Sociomateriality

Last updated

Sociomateriality is a theory built upon the intersection of technology, work and organization, that attempts to understand "the constitutive entanglement of the social and the material in everyday organizational life." [1] It is the result of considering how human bodies, spatial arrangements, physical objects, and technologies are entangled with language, interaction, and practices in organizing. Specifically, it examines the social and material aspects of technology and organization, [2] [3] but also emphasizes the centrality of materials within the communicative constitution of organizations. It offers a novel way to study technology at the workplace, since it allows researchers to study the social and the material simultaneously.

Contents

It was introduced after legacies of contingency theory and structuration theory had characterized the field of Information System research in Management Studies. Early papers by Wanda Orlikowski feature structuration theory [4] and practice theory. [5] However, the key papers for sociomateriality stem from the later work of Orlikowski in collaboration with Susan Scott. [1] [3] [6] The concept adopted the focus on relations from Bruno Latour's [7] and John Law's [8] actor-network theory (ANT) and further opposes the Kantian dualism of subject and object drawing on Karen Barad's [9] and Lucy Suchman's [10] feminist studies. Drawing on Barad, sociomateriality proposes the concept of agential realism. Key aspects of sociomateriality are according to Matthew Jones [11] a relational understanding of the world, the observation of day-to-day technology use at the workplace during practices and the inextricability and inseparability of the social and the material.

History

Huber [12] made a fundamental point that as more sophisticated technologies are adopted, they will have profound effects on organizational design and decision-making. From the 1990s onward, it was clear that because of a variety of information and communication technologies being adopted in the workplace, consideration of sociality and materiality in tandem would be met with increasing significance and academic attention. As was pointedly expressed by Barad, 'Language matters. Discourse matters. Culture matters. But there is an important sense in which the only thing that does not seem to matter anymore is matter.' [13] This critical statement is representative of not only the research most scholars in this field do focus on, but pushes forward what they are missing as a result: matter, or, the material. In directing attention toward the material, the theory of sociomateriality was generated.

Early scholars like Joan Woodward and Charles Perrow were bearing a deterministic point of view in their study, and consider the materiality of technologies to be the sole cause of organizational changes. That first generation of research was conducted at a macro-level, with organizations as their unit of analysis. The following strand started looking at individuals as their subject of analysis, and as such, many informal aspects of organizational studies were also taken into account. That marked the emergence of social aspects appearing in scholarly papers about organizational technology—terms like ‘technology-in use’ [14] and ‘socio-technological ensembles’. [15] This stream of thought takes a constructivist position. This position believes that the material features of technology does not matter too much, rather, the way people interpret technology holds the most significance. Both technological determinism and constructivism falls short in describing the whole picture of the relationship between technology and organizations. Then, scholars like Poole and DeSanctis, Monteiro and Hanseth, and Griffith started drawing attention toward technology's material features. Only then did it come to the "materiality" point-of-view, which is to say, the physical properties of technology drove workplace actions. However, the sole use of materiality to describe workplace technology also falls short in describing the whole picture.

Leonardi [16] explains the reason for sociomateriality's existence: '(a) that all materiality (as defined in the prior section) is social in that it was created through social processes and it is interpreted and used in social contexts and (b) that all social action is possible because of some materiality' (p. 32). The emergence of the term “sociomateriality” is a sign of progress over "materiality", in the way that it recognizes that materiality constitutes the social world and the social world also influences technological materiality. Here, “social” could be institutions, norms, discourses, and other human intentions.

Given the growing popularity of materiality and sociomateriality in management and organization theories (e.g. Carlile, Nicolini, Langley, Tsoukas, 2013; [17] Jarzabkowski, Spee & Smets, 2013; [18] Leonardi & Barley [2] ), sociomateriality has become "trendy" for theorists and researchers within other areas such as organizational communication. This is because it imparts a deeper understanding of the contextual, and relational, factors that shape, change and organize human behavior.

Traditionally, concepts employed to study technology use at the workplace were adopted from advancements in philosophy and sociology, such as contingency theory, structuration theory and actor-network theory. However, sociomateriality is the first concept to be developed within the field of Information System (IS) studies, a division of management and organization theory. It has been argued that sociomateriality is 'the new black' of IS. [9] Barad explains that human actors and technological objects are understood to emerge in sociomaterial assemblages. Those assemblages are the results of agential cuts, which transform the boundary objects into temporally stabilized agencies.

