Engaging with change: Information and communication technology professionals’ perspectives on change at the mid-point in the UK/EU Brexit process

Autoři: Elizabeth Lomas aff001;  Julie McLeod aff002
Působiště autorů: Department of Information Studies, iSchool, University College London, London, England, United Kingdom aff001;  Department of Computer and Information Sciences, iSchool, Northumbria University, Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, England, United Kingdom aff002
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 15(1)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227089



Information and Communication Technology (ICT) has been a key agent of change in the 21st century. Given the role of ICT in changing society, this research explores the responses and attitudes to change over time from ICT professionals and ICT academics in dealing with the potentially far reaching political challenge triggered by the UK’s 2016 European Union Referendum and its decision to leave the European Union (Brexit). Whilst the vote was a UK based decision its ramifications have global implications and as such the research was not confined to the UK. This article presents the second phase of the research at the mid-point in the UK/European Union (EU) Brexit process, thus complementing the findings gathered immediately after the Referendum decision. The fundamental question being researched was: What are ICT professionals’ personal and professional perspectives on the change triggered by Brexit in terms of opportunities and threats?

Methods and findings

Data was collected through a survey launched in March 2018, one year on from the UK’s triggering of Article 50 and marking the mid-point in the two-year Brexit process. The survey replicated the one delivered at the point of the Referendum decision in 2016 with some developments. In addition, two appreciative inquiry focus groups were conducted. The research sought to understand any shifting perspectives on the opportunities and threats that would exist post-Brexit for ICT professionals and academics. 59% of survey participants were negative regarding the Brexit decision. Participants noted the position post-Brexit for the UK, and the remaining 27 EU Member States (EU27), was still very uncertain at this stage. They observed that planned change versus uncertainty provides for very different responses. In spite of the uncertainty, the participants were able to consider and advocate for potential opportunities although these were framed from national perspectives. The opportunities identified within the appreciative inquiry focus groups aligned to those recorded by survey participants with similar themes highlighted. However, the optimum conditions for change have yet to be reached as there is still not an informed position, message and clear leadership with detailed information for the ICT context. Further data will be gathered after the UK exit from the EU, assuming this occurs.

Klíčová slova:

Communications – Elections – European Union – Governments – Qualitative studies – Surveys – Telecommunications – Workshops


1. Data Market. Percentage of the ICT sector in GDP. Reykjavik: Data Market; 2015. Available from: https://datamarket.com/data/set/19r3/percentage-of-the-ict-sector-in-gdp#!ds=19r3!6hv9=

2. Office of National Statistics. E-commerce and ICT activity: 2017. London: OPSI; 2017. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/itandinternetindustry/datasets/ictactivityofukbusinessesecommerceandictactivity.

3. Borgmann A. Holding on to reality: the nature of information at the turn of the millennium. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1999.

4. IT for Change. ICTs for empowerment and social transformation: a brief exploration of the field from the viewpoint of organizational action. Bengaluru: IT for Change; 2013. Available from: http://itforchange.net/icts-for-empowerment-and-social-transformation-a-note-prepared-by-it-for-change-for-actionaid-0.

5. Bodrozic Z., Adler P. (2018) The evolution of management models: a Neo-Schumpeterian theory. Administrative Science Quarterly. 2018; 63(1): 85–129.

6. Bordia P., Hunt E., Paulsen N., Tourish D. and Di Fonzo N. Uncertainty during organizational change: is it all about control? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 2004; 13(3): 345–65.

7. STEEPLE analysis. See for example https://ceopedia.org/index.php/STEEPLE_analysis.

8. Shakoor W. External context of an organization for QMS ISO 9001:2015 (Model) Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal & Environmental Factors (PESTLE). LinkedIn. 2018.

9. Lomas E, McLeod J. Engaging with change: information and communication technology professionals’ perspectives on change in the context of the ‘Brexit’ vote. PLoS ONE. 2017; 12(11): e0186452. Available at: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0186452. 29117185

10. Barrett M., Grant D., and Wailes N. ICT and organizational change: introduction to the special issue. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 2006; 42(1), 6–22.

