Materiality and change: Challenges to building better theory about technology and organizing
Introduction
Building theory about the relationship between information technology and organizing sooner or later leads one to contemplate the line between the material and the social, a line that looks less solid up close than it does from a distance. Contemporary students of technology and organizations generally acknowledge the importance of both the material and the social, regardless of from which side of the distinction they begin or on which side they end up. For example, authors of research on information technology remind readers that despite their materiality, technologies are products of negotiations (Constantinides and Barrett, 2006, Howcroft and Wilson, 2003, Orlikowski, 1992), human agency (Boudreau and Robey, 2005, Poole and DeSanctis, 2004, Vaast and Walsham, 2005) and personal interest (Kling, 1992, Markus and Benjamin, 1996, Scott and Wagner, 2003). Similarly, researchers acknowledge that organizing revolves around the interaction between people and machines (Mohr, 1971, Thompson and Bates, 1957), social and technical subsystems (Barley, 1990, Scott, 1998, Trist, 1981) or social and material practices (Orlikowski, 2002, Schatzki, 2005). In other words, there is general agreement that information technology and organizations both arise at the intersection of social and material phenomena. What remains unresolved, however, is the epistemological and ontological nature of the relationship between the material and the social and, hence, how information technologies and organizing are tied.
The difficulty of specifying the nature of this relationship often leads researchers to what Jackson, Poole, and Kuhn (2002) have called “the tendency to tilt”. Although theorists may argue that social and material factors are equally important, most papers on the creation, perpetuation or change of technologies and organizations eventually favor one or the other. One reason for tilting may be our tendency to conflate two important, but separate, philosophical distinctions: the difference between determinism and voluntarism, on one hand, and the distinction between materialism and idealism, on the other (Barley, 1998). Determinism holds that our actions are caused by technological, cultural and other forces prior to, external to, and independent of our behavior. Voluntarism takes the opposite stance, arguing that humans have agency (what philosophers call “free will”) and can shape their environments to achieve their interests and goals. To be a materialist is to hold that human action stems from physical causes and contexts such as geography, biology, climate, and technology. Conversely, idealists argue that ideas, norms, values, ideologies and beliefs (what most of us call the social) drive human action.
Although the distinction between determinism and voluntarism is orthogonal to the distinction between materialism and idealism, social scientists frequently write as if materialism implies determinism and idealism implies voluntarism. This is simply not the case.1 To be sure, early work on information systems adopted a materialist stance and favored deterministic explanations for technologically-induced organizational change (Leavitt and Whistler, 1958, Mann and Williams, 1960, Swanson, 1974). It is also true that researchers have worked hard to counter the legacy of materialistic determinism by showing that users’ practices, beliefs and agendas significantly shape how information technologies affect organizing and that agency matters even when it is unwitting (Holstrom and Robey, 2005, Orlikowski, 2000, Poole and DeSanctis, 2004, Walsham, 2002). Authors of such studies often explicitly or implicitly criticize materialist accounts for promoting determinism and instead champion a perspective that is both more idealistic and more voluntarist (Boczkowski, 2004, Boudreau and Robey, 2005, Constantinides and Barrett, 2006, Schultze and Orlikowski, 2004).
Yet neither materialistic determinism nor voluntaristic idealism exhausts the universe of viable visions of technology and organizing. For example, it is possible to be an idealist and a determinist, as was Braverman (1974), who argued that technological deskilling was the inevitable outcome of a dominant managerial ideology that stressed the separation of conception from execution. Conversely, one can also be a materialist and a voluntarist, as are most ergonomists, who believe that technologies directly shape human behavior but that because technologies are designed and because designs can be altered, humans can both intend and change the social effects of a technology by redesigning it or, failing that, by refusing to use it.
The problems with conflating determinism with materialism, on one hand, and voluntarism (agency) with idealism (or the social) on the other are twofold. First, tilting to either social or material explanations of change too often becomes value-laden. Those who emphasize the material antecedents of technological or organizational change are often accused of being determinists and, hence, blind to the role that people play in bringing about technologies’ effects on organizing. Conversely, those who privilege social antecedents are chided for ignoring materiality and for being too quick to deny an artifact’s demonstrable constraints and affordances. Over time, such stances acquire a kind of moral authority that warrants programs of research that marginalize and even eschew alternative explanations of empirical findings. This leads to the second and ultimately more important problem: theoretical accounts that are epistemologically and ontologically unable to handle the entwining of the material and the social and that cannot speak with precision about degrees of agency and constraint.
Our agenda in this paper is to move toward reconciling materialism with voluntaristic (or agential) theories of change. Materiality matters for theories of technology and organizing because the material properties of artifacts are precisely those tangible resources that provide people with the ability to do old things in new ways and to do things they could not do before. The materiality of information technology remains grossly under-theorized (Orlikowski and Iacono, 2001, Zamutto et al., 2007), in large part, because conflating materialism with determinism poses subsidiary challenges that make it difficult to tease apart the role of the material and the social.
