Digital transformation is commonly described in the Information Systems and management literature as an inevitable organizational trajectory, in which non-adoption is interpreted as failure, delay, or resistance to change. However, a growing number of studies examine situations in which organizations intentionally limit, postpone, or selectively implement digital technologies. This raises a disciplinary question: does this body of research represent isolated contributions or the emergence of a distinct research stream — here defined as digital refusal?
To address this question, we conduct a bibliometric analysis using the Bibliometrix package on 586 publications indexed in Web of Science (1992–2026) in the Management category. By combining analysis of annual scientific production and thematic mapping (co-word analysis), the study examines both the temporal evolution and the conceptual structure of the literature.
The results show a non-linear evolution: early studies on non-use and the digital divide are followed by gradual consolidation and rapid expansion after 2020. The thematic map highlights a strongly asymmetric field. A dominant paradigm continues to interpret digital technologies as drivers of innovation and performance, while sustainability research mainly emphasizes efficiency improvements. By contrast, studies on minimization, selective design, and limitation of automation remain peripheral but clearly emerging.
Rather than merely documenting organizational practices, the study reveals a conceptual shift in the academic debate: digital technologies are increasingly regarded not only as solutions to be implemented, but as socio-technical choices to be evaluated. The paper’s contribution lies in mapping the emergence of a research stream that interprets non-adoption as a potential form of technological governance, suggesting a shift from digital transformation to digital moderation.