Theoretical foundations for the study of sociomateriality

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2013.02.002Get rights and content

Abstract

This paper compares two alternative theoretical foundations upon which the study of sociomateriality can be built: agential realism and critical realism. It begins by providing a brief overview of the sociomaterial perspective on organizational practices and considers why this perspective holds great appeal at this point in time. I then engage with Mutch's (2013) critique of the agential realist foundation upon which most current discussions of sociomateriality are constructed to highlight what practical problems are generated when authors attempt to map agential realism's philosophical discussion onto empirical phenomena. Next, I attempt to make explicit what Mutch leaves implicit in his paper: how building studies of sociomateriality on the theoretical foundation offered by critical realism can, potentially, overcome some of the practical problems created by a footing on agential realism. Finally, I push Mutch's arguments one step further to compare what practical consequences arise when researchers attempt to construct studies of sociomateriality on either of these two theoretical foundations. I suggest that there are important implications for what one can study, how one can study it, and how scholars can contribute to theory on technology and organizing based on the theoretical foundation they choose to build upon.

Highlights

► Focuses on the philosophical underpinnings of sociomateriality. ► Compares critical realism to agential realism. ► Distinguishes between materiality and sociomateriality. ► Theorizes relationship between technology and organizational change.

Introduction

Students of information technology in organizations are an ironic bunch. The first definition of “technology” appearing in most English-language dictionaries emphasizes the practical utility and application of knowledge to a particular domain. But for nearly four decades now, information systems (IS) scholars have bemoaned the lack of theoretical sophistication and absence of native theories within the field, arguing that the most practical of all subject matter should become much more theoretical (Gregor, 2006, Straub, 2012, Watson, 2001). Well, their wish has come true. Today one of the most popular, most cited, most debated, and most critiqued topics in the fields of information systems and management is the topic of sociomateriality (see for discussion, Leonardi, Nardi, & Kallinikos, 2012). The concept of sociomateriality is extremely theoretical. Authors who write about sociomateriality attempt to make a pointedly philosophical statement about the relationship between the social and the material that begins, quite overtly, with the name “sociomaterial” — a deliberate fusion of the words “social” and “material.” As Orlikowski (2007: 1437) is often cited as saying about sociomateriality: “the social and the material are considered to be inextricably related — there is no social that is not also material, and no material that is not also social.”

If discussions of sociomateriality have not yet reached a high enough philosophical plane to satisfy those who would see the field of IS become more theoretical, the latest machinations of authors within this perspective will not lead to disappointment. With the general theoretical premise seemingly well accepted that the social and the material are so fundamentally related that it makes little sense to talk about one without talking about the other, scholars have begun to quibble about the theoretical foundations upon which a sociomaterial perspective should be built. And it is at this level of discussion about the theoretical foundations of this emerging line of thought that Kert Lewin's aphorism about nothing being so practical as a good theory might help to break the ironic posture of the field. The seemingly fine-grained theoretical debate initiated by Mutch (2013) about whether a move toward viewing organizational practices and, perhaps, organizations themselves as sociomaterial should be premised upon the insights provided by an “agential realist” or a “critical realist” ontology has very practical consequences for questions scholars ask, the phenomena on which they focus their attention, and, ultimately, the insights and ideas they can generate to improve the way that organizations operate. In fact, as I will suggest below, it is probably the first significant attempt thus far to consider how we might turn a philosophical discussion into practical theory.

To build toward this point, I first provide a brief overview of this notion of sociomateriality and I consider why we are grappling with it at this point in time. I then engage with Mutch's critique of the agential realist foundation upon which most current discussions of sociomateriality are constructed to highlight what practical problems are generated when authors attempt to map agential realism's philosophical discussion onto empirical phenomena. Next, I attempt to make explicit what Mutch leaves implicit in his paper: how building studies of sociomateriality on the theoretical foundation offered by critical realism can, potentially, overcome some of the practical problems created by a footing on agential realism. Finally, I push Mutch's arguments one step further to compare what practical consequences arise when researchers attempt to construct studies of sociomateriality on either of these two theoretical foundations. Although this current paper follows Mutch in making a critique of agential realism, it does so not because I believe that the theoretical foundation of agential realism is in any way inferior to the theoretical foundation of critical realism, but because the genre of critique allows me to most efficiently showcase their differences and the practical choices those differences imply.

