Materiality, Sociomateriality, and Socio-Technical Systems: What Do These Terms Mean? How Are They Different? Do We Need Them?

Materiality and Organizing: Social Interaction in a Technological World

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages

  Leonardi, Paul M ^a,b,c  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Northwestern University   (United States)

^c NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Constructivism; Materiality; Organization; Socio technical system; Sociomateriality; Technology; Terminology; Theory

Indexed keywords

EID: 84920381013     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199664054.003.0002     Document Type: Chapter

References (78)

1. Aydin, C. and Rice, R. E. (1992). Bringing social worlds together: Computers as catalysts for new interactions in health care organizations. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 33(2), 168-85.
2. Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs, 28(3), 801-31.
3. Barley, S. R. (1986). Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(1), 78-108.
4. Barley, S. R. (1990). The alignment of technology and structure through roles and networks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 61-103.
5. Benders, J., Hoeken, P., Batenburg, R., and Schouteten, R. (2006). First organise, then automate: A modern socio-technical view on erp systems and teamworking. New Technology Work and Employment, 21(3), 242-51.
6. Bijker, W. E. (1995). Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
7. Binder, J., Howes, A., and Sutcliffe, A. (2009). The problem of conflicting social spheres: Effects of network structure on experienced tension in social network sites. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Boston, MA, April 4-9.
8. Bostrom, R. P. and Heinan, J. S. (1977). MIS problems and failures: A sociotechnical perspective. MIS Quarterly, 1(4), 11.
9. Boudreau, M.-C. and Robey, D. (2005). Enacting integrated information technology: A human agency perspective. Organization Science, 16(1), 3-18.
10. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11. Callon, M. (1991). Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. In J. Law (ed.), A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination (pp. 132-61). London: Routledge.
12. Cook, S. D. N. and Brown, J. S. (1999). Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science, 10(4), 381-400.
13. Cummings, T. G. and Srivastva, S. (1977). Management of work: A sociotechnical systems approach. San Diego, CA: University Associates.
14. D'Adderio, L. (2011). Artifacts at the centre of routines: Performing the material turn in routines theory. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(2), 197-230.
15. Dennis, A. R., Fuller, R. M., and Valacich, J. S. (2008). Media, tasks, and communication processes: A theory of media synchronicity. MIS Quarterly, 32(3), 575-600.
16. Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M., and Pisano, G. P. (2001). Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(4), 685-716.
17. Emery, F. (1959). Characteristics of sociotechnical systems. London: Tavistock Institute.
18. Emirbayer, M. and Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Surgery, 103(4), 962-1023.
19. Erickson, T. and Kellogg, W. (2000). Social translucence: An approach to designing systems that support social processes. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 7, 59-83.
20. Faulkner, P. and Runde, J. (2011). The social, the material, and the ontology of non-material technological objects. Paper presented at the European Group for Organizational Studies (EGOS) Colloquium, Gothenburg.
21. Fulk, J. (1993). Social construction of communication technology. Academy of Management Journal, 36(5), 921-51.
22. Fulk, J. Schmitz, J., and Steinfield, C. (1990). A social influence model of technology use. In A social influence model of technology use (eds.), Organizations and communication technology (pp. 117-40). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
23. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Berkeley, CA.: University of California Press.
24. Griffith, T. L. (1999). Technology features as triggers for sensemaking. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 472-88.
25. Griffith, T. L. and Dougherty, D. J. (2001). Beyond socio-technical systems: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 18, 207-18.
26. Hackman, J. R., Oldham, G., Janson, R., and Purdy, K. (1975). A new strategy for job enrichment. California Management Review, 17(4), 57-71.
27. Hughes, T. P. (1987). The evolution of large technological systems. In The evolution of large technological systems (eds.), The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology (pp. 51-82). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
28. Hughes, T. P. (1994). Technological momentum. In M. R. Smith and L. Marx (Eds.), Does technology drive history? The dilemma of technological determinism (pp. 101-13). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29. Kallinikos, J. (2004). Farewell to constructivism: Technology and contextembedded action. In Farewell to constructivism: Technology and contextembedded action (eds.), The social study of information and communication technology: Innovation, actors and contexts (pp. 140-61). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
30. Kallinikos, J. (2011). Governing through technology: Information artifacts and social practice. Basingstroke: Palgrave Macmillan.
31. Kaplan, S. (2011). Strategy and powerpoint: An inquiry into the epistemic culture and machinery of strategy making. Organization Science, 22, 320-46.
32. Kaptelinin, V. and Nardi, B. A. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
33. Latour, B. (1991). Technology is society made durable. In J. Law (ed.), A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination (pp. 103-31). London: Routledge.
34. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
35. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36. Law, J. (1992). Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity. Systems Practice, 5(4), 379-93.
37. Leonardi, P. M. (2007). Activating the informational capabilities of information technology for organizational change. Organization Science, 18(5), 813-31.
38. Leonardi, P. M. (2010). Digital materiality? How artifacts without matter, matter. First Monday, 15(6), Available from: http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/3036/2567.
