Content uploaded by Arto Lanamäki
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Arto Lanamäki on Apr 16, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Lanamäki et al. / Technology Discourses following Policy Ambiguity
Twenty-Seventh European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2019), Stockholm-Uppsala, Sweden. 1
IS A TAXIMETER A GUARANTEE OF HONESTY OR A BAR-
RIER TO ENTRY? EXPLORING TECHNOLOGY DIS-
COURSES AS CONSEQUENCES OF POLICY AMBIGUITY
Research paper
Lanamäki, Arto, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland, arto.lanamaki@oulu.fi
Väyrynen, Karin, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland, karin.vayrynen@oulu.fi
Iivari, Netta, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland, netta.iivari@oulu.fi
Kinnula, Marianne, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland, marianne.kinnula@oulu.fi
Ventä-Olkkonen, Leena, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland, leena.venta-olkkonen@oulu.fi
Laari-Salmela, Sari, University of Oulu Business School, Oulu, Finland, sari.salmela@oulu.fi
Abstract
Information Systems (IS) researchers have become increasingly interested in policy. Government policy
enables and constrains the range of technologies operating on the market. In the spirit of enabling
innovation, governments around the world have moved to the principle of technological neutrality: reg-
ulating goals instead of specific technologies. In this paper, we focus on the legislative context of the
Finnish taxi industry. Finland’s previous legislation mandated all taxicabs to be equipped with a taxi-
meter, while prohibiting other vehicle classes from using it. Finland’s recent deregulation reform The
Act on Transport Services adopted the principle of technology neutrality and thus introduced deliberate
ambiguity into legal text. This ambiguity leaves room for different stakeholders to construct their own
interpretations. For this paper, we conducted 19 interviews with five stakeholder types in the Finnish
taxi industry and related regulatory bodies: legislators, legislation implementers, new entrants, incum-
bent taxi industry, and incumbent technology providers. We found how policy ambiguity opened a pleth-
ora of contesting discourses about what this seemingly mundane technology is for. We depart from the
mainstream conception of policy, which views policy as a “best practice” that can be easily transferred
across contexts. Instead, we call for more attention to policy ambiguity, multi-stakeholder policy con-
texts, and conflicting power interests.
Keywords: ambiguity, policy, discourse, taxi industry, taximeter, technological neutrality.
1 Introduction
Policy considerations have been part of Information Systems (IS) research for quite some time (Keen,
1980; Zuboff, 1982; Majchrzak, 1984). Information privacy researchers have studied the relationship
between governmental policies and free-market corporate self-governance (Milberg et al., 2000) and
health care IS researchers have studied implications of policies and regulations (Jensen and Aanestad,
2006). Recently, IS researchers have got even more aware of the importance of policy (Majchrzak and
Markus, 2013; Niederman et al., 2017; Clemons and Wilson, 2018). Significant societal consequences
result from contemporary phenomena such as sharing economy and digital transformation (Vial, 2019),
for instance in the context of taxis and ridesharing (Shaikh and Sia, 2018). Majchrzak et al. (2016)
recommend that “IS researchers interested in societal and business change should couple research
findings with public policy and regulation recommendations where relevant.”
Much of IS research treats policy as a singular entity. Policy is often viewed as a “best practice” that
Lanamäki et al. / Technology Discourses following Policy Ambiguity
Twenty-Seventh European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2019), Stockholm-Uppsala, Sweden. 2
once identified can be transferred into other contexts. There is little IS research on policy processes and
consequences, even though policy surrounds with these complex phenomena (Matland, 1995; Scollon,
2012). It is rarely the case that everybody wins once they conform with policy. Instead, policy may
involve controversy and struggle. IS researchers have put little attention to multiple stakeholder policy
contexts involving conflicting interests, even if such contexts definitely shape IS development and use.
For instance, the meaning-making around the European General Data Protection Regulation is one such
context (Grundstrom et al., 2019). Moreover, policies are not often formulated specifically, leaving room
for multiple interpretations. Ambiguous policy-making should be better acknowledged by IS research.
In this study, we address the consequences of the ambiguous policing in the context of the taxi industry
in Finland. When collecting data for our long-term research program on the digital transformation of the
taxi industry (e.g., Väyrynen et al., 2018), we noticed how various stakeholders emphasized the signif-
icance of the taximeter regulation. Taximeter is a standardized and legislatively specified class of tech-
nology in many countries, including the context of this study, Finland. Taximeter is an IT artefact
(Orlikowski and Iacono, 2001), entangling digital and physical elements. Before the deregulation in
Finland in July 2018, a taximeter and its functions were very tightly defined. The new Finnish Act on
Transport Services leaves its definition more open. As our research question, we ask: How do different
stakeholders respond to ambiguity embedded in policy statements concerning taximeters? We examine
ambiguous policy by analysing interviews of key stakeholders affiliated with the Finnish taxi industry
and its surrounding institutions. We adopt a Foucault-inspired discursive approach, positing reality as
materially-discursively constituted (Hardy and Thomas, 2015; Putnam, 2015).
The paper is structured as follows. Next section introduces related research on ambiguity in policy im-
plementation as well as our theoretical lens on discourses. Section three presents the research design
including the procedures of data collection and analysis Section four outlines the empirical findings
while section five concludes the paper by summarizing the results, discussing their implications, and
identifying limitations and paths for future work.
2 Theoretical lens
2.1 Ambiguity in policy implementation
IS researchers have been interested in policy and regulation issues since the beginning of our discipline
(Keen, 1980; Zuboff, 1982; Majchrzak, 1984). During the last decade, policy has gained ever more
importance in our field (Majchrzak and Markus, 2013; Niederman et al., 2017; Clemons and Wilson,
2018). Regardless, policy is often treated narrowly as “recommendations” (cf. Majchrzak et al., 2016),
resembling the highly contested concept of “best practices” (Wagner et al., 2006; King, 2016).
IS research is almost silent about policy ambiguity. Ambiguity is considered the nature of all complex
organizations and their activities (Weick, 2001). It refers to the existence of multiple viewpoints
(Eisenberg, 1984), or “a state of having many ways of thinking about the same circumstances or phe-
nomena” (Feldman, 1989). Ambiguity is exercised for example in the legislative drafting of directives
of the European single market, under the banner of technological neutrality (Koops, 2006; Kamecke
and Korber, 2008). The European Parliament and the Council requires their member states to adopt the
technology neutrality principle in market regulation, “that it neither imposes nor discriminates in favour
of the use of a particular type of technology.”
