Technological Frames Analysis
Also known as: Technological frame analysis, Frame incongruence analysis, Relevant social group framing
Technological frames analysis examines the shared assumptions, goals, and problem-solving strategies through which groups make sense of a technology and act upon it. Introduced by Wiebe Bijker as part of the social construction of technology, a technological frame structures the interaction among members of a relevant social group and binds the meaning of an artefact to their concerns. Wanda Orlikowski and Debra Gash later carried the concept into organisations, showing how different stakeholder groups hold distinct frames about information technology and how the resulting frame incongruence shapes adoption and use. The method reconstructs these frames, analyses their content, and links them to technological outcomes.
Key highlights
- Explains why the same technology is experienced and used differently by different stakeholder groups.
- Connects micro-level sense-making to macro-level outcomes such as adoption, resistance, and artefact stabilisation.
- Provides actionable diagnosis of frame incongruence for managers and designers seeking smoother implementation.
- Bridges STS theory and organisational and information-systems research, making it portable across fields.
Intuition
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
How it works
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
When to use it
Use technological frames analysis when you want to explain how different groups interpret the same technology and how those interpretations shape its design, adoption, or use—particularly in implementation studies and the social construction of artefacts. It suits cases with identifiable stakeholder groups, accessible interview and documentary data, and visible disagreement or negotiation over what a technology means and is for. The method assumes that meaning is group-relative, that frames can be reconstructed from actors' accounts, and that interpretive flexibility precedes closure. It is less appropriate when there is only one homogeneous interpretation, when the analyst seeks quantitative causal generalisation across many sites, or when the focus is on material infrastructure independent of how groups make sense of it.
Strengths & limitations
- Explains why the same technology is experienced and used differently by different stakeholder groups.
- Connects micro-level sense-making to macro-level outcomes such as adoption, resistance, and artefact stabilisation.
- Provides actionable diagnosis of frame incongruence for managers and designers seeking smoother implementation.
- Bridges STS theory and organisational and information-systems research, making it portable across fields.
- Frames are inferred interpretively, so reconstructions depend on the analyst's reading and the candour of informants.
- The boundaries of relevant social groups can be ambiguous, and individuals may hold mixed or shifting frames.
- It can underplay material constraints and power asymmetries that operate beyond shared meanings.
- Static frame snapshots may miss how frames are negotiated and transformed over the lifecycle of a technology.
Common pitfalls
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
Applications
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
Frequently asked
How does a technological frame differ from a relevant social group?
A relevant social group is the set of actors who share a common interpretation of an artefact, while the technological frame is the structured content of that shared interpretation—the assumptions, goals, problems, and strategies that organise the group's interaction with the technology. In Bijker's account the two are tightly linked: the frame is what makes a collection of actors a group, and the group is what the frame structures. The frame is the meaning system; the group is the people who hold it.
What is frame incongruence and why does it matter?
Frame incongruence, in Orlikowski and Gash's terms, is a significant difference in the technological frames held by different groups—for example, managers seeing a system as a control tool while users see it as a work aid. They found that such incongruence is associated with implementation difficulties, conflict, and unintended uses. Diagnosing the specific dimensions of incongruence helps explain resistance and guides interventions to align expectations.
Is technological frames analysis the same as Goffman's frame analysis?
No. Goffman's frame analysis concerns how individuals organise everyday experience into interpretive frames, whereas technological frames analysis concerns the shared, group-level meanings attached specifically to technologies within STS and organisational research. Bijker's and Orlikowski and Gash's frames are about collective sense-making of artefacts and its consequences for design and use, drawing on the social-constructivist tradition rather than on interaction-order sociology.
Sources
- 1.Bijker, W. E. (1995). Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change. MIT Press.ISBN 9780262023764
- 2.Orlikowski, W. J., & Gash, D. C. (1994). Technological frames: making sense of information technology in organizations. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 12(2), 174-207.
You have read it. What now?
Cite this page
ScholarGate. (2026, June 22). Technological Frames Analysis. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/science-technology-studies/technological-frames-analysis