10 Sociomateriality: Challenging the Separation of Technology, Work and Organization

    We begin by juxtaposing the pervasive presence of technology in organizational work with its absence from the organization studies literature. Our analysis of four leading journals in the field confirms that over 95% of the articles published in top management research outlets do not take into account the role of technology in organizational life. We then examine the research that has been done on technology, and categorize this literature into two research streams according to their view of technology: discrete entities or mutually dependent ensembles. For each stream, we discuss three existing reviews spanning the last three decades of scholarship to highlight that while there have been many studies and approaches to studying organizational interactions and implications of technology, empirical research has produced mixed and often‐conflicting results. Going forward, we suggest that further work is needed to theorize the fusion of technology and work in organizations, and that additional perspectives are needed to add to the palette of concepts in use. To this end, we identify a promising emerging genre of research that we refer to under the umbrella term: sociomateriality. Research framed according to the tenets of a sociomaterial approach challenges the deeply taken‐for‐granted assumption that technology, work, and organizations should be conceptualized separately, and advances the view that there is an inherent inseparability between the technical and the social. We discuss the intellectual motivation for proposing a sociomaterial research approach and point to some common themes evident in recent studies. We conclude by suggesting that a reconsideration of conventional views of technology may help us more effectively study and understand the multiple, emergent, and dynamic sociomaterial configurations that constitute contemporary organizational practices.

    References

    • Ackoff R.L. 1979. The future of operational research is past. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 30(2): 93–104. Google Scholar
    • Aldrich H.E. 1972. Technology and organizational structure: A reexamination of the findings of the Aston group. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1): 26–43. Google Scholar
    • Aiman‐Smith L., Green S.C. 2002. Implementing new manufacturing technology: The related effects of technology characteristics and user learning activities. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2): 421–430. AbstractGoogle Scholar
    • Aral S., Weill P. 2007. IT assets, organizational capabilities and firm performance. Organization Science, 18(5): 763–780. Google Scholar
    • Attewell P., Rule J. 1984. Computing and organizations: What we know and what we don’t know. Communications of the ACM, 27(12): 1184–1192. Google Scholar
    • Austin John L. 1962. How to do things with words, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Google Scholar
    • Avgerou C. 2002. Information systems and global diversity, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
    • Barad K. 2003. Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs, 28(3): 801–831. Google Scholar
    • Barley S.R. 1986. Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observation of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31: 78–108. Google Scholar
    • Barley S.R. 1988. Technology, power, and the social organization of work. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 6: 33–80. Google Scholar
    • Barley S.R. 1990. The alignment of technology and structure through roles and networks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 1–8. Google Scholar
    • Barrett M., Walsham G. 1999. Electronic trading and work transformation in the London insurance market. Information Systems Research, 10(1): 1–22. Google Scholar
    • Bechky B.A. 2003. Object lessons: Workplace artifacts as representations of occupational jurisdiction. American Journal of Sociology, 109(3): 720–752. Google Scholar
    • Berg M. 1997. Of forms, containers, and the electronic medical record: Some tools for a sociology of the formal. Science, Technology & Human Values, 22(4): 403–433. Google Scholar
    • Blau P.M., Falbe C.M., McKinley W., Tracy P.K. 1976. Technology and organization in manufacturing. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21: 20–40. Google Scholar
    • Blauner R. 1964. Alienation and freedom: The factory worker and his industry, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
    • Boudreau M.‐C., Robey D. 2005. Enacting integrated information technology: A human agency perspective. Organization Science, 16(1): 3–18. Google Scholar
    • Bowker G.C., Star S.L. 1999. Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
    • Brin S., Page L. 1998. The anatomy of a large‐scale hypertextual web search engine. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 30: 107–117. Google Scholar
    • Brown J.S., Duguid P. 2000. “Organizational learning and communities of practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation”. In Knowledge and Communities, Edited by: Lesser E.L.Fontaine M.A.Slusher J.A. 196–229. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Google Scholar
    • Brynjolfsson E., Hitt L. 1996. Paradox lost? Firm‐level evidence on the returns to information systems spending. Management Science, 42(4): 541–558. Google Scholar
    • Buenza D., Stark D. 2004. Tools of the trade: The socio‐technology of arbitrage in a Wall Street trading room. Industrial and Corporate Change, 13(2): 369–400. Google Scholar