Section snippets

Sociomateriality and agential realism

What does it mean to say that something – a technology, a practice, an organization – is sociomaterial? The answer to this question seems to depend a great deal on who is asked. The simplest answer would be to say that the phenomena in question are simultaneously social and material. Still, it is not clear what that means. What is social? What is material? Answering these questions requires some ontological footing. By far, the most widely accepted route to an answer to this question comes

Problems arising from the theoretical foundation of agential realism

It is against this backdrop that Mutch (2013) urges those interested in sociomateriality to pause for some reflection. Mutch contends that although the move to redress the “neglect of the material in broader social and organization theories” (p. XX) is admirable, there are some major drawbacks to erecting a perspective of sociomateriality upon the theoretical foundations of agential realism. Mutch lays out four major problematics; these are summarized in the first two columns of Table 1. The

Concluding remarks

Mutch (2013) entitled his paper “Sociomateriality — Taking The Wrong Turning?” As the title suggests, he equates the sociomaterial perspective with agential realism and makes arguments for why agential realism is flawed. My argument is different than Mutch's argument in two important ways. First, I do not equate agential realism with sociomateriality. The sociomaterial perspective need not be built on one type of foundation only. Just as builders can choose to construct a house on either a

References (76)

  • A. Mutch

    Sociomateriality — A wrong turning?

    Information and Organization

    (2013)
  • E. Vaast et al.

    Representations and actions: The transformation of work practices with it use

    Information and Organization

    (2005)
  • S. Ackroyd et al.

    Realism in contemporary organisation and management studies

  • H.E. Aldrich

    Technology and organizational structure: A reexamination of the findings of the aston group

    Administrative Science Quarterly

    (1972)
  • M. Archer

    Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach

    (1995)
  • M. Archer

    For structure: Its reality, properties, and powers: A reply to Anthony King

    The Sociological Review

    (2000)
  • J. Baptista

    Institutionalisation as a process of interplay between technology and its organisational context of use

    Journal of Information Technology

    (2009)
  • K. Barad

    Meeting the universe halfway: Realism and social constructivism without contradiction

  • K. Barad

    Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter

    Signs

    (2003)
  • K. Barad

    Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning

    (2007)
  • S.R. Barley

    Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observations of ct scanners and the social order of radiology departments

    Administrative Science Quarterly

    (1986)
  • S.R. Barley

    Technology, power, and the social organization of work: Towards a pragmatic theory of skilling and deskilling

    Research in the Sociology of Organizations

    (1988)
  • R. Bhaskar

    The possibility of naturalism

    (1979)
  • P.M. Blau et al.

    Technology and organization in manufacturing

    Administrative Science Quarterly

    (1976)
  • H. Blumer

    The methodological position of symbolic interactionism

  • N. Bohr
    (1963)
  • M.-C. Boudreau et al.

    Enacting integrated information technology: A human agency perspective

    Organization Science

    (2005)
  • W. Buckley

    Sociology and modern systems theory

    (1967)
  • J. Child

    Organizational structure, environment and performance: The role of strategic choice

    Sociology

    (1972)
  • F. Cooren

    Action and agency in dialogue: Passion, incarnation and ventriloquism

    (2010)
  • E. Davidson

    Technology frames and framing: A socio-cognitive investigation of requirements determination

    MIS Quarterly

    (2002)
  • L.E. Davis et al.

    Technology, organization and job structure

  • G. DeSanctis et al.

    Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory

    Organization Science

    (1994)
  • P.J. DiMaggio et al.

    The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields

    American Sociological Review

    (1983)
  • S. Faraj et al.

    The materiality of technology: An affordance perspective

  • P. Faulkner et al.

    On sociomateriality

  • P. Faulkner et al.

    Technological objects, social positions, and the transformational model of social activity

    MIS Quarterly

    (2013)
  • S. Fleetwood

    Ontology in organization and management studies: A critical realist perspective

    Organization Studies

    (2005)
  • A. Giddens

    Central problems in social theory

    (1979)
  • A. Giddens

    The constitution of society

    (1984)
  • S. Gregor

    The nature of theory in information systems

    MIS Quarterly

    (2006)
  • M.H. Jackson et al.

    The social construction of technology in studies of the workplace

  • J. Kallinikos

    Farewell to constructivism: Technology and context-embedded action

  • J. Kallinikos

    Form, function, and matter: Crossing the border of materiality

  • B. Latour

    Science in action

    (1987)
  • B. Latour

    Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts

  • B. Latour

    Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory

    (2005)
  • P.M. Leonardi

    Activating the informational capabilities of information technology for organizational change

    Organization Science

    (2007)
  • Cited by (418)

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    Author note: Paul Leonardi is the Pentair–Nugent Associate Professor at Northwestern University. His research focuses on how companies can create organizational structures and employ advanced information technologies to more effectively create and share knowledge. He is particularly interested in how data intensive technologies, such as simulation and social media tools, enable new ways to access, store, and share information; how the new sources of information these technologies provide can change work routines and communication partners; and how shifts in employees' work and communication alter the nature of an organization's expertise.

    View full text