al-Qeisi, K. (2009). Analyzing the use of UTAUT model in explaining
an online behavior: Internet banking adoption [Brunel University].
http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/bitstream/2438/3620/1/KholoudThesis.pdf.
Al-saggaf, Y. (2004). The effect of online community on offline
community in Saudi Arabia. Ejisdc, 1–16.
Al-Shehri, A. M. (2010). E-learning in Saudi Arabia: “To E or not to E,
that is the question”. Journal of Family & Community Medicine, 17
(3), 147–150. https://doi.org/10.4103/1319-1683.74333.
AL-Somali, & Abdullah, S. (2011). Electronic commerce adoption: A
study of business-to-business practices in saudi arabia. Aston
University.
Alenezi, A. R. (2012). E-learning acceptance : Technological key
factors for successful students’ engagement in E-learning system. In
EEE’12-The 2012 International Conference on e-Learning (pp. 16–
19).
Alharbi, S. J. M. (2006). Perceptions of faculty and students toward the
obstacles of implementing E-Government in educational institutions
in Saudi Arabia. West Virginia: Morgantown.
Aljabre, A. (2012). An exploration of distance learning in Saudi
Arabian universities : Current practices and future possibilities, 2
(2), 132–138.
Baptista, G., & Oliveira, T. (2015). Understanding mobile banking: The
unified theory of acceptance and use of technology combined with
cultural moderators. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 418–430.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.024.
Boldley, J. H. (2004). Cultural anthropology: Tribes, states, and the
global system, with powerweb. McGraw‐Hill.
Bond. (2010). Michael Harris bond. Retrieved from http://michael.
bond.socialpsychology.org.
DiMaggio, P. (1997). Culture and cognition. Annual Review of
Sociology, 23(1), 263–287.
Gallivan, M., & Srite, M. (2005). Information technology and culture:
Identifying fragmentary and holistic perspectives of culture. Information and Organization, 15(2), 295–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
infoandorg.2005.02.005.
Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind.
McGraw Hill.
Hofstede, G. (1980a). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work- related values. Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G. (1980b). Culture and organizations. International Studies
of Management & Organization, 10(4), 15–41.
Hofstede, G. J. (2010). Cultures and organizations- software of the
mind: Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival
(Revised an). McGraw Hill.
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures : The Hofstede model
in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 1–26.
https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014.
Ibrahim, M., Rwegasira, K., & Taher, A. (2007). Institutional factors
affecting students’ intentions to withdraw from distance learning
programs in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: The case of the Arab
Open University. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 10(1).
Im, I., Hong, S., & Kang, M. S. (2011). An international comparison of
technology adoption. Information & Management, 48(1), 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2010.09.001.
4.8 Summary
25
absolute truth and are considered as normative in their
thinking. Such individuals demonstrate more admiration for
traditions and are focused on achieving results in a quicker
time. The LTO value of KSA is 36 (whereas the UK is 51).
The cultures having a low value of LTO (36) show low
technology adoption (Al-Gahtani et al., 2007). As shown in
Fig. 4.2 that KSA has scores of 52 and the UK has 69 on the
indulgence dimension. This score for KSA is in the middle
and does not indicate a clear distinction of this dimension.
Hofstede (2010) discovered that in Saudi Arabia the PD
value (95) and UA value (80) are very high. These values
reflect that the Saudi society as a whole is not ready to accept
any kind of change and risk. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia is
extremely rule-oriented having strict laws and rules to
minimize the degree of uncertainty experienced.
4.8 Summary
Adoption of technology is a cultural issue. The organizations
using information systems are affected by a culture that
should be taken into consideration before integrating any
new technology in any organization (Im et al., 2011). Many
researchers argue that cultural variables need to be incorporated in technology acceptance models (Baptista & Oliveira, 2015; Lu & Lin, 2012) because information
technology used by the people is impacted by cultural values
(Im et al., 2011), and the strength of any model or theory can
be established by considering it across diverse cultures
(Al-Qeisi, 2009). In this regard, Hofstede (1997) argued that
culture has a remarkable influence on user-behavior and
cultural dimensions deliver a theoretical foundation for discovering the adoption of technology. Therefore, in line with
other researchers, such as (AL-Somali & Abdullah, 2012;
Nistor, Lerche, Weinberger, Ceobanu, & Heymann, 2014),
this study extends the UTUAT2 model with the Hofstede’s
cultural dimensions. Thus, this chapter examined the adoption of technology in the cultural context of higher educational institutions. We also discussed Saudi culture, cultural
theories, Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, and technology
adoption models.