    • Burkhardt M.E., Brass D.J. 1990. Changing patterns or patterns of change: The effects of a change in technology on social network structure and power. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 104–127. Google Scholar
    • Butler D. 2000. Souped‐up search engines. Nature, 405(6783): 112–115. Google Scholar
    • Butler J. 1990. Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity, New York: Routledge. Google Scholar
    • Callon M. 1986. “Some elements of a sociology of translations: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen in St Brieuc Bay”. In Power, action, and belief: A new sociology of knowledge, Edited by: Law J. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
    • Callon M., ed. 1998. The laws of the markets, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Google Scholar
    • Callon M., Muniesa F. 2005. Economic markets as calculative collective devices. Organization Studies, 26(8): 1229–1250. Google Scholar
    • Carlile P.R. 2002. A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13(4): 442–455. Google Scholar
    • Ciborra, C. & Associates. 2001. From control to drift: The dynamics of corporate information infrastructures , (2nd edn.), Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
    • Collins P.D., Hage J., Hull F. 1986. A framework for analyzing technical systems in complex organizations. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 6: 81–100. Google Scholar
    • Czarniawska B. 1998. A narrative approach to organization studies, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Google Scholar
    • Davis F.D. 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3): 319–340. Google Scholar
    • DeSanctis G., Poole M.S. 1994. Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2): 121–147. Google Scholar
    • Dewett T., Jones G.R. 2001. The role of information technology in the organization: A review, model, and assessment. Journal of Management, 27(3): 313–346. Google Scholar
    • Duguid P. 2005. The art of knowing: social and tacit dimensions of knowledge and the limits of the community of practice. The Information Society, 21: 109–118. Google Scholar
    • Feldman M.S., Pentland B.T. 2003. Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48: 94–118. Google Scholar
    • Friedmann J. 1987. Planning in the public domain, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
    • Fry L.W. 1982. Technology‐structure research: Three critical issues. Academy of Management Journal, 25: 532–552. AbstractGoogle Scholar
    • Gagliardi P., ed. 1990. Symbols and artifacts: Views of the corporate landscape, New York: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar
    • Gherardi S. 2006. Organizational knowledge: The texture of workplace learning, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Google Scholar
    • Gibson J.J. 1977. “The theory of affordances”. In Perceiving, acting, and knowing, Edited by: Shaw R.Bransford J. 67–82. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar
    • Gibson J.J. 1979. The ecological approach to visual perception, Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Google Scholar
    • Giddens A. 1984. The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structure, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Google Scholar
    • Goodman P.Sproull L.Associates, eds. 1990. Technology and organizations, San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass. Google Scholar
    • Griffith T.L. 1999. Technology features as triggers for sensemaking. Academy of Management Review, 24(3): 472–488. AbstractGoogle Scholar
    • Hage J., Aiken M. 1969. Routine technology, social structure, and organization goals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14(3): 366–376. Google Scholar
    • Harvey E. 1968. Technology and the structure of organizations. American Sociological Review, 33(2): 247–259. Google Scholar
    • Hickson D.J., Pugh D.S., Pheysey D.C. 1969. Operations technology, and organization structure: An empirical appraisal. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14: 378–397. Google Scholar
    • Hinds P., Kiesler S. 1995. Communication across boundaries: Work, structure, and use of communication technologies in a large organization. Organization Science, 6(4): 373–393. Google Scholar
    • 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. AbstractGoogle Scholar
    • Hutchby I. 2001. Technologies, texts, and affordances. Sociology, 35(2): 441–456. Google Scholar
    • Introna L.D., Nissenaum H. 2000. Shaping the Web: Why the politics of search engines matters. The Information Society, 16(3): 169–185. Google Scholar
    • Jones M.R. 1998. “Information systems and the double mangle: Steering a course between the scylla of embedded structure and the charybdis of material agency”. In Information systems: Current issues and future challenges, Edited by: Larsen T.Levine L.DeGross J.I. 287–302. Laxenburg: International Federation for Information Processing. Google Scholar
    • Kallinikos J. 2006. The consequences of information: Institutional implications of technological change, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Google Scholar
    • Kipnis D. 1991. The technological perspective. Psychological Science, 2(2): 62–69. Google Scholar
    • Kling R. 1991. Computerization and social transformations. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 16(3): 342–367. Google Scholar
    • Knorr‐Cetina K. 1997. Sociality with objects: Social relations in postsocial knowledge societies. Theory, Culture & Society, 14(4): 1–30. Google Scholar
