IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0186452.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Engaging with change: Information and communication technology professionals’ perspectives on change in the context of the ‘Brexit’ vote

Author

Listed:
  • Elizabeth Lomas
  • Julie McLeod

Abstract

Background: 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 sought to explore the responses and attitudes to change 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 (referred to as 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. Methods and findings: Data was collected through a survey launched on the first working day after the Brexit referendum vote to leave the EU and kept open for four weeks. The survey contained qualitative and quantitative questions. It sought to understand the opportunities and threats that would exist post-Brexit for ICT professionals and academics triggered by the decision. The research captured a complex rich picture on ICT professionals’ responses to the potential challenge of change triggered by the Brexit vote. Immediately after the Brexit decision the research reveals uncertainties amongst ICT professionals regarding what the decision would mean, with just under half of the participants not identifying any opportunities or threats. For those who did, threats outweighed opportunities by just more than double. Whilst understanding the global possibilities and dangers, participants saw their position from national and organizational perspectives. The highest frequency coded threats related to areas outside the participants’ control and the highest frequency opportunities related to areas where there was the potential for ICT interventions. This survey is part of longitudinal piece of research. Using the same methodological approach two further surveys are planned. The second survey will be one year after Article 50 was triggered on 29 March 2017. The final survey will be one year after the UK exit from the EU, assuming this occurs.

Suggested Citation

  • Elizabeth Lomas & Julie McLeod, 2017. "Engaging with change: Information and communication technology professionals’ perspectives on change in the context of the ‘Brexit’ vote," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(11), pages 1-26, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0186452
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186452
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0186452
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0186452&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0186452?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Archy O. de Berker & Robb B. Rutledge & Christoph Mathys & Louise Marshall & Gemma F. Cross & Raymond J. Dolan & Sven Bestmann, 2016. "Computations of uncertainty mediate acute stress responses in humans," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 7(1), pages 1-11, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Corgnet, Brice & Hernán-González, Roberto & Kujal, Praveen, 2020. "On booms that never bust: Ambiguity in experimental asset markets with bubbles," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    2. Payam Piray & Nathaniel D Daw, 2020. "A simple model for learning in volatile environments," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(7), pages 1-26, July.
    3. Daniel S Kluger & Nico Broers & Marlen A Roehe & Moritz F Wurm & Niko A Busch & Ricarda I Schubotz, 2020. "Exploitation of local and global information in predictive processing," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-17, April.
    4. Brice Corgnet & Simon Gaechter & Roberto Hernán González, 2020. "Working too much for too little: stochastic rewards cause work addiction," Working Papers 2007, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    5. Giovanni Leone & Charlotte Postel & Alison Mary & Florence Fraisse & Thomas Vallée & Fausto Viader & Vincent Sayette & Denis Peschanski & Jaques Dayan & Francis Eustache & Pierre Gagnepain, 2022. "Altered predictive control during memory suppression in PTSD," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-16, December.
    6. Toby Wise & Jochen Michely & Peter Dayan & Raymond J Dolan, 2019. "A computational account of threat-related attentional bias," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-21, October.
    7. Candace M. Raio & Benjamin B. Lu & Michael Grubb & Grant S. Shields & George M. Slavich & Paul Glimcher, 2022. "Cumulative lifetime stressor exposure assessed by the STRAIN predicts economic ambiguity aversion," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-11, December.
    8. Bae, Siye & Jo, Soojin & Shim, Myungkyu, 2023. "United States of Mind under Uncertainty," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 102-127.
    9. Payam Piray & Nathaniel D. Daw, 2021. "A model for learning based on the joint estimation of stochasticity and volatility," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-16, December.
    10. John Deke & Mariel Finucane & Daniel Thal, "undated". "The BASIE (BAyeSian Interpretation of Estimates) Framework for Interpreting Findings from Impact Evaluations: A Practical Guide for Education Researchers," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 5a0d5dff375d42048799878be, Mathematica Policy Research.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0186452. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.