11. E. More, D. Probert and R. Phaal. Improving long-term strategic planning: an analysis of STEEPLE factors identified in environmental scanning brainstorms. Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET). Portland, 2015; 381–394.

12. Hiatt J. ADKAR: A model for change in business, government and our community. Loveland: Prosci; 2006.

13. Kubler-Ross E. and Kessler D. On grief and grieving: finding the meaning of grief through the five stages of loss. London: Simon and Schuster; 2005.

14. Kotter J. Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press; 1996.

15. Bridge W. Managing transitions: making the most of change. Boston: Da Capo Lifelong Books; 1991.

16. Kelly D. and Connor D. The emotional cycle of change: the 1979 Annual Handbook for Group Facilitators. New York: Pfeiffer; 1979.

17. Lawrence P. How to deal with resistance to change. Harvard Business Review, January 1969.

18. Appelbaum S., Cameron A., Ensink F., Hazarika J., Attir R., Ezzedine R., et al. Factors that impact the success of an organizational change: a case study analysis. Industrial and Commercial Training. 2017; 49(5): 213–230.

19. Appelbaum S., Medea C., MacDonald O. and Nguyen-Quang T. Organizational outcomes of leadership style and resistance to change (part one). Industrial and Commercial Training. 2015; 47(2): 73–80.

20. Appelbaum S., Medea C., MacDonald O. and Nguyen-Quang T.(2015b), Organizational outcomes of leadership style and resistance to change (part two). Industrial and Commercial Training. 2015; 47(3): 135–44.

21. Shum P., Bove L. and Auh S. Employees’ affective commitment to change: the key to successful CRM implementation. European Journal of Marketing. 2008; 42(11–12): 1346–71.

22. Choi M. Employees’ attitudes toward organizational change: a literature review. Human Resource Management. 2011; 50(4): 479–500.

23. Azmy, N. The role of team effectiveness in construction project teams and project performance. Graduate thesis, Iowa State University, Ames; 2012.

24. Armenakis A. and Harris S. Crafting a change message to create transformational readiness. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 2002; 15(2): 169–83.

25. Beer M. and Nohria N. Cracking the code of change. Harvard Business Review. 2000; 78(3): 133–41. 11183975

26. Kotter J. Leading change: why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review. January 2007.

27. Scotland Audit. ICT principles for a digital future: lessons learned from public sector ICT projects. Edinburgh: Audit Scotland; 2017.

28. London Resilience Forum. Lack of information has made it impossible to plan for Brexit. London: Greater London Authority; 2018. Available from: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/london_resilience_partnership_-_brexit_resilience_report.pdf

29. BBC. EU Referendum: The result in maps and charts. 24 June 2016. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36616028.

30. Roberts, R. Voting for Brexit in Hampstead is ‘like coming out as gay in 1950s’, claims Baroness Deech. The Independent, 8 Sept 2017. Available from: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-hampstead-vote-eu-leave-coming-out-gay-1950s-north-london-baroness-deech-a7936786.html.

31. Lynskey D. I thought I’d put in a protest vote: the people who regret voting leave. The Guardian. 25 Nov 2017. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/25/protest-vote-regret-voting-leave-brexit.

32. Kelly J. Brexit: how much of a generation gap is there? BBC News. 24 June 2016. Available from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36619342

33. EU. Infographic: the steps of the Brexit process. 2016. Available from: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/brexit-process/.

34. Rowson J. Deeper into democracy: the legitimacy of challenging Brexit’s majoritarian mandate: would a second European referendum be democratic? Open Democracy. 22 September 2016. Available from: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/deeper-into-democracy-legitimacy-of-challenging-brexit-s-majoritarian-mandate/.

35. YouGov YGC Tracker Brexit Impact 2016. Available from: https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/z9f3relyo6/Coggs_Brexit_2016.pdf.

36. YouGov YGC Tracker Brexit Impact 2017. Available from: https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/3m2r7k2wnx/Coggs_Brexit_2017.pdf.

37. Dyer D. Danny Dyer launches expletive-ladened attack on David Cameron over Brexit-video. The Guardian, 29 June 2018. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/film/video/2018/jun/29/danny-dyer-attacks-david-cameron-over-brexit-video.