    • Kraut R., Koch S., Dumais S. 1989. Computerization, productivity, and quality of employment. Communications of the ACM, 32(21): 220–238. Google Scholar
    • Latham R., Sassen S. 2005. Digital formations: IT and new architectures in the global realm, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
    • Latour B. 1987. Science in action, Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
    • Latour B. 1992. “Where are the missing masses? Sociology of a few mundane artefacts”. In Shaping technology, building society: Studies in sociotechnical change, Edited by: Bijker W.Law J. 225–258. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
    • Latour B. 2004. “Nonhumans”. In Patterned ground: Entanglements of nature and culture, Edited by: Harrison S.Pile S.Thrift N. 224–227. London: Reaktion Books. Google Scholar
    • Latour B. 2005. Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor‐network‐theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
    • Law J. 1992. Notes on the theory of the actor‐network: Ordering, strategy and heterogeneity. Systems Practice, 5: 379–393. Google Scholar
    • Law J. 2000. Objects, spaces and others, 1–3. Lancaster, UK: Center for Science Studies, Lancaster University. (http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/papers/Law‐Objects‐Spaces‐Others.pdf) Google Scholar
    • Law J., Urry J. 2004. Enacting the social. Economy and Society, 33(3): 390–410. Google Scholar
    • Leavitt H.J., Whisler T.L. 1958. Management in the 1980s. Harvard Business Review, 36(6): 41–48. Google Scholar
    • Leonard‐Barton D. 1988. Implementation as mutual adaptation of technology and organization. Research Policy, 17(5): 251–267. Google Scholar
    • Jarzabkowski P. 2005. Strategy as practice, London: Sage. Google Scholar
    • MacKenzie D. 2005. “How a superportfolio emerges: Long‐term capital management and the sociology of arbitrage”. In The sociology of financial markets, Edited by: Knorr‐Cetina K.Preda A. 62–83. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
    • MacKenzie D. 2006. An engine not a camera: How financial models shape markets, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
    • MacKenzie D., Millo Y. 2003. Constructing a market, performing theory: The historical sociology of a financial derivatives exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 109: 107–145. Google Scholar
    • Malone T.W., Yates J., Benjamin R.I. 1987. Electronic markets and electronic hierarchies. Communications of the ACM, 30(6): 484–497. Google Scholar
    • Mansell R.Avgerou C.Quah D.Silverstone R., eds. 2007. The Oxford handbook of information and communication technologies, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
    • Markus M.L. 1994. Electronic mail as the medium of managerial choice. Organization Science, 5(4): 502–527. Google Scholar
    • Markus M.L., Robey D. 1988. Information technology and organizational change: Causal structure in theory and research. Management Science, 34(5): 583–598. Google Scholar
    • Powell W.W.DiMaggio P.J., eds. 1991. The new institutionalism in organizational analysis, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
    • Mohr L.B. 1982. Explaining organizational behavior, San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass. Google Scholar
    • Mol A., Law J. 1994. Regions, networks and fluids: Anaemia and social topology. Social Studies of Science, 24: 641–671. Google Scholar
    • Monteiro E., Hanseth O. 1996. “Social shaping of information infrastructure: On being specific about the technology”. In Information technology and changes in organizational work, Edited by: Orlikowski W.J.Walsham G.Jones M.DeGross J.I. 325–343. London: Chapman & Hall. Google Scholar
    • Morgan G., ed. 1983. Beyond method: Strategies for social research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Google Scholar
    • Orlikowski W.J. 2000. Using technology and constituting structures. Organization Science, 11(4): 404–428. Google Scholar
    • Orlikowski W.J. 2002. Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organization Science, 13(4): 249–273. Google Scholar
    • Orlikowski W.J. 2007. Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28: 1435–1448. Google Scholar
    • Orlikowski W.J., Iacono C.S. 2001. Research commentary: Desperately seeking the “IT” in IT research—a call to theorizing the IT artifact. Information Systems Research, 12(2): 121–134. Google Scholar
    • Pentland B.T., Feldman M.S. 2007. Narrative networks, patterns of technology and organization. Organization Science, 18(5): 781–795. Google Scholar
    • Perrow C. 1967. Framework for the comparative analysis of organizations. American Sociological Review, 32: 194–208. Google Scholar
    • Pfeffer J., Leblebici H. 1977. Information technology and organizational structure. Pacific Sociological Review, 20(2): 241–261. Google Scholar
    • Pickering A. 1993. The mangle of practice, agency and emergence in the sociology of science. American Journal of Sociology, 99(3): 559–589. Google Scholar
    • Pickering A. 1995. The mangle of practice, time, agency and science, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
    • Prasad P. 1993. Symbolic processes in the implementation of technological change: A symbolic interactionist study of work computerization. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 1400–1429. LinkGoogle Scholar
    • Rafaeli A. 1986. Employee attitudes toward working with computers. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 7(2): 89–106. Google Scholar