1
In policy implementation literature, intentional policy ambiguity is seen to provide various benefits.
Ambiguity may here regard either means or goals, and it can be used for numerous reasons (Eisenberg,
1984; Jarzabkowski et al., 2010). The ambiguity of means may occur, for instance, in situations where
1
Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework
for electronic communications networks and services. Available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-con-
tent/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A02002L0021-20091219
Lanamäki et al. / Technology Discourses following Policy Ambiguity
Twenty-Seventh European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2019), Stockholm-Uppsala, Sweden. 3
the technology needed to reach a policy’s goals does not exist, or the division of labour is not clear
(Matland, 1995). Intentional goal ambiguity allows “divergent interpretations to coexist” and “diverse
groups to work together” (Eisenberg and Witten, 1987), to promote a unified diversity in organizations
(Contractor and Ehrlich, 1993), and to facilitate organizational change (Eisenberg et al., 1993). Difficult
issues are easier handled when people need only agree on principles, not details (Eisenberg, 1984; Paul
and Strbiak, 1997). Ambiguity in policy text can also help overcoming value dilemmas (Tracy and
Ashcraft, 2001). It has been shown to limit conflict, and it is often a prerequisite for getting new policies
passed at the legitimation stage (Matland, 1995). Ambiguity allows multiple interpretations (Eisenberg,
2007). Ambiguity may also emerge by itself. Giroux (2006) talks about pragmatic ambiguity: a specific
initiative may result in different interpretations and multiple courses of action.
Ambiguity has its drawbacks. Too much ambiguity can lead to confusion (Sonenshein, 2010; Liu et al.,
2018), resistance (McCabe, 2010) or avoidance of responsibility (Denis et al., 2011). “Escalating inde-
cision” has been reported, regarding repetitive cycles of decision-making without action by stakeholders
with divergent views (Denis et al., 2011). Ambiguity can also have an enabling effect at first, but later
turn into a dissolution of strategic discourse (Abdallah and Langley, 2014).
As to ambiguity in the context of our study, taximeters have been a feature of taxicabs in Finland since
the beginning of the taxi industry in 1906, and they became mandatory in 1962 (Mauranen, 1995). Since
1990s, taximeters are no longer mechanic devices, but digital computers that measure the trip and facil-
itate payments. The government regulates taximeters with several legislative acts, of which the Vehicles
Act is the most important. The Vehicles Act read from 2002 to 2017 as “A vehicle of category M1 used
in passenger transport requiring permit shall be equipped with a taximeter. Other vehicles shall not be
equipped with taximeters.” The spirit of this formulation was specific and restrictive, mandating all taxis
to use a taximeter, while preventing other vehicle classes from using it. The recent deregulation reform
resulted in a technology-neutral reformulation of the Act. The new Act is ambiguous, as it aims to main-
tain compliance with the EU’s Measuring Instruments Directive, while following a laissez-faire princi-
ple allowing the markets to decide what constitutes a taximeter:
“According to a requirement that applies to all taxi transport services, if the price of the journey
is based on measuring the distance or time, a vehicle must have a taximeter, or some other device
or system with which a similar level of measurement accuracy and standard of data protection
can be achieved.”
2
2.2 Discourse lens
We focus on the discourses that emerged after the above mentioned ambiguous legal text was formu-
lated. To study the interpretations of what “a taximeter, or some other device or system” is and does,
we utilized a Foucault-oriented discourse lens. Such a lens has been utilized in IS research extensively
to understand technology design and use (Alvarez, 2002; Iivari, 2010; Hekkala et al., 2014; Iivari et al.,
2015). These studies foreground many power related issues – domination, oppression, resistance and
empowerment around technology design and use. We think this lens is highly suitable in the case of
taximeter and public policing around it, with various interesting developments related to these phenom-
ena are currently on-going in the society and government. Various actors are trying to influence how
taximeter is seen, used and defined. It is not yet obvious who are the ones in the position of power, who
are the oppressed ones, who is resistant and towards what, and who is to be empowered. The situation
was continuously evolving at the time of writing up this study. Due to this, we think our study provides
IS research a highly exciting and novel setting to address societal and government level IS topics that
engage a wide variety of stakeholders with vested interests, while it currently being in the state of flux
whose interests end up as being served and how. So far, IS research has neglected such policy making
complexities at the societal level.
2
The English translation is adopted from the Finnish Ministry of Transportation and Communications: https://www.lvm.fi/doc-
uments/20181/937315/Factsheet+60-2017+Taxi+and+vehicle-for-hire+services+in+the+Act+on+Transport+Services.pdf
Lanamäki et al. / Technology Discourses following Policy Ambiguity
Twenty-Seventh European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2019), Stockholm-Uppsala, Sweden. 4
Discourse lens following Foucault (1972) sees discourses as practices systematically forming the objects
of which they speak. They compete to disseminate preferred understandings of the world. It is important
to acknowledge that meanings are constructed in discourses to serve particular interests. (Foucault,
1972; Weedon, 1987). Hence, in the analysis of discourses, it is essential to ask: who is speaking, who
has the authority to use this language, who is qualified, who has the right to speak, ability to understand,
access to the statements and capacity to invest discourse in decisions, institutions and practices? These
rights and abilities are limited. (Foucault, 1972; Foucault, 1980)
Subjectivity is another central concept within this lens that refers to the ‘individual’s sense of herself and
her ways of understanding her relation to the world’; it refers to the positions with which we ‘structure
our sense of ourselves’ (Weedon, 1987, pp. 32-33). Foucauldian perspective assumes subjectivity to be
fragile, contradictory, and constantly constructed in discourses. Forms of subjectivity are historically
produced and there are always competing forms available (Weedon, 1987; Hall, 1997; Weedon, 2004).
Discourses offer individuals these forms of subjectivity through subject positions that must be occupied
while participating in discourses (Foucault, 1972; Foucault, 1980; Weedon, 1987). People are continu-
ously persuaded to become subjects in discourses that constitute individuals as subjects of a certain kind.