In this paper we outline four such challenges. The first challenge is simply to recognize that it is possible to talk about a technology’s materiality without also being a determinist. The second challenge is to broaden the range of technologies that contemporary researchers normally choose to study. The third is for researchers to study the relationship between development and use in order to understand how the practices of designers effect users and vice versa. The final challenge is for researchers to realize that they no longer need to demonstrate that technologies can occasion different outcomes in different social contexts. We have reached the point where more can be gained by asking why different organizations experience similar outcomes with the same technology. In outlining these four challenges our goal is to push research in directions that will stimulate new ways of understanding the dynamics of technologically-induced change and enable scholars to build better theory about the role of materiality in the process of organizing.
Section snippets
Acknowledging materiality’s relevance
Technological determinism entered organization studies with the work of early contingency theorists. Having discovered that differences in type of production systems explained considerable variance in her data on the structure of British manufacturing firms, Woodward (1958, p. 16) claimed that “different technologies imposed different kinds of demands on individuals and organizations, and that these demands had to be met through an appropriate organization form”. Perrow (1967, p. 195) advocated
Conclusion
Our goal in this paper has been to examine challenges that confront researchers who study and theorize about the nature of technologically-induced organizational change. Since the late 1970s and early 1980s when micro-computers made the use of information technologies commonplace, students of information systems and organizations have sought to understand the role that artifacts play in organizing work. Partially because scholars have spent nearly 30 years battling the tenants of technological
Acknowledgement
The authors wish to thank Wanda Orlikowski and Dan Robey for alerting us to shortcomings in earlier versions of this manuscript and for suggesting ways to overcome them. We take responsibility for all remaining problems.
References (114)
On the phenomenology of technology: The Janus-faces of mobile phones
Information and Organization
(2003)What can we learn from the history of technology?
Journal of Engineering and Technology Management
(1998)- et al.
Negotiating ICT development and use: The case of telemedicine system in the healthcare region of Crete
Information and Organization
(2006) - et al.
Paradoxes of participatory practices: The Janus role of the systems developer
Information and Organization
(2003) - et al.
Knowledge management technology and the reproduction of knowledge work practices
Journal of Strategic Information Systems
(2000) - et al.
Networks, negotiations and new times: The implementation of enterprise resource planning into an academic administration
Information and Organization
(2003) - et al.
A comparative study of distributed learning environments on learning outcomes
Information Systems Research
(2002) Technology and organizational structure: A reexamination of the findings of the Aston group
Administrative Science Quarterly
(1972)- Barley, S. R. (1984). The professional, the semi-professional and the machine: The social implications of...
Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments
Administrative Science Quarterly
(1986)
Technology, power, and the social organization of work: Towards a pragmatic theory of skilling and deskilling
Research in the Sociology of Organizations
The alignment of technology and structure through roles and networks
Administrative Science Quarterly
The evolution of technology
A dynamic theory of expertise and occupational boundaries in new technology implementation: Building on Barley’s study of CT scanning
Administrative Science Quarterly
Reflections on a work-oriented design project
Human–Computer Interactions
The processes of adopting multimedia and interactivity in three online newsrooms
Journal of Communication
Wakes of innovation in project networks: The case of digital 3-D representations in architecture, engineering, and construction
Organization Science
Enacting integrated information technology: A human agency perspective
Organization Science
Labor and monopoly capital: The degradation of work in the twentieth century
Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory
Organization Science
The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields
American Sociological Review
Introduction
Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals
Administrative Science Quarterly
Characteristics of sociotechnical systems
Sex genes: A critical sociomaterial approach to the politics and molecular genetics of sex determination
Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society
Social construction of communication technology
Academy of Management Journal
Emerging theories of communication in organizations
Journal of Management
An invitation to social construction
Technology in action
Operations technology and organizational structure: An empirical reappraisal
Administrative Science Quarterly
Inscribing organizational change with information technology
Technologies, texts and affordances
Sociology
The social construction of technology in studies of the workplace
Managing organizational innovation
Information technology adoption across time: A cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs
MIS Quarterly
Audiences, narratives and human values in social studies of technology
Science Technology and Human Values
Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge
IT outsourcing success: A psychological contract perspective
Information Systems Research
Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts
Management in the 1980s
Harvard Business Review
A review of culture in information systems research: Toward a theory of information technology cultural conflict
MIS Quarterly
Problematizing “new media”: Culturally based perceptions of cell phones, computers, and the Internet among United States Latinos
Critical Studies in Media Communication
Activating the informational capabilities of information technology for organizational change
Organization Science
Transformational technologies and the creation of New Work practices: Making implicit knowledge explicit in task-based offshoring
MIS Quarterly
Sources of influence on beliefs about information technology use: An empirical study of knowledge workers
MIS Quarterly
Cited by (575)
Technology entrepreneurship is more than one might think
2024, Information and OrganizationHow social media disrupts institutions: Exploring the intersection of online disinformation, digital materiality and field-level change
2023, Information and OrganizationRecovering the divide: A review of the big data analytics—strategy relationship
2023, Long Range PlanningStrategizing Together for a Better World: Institutional, Paradox and Practice Theories in Conversation
2024, Journal of Management InquiryA design approach for building a digital platform to augment human abilities based on a more-than-human perspective
2024, Multimedia Tools and ApplicationsShaping In-Destination Group Decision-Making: The Sociomateriality of Smartphones
2024, Journal of Travel Research