In this essay, I begin with the premise that everyday organizing is inextricably bound up with materiality and contend that this relationship is inadequately reflected in organizational studies that tend to ignore it, take it for granted, or treat it as a special case. The result is an understanding of organizing and its conditions and consequences that is necessarily limited. I then argue for an alternative approach, one that posits the constitutive entanglement of the social and the material in everyday life. I draw on some empirical examples to help ground and illustrate this approach in practice and conclude by suggesting that a reconfiguration of our conventional assumptions and considerations of materiality will help us more effectively recognize and understand the multiple, emergent, and shifting sociomaterial assemblages entailed in contemporary organizing.

Sociomaterial Practices: Exploring Technology at Work

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 perspe...

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

In An Engine, Not a Camera, Donald MacKenzie argues that the emergence of modern economic theories of finance affected financial markets in fundamental ways. These new, Nobel Prize-winning theories, based on elegant mathematical models of markets, were not simply external analyses but intrinsic parts of economic processes. Paraphrasing Milton Friedman, MacKenzie says that economic models are an engine of inquiry rather than a camera to reproduce empirical facts. More than that, the emergence of an authoritative theory of financial markets altered those markets fundamentally. For example, in 1970, there was almost no trading in financial derivatives such as "futures." By June of 2004, derivatives contracts totaling $273 trillion were outstanding worldwide. MacKenzie suggests that this growth could never have happened without the development of theories that gave derivatives legitimacy and explained their complexities. MacKenzie examines the role played by finance theory in the two most serious crises to hit the world's financial markets in recent years: the stock market crash of 1987 and the market turmoil that engulfed the hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management in 1998. He also looks at finance theory that is somewhat beyond the mainstream -- chaos theorist Benoit Mandelbrot's model of "wild" randomness. MacKenzie's pioneering work in the social studies of finance will interest anyone who wants to understand how America's financial markets have grown into their current form.

An Engine, Not a Camera: How Financial Models Shape Markets

This paper proposes an approach to mobility that takes both historical mobilities and forms of immobility seriously. It is argued that is important for the development of a politics of mobility. To...

Towards a Politics of Mobility

This paper describes the emerging field of practice theory as it is practiced in relation to organizational phenomena. We identify three approaches---empirical, theoretical, and philosophical---that relate to the what, the how, and the why of using a practice lens. We discuss three principles of the theoretical approach to practice and offer examples of how practice theory has been used in the organizational literature and in our own research. We end with a discussion of the challenges and opportunities that practice theory affords organizational scholarship.

/pdf/theorizing-practice-and-practicing-theory-36ob7w5wmi.pdf

Theorizing Practice and Practicing Theory

Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor‐Network‐Theory


Purpose
This paper aims to problematize the dominant narrative forms of disciplinary histories of management thought. Specifically, the authors explore the narrative mode of emplotment used in Wren’s (and later Wren and Bedeian’s) 50-year encyclical on the history of management thought, namely, the The evolution of management thought (EMT).


Design/methodology/approach
The authors propose that management histories operate as powerful narratives that shape our understanding of management thought and, consequently, our disciplinary futures. This paper explores the textual narrative of EMT. Additional data are drawn from other scholars’ observations of this text. This paper is positioned in the debates of management history.


Findings
While acknowledging the wealth of historical facts in EMT, the authors argue that the umbrella narrative orders events of the past in such a manner that the historical knowledge follows a form of Darwinian evolutionism. Thus, the narrative leads to problematic representations suffering from progressivism, presentism and universalism.


Research limitations/implications
Disciplinary scholars in management and organization studies need to carefully reflect on how we construct our representations of the past and histories. This will allow us to better craft transparent and reflexive histories.


Originality/value
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first to propose a remedy, albeit a partial remedy, which we believe is needed to avoid adverse epistemological consequences associated with the use of problematic narratives in management and organizational histories.


The evolution of management thought: reflections on narrative structure

Take nothing for granted: Expanding the conversation about business, gender, and feminism


Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to present a reflexive review of ANTi-History written as a reply to a critique by James Reveley, published in the Journal of Management History, called “Firm objects: new realist insights into the sociohistorical ontology of the business enterprise.”


Design/methodology/approach
Reveley’s critique of ANTi-History focuses on three aspects, namely, matters of ontology, actors and relationalism. Using the logic of ANTi-History, the author reviews each and offers a reply.


Findings
This paper demonstrates that ANTi-History is inspired by amodern thought. This condition negates the need and desire to classify social and physical objects in the study of history. Drawing on Actor-Network Theory, ANTi-History assumes that historical actors are heterogeneous, and the consequence is that both human and nonhuman actors should feature in the study of history. The focus, in using ANTi-History, should be in-between the human and nonhuman actors that make up the past and history. This is the premise of using a relational lens.


Originality/value
The review of ANTi-History is structured as a reply to critiques of the approach. In reflecting on these criticisms, the author realizes that ANTi-History has gotten beyond its originators. As one of those originators, the author inspired to continue to develop its strange potential.


The strange potential of ANTi-History: a reply to Reveley

"New Directions in Organisational and Management History." Business History, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print), pp. 1–2 

Gabrielle Durepos

Papers

Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor‐Network‐Theory

The evolution of management thought: reflections on narrative structure

Take nothing for granted: Expanding the conversation about business, gender, and feminism

The strange potential of ANTi-History: a reply to Reveley

New Directions in Organisational and Management History