Approaches and methods in existing literature

Orlikowski [19] has studied sociomateriality by using a company's BlackBerry-addicted employees and the effects of Google's PageRank algorithm on research practices as case studies. Through interviews and her research, she exemplifies how sociomaterial practices develop both in and outside of the workplace, and how such practices have become acceptable.

Orlikowski and Scott's [3] detailed paper aimed to bridge the theoretical gap seen in organization studies and management research journals by reviewing critical works on technology in order to create two research streams, before proposing a third emerging research genre, sociomateriality. They confront the issues with the existing literature by focussing on the arguments of several scholars over a period of three decades for both research streams. The result is a thoughtful call to action for scholars to regard how understudied technologies are within organizational research, despite their omnipresent nature.

Leonardi [20] discusses the misalignment and alignment of technology's material features and social interactions. His paper sheds light on understanding how technologies are implemented in the workplace—in organizations—without dismissing the human factor. Through use and interaction with technologies, there comes new organizational structure—or, at least, an added layer into preexisting structures or norms.

Contractor, Monge and Leonardi [21] use sociomateriality combined with actor-network theory, and developed a typology that brings technology into the network study.

Existing literature already proves to be thought provoking in terms of understanding big issues, such as what is being compromised by sociomaterial practices, and how are values and assimilation procedures in organizations changing due to technological dependencies.

Even in organizational literature at-large, the ideas and issues of sociomateriality are inadvertently present—which, in itself, warrants the need for further investigations solely through a sociomaterial lens. For instance, Catherine Turco's book The Conversational Firm: Rethinking Bureaucracy in the Age of Social Media is about the transformation of a traditional firm into a more open, non-hierarchical, technology-driven, and social "conversational firm". [22] The discussions presented in her book—from online communication software to office space—intrinsically relate back to sociomaterial practices in the workplace. Most of the firm's successes, and even some failures, all reside in the relationship between the employees, their environment and the technology they use to communicate. These material practices not only change the ways in which communication happens within the firm, but it also changes the way employees behave outside of the office. Turco's ethnographic account of this firm provokes inquiry around the same separation—between technology and the process of organizing within firms—that sociomateriality seeks to bridge.

Other scholars have worked on intersection between organization studies and other, related disciplines. Migration policies, and organizational settings have been analyzed from a sociomaterial perspective, [23] and other researchers have illuminated how higher education and university settings are influenced by objects using a sociomaterial approach. [24] Outside of organization studies, technology theorists, such as Sherry Turkle, have written books that perhaps do not directly tackle sociomateriality, but have it on their horizon. Turkle's two books focus on the affordances, constraints and negative impacts of the social media age on human interactions and dialogue. [25] [26] In his book, William Mitchell proposes, the "trial separation" of bits (the elementary unit of information) and atoms (the elementary unit of matter) is over. With increasing frequency, events in physical space reflect events in cyberspace, and vice versa, rendering a new urban condition—that of ubiquitous, inescapable network interconnectivity.

From such works, it is clear that an ethnographic approach to understanding sociomaterial practices is a way forward in the field, and one can presume many qualitative, empirical studies of this nature will be conducted over the years while organizations continue to evolve and change in light of new technologies. Without a clear research stream on sociomateriality, there will inevitably be a lack of 'understanding of how work is "made to work"'. [3] Nonetheless, these authors are all adding to the new frontier in management and organization theories and research to understand the inextricable sociomaterial relationship between humans and technology.

Despite its popularity in various disciplines, the theorizing of sociomateriality has been critiqued due to its less specific definition of technology and a neglect of broader social structures. [27] In addition, it is believed that the theoretical perspective can benefit from a less obscure vocabulary and more coherent jargon use. [28] In responding to the criticism, Scott and Orlikowski maintain that sociomateriality is a novel and innovative perspective, and scholars should strive to sustain the openness and experimentation in the framing of the theory. [29]

Related Research Articles

Within the realm of communication studies, organizational communication is a field of study surrounding all areas of communication and information flow that contribute to the functioning of an organization. Organizational communication is constantly evolving and as a result, the scope of organizations included in this field of research have also shifted over time. Now both traditionally profitable companies, as well as NGO's and non-profit organizations, are points of interest for scholars focused on the field of organizational communication. Organizations are formed and sustained through continuous communication between members of the organization and both internal and external sub-groups who possess shared objectives for the organization. The flow of communication encompasses internal and external stakeholders and can be formal or informal.