However, the persuasion of individuals as subjects is never final, but continuous and open to challenge.
People do not only adopt discourses and subject positions offered in them, but discourses can also be
questioned and challenged (Weedon, 1987). However, some discourses are more readily available and
more influential than others, while access to some discourses might also be limited to only certain indi-
viduals (Foucault, 1972; Foucault, 1980; Weedon, 1987).
Recently, it has been argued that materiality should be better acknowledged in the discourse perspective.
The focus should be broadened to material-discursive practices that produce, make, configure, and re-
configure reality (Barad 2003, Orlikowski and Scott 2015, Putnam 2015). The Foucauldian approach
focuses primarily on the power of language (Barad, 2003), even though Foucault (e.g. 1972, 1980) did
acknowledge materiality to some extent—viewing discourses as shaping and regulating our conduct and
bodies, as well as objects, spaces, and material practices (see Hardy and Thomas 2015). We
acknowledge that Foucauldian approach is relatively weak in addressing materiality: in acknowledging
the ‘entangled inseparability of discourse and materiality’ (Barad 2003; Orlikowski and Scott 2015, p.
699). In our analysis we nevertheless acknowledge this entanglement by attending to how reality is
produced and made within material-discursive practices (Barad, 2003; Orlikowski and Scott, 2015).
All in all, in this study we examine how “taximeter” is discursively constructed in the interview talk of
several stakeholder groups. We study the material from the perspective of what kind of an object the
taximeter is made to be, what kinds of discourses are produced and reproduced by the interviewees in
situ, what functions the discourses exercise, and what positions can and must be occupied by individuals
to be subjects in these discourses (cf. Foucault, 1972).
3 Research methods and materials
In this exploratory study, our rich data consists of 18 semi-structured interviews (Myers and Newman,
2007) we conducted with 19 interviewees. All the interviewees represent central stakeholders in the
Finnish Taxi industry and its surrounding governmental and technological institutions. These stakehold-
ers represent five categories (Figure 1). Interviews lasted between 39 to 143 minutes. The recorded audio
totals about 25 hours. We applied purposeful sampling (Morse, 1991) when selecting our interviewees.
We, the authors of this paper have backgrounds in discourse studies, IS, and management research. The
data analysis was a collaborative process. First, the interview transcripts were read through several
times. All relevant pieces of text addressing the taximeter were located and saved for deeper analysis.
Then, each snippet of text was examined in collaborative data analysis sessions. We asked various ques-
tions: what kind of object the taximeter was made to be; what kind of discourse on taximeter is being
produced or reproduced; what functions the discourse exercises; and what position is occupied by the
informant when producing and reproducing the discourse. In the third phase, after identification of the
variety of meanings associated with the taximeter and its associated discourses and subject positions,
Lanamäki et al. / Technology Discourses following Policy Ambiguity
Twenty-Seventh European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2019), Stockholm-Uppsala, Sweden. 5
the identified discourses were compared with each other. During this examination, the general approach
towards the taximeter held by the speakers was identified in the discourses as neutral, positive, or neg-
ative (see Table 1 in Section 5.1). After identification of the discourses, we identified five common
themes around which these discourses revolved (see Table 2 in Section 5.1) as well as aspects indicating
the entanglement of discourse and materiality in this case.
Figure 1. 19 interviewees organized under five stakeholder categories.
4 Taximeter discourses as reactions to policy ambiguity
The Finnish Act on Transport Services was signed on 24 May 2017 and took effect on 1 July 2018.
During the year from signing to enacting the law, divergent interpretations emerged of its ambiguous
formulation, particularly related to regulation of taximeters and to what does “a taximeter, or some other
device or system” mean. That leads to questions of what qualifies a device or a system to be comparable
to a taximeter, and what a taximeter is for. Through applying a discursive lens, we identified fifteen
discourses related the traditional taximeter (D1-D15). We present these discourses in relation to the type
of stakeholder: legislator, legislation implementer, incumbent taxi industry, incumbent technology pro-
vider, and new entrant. With legislator, we refer to the Finnish Ministry of Transportation and Commu-
nications, which has written the new transportation legislation. The legislation implementers are those
governmental organizations that are responsible for overseeing the legislation and putting it into action.
Figures 2-6 and Table 1 (in Section 5.1) summarize the discourses that arose. Quote references (Q1-
Q23) in each section refer to the Figure that is presented in the respective section.
4.1 Legislator discourses
Due to the paradoxical aim of the reform to comply both with the EU’s Measuring Instruments Directive
and the demands of the markets, ambiguity emerged. This ambiguity is partly result of the actions of the
legislators who have wished to increase flexibility to allow innovations to emerge. Thus, focus of the
regulation has moved from specifying means to describing goals. Ambiguity is also a natural result from
the paradox as the goals are contradictory.
In the ‘taximeter as not technologically neutral’ discourse (D1), the legislators position the traditional
taximeter and earlier legislation as too restricting; hence, they address them in negative tone. In the
previous version of the legal text, all taxi drivers had to have a taximeter. The regulation is loosened so
that a taximeter is needed only if price of the journey is based on distance and/or time. The basic prin-
ciple is that law should be technology neutral and this is now better achieved. However, compromises
are always needed between flexibility and accuracy (Q2). This discourse indicates that ambiguity of the
Lanamäki et al. / Technology Discourses following Policy Ambiguity
Twenty-Seventh European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2019), Stockholm-Uppsala, Sweden. 6
law is acknowledged if not even intentionally introduced by the legislators (see Q1 and Q3). The situa-
tion overall seems ambiguous and nobody seems to want to take responsibility. Thus, the legislators
state: “We have now regulated the law and Trafi [Finnish Transport Safety Agency] gives further in-
structions. It’s now up to Trafi to take care of this.”
3
The legislators would follow up on how others
interpret the law but were not enforcing any particular interpretation. (Q4)
The legislators were also associated with the ‘taximeter as a replaceable technology’ discourse (D2).