    • Rafaeli A.Pratt M.G., eds. 2006. Artifacts and organizations: Beyond mere symbolism, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar
    • Reckwitz A. 2002. Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2): 243–263. Google Scholar
    • Rice R.E., Aydin C. 1991. Attitudes toward new organizational technology: Network proximity as a mechanism for social information processing. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36: 219–244. Google Scholar
    • Roberts K., Grabowski M. 1996. “Organizations, technology and structuring”. In Handbook of organization studies, Edited by: Clegg S.Hardy C.Nord W. 409–423. London: Sage Publications. Google Scholar
    • Rousseau D.M. 1979. Assessment of technology in organizations: Closed versus open systems approaches. Academy of Management Review, 4: 531–542. AbstractGoogle Scholar
    • Sahlin‐Andersson K.Engwall L., eds. 2002. The expansion of management knowledge: Carriers, flows and sources, Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Google Scholar
    • Schatzki T.R.Schatzki T.R.Knorr‐Cetina K.von Savigny E., eds. 2001. “Practice theory”. In The practice turn in contemporary theory, 1–14. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
    • Schatzki T.R. 2002. The site of the social: A philosophical account of the constitution of social life and change, University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. Google Scholar
    • Schatzki T.R.Knorr‐Cetina K.Savigny E., eds. 2001. The practice turn in contemporary theory, London: Routledge. Google Scholar
    • Scott W.R. 1995. Institutions and organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Google Scholar
    • Scott S.V., Wagner E.L. 2003. Networks, negotiations, and new times: The implementation of enterprise resource planning into an academic administration. Information and Organization, 13(4): 285–313. Google Scholar
    • Sewell G. 1998. The discipline of teams: The control of team‐based industrial work through electronic and peer surveillance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43: 397–428. Google Scholar
    • Silva L., Backhouse J. 1997. “Becoming part of the furniture: The institutionalisation of information systems”. In Information systems and qualitative research, Edited by: Lee A.S.Liebenau J.DeGross J.I. 389–414. London: Chapman & Hall. Google Scholar
    • Slife B.D. 2005. Taking practice seriously: Toward a relational ontology. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 24(2): 157–178. Google Scholar
    • Suchman L.A. 2007. Human–machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
    • Thomas R.J. 1994. What machines can’t do: Politics and technology in the industrial enterprise, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Google Scholar
    • Thompson J.D., Bates F.L. 1958. Technology, organization, and administration. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1: 325–343. Google Scholar
    • Trevino L.K., Webster J., Stein E.W. 2000. Making connections, complementary influences on communication media choices, attitudes, and use. Organization Science, 11(2): 163–182. Google Scholar
    • Trist E.L. 1981. “The sociotechnical perspective: The evolution of sociotechnical systems as a conceptual framework and an action research program”. In Perspectives on Organizational Design and Behavior, Edited by: van de Ven A.H.Joyce W.F. 19–75. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar
    • Trist E.L., Bamforth K.W. 1951. Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall method of coal‐getting. Human Relation, 4(1): 3–38. Google Scholar
    • Tushman M., Anderson P. 1986. Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(3): 439–465. Google Scholar
    • von Hippel E. 1994. “Sticky Information” and the locus of problem solving, implications for innovation. Management Science, 40(4): 429–439. Google Scholar
    • Walsham G. 1993. Interpreting information systems in organizations, Chichester, UK: Wiley. Google Scholar
    • Walsham G., Sahay S. 1999. GIS for district‐level administration in india, problems and opportunities. MIS Quarterly, 23(1): 39–65. Google Scholar
    • Wagner E., Scott S., Galliers R.D. 2006. The creation of “best practice” software, myth, reality and ethics. Information and Organization, 16(3): 251–275. Google Scholar
    • Weick K.E. 1990. “Technology as equivoque”. In Technology and organizations, Edited by: Goodman P.Sproull L.Associates. 1–44. San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass. Google Scholar
    • Weick K.E. 1996. Drop your tools: An allegory for organizational studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 301–313. Google Scholar
    • Wenger E. 1998. Communities of practice, learning, meaningful, and identity, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
    • Whittington R. 2006. Completing the practice turn in strategy research. Organization Studies, 27(5): 613–634. Google Scholar
    • Winner L. 1977. Autonomous technology: Technics‐out‐of‐control as a theme in political thought, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
    • Woodward J. 1958. Management and technology, London: HMSO. Google Scholar
    • Yates J., Orlikowski W.J., Okamura K. 1999. Explicit and implicit structuring of genres, electronic communication in a Japanese R&D organization. Organization Science, 10(1): 83–103. Google Scholar
    • Zammuto R.F., Griffith T.L., Majchrzak A., Dougherty D.J., Faraj S. 2007. Information technology and the changing fabric of organization. Organization Science, 18(5): 749–762. Google Scholar
    • Zuboff S. 1988. In the age of the smart machine, New York: Basic Books. Google Scholar