38. Rumsfield, D. Press Conference by US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld Nato HQ Brussels, 6 June 2002. Available from: https://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2002/s020606g.htm.

39. House of Lords European Union Committee. Technology ICT sector report. London: Parliament UK; 2017. Available from: https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/Exiting-the-European-Union/17-19/Sectoral%20Analyses/36-Technology-ICT-Report%20FINAL.pdf.

40. Digital Culture and Media Sport Committee. The potential impact of Brexit on the creative industries, tourism and the digital single market. London: House of Commons; 2018. Available from: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmcumeds/365/365.pdf.

41. ScotlandIS. Report on ICT public sector expenditure in Scotland. Linlithgow: ScotlandIS; 2018. Available from: https://www.scotlandis.com/news/2018/january/groundbreaking-insight-into-public-sector-ict-expenditure/.

42. European Parliament Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE). Brexit and ICT policy. Committee Meeting, 19 June 2018. Brussels. Available from: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/itre/events-workshops.html?id=20180605WKS01701

43. Marcus J. The potential impact of Brexit on ICT policy, and possible ways forward for the EU27. Brussels: ITRE Committee Meeting, 19 June 2018. Available from: http://bruegel.org/2018/06/the-potential-impact-of-brexit-on-ict-policy/ and http://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/149625/1-marcus-potential-impact-of-Brexit-on-ICT-policy,-and-possible-ways-forward-for-the-EU27.pdf.

44. The Royal Society. UK research and the European Union: the role of the EU in international research collaboration and researcher mobility. London: Royal Society; 2016. Available from: https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/projects/eu-uk-funding/phase-2/EU-role-in-international-research-collaboration-and-researcher-mobility.pdf

45. Nesta. European Digital City Index. London: Nesta; 2016. Available from: https://digitalcityindex.eu/.

46. Patel O. What will Brexit mean for the Tech industry and digital enterprise. Open Democracy Net, 16 December 2016. Available from: https://www.opendemocracy.net/brexitdivisions/oliver-patel/what-will-brexit-mean-for-london-s-tech-industry-and-digital-entreprene.

47. Reynolds R. Is the ICT sector Brexit-proof? Sawbridgeworth: CBF; 20 September 2017. Available from: https://www.cbfb.co.uk/blog/is-the-ict-sector-brexit-proof/.

48. Atradius. Market Monitor ICT United Kingdom 2018. Cardiff: Atradius; 2018. Available from: https://atradius.co.uk/reports/market-monitor-ict-united-kingdom-2018.html

49. Patton MQ. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Los Angeles: Sage; 1990.

50. Marshall C, Rossman GB. Designing qualitative research. Los Angeles: Sage; 1995,

51. Dafoe A, Lyall J. From cell phones to conflict? Reflections on the emerging ICT-political conflict research agenda. Journal of Peace Research 2015; 52(3): 401–413.

52. Bradley H. Gender and power in the workplace: analysing the impact of economic change. Oxford: Palgrave Macmillan; 1999.

53. Morgan DL. Snowball sampling. In: Given LM, editor. The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Vol. 2. Los Angeles: Sage; 2008. pp. 815–16.

54. Lewins A, Silver C. Using software in qualitative research. London: Sage Publications Ltd; 2007. pp. 91–100.

55. Morgan D. Qualitative content analysis: a guide to paths not taken. Qualitative Health Research. 1992; 3(1): 112–121.

56. Reed J. Appreciative inquiry. Research for change. New York: Sage Publications Ltd; 2006.

57. European Parliament and Council of the European Union. Regulation on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (Data Protection Directive). The General Data Protection Regulation. 2016, L119, pp. 1–88. (4 May 2016).

58. Lomas E, McLeod J. Brexit and Information & Communication Technology (ICT): shaping ICT priorities. London: UCL and Northumbria University; 2018. Available from: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/information-studies/sites/information-studies/files/lomas_mcleod_brexit_final_2018.pdf.

Článek vyšel v časopise


2020 Číslo 1
Nejčtenější tento týden