References
Adler, N. (2001). International dimensions of organizational behavior.
South-Western Publication.
Al-Gahtani, S. S., Hubona, G. S., & Wang, J. (2007). Information
technology (IT) in Saudi Arabia: Culture and the acceptance and use
of IT. Information and Management, 44(8), 681–691. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.im.2007.09.002.
Al-hunaiyyan, A., Al-hajri, R., Alzayed, A., & Alraqqas, B. (2016).
Towards an effective distance learning model: Implementation
framework for Arab universities. International Journal of Computer
Application, 6(5), 87–102.
Al-Khatib, J. A., Vitell, S. J., Rexeisen, R., & Rawwas, M. (2005).
Inter-country differences of consumer ethics in Arab countries.
International Business Review, 14(4), 495–516. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ibusrev.2005.04.001.
Al-Qeisi, K. (2009). Analyzing the use of UTAUT model in explaining
an online behavior: Internet banking adoption [Brunel University].
http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/bitstream/2438/3620/1/KholoudThesis.pdf.
Al-saggaf, Y. (2004). The effect of online community on offline
community in Saudi Arabia. Ejisdc, 1–16.
Al-Shehri, A. M. (2010). E-learning in Saudi Arabia: “To E or not to E,
that is the question”. Journal of Family & Community Medicine, 17
(3), 147–150. https://doi.org/10.4103/1319-1683.74333.
AL-Somali, & Abdullah, S. (2011). Electronic commerce adoption: A
study of business-to-business practices in saudi arabia. Aston
University.
Alenezi, A. R. (2012). E-learning acceptance : Technological key
factors for successful students’ engagement in E-learning system. In
EEE’12-The 2012 International Conference on e-Learning (pp. 16–
19).
Alharbi, S. J. M. (2006). Perceptions of faculty and students toward the
obstacles of implementing E-Government in educational institutions
in Saudi Arabia. West Virginia: Morgantown.
Aljabre, A. (2012). An exploration of distance learning in Saudi
Arabian universities : Current practices and future possibilities, 2
(2), 132–138.
Baptista, G., & Oliveira, T. (2015). Understanding mobile banking: The
unified theory of acceptance and use of technology combined with
cultural moderators. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 418–430.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.024.
Boldley, J. H. (2004). Cultural anthropology: Tribes, states, and the
global system, with powerweb. McGraw‐Hill.
Bond. (2010). Michael Harris bond. Retrieved from http://michael.
bond.socialpsychology.org.
DiMaggio, P. (1997). Culture and cognition. Annual Review of
Sociology, 23(1), 263–287.
Gallivan, M., & Srite, M. (2005). Information technology and culture:
Identifying fragmentary and holistic perspectives of culture. Information and Organization, 15(2), 295–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
infoandorg.2005.02.005.
Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind.
McGraw Hill.
Hofstede, G. (1980a). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work- related values. Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G. (1980b). Culture and organizations. International Studies
of Management & Organization, 10(4), 15–41.
Hofstede, G. J. (2010). Cultures and organizations- software of the
mind: Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival
(Revised an). McGraw Hill.
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures : The Hofstede model
in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 1–26.
https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014.
Ibrahim, M., Rwegasira, K., & Taher, A. (2007). Institutional factors
affecting students’ intentions to withdraw from distance learning
programs in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: The case of the Arab
Open University. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 10(1).
Im, I., Hong, S., & Kang, M. S. (2011). An international comparison of
technology adoption. Information & Management, 48(1), 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2010.09.001.
4.8 Summary
25