Nick Carr is an editor and a writer by trade, so he, at least, uses words correctly. One "refutes" an assertion by showing that it is untrue. The study simply doesn't address any assertion made by Nick Carr, so "refutation" just isn't within the realm of the possible.
The study says, simply, that IT installations vary in effectiveness; if they are used more effectively, there are benefits. No one--not Nick Carr, not Eric Lai, not me, no one--doubts this?
In case you are wondering, Nick Carr was arguing about whether IT can provide a transformational benefit, the kind that railroads offered in a different era. He asserts that this kind of benefit is no longer available, because IT has become commoditized. To refute this line of argument, you would have to show that transformational benefits are available, not what the study shows.
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