This discourse focuses on the technological capabilities between the taximeter and its alternative tech-
nologies – mainly app-based services relying on GPS positioning technologies à la Uber (Q6). Interest-
ingly, one legislator said that it was in fact Uber that had informed the legislators about the technological
alternatives and how such reforms were done in the United States (Q7). This legislator strongly believed
that GPS-equipped mobile phones provide the same measurement accuracy as taximeters do.
Figure 2. Legislator discourses.
4.2 Legislation implementer discourses
While the legislators framed taximeter largely as an obstacle to innovation, the implementers of legisla-
tion outlined several benefits for taximeters. Taximeters were seen to support proper accounting. When
using a taximeter, it was assumed that taxi entrepreneurs would better comply with tax payment. The
implementers viewed taximeters as more reliable and validated tools in comparison to GPS/software-
based mobile alternatives. An official taximeter was also seen to ensure legal compatibility.
3
Since 1 January 2019, the agency is called Traficom: Finnish Transport and Communications Agency.
Lanamäki et al. / Technology Discourses following Policy Ambiguity
Twenty-Seventh European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2019), Stockholm-Uppsala, Sweden. 7
The discourse on ‘taximeter as supporting accounting for the driver/owner’ (D2) emphasizes the
central role of the taximeter for the accountancy of financial information of the driver and the taxi com-
pany (Q8). According to the law, the taxi entrepreneur must explicitly separate for each taxi vehicle the
amount of professional driving, unprofitable professional driving and personal drives. This is necessary
for proper tax payment. The taximeter supports in providing this information (Q8).
The taximeter was also viewed as means for controlling tax paying in the ‘taximeter as a device of
control’ discourse (D4) and, thus, prohibiting a black economy to develop (Q9). Taximeter systems
collect and store data about all trips. This information can be used for control, especially by the Finnish
tax administration in case of suspected tax avoidance. In addition, digital payments are common already
now in Finnish taxi culture, and guides towards legal compliance (Q10). The taximeter is seen also as a
reliable and validated metering device (D5). In comparison with other technologies, e.g., the ones of
Uber, the taximeter was considered more reliable, as it must be officially calibrated (Q11 and Q12).
Figure 3. Legislation implementer discourses.
There seems to be ambiguity on the level of laws in a wider spectrum, captured in the ‘taximeter as
ensuring legal compatibility’ discourse (D6). Now, “measuring device directive, measuring device
law, transport service law and vehicle law are in conflict” (Int 15). The vehicle law says that when the
pricing of the travel is based on measuring the time or the distance in real time, one must use a taximeter
or corresponding device which follows the measuring device directive. The taximeter was advocated as
compatible with both current and future laws (Q13).
4.3 Incumbent taxi industry discourses
For the incumbent taxi industry, the taximeter is enunciated also in a very positive tone: as a source of
driver’s honesty and as contributing to a positive occupational identity. However, within other
Lanamäki et al. / Technology Discourses following Policy Ambiguity
Twenty-Seventh European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2019), Stockholm-Uppsala, Sweden. 8
discourses it is also approached quite critically: as standing in the way of modernizing taxi cars and as
a thing in the past that is technologically replaceable.
The taximeter is positioned into a significant role in ‘taximeter as a guarantee of the driver’s honesty’
discourse (D7). In this discourse advocating honesty, a taximeter logs all information about how many
kilometres have been driven when the taximeter is switched on, and how long the trip lasted. Towards
the end of the 1970s, the taxation office decided on taking a rather high “estimation taxation” into use
for taxi drivers. Only if taxi drivers could prove that they earned less than what the taxation office as-
sumed, they could pay lower taxes. Based on this, the taximeter was then also used as a cash register
and could be used to proof the right amount of income to the taxation office. As interviewee 10 put it:
“And because of this, at the end of the 1970ies the grey market disappeared from Finnish taxis.” Taxi-
meters are viewed as the reason why taxi drivers pay taxes (Q12). The significance of the taximeter
reaches yet another level in the ‘taximeter as constituting to a driver’s positive occupational iden-
tity’ discourse (D8): it is seen to constitute a positive occupational identity for the taxi drivers and taxi
companies – the public could really trust them. In many countries in Europe and around the world taxi
drivers contribute to the grey market, only reporting part of their income to the taxation office. Also,
there is an extremely low barrier to becoming a taxi driver, and when the natural “entry barrier” is
almost zero, there must be an artificial barrier to ensure that there is at least some level of control over
what happens in the industry. In Finland, taxi driver is seen as an honest occupation (Q15) – at least
partly thanks to the taximeters.
Figure 4. Discourses in the incumbent taxi industry
Within the incumbent taxi industry, the taximeter is not addressed in a positive tone only, however. One
critical perspective brought in by the incumbent taxi industry actors was related to the costs of the taxi-
meter. The taximeter itself costs around 1000 euros. One responder pointed out other costs involved
with the taximeter (Q16). In the ‘taximeter as barrier to renewal’ discourse (D9), costs associated
Lanamäki et al. / Technology Discourses following Policy Ambiguity
Twenty-Seventh European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2019), Stockholm-Uppsala, Sweden. 9
with the taximeter are seen to inhibit the renewal of the taxi fleets. Critical voices around the taximeters
also positioned it as an old-fashioned technology in the ‘taximeter as a replaceable technology’ dis-
course (D10). Some incumbent taxi industry players positioned the possibilities of modern technology
to replace the taximeter. Thus, the taximeter was positioned as a “thing of the past” (Q17).
4.4 Incumbent technology provider discourses
From the incumbent technology provider’s perspective, the discourses were again very positive: the
taximeter is constituted as an affordable device and as ensuring compliance with the law and taxation.
Within the ‘taximeter as an affordable device’ discourse (D11), the incumbent technology providers
emphasized that all stakeholders who were involved in progressing the new Act on Transport Services
– except the parliament/congress – wanted to leave out any mentioning of a taximeter from the Act due
to its costs (Q18). The technology providers, however, wanted to emphasize that the costs of the taxi-
meter are not that high (Q19). According to the incumbent technology providers, the taximeter is valu-
able as it ensures compliance with the law (D12). The incumbent technology providers pointed out
that the “other device or system” that the Act on Transportation Services refers to still must fulfil the
requirements set by the Measuring Instrument Directive 2014/32/EU, which the taximeter already fulfils
(Q20). In the ‘taximeter as supporting taxation’ discourse (D13), the technology providers pointed
out that a taximeter ensures taxation in a correct and trustworthy way. Related to this, the most important
thing is that a measuring instrument calculates correctly, that it works in different kinds of environments,
and most importantly that its memory is not destructible. This indestructibility of the memory supports
taxation (Q21). Hence, taximeter is celebrated as a tool for taxation purposes.
