Theoretical foundations for the study of sociomateriality
TL;DR: This paper compares two alternative theoretical foundations upon which the study of sociomateriality can be built: agential realism and critical realism.
About: This article is published in Information and Organization.The article was published on 2013-04-01. It has received 498 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Critical realism (philosophy of perception) & Realism.
Citations
More filters
01 Jan 2008
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them, and describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative.
Abstract: What makes organizations so similar? We contend that the engine of rationalization and bureaucratization has moved from the competitive marketplace to the state and the professions. Once a set of organizations emerges as a field, a paradox arises: rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them. We describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative—leading to this outcome. We then specify hypotheses about the impact of resource centralization and dependency, goal ambiguity and technical uncertainty, and professionalization and structuration on isomorphic change. Finally, we suggest implications for theories of organizations and social change.
2,134 citations
[...]
TL;DR: Mitsch et al. as mentioned in this paper published a Journal of Ecological Engineering (JEE) article with the title of "The Future of Ecology: A Review of Recent Developments".
Abstract: Ecological Engineering: Journal of Ecotechnology. Editor-in-chief William J. Mitsch. Elsevier. 4/yr. DFL 361, $195.
1,161 citations
TL;DR: This study aims to clarify inconsistencies regarding the term affordances by examining how affordances terminology is used in empirical research on communication and technology through an analysis of 82 communication-oriented scholarly works on affordances.
Abstract: This study aims to clarify inconsistencies regarding the term affordances by examining how affordances terminology is used in empirical research on communication and technology. Through an analysis of 82 communication-oriented scholarly works on affordances, we identify 3 inconsistencies regarding the use of this term. First, much research describes a particular affordance without engaging other scholarship addressing that affordance. Second, several studies identify "lists" of affordances without conceptually developing individual affordances within those lists. Third, the affordances perspective is evoked in situations where the purported affordance does not meet commonly accepted definitions. We conclude with a set of criteria to aid scholars in evaluating their assumptions about affordances and to facilitate a more consistent approach to its conceptualization and application.
518 citations
TL;DR: There is limited evidence on the use of DT for dealing with the consequences of extreme events, such as COVID-19, and the managerial implications of using DT within SMEs to deal with the repercussions of CO VID-19 and securing business continuity are discussed.
340 citations
Cites background from "Theoretical foundations for the stu..."
...…and technical, which may be distinct but should be perceived as being mutually interlocked in order to be achieving outcomes effectively (Leonardi et al., 2012, Leonardi, 2013; Cecez-Kecmanovic, Galliers, Henfridsson, Newell, & Vidgen, 2014; Anagnostopoulos, Papadopoulos, Stamati, & Balta, 2018)....
[...]
TL;DR: This special issue on “Sociomateriality of Information Systems and Organizing” highlights the mounting interest in the relationship between the social and the material, in the context of the authors' increasingly digital society.
Abstract: Our motivation for putting together this special issue on “Sociomateriality of Information Systems and Organizing” was the mounting interest in the relationship between the social and the material, in the context of our increasingly digital society. The attention to this relationship is manifested in the emergence of studies of technology intended to augment and complement, but also and importantly, to question the received views on technology in social life (see Carlile et al. 2013a; Leonardi et al. 2012; Suchman, 2007).
316 citations
Cites background from "Theoretical foundations for the stu..."
...Leonardi (2012, 2013) is the most vocal in arguing for a view of sociomateriality that is grounded in substantialist ontology....
[...]
...…implemented in an organizational context, technology’s materiality “becomes important because users react to the technology’s materiality—a materiality they perceived as bounded and stable—when translating it from the realm of the artifactual into the realm of the social” (Leonardi 2013, p. 162)....
[...]
References
More filters
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them, and describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative.
Abstract: What makes organizations so similar? We contend that the engine of rationalization and bureaucratization has moved from the competitive marketplace to the state and the professions. Once a set of organizations emerges as a field, a paradox arises: rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them. We describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative—leading to this outcome. We then specify hypotheses about the impact of resource centralization and dependency, goal ambiguity and technical uncertainty, and professionalization and structuration on isomorphic change. Finally, we suggest implications for theories of organizations and social change.
32,981 citations
Posted Content•
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors developed an evolutionary theory of the capabilities and behavior of business firms operating in a market environment, including both general discussion and the manipulation of specific simulation models consistent with that theory.