New media are communication technologies that enable or enhance interaction between users as well as interaction between users and content. In the middle of the 1990s, the phrase "new media" became widely used as part of a sales pitch for the influx of interactive CD-ROMs for entertainment and education. The new media technologies, sometimes known as Web 2.0, include a wide range of web-related communication tools such as blogs, wikis, online social networking, virtual worlds, and other social media platforms.

The theory of structuration is a social theory of the creation and reproduction of social systems that is based on the analysis of both structure and agents, without giving primacy to either. Furthermore, in structuration theory, neither micro- nor macro-focused analysis alone is sufficient. The theory was proposed by sociologist Anthony Giddens, most significantly in The Constitution of Society, which examines phenomenology, hermeneutics, and social practices at the inseparable intersection of structures and agents. Its proponents have adopted and expanded this balanced position. Though the theory has received much criticism, it remains a pillar of contemporary sociological theory.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Science and technology studies</span> Academic field

Science and technology studies (STS) or science, technology, and society is an interdisciplinary field that examines the creation, development, and consequences of science and technology in their historical, cultural, and social contexts.

Actor–network theory (ANT) is a theoretical and methodological approach to social theory where everything in the social and natural worlds exists in constantly shifting networks of relationships. It posits that nothing exists outside those relationships. All the factors involved in a social situation are on the same level, and thus there are no external social forces beyond what and how the network participants interact at present. Thus, objects, ideas, processes, and any other relevant factors are seen as just as important in creating social situations as humans.

Social informatics is the study of information and communication tools in cultural or institutional contexts. Another definition is the interdisciplinary study of the design, uses and consequences of information technologies that takes into account their interaction with institutional and cultural contexts. A transdisciplinary field, social informatics is part of a larger body of socio-economic research that examines the ways in which the technological artifact and human social context mutually constitute the information and communications technology (ICT) ensemble. Some proponents of social informatics use the relationship of a biological community to its environment as an analogy for the relationship of tools to people who use them. The Center for Social Informatics founded by the late Dr. Rob Kling, an early champion of the field's ideas, defines the field thus:

A virtual team usually refers to a group of individuals who work together from different geographic locations and rely on communication technology such as email, instant messaging, and video or voice conferencing services in order to collaborate. The term can also refer to groups or teams that work together asynchronously or across organizational levels. Powell, Piccoli and Ives (2004) define virtual teams as "groups of geographically, organizationally and/or time dispersed workers brought together by information and telecommunication technologies to accomplish one or more organizational tasks." As documented by Gibson (2020), virtual teams grew in importance and number during 2000-2020, particularly in light of the 2020 Covid-19 pandemic which forced many workers to collaborate remotely with each other as they worked from home.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wanda Orlikowski</span> American computer scientist

Wanda J. Orlikowski is a US-based organizational theorist and Information Systems researcher, and the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Information Technologies and Organization Studies at the MIT Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Theories of technological change and innovation attempt to explain the factors that shape technological innovation as well as the impact of technology on society and culture. Some of the most contemporary theories of technological change reject two of the previous views: the linear model of technological innovation and other, the technological determinism. To challenge the linear model, some of today's theories of technological change and innovation point to the history of technology, where they find evidence that technological innovation often gives rise to new scientific fields, and emphasizes the important role that social networks and cultural values play in creating and shaping technological artifacts. To challenge the so-called "technological determinism", today's theories of technological change emphasize the scope of the need of technical choice, which they find to be greater than most laypeople can realize; as scientists in philosophy of science, and further science and technology often like to say about this "It could have been different." For this reason, theorists who take these positions often argue that a greater public involvement in technological decision-making is desired.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jannis Kallinikos</span>