39. Leonardi, P. M. (2011). When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: Affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 147-67.
40. Leonardi, P. M. Barley, S. R. (2008). Materiality and change: Challenges to building better theory about technology and organizing. Information and Organization, 18(3), 159-76.
41. Liker, J. K., Haddad, C. J., and Karlin, J. (1999). Perspectives on technology and work organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 575-96.
42. Markus, M. L. and Robey, D. (1988). Information technology and organizational change: Causal structure in theory and research. Management Science, 34(5), 583-98.
43. Markus, M. L.,Silver, M. S. (2008). A foundation for the study of it effects: A new look at DeSanctis and Poole's concepts of structural features and spirit. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 9(10/11), 609-32.
44. Mol, A. (2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
45. Monteiro, E. and Hanseth, O. (1995). Social shaping of information infrastructure: On being specific about the technology. In W. J. Orlikowski, G. Walsham, M. R. Jones, and J. I. DeGross (eds.), Information technology and changes in organization work. London: Chapman and Hall.
46. Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398-427.
47. Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404-28.
48. Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28(9), 1435-48.
49. Orlikowski, W. J. (2010). The sociomateriality of organisational life: Considering technology in management research. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34, 125-41.
50. Orlikowski, W. J. Barley, S. R. (2001). Technology and institutions: What information systems research and organization studies can learn from each other. MIS Quarterly, 25, 145-65.
51. 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), 121-34.
52. Orlikowski, W. J. Scott, S. V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433-74.
53. Orlikowski, W. J. Yates, J., Okamura, K., and Fujimoto, M. (1995). Shaping electronic communication: The metastructuring of technology in the context of use. Organization Science, 6(4), 423-44.
54. Pasmore, W. (1988). Designing effective organizations: The sociotechnical perspective. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
55. Perrow, C. (1967). A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations. American Sociological Review, 32, 194-208.
56. Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
57. Pickering, A. (2001). Practice and posthumanism: Social theory and a history of agency. In Practice and posthumanism: Social theory and a history of agency (eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 163-74). London: Routledge.
58. Pinch, T. J. (1996). The social construction of technology: A review. In R. Fox (ed.), Technological change: Methods and themes in the history of technology (pp. 17-35). Amsterdam: Harwood.
59. Pinch, T. J. Bijker, W. E. (1984). The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science, 14, 399-441.
60. Poole, M. S. and DeSanctis, G. (1990). Understanding the use of group decision support systems: The theory of adaptive structuration. In Understanding the use of group decision support systems: The theory of adaptive structuration (eds.), Organizations and communication technology (pp. 173-93). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
61. Poole, M. S. and DeSanctis, G. (1992). Microlevel structuration in computer-supported group decision making. Human Communication Research, 19(1), 5-49.
62. Poole, M. S. and DeSanctis, G. (2004). Structuration theory in information systems research: Methods and controversies. In Structuration theory in information systems research: Methods and controversies (eds.), Handbook of information systems research (pp. 206-49). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
63. Ramirez, A., Walther, J. B., Burgoon, J. K., and Sunnafrank, M. (2002). Information-seeking strategies, uncertainty, and computer-mediated communication. Human Communication Research, 28(2), 213-28.
64. Rice, A. K. (1953). Productivity and social organization in an Indian weaving shed: An examination of some aspects of the socio-technical system of an experimental automatic loom shed. Human Relations, 6(4), 297-329.
65. Rice, A. K. (1958). Productivity and social organization: The Ahmedabad experiment. London: Tavistock.
66. Rice, A. K. (1963). The enterprise and its environment. London: Tavistock Institute.
67. Rice, A. K.,Aydin, C. (1991). Attitudes toward new organizational technology: Network proximity as a mechanism for social information processing. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(2), 219-44.
68. Rice, A. K.,Gattiker, U. (2001). New media and organizational structuring. In New media and organizational structuring (eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 544-81). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
69. Robey, D. and Sahay, S. (1996). Transforming work through information technology: A comparative case study of geographic information systems in county government. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 93-110.
70. Suchman, L. (2000). Organizing alignment: A case of bridge-building. Organization, 7(2), 311-27.
71. Suchman, L. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
72. Sutton, R. I. (2010). Sociomateriality: More academic jargon monoxide [web log comment]. http://bobsutton.Typepad.Com/my_weblog/2010/10/sociomateriality-more-academic-jargon-monoxide.Html
73. Taylor, J. R., Groleau, C., Heaton, L., and Van Every, E. (2001). The computerization of work: A communication perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
74. Thomas, R. J. (1994). What machines can't do: Politics and technology in the industrial enterprise. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
75. Trist, E. L. and Bamforth, K. W. (1951). Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall method of coal-getting. Human Relations, 41(1), 3-38.
76. Volkoff, O., Strong, D. M., and Elmes, M. B. (2007). Technological embeddedness and organizational change. Organization Science, 18(5), 832-48.
77. Woodward, J. (1958). Management and technology. London: HMSO.
78. Zack, M. H. and McKenney, J. L. (1995). Social context and interaction in ongoing computer-supported management groups. Organization Science, 6(4), 394-422.