Abstract: This study develops an evolutionary theory of the capabilities and behavior of business firms operating in a market environment. It includes both general discussion and the manipulation of specific simulation models consistent with that theory. The analysis outlines the differences between an evolutionary theory of organizational and industrial change and a neoclassical microeconomic theory. The antecedents to the former are studies by economists like Schumpeter (1934) and Alchian (1950). It is contrasted with the orthodox theory in the following aspects: while the evolutionary theory views firms as motivated by profit, their actions are not assumed to be profit maximizing, as in orthodox theory; the evolutionary theory stresses the tendency of most profitable firms to drive other firms out of business, but, in contrast to orthodox theory, does not concentrate on the state of industry equilibrium; and evolutionary theory is related to behavioral theory: it views firms, at any given time, as having certain capabilities and decision rules, as well as engaging in various ‘search' operations, which determines their behavior; while orthodox theory views firm behavior as relying on the use of the usual calculus maximization techniques. The theory is then made operational by the use of simulation methods. These models use Markov processes and analyze selection equilibrium, responses to changing factor prices, economic growth with endogenous technical change, Schumpeterian competition, and Schumpeterian tradeoff between static Pareto-efficiency and innovation. The study's discussion of search behavior complicates the evolutionary theory. With search, the decision making process in a firm relies as much on past experience as on innovative alternatives to past behavior. This view combines Darwinian and Lamarkian views on evolution; firms are seen as both passive with regard to their environment, and actively seeking alternatives that affect their environment. The simulation techniques used to model Schumpeterian competition reveal that there are usually winners and losers in industries, and that the high productivity and profitability of winners confer advantages that make further success more likely, while decline breeds further decline. This process creates a tendency for concentration to develop even in an industry initially composed of many equal-sized firms. However, the experiments conducted reveal that the growth of concentration is not inevitable; for example, it tends to be smaller when firms focus their searches on imitating rather than innovating. At the same time, industries with rapid technological change tend to grow more concentrated than those with slower progress. The abstract model of Schumpeterian competition presented in the study also allows to see more clearly the public policy issues concerning the relationship between technical progress and market structure. The analysis addresses the pervasive question of whether industry concentration, with its associated monopoly profits and reduced social welfare, is a necessary cost if societies are to obtain the benefits of technological innovation. (AT)
22,566 citations
Book•
01 Jan 1978
TL;DR: The External Control of Organizations as discussed by the authors explores how external constraints affect organizations and provides insights for designing and managing organizations to mitigate these constraints, and it is the fact of the organization's dependence on the environment that makes the external constraint and control of organizational behavior both possible and almost inevitable.
Abstract: Among the most widely cited books in the social sciences, The External Control of Organizations has long been required reading for any student of organization studies. The book, reissued on its 25th anniversary as part of the Stanford Business Classics series, includes a new preface written by Jeffrey Pfeffer, which examines the legacy of this influential work in current research and its relationship to other theories.The External Control of Organizations explores how external constraints affect organizations and provides insights for designing and managing organizations to mitigate these constraints. All organizations are dependent on the environment for their survival. As the authors contend, "it is the fact of the organization's dependence on the environment that makes the external constraint and control of organizational behavior both possible and almost inevitable." Organizations can either try to change their environments through political means or form interorganizational relationships to control or absorb uncertainty. This seminal book established the resource dependence approach that has informed so many other important organization theories.
13,195 citations
12,500 citations
"Theoretical foundations for the stu..." refers background in this paper
...The core question for early organizational contingency theorists was whether certain technologies demanded particular organizational structures in order for organizations to be effective (Thompson & Bates, 1957; Woodward, 1958). A hallmark of contingency theory thinking is equafinality, or the notion that there is not one kind of structure best for all situations. Rather, different structures are more or less equipped for dealing with various environmental stimuli, such as technological change. Thus, the lasting legacy of organizational contingency theorists was to advocate for a deterministic relationship between technologies and organizational structures (Scott, 1990). Although many studies challenged the empirical findings presented about the optimal organizational structures for particular kinds of technologies (Aldrich, 1972; Blau, Falbe, McKinley, & Tracy, 1976), and several famous studies attempted to argue that the technologies themselves were merely justifications for structural changes managers wanted to make anyway (Child, 1972; Davis & Taylor, 1976), there were no real conceptual critiques of the underlying deterministic relationship until the mid 1980s when Barley (1986) famously argued that technologies might not be structural determinants, but rather their implementation in organizations were occasions during which organizational actors could re-evaluate or re-imagine the structures in which they worked....
[...]
...…to or integrate with the many organization theories such as evolutionary theory (Nelson & Winter, 1982), neo-institutional theory (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983), resource dependence theory (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978) and others that seek to explain the production, maintenance and change of organizations....
[...]
Book•
01 Jan 2005
TL;DR: In this article, the authors discuss the difficulty of being an ANT and the difficulties of tracing the social networks of a social network and how to re-trace the social network.
Abstract: Introduction: How to Resume the Task of Tracing Associations PART I: HOW TO DEPLOY CONTROVERSIES ABOUT THE SOCIAL WORLD 1 Learning to Feed from Controversies 2 First Source of Uncertainty: No Group, Only Group Formation 3 Second Source of Uncertainty: Action is Overtaken 4 Third Source of Uncertainty: Objects Too Have Agency 5 Fourth Source of Uncertainty: Matters of Fact vs Matters of Concern 6 Fifth Source of Uncertainty: Writing Down Risky Accounts 7 On the Difficulty of Being an ANT - An Interlude in Form of a Dialog PART II: HOW TO RENDER ASSOCIATIONS TRACEABLE AGAIN 8 Why is it So Difficult to Trace the Social? 9 How to Keep the Social Flat 10 First Move: Localizing the Global 