Jannis Kallinikos is an organization and communication scholar and intellectual. He was born in the town of Preveza, western Greece. He is also a citizen of Sweden. Kallinikos is currently a professor in the Information Systems and Innovation Group, Department of Management at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). His scholarly projects have over the years covered several themes ranging from the significance writing and notation has assumed in the making of modern organizations through the understanding of markets as semiotic systems to the study of bureaucracy and institutions. His concerns have recently shifted to the investigation of the conditions associated with the penetration of the social and economic fabric by technological information. Kallinikos calls this emerging socio-economic environment, marked by the ubiquitous presence of the Internet, information-based services and software-mediated culture, the habitat of information. The term indicates that the growing involvement of information in society, economy and culture is associated with important changes in the ways institutions operate as well as shifts in behavioural, cognitive and communicative habits.

Karen Michelle Barad is an American feminist theorist and physicist, known particularly for their theory of agential realism.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sociology of the Internet</span> Analysis of Internet communities through sociology

The sociology of the Internet involves the application of sociological or social psychological theory and method to the Internet as a source of information and communication. The overlapping field of digital sociology focuses on understanding the use of digital media as part of everyday life, and how these various technologies contribute to patterns of human behavior, social relationships, and concepts of the self. Sociologists are concerned with the social implications of the technology; new social networks, virtual communities and ways of interaction that have arisen, as well as issues related to cyber crime.

Communicative ecology is a conceptual model used in the field of media and communications research.

Paul M. Leonardi was the Duca Family Professor of Technology Management at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He was also the Investment Group of Santa Barbara Founding Director of the Master of Technology Management Program. Leonardi moved to UCSB to found the Technology Management Program and start its Master of Technology Management and Ph.D. programs. Before joining UCSB, Leonardi was a faculty member in the School of Communication, the McCormick School of Engineering, and the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University.

The technological innovation system is a concept developed within the scientific field of innovation studies which serves to explain the nature and rate of technological change. A Technological Innovation System can be defined as ‘a dynamic network of agents interacting in a specific economic/industrial area under a particular institutional infrastructure and involved in the generation, diffusion, and utilization of technology’.

Agential realism is a theory proposed by Karen Barad, in which the universe comprises phenomena which are "the ontological inseparability of intra-acting agencies". Intra-action, a neologism introduced by Barad, signals an important challenge to individualist metaphysics.

Multi-communicating is the act of managing many conversations at one time. The term was coined by Reinsch, Turner, and Tinsley (2008), who proposed that simultaneous conversations can be conducted using an ever-increasing array of media, including face-to-face, phone, and email tools for communication. This practice allows individuals to utilize two or more technologies to interact with each other.

JoAnne Yates Sloan Distinguished Professor of Management, Emerita at the MIT Sloan School of Management, has worked at the intersection of organization studies and information technology. She has contributed to a number of fields including organizational theory, rhetoric and writing studies, genre theory, business history, archival studies, history of computing, and standardization.

The materiality turn in organization studies is the theoretical movement emphasizing objects, instruments and embodiments involved in organizations and organizing and the ontologies underpinnings theories about organizations and organizing, what deeply 'matters' in the study of organizations and organizing.

Feminist science and technology studies is a theoretical subfield of science and technology studies (STS), which explores how gender interacts with science and technology. The field emerged in the early 1980s alongside other relativist theories of STS which rejected the dominance of technological determinism, proposing that reality is multiple rather than fixed and prioritizing situated knowledges over scientific objectivity. Feminist STS's material-semiotic theory evolved to display a complex understanding of gender and technology relationships by the 2000s, notable scholars producing feminist critiques of scientific knowledge and the design and use of technologies. The co-constructive relationship between gender and technology contributed to feminist STS's rejection of binary gender roles by the twenty-first century, the field's framework expanding to incorporate principles of feminist technoscience and queer theory amidst widespread adoption of the internet.