Figure 5. Incumbent technology provider discourses
4.5 New entrants’ discourses
The new entrants to the taxi industry offered alternative discourses, viewing taximeter mostly in a neg-
ative light. The new entrants pointed out that the taximeter is to serve the customer, but that it is also an
obsolete technology, and that it is a barrier to entry in the taxi industry.
The new entrants argue that the taximeter practically is to serve the customers (D14). One of the new
entrants argued that in some of the markets they operate in, the customer directly sees the price of the
ride before starting the ride. In other markets, the customer is shown a price range within which the final
price will fall. Hence, the main function of the taximeter is to provide the customer with safety
Lanamäki et al. / Technology Discourses following Policy Ambiguity
Twenty-Seventh European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2019), Stockholm-Uppsala, Sweden. 10
concerning the price. However, mobile technology enables even better customer safety (Q22, Q23).
The new entrants approached the traditional taximeter in a very critical way as being an obsolete tech-
nology (D15) and replaceable by mobile technology (Q24 and Q25). They also thought that taximeter
is a barrier of entry (D16). One of the interviewees told us that the incumbent taxi industry has lobbied
to ensure that the taximeter must be a separate device. He claimed that the only reason for this was to
maintain a barrier to market (Q26). According to him, this barrier prevents students and part-time work-
ers from earning extra income.
Figure 6. New entrant discourses.
5 Discussion and conclusions
In this paper, we addressed how different stakeholders respond to ambiguity embedded in policy state-
ments around a technology - taximeter. Through our analysis, we identified several discourses of the
traditional taximeter by five stakeholders: the legislator, the legislation implementer, the incumbent taxi
industry, the incumbent technology provider, and the new entrant.
5.1 Summary of the findings
Table 1 summarizes our findings. First, the stakeholders seem to adopt a certain kind of general approach
towards the taximeter in the discourses. While the legislation implementers and the incumbent technol-
ogy providers have a positive approach when talking about the taximeter, the new entrants have a more
negative one. The legislator does not express any greater feelings about the taximeter and has a relatively
neutral approach, being aware that the regulations concerning the taximeter are ambiguous. Interest-
ingly, while all other stakeholder types are internally consistent, the incumbent taxi industry’s discourses
feature both positive and negative aspects of taximeters.
Lanamäki et al. / Technology Discourses following Policy Ambiguity
Twenty-Seventh European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2019), Stockholm-Uppsala, Sweden. 11
Table 1. Summary of stakeholders, taximeter discourses, explanations, and tone of discourse.
Second, ambiguity in the policy text reflects in the discourses of the stakeholders, as they emphasize
different aspects in the taximeter, choosing to interpret the text according to their own interests. They
indirectly refer in their discourses to the wording of the new Act which states that “[…] a vehicle must
have a taximeter, or some other device or system with which a similar level or measurement accuracy
and standard of data protection can be achieved”. For example, the new entrants emphasize measuring
accurately time and distance (and argue then that mobile technology can do this similarly). They thus
want to make the point that the technology they are using fulfils the regulation’s “some other device or
system with which a similar level of measurement accuracy […] can be achieved. Meanwhile, the in-
cumbent technology provider emphasizes indestructibility of the memory of the taximeter, and thus
refers indirectly to the part of the new regulation that states that with this other device or system also a
similar “standard of data protection” must be achieved as is achieved with a traditional taximeter. The
incumbent taxi industry and the new entrants point out the high costs of the taximeter, their interest
being that the taxi drivers would not have to bear the financial burden of the traditional taximeter. In
contrast, the incumbent technology provider emphasizes that these costs are not very high in comparison
to the other costs one has if starting to be a taxi driver. This makes sense, given that the incumbent
technology provider’s business is based on taxis using the technology the technology provider develops
and sells. Overall, all the speakers seemingly were advocating their own interests in the discourses they
produced or reproduced around the taximeter.
Third, we found that the identified discourses revolve around five themes: costs related to the taximeter,
legislation, taxation, technology, and occupational identity (Table 2). Interestingly, most themes are
addressed by several of the stakeholder groups. The speakers sometimes have a shared understanding
of the taximeter (e.g. relating to taxation and legal compliance and control), while other times opposing
views are expressed (e.g., relating to costs and affordability of the taximeter).
Stake-
holder
ID
Discourse: taximeter as ...
Explanation
Tone of
discourse
Legislator
D1
not technologically neutral
Legislators want to enable technological innovation by not speci-
fying the technology.
neutral /
negative
D2
a replaceable technology
Legislators see that the similar measurement accuracy can be
provided by technologies other than the taximeter.
Legislation
imple-
menter
D3
supporting accounting for the
driver/owner
Taximeter operates in such way that it supports proper account-
ing in compliance with the legislation.
positive
D4
a device of control
Taximeter is for controlling the taxpayer, storing important in-
formation, and struggling against grey economy.
D5
a reliable and validated device
Taximeter is a reliable and validated device.
D6
legal compatibility
As ambiguous policing has caused confusion among industry ac-
tors, the taximeter is seen as a safe way to comply with the law
even after the deregulation.
Incumbent
taxi indus-
try
D7
a guarantee of the driver’s
honesty
Taxi drivers pay their taxes because of taximeter “surveillance”.
positive
D8
constituting to a driver’s posi-
tive occupational identity
Taxi driver profession is a respectable occupation (compared to
other countries) in Finland because taximeter helps control the
industry.
D9
a barrier to renewal
Taxi owners do not buy new cars often enough because of high
installation costs of taximeter.
negative
D10
a replaceable technology
If the taximeter is kept in the regulation, then laws are made “for
the past decades”.
Incumbent
technology
provider
D11
an affordable device
Taximeter only costs a fraction of the costs of the car.
positive
D12
ensuring compliance with law
Taximeter is “the safe way” to go as it already complies with the
valid EU directives.