References

  1. 1 2 Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial Practices: Exploring Technology at Work. Organization Studies (28)9, pp. 1435-1448.
  2. 1 2 Leonardi, P. M., & Barley, S. R. (2010). What’s under construction here? Social action, materiality, and power in constructivist studies of technology and organizing.
  3. 1 2 3 4 Orlikowski, W. J., and Scott, S. V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the Separation of Technology, Work and Organization. The Academy of Management Annals (2)1, pp. 433-474.
  4. ↑ Orlikowski, Wanda J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science (3)3, pp. 398–427.
  5. ↑ Orlikowski, Wanda J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, (11)4, pp. 404–428.
  6. ↑ Orlikowski, W. J. (2010). The Sociomateriality of Organizational Life: Considering Technology in Management Research. Cambridge Journal of Economics (34)1, pp. 125-141.
  7. ↑ Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  8. ↑ Law, J. (1992). Notes on the Theory of the Actor-Network: Ordering, Strategy and Heterogeneity. Systems Practice 5(4), pp. 379-393.
  9. 1 2 Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
  10. ↑ Suchman, L. (2007). Feminist STS and the Sciences of the Artificial. In: New Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. MIT Press.
  11. ↑ Jones (2014). A matter of life and death. exploring conceptualizations of sociomateriality in the context of critical care. MIS Quarterly, 38(3).
  12. ↑ Huber, G. P. (1990). A theory of the effects of advanced information technologies on organizational design, intelligence, and decision making. Academy of management review, 15(1), 47-71.
  13. ↑ Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs, 28(3), 801-831.
  14. ↑ Orlikowski, W. J. (1995). LEARNING FROM NOTES: Organizational Issues in Groupware Implementation. Readings in Human–Computer Interaction, 197-204. doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-051574-8.50023-6
  15. ↑ Bijker, W. E. (1997). Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change. MIT press.
  16. ↑ Leonardi, P. M. (2012). Materiality, Sociomateriality, and Socio-Technical Systems: What Do These Terms Mean? How are They Related? Do We Need Them? SSRN Electronic Journal.
  17. ↑ Carlile, P. R., Nicolini, D., Langley, A., & Tsoukas, H. (Eds.). (2013). How matter matters: Objects, artifacts, and materiality in organization studies (Vol. 3). Oxford University Press.
  18. ↑ Jarzabkowski, P., Spee, A. P., & Smets, M. (2013). Material artifacts: Practices for doing strategy with ‘stuff’. European management journal, 31(1), 41-54.
  19. ↑ Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization studies, 28(9), 1435-1448.
  20. ↑ Leonardi, P. M. (2009). "Why Do People Reject New Technologies and Stymie Organizational Changes of Which They Are in Favor? Exploring Misalignments Between Social Interactions and Materiality." Human Communication Research (35)3, pp. 407-441.
  21. ↑ Contractor, N., Monge, P., & Leonardi, P. M. (2011). Network Theory| Multidimensional Networks and the Dynamics of Sociomateriality: Bringing Technology Inside the Network. International Journal of Communication, 5, 39.
  22. ↑ Turco, C. J. (2016). The Conversational Firm: Rethinking Bureaucracy in the Age of Social Media. New York: Columbia University Press.
  23. ↑ Hultin, L. Introna (2019) On receiving asylum seekers: Identity working as a process of material-discursive interpellation. Organization Studies
  24. ↑ Lueg, K., Graf, A., & Boje, D. (2022). A Danish case study of a sociomaterial construction of a new nomos and purpose of higher education. Higher Education. doi 10.1007/s10734-022-00844-6
  25. ↑ Turkle, S. (2011). Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. New York: Basic Books.
  26. ↑ Turkle, S. (2015). Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in a Digital Age. New York: Penguin.
  27. ↑ Mutch, Alistair (2013). "Sociomateriality—Taking the wrong turning?". Information and Organization. 23 (1): 28-40. doi:10.1016/j.infoandorg.2013.02.001.
  28. ↑ Kautz, Karlheinz; Jensen, Tina (2013). "Sociomateriality at the royal court of IS: A jester's monologue". Information and Organization. 23 (1): 28-40. doi:10.1016/j.infoandorg.2013.01.001.
  29. ↑ Scott, Susan; Orlikowski, Wanda (2013). "Sociomateriality — taking the wrong turning? A response to Mutch" (PDF). Information and Organization. 23 (2): 77-80. doi:10.1016/j.infoandorg.2013.02.003. hdl: 1721.1/108097 . S2CID   12266127.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.