D13
supporting taxation
Taximeter is not “technology free/neutral”. Taximeter calculates
distance/time correctly. Indestructibility of the memory of the
taximeter specifically emphasized.
New entrant
D14
serving the customer
Taximeter provides transparency to customer (customer can be
sure he does not pay more than he should), but mobile technol-
ogy provides even better means for that.
negative
D15
an obsolete technology
Modern cell phones can also measure distance and time suffi-
ciently accurately.
D16
a barrier to entry
Costs of taximeter prevent entry to the field and are a barrier to
competition.
Lanamäki et al. / Technology Discourses following Policy Ambiguity
Twenty-Seventh European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2019), Stockholm-Uppsala, Sweden. 12
We also claim that the taximeter provides interesting opportunities to examine the entanglement of ma-
teriality and discourse (cf. Barad 2003, Orlikowski & Scott 2015): the starting point of our analysis, a
material object of taximeter is shaped by, realizing as well as shaping various kinds of discourses pro-
duced or reproduced by the central stakeholder groups involved in this study. In addition to the taxime-
ter, there are also other material objects as well as practices and human bodies shaped by, shaping and
realizing these discourses, including the taxi cars, taxi drivers, their work practices, laws, policies, and
mobile technology, to name a few. Those are being produced, made, and reconfigured within the process
examined in this paper (cf. Barad 2003, Orlikowski & Scott 2015).
Theme
Discourse (Stakeholder)
Description
Costs
D9 (ITI); D11 (ITP); D16
(NE)
Discourses revolving around costs associated with the taximeter. The NE and the
ITI argued that the costs associated with the taximeter have negative effects,
whereas the ITP emphasized that the taximeter is not that expensive.
Legislation
D1 (L); D3 and D6 (LI); D12
(ITP)
Both the LI and ITP presented the taximeter as the “safe way to go” if one wanted
to ensure compliance with the new legislation. The LI additionally emphasized that
the taximeter is a means to have automatic accounting of the type of journeys (cus-
tomer driving, private driving, etc.) in compliance with the law. The L in contrast
addressed the aspect that the taximeter has been overregulated previously.
Taxation
D4 (LI); D7 (ITI);
The LI and ITI argued that the taximeter ensures that taxi drivers pay their taxes.
Technology
D2 (L); D5 (LI); D10 (ITI);
D13 (ITP); D14 and D15
(NE)
The LI emphasized that the taximeter is a reliable and valid technology, and the ITP
specifically addresses the undestroyability of the memory in a taximeter. The ITI
and NE, in contrast, presented the taximeter to be an outdated, obsolete technology.
Occupational
identity
D8 (ITI)
The ITI emphasized that the taximeter plays a distinct role in the positive occupa-
tional identity of taxi drivers in Finland
L = Legislator; LI = Legislation Implementer; E = New Entrants; ITI = Incumbent Taxi Industry; ITP = Incumbent Technology Provider
Table 2. Themes around which the discourses revolved.
5.2 Implications of the study
Our aim was to understand the consequences of ambiguity in technology policy. For IS research, this
study offers a treatment of the theoretical concept of ambiguity by addressing its benefits and challenges.
It also connects ambiguity to a neglected research area by IS research: governmental policy making. We
were able to show through discourse lens how different stakeholders respond to the ambiguity in tech-
nology policy. The contribution of our study is twofold. First, we suggest that ambiguity gives rise to
different discursive interpretations of technology, otherwise rather stable in the qualities of the ma-
terial artefact. Taximeter gains its social existence through the meanings constructed around it: what
purposes is it for? Ambiguity emerges from the difference between the current taximeter as an existing
material artefact and the renewed technology policy as a rhetorical representation of the technology.
By balancing between accuracy and flexibility in policy decision making, legislators are producing am-
biguity, intentionally or unintentionally. On one hand, goals of the policy are multifaceted which gives
rise to multiple interpretations as highlighted by the differences the interviewees presented. On the other
hand, ambiguity concerns the means: how the goals of the policy are to be implemented by the control-
ling body (legislation implementer) and realized in the actual taxi work practices. The differences are
seen in the discourses and in whether the existing taximeter is seen in a positive or a negative light. In
some occasions, ambiguity seems to serve stakeholders’ own purposes. For instance, new entrants pro-
mote a change in the existing practices by highlighting different goal-setting (measuring distance and
time, serving the customer) at the cost of the more control-oriented goals (e.g., taxation).
Overall, a material-discursive struggle can be seen to emerge around this piece of technology and its
surroundings. Competing discourses existed around the taximeter. Discourses were also negotiated and
challenged (Weedon, 1987; Weedon, 2004). The people producing and reproducing discourses were
competing of the power to define the meanings associated with the taximeter. The discourses were pro-
ducing and advocating understandings of the world, of taximeters in this case, that were serving partic-
ular interests (cf. (Foucault, 1972). Simultaneously, the discourses posit the speakers in distinct ways
(cf. (Foucault, 1972; Weedon, 1987)): as advocates or opponents of taximeters, among other positions.
Many of the interviewees occupy an influential position in the taxi industry. They have a capacity to
Lanamäki et al. / Technology Discourses following Policy Ambiguity
Twenty-Seventh European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2019), Stockholm-Uppsala, Sweden. 13
invest these discourses in practice (cf. (Foucault, 1972; Foucault, 1980)). Materiality can also be argued
of being entangled with these discourses: the taximeter, the speakers and listeners with their human
bodies and work practices as well as other kinds of objects and spaces were shaped by and shaping the
discourses as well as realizing them (see also Barad 2003, Orlikowski & Scott 2015).
Second, thus far, ambiguity has not been addressed in IS policy research (Majchrzak and Markus, 2013;
Majchrzak et al., 2016; Niederman et al., 2017). This study contributes to the IS policy research by
showing the role of ambiguity in technology policy making and implementation: it may enable col-
laboration among divergent parties and open doors for new technologies but at the same time it can
create confusion and conflicts (see e.g. Eisenberg 1984, (Eisenberg and Witten, 1987; Sonenshein, 2010;
Liu et al., 2018). Ambiguity is exercised for example in the legislative drafting of directives of the
European single market, under the banner of technology neutrality (Koops, 2006). The purpose of the
principle of neutrality is to indiscriminate between different types of technologies. Giving up deliber-
ately in specificity in regulation inevitably means the emergence of ambiguity, which results in different
consequences at the level of policy implementation and realization. IS research sees policy often as
normative specification of action and focuses on its implementation and adherence to it, or aims at in-
fluencing it. Yet, organization and strategy researchers have long acknowledged that ambiguity is the
nature of all complex organizations (Weick, 2001). Ambiguity can be an equally good or perhaps better
basis for policy. IS policy research should better acknowledge ambiguity and its possible consequences.
Our observations regarding the role of ambiguity in catalysing the discourses around taximeters hold
practical implications for policy makers and implementers and IS researchers. As technology policy-
making is surrounded by uncertainties due to the technological environment changing at a rapid pace
and the principle of technology neutrality, ambiguity may allow room to adjust to changing circum-
stances. Ambiguity could be used as a discursive resource (Jarzabkowski et al., 2010) already in the
planning phase, giving the legislators a better understanding of different views to the policy before rat-
ification. Policy making could become more as an iterative process, resembling the cyclical patterns of
strategy development and reorientation proposed by Abdallah and Langley (2014).
5.3 Conclusion
We have provided a rich analysis focusing on technology discourses following ambiguous policing of
taximeters. Three central issues arise from our study: First, through policy ambiguity it is possible for
different discursive interpretations of a technology to appear, which opens for a ‘stable material artefact’
a possibility to be something totally else. Second, our observations highlight limitations with the present
notions of policy in IS research. The standard approach to address policy has been through including a
“policy implications” section at the end of research articles. This implies that policy recommendations
are evidence-based “best practices” that can be easily recontextualized. But as shown by Wagner et al.
(2006), claims about “best practices” are dubious. Research should thus embrace the immanent ambi-
guity and acknowledge strong contextuality. Third, our case serves as a demonstration of the entangle-
ment of materiality and discourse: the taximeter is a material object, but it is also tangled in various
discourses. The materiality is not without the discourse and vice versa. An inherent complexity of tech-
nological and legislative transitions exists.
Our research has its limitations. First, our study focused in Finland only. Comparative studies between
different countries could reveal more nuances of policy ambiguity concerning taximeter regulation. Sec-
ond, our data collection ended in summer 2018. When we finished writing this paper in March 2019,
the taximeter policy ambiguity and its conflicting interpretations were still open issues. We intend to
follow up on the developments of this topic. We see policy-oriented research as an important way to
how IS research can inform practice (e.g., Lanamäki et al., 2011; Chiasson et al., 2018). Future research
could also study the taximeter discourses within broader transport policy and taxi/ridesharing regulation
literatures (Beesley, 1973; Collier et al., 2018; Cetin and Deakin, 2019; Paik et al., 2019).
Lanamäki et al. / Technology Discourses following Policy Ambiguity
Twenty-Seventh European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2019), Stockholm-Uppsala, Sweden. 14
References
Abdallah, C. and A. Langley (2014). "The Double Edge of Ambiguity in Strategic Planning." Journal
of Management Studies 51(2), 235-264.
Alvarez, R. (2002). "Confessions of an information worker: a critical analysis of information
requirements discourse." Information and Organization 12(2), 85-107.
Barad, K. (2003). "Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to
matter." Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 28(3), 801-831.
Beesley, M. E. (1973). "Regulation of taxis." The Economic Journal 83(329), 150-172.
Cetin, T. and E. Deakin (2019). "Regulation of taxis and the rise of ridesharing." Transport Policy 76,
149-158.
Chiasson, M., E. Davidson and J. Winter (2018). "Philosophical foundations for informing the future(S)
through IS research." European Journal of Information Systems 27(3), 367-379.
Clemons, E. K. and J. Wilson (2018). "The Future of Academic MIS Research: From Information
Systems Economics to Innovative Business Models, Social Impacts, Public Policy, Regulation, and
the Law." In: 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). Hawaii. pp. 5232-
5241.
Collier, R. B., V. B. Dubal and C. L. Carter (2018). "Disrupting Regulation, Regulating Disruption: The
Politics of Uber in the United States." Perspectives on Politics 16(4), 919-937.
Contractor, N. S. and M. C. Ehrlich (1993). "Strategic ambiguity in the birth of a loosely coupled
organization: The case of a $50-million experiment." Management Communication Quarterly 6(3),
251-281.
Denis, J.-L., G. Dompierre, A. Langley and L. Rouleau (2011). "Escalating indecision: Between
reification and strategic ambiguity." Organization Science 22(1), 225-244.
Eisenberg, E. M. (1984). "Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication." Communication
Monographs 51(3), 227-242.
Eisenberg, E. M. (2007). Strategic ambiguities: Essays on communication, organization and identity.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Eisenberg, E. M., H. L. Goodall and A. Trethewey (1993). Organizational communication: Balancing
creativity and constraint. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Eisenberg, E. M. and M. G. Witten (1987). "Reconsidering openness in organizational communication."
Academy of Management Review 12(3), 418-426.
Feldman, M. S. (1989). Order Without Design: Information Production and Policy Making: Stanford
University Press.
Foucault, M. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language. New York:
Pantheon Books.
Foucault, M. (1980). The History of Sexuality. Volume 1: An Introduction. New York: Vintage Books.
Giroux, H. (2006). "‘It Was Such a Handy Term’: Management Fashions and Pragmatic Ambiguity."
Journal of Management Studies 43(6), 1227-1260.
Grundstrom, C., K. Väyrynen, N. Iivari and M. Isomursu (2019). "Making Sense of the General Data
Protection Regulation – 4 Categories of Personal Data Access Challenges." In: Fifty-Second Annual
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). Hawaii. pp. 5039-5048.
Hardy, C. and R. Thomas (2015). "Discourse in a Material World." Journal of Management Studies
52(5), 680-696.
Hekkala, R., M.-K. Stein and M. Rossi (2014). "“Omega-team is moving to another premise over my
dead body…” Power as discursive-material practice in an IS project." In: Thirty Fifth International
Conference on Information Systems (ICIS). Auckland. pp. 1-16.
Iivari, N. (2010). "Discursive construction of ‘user innovations’ in the open source software
development context." Information and Organization 20(2), 111-132.
Iivari, N., M. Kinnula and L. Kuure (2015). "With best intentions: A Foucauldian examination on
children’s genuine participation in ICT design." Information Technology & People 28(2), 246-280.
Jarzabkowski, P., J. A. Sillince and D. Shaw (2010). "Strategic ambiguity as a rhetorical resource for
enabling multiple interests." Human Relations 63(2), 219-248.
Lanamäki et al. / Technology Discourses following Policy Ambiguity
Twenty-Seventh European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2019), Stockholm-Uppsala, Sweden. 15
Jensen, T. B. and M. Aanestad (2006). "How Healthcare Professionals “Make Sense” of an Electronic
Patient Record Adoption." Information Systems Management 24(1), 29-42.
Kamecke, U. and T. Korber (2008). "Technological neutrality in the EC regulatory framework for
electronic communications: A good principle widely misunderstood." European Competition Law
Review 29(5), 330.
Keen, P. G. W. (1980). "MIS Research: Reference Disciplines and a Cumulative Tradition." In:
International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 1980). Philadelphia. pp. 9-18.
Koops, B.-J. (2006). Should ICT Regulation be Technology-Neutral? In: B.-J. Koops, M. Lips, C. Prins
and M. Schellekens (Eds.), Starting points for ICT regulation: Deconstructing prevalent policy one-
liners, p. 77-108. The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press.
Lanamäki, A., K. Stendal and D. Thapa (2011). "Mutual Informing between IS Academia and Practice:
Insights from KIWISR-5." Communications of the Association for Information Systems 29, 123-132.
Liu, N., S. Y. Tang, X. Zhan and C. W. H. Lo (2018). "Political commitment, policy ambiguity, and
corporate environmental practices." Policy Studies Journal 46(1), 190-214.
Majchrzak, A. (1984). Methods for policy research Applied social research methods study: Sage.
Majchrzak, A. and M. L. Markus (2013). Methods for policy research: Taking socially responsible
action: Sage Publications.
Majchrzak, A., M. L. Markus and J. Wareham (2016). "Designing for Digital Transformation: Lessons
for Information Systems Research for the Study of ICT and Societal Challenges." MIS Quarterly
40(2), 267-277.
Matland, R. E. (1995). "Synthesizing the Implementation Literature: The Ambiguity-Conflict Model of
Policy Implementation." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 5(2), 145-174.
Mauranen, T. (1995). Taksi! Matka suomalaisen taksin historiaan. Forssa: Suomen taksiliitto ry.
McCabe, D. (2010). "Strategy-as-power: Ambiguity, contradiction and the exercise of power in a UK
building society." Organization 17(2), 151-175.
Milberg, S. J., H. J. Smith and S. J. Burke (2000). "Information Privacy: Corporate Management and
National Regulation." Organization Science 11(1), 35-57.
Morse, J. M. (1991). "Strategies for sampling." Qualitative nursing research: A contemporary dialogue,
127-145.
Myers, M. D. and M. Newman (2007). "The qualitative interview in IS research: Examining the craft."
Information and Organization 17(1), 2-26.
Niederman, F., R. Clarke, L. M. Applegate, J. L. King, R. Beck and A. Majchrzak (2017). "IS Research
and Policy: Notes From the 2015 ICIS Senior Scholar's Forum." Communications of the Association
for Information Systems 40, 82-92.
Orlikowski, W. J. and C. S. Iacono (2001). "Research Commentary: Desperately Seeking the "IT" in IT
Research — A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact." Information Systems Research 12(2), 121-134.
Orlikowski, W. J. and S. V. Scott (2015). "Exploring Material-Discursive Practices." Journal of
Management Studies 52(5), 697-705.
Paik, Y., S. Kang and R. Seamans (2019). "Entrepreneurship, innovation, and political competition:
How the public sector helps the sharing economy create value." Strategic Management Journal
40(4), 503-532.
Paul, J. and C. A. Strbiak (1997). "The Ethics of Strategic Ambiguity." The Journal of Business
Communication (1973) 34(2), 149-159.
Putnam, L. L. (2015). "Unpacking the dialectic: Alternative views on the discourse–materiality
relationship." Journal of Management Studies 52(5), 706-716.
Scollon, R. (2012). Analyzing public discourse: Discourse analysis in the making of public policy:
Routledge.
Shaikh, F. A. and S. K. Sia (2018). "Legitimacy Strategies in the Sharing Economy: The Case of Uber."
In: Thirty ninth International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2018). San Francisco. pp. 1-
7
Sonenshein, S. (2010). "We're Changing—Or Are We? Untangling the Role of Progressive, Regressive,
and Stability Narratives During Strategic Change Implementation." Academy of Management
Journal 53(3), 477-512.
Lanamäki et al. / Technology Discourses following Policy Ambiguity
Twenty-Seventh European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2019), Stockholm-Uppsala, Sweden. 16
Tracy, K. and C. Ashcraft (2001). "Crafting policies about controversial values: How wording disputes
manage a group dilemma." Journal of Applied Communication Research 29(4), 297-316.
Wagner, E. L., S. V. Scott and R. D. Galliers (2006). "The creation of ‘best practice’ software: Myth,
reality and ethics." Information and Organization 16(3), 251-275.
Weedon, C. (1987). Feminist practice and post-structuralist thought. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Weedon, C. (2004). Identity and Culture: Narratives Of Difference And Belonging: McGraw-Hill
International.
Weick, K. E. (2001). Making sense of the organization. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Vial, G. (2019). "Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda." The Journal
of Strategic Information Systems.
Väyrynen, K., A. Lanamäki and J. Lindman (2018). Mobile Applications as Carriers of Institutional
Pressures: A Case of the Finnish Taxi Industry. In: S. D. Müller and J. A. Nielsen (Eds.), Nordic
Contributions in IS Research. 9th Scandinavian Conference on Information Systems, SCIS 2018,
Odder, Denmark, August 5–8, 2018, p. 55-68. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Zuboff, S. (1982). "Problems of Symbolic Toil: How People Fare with Computer-Mediated Work."
Dissent 29(1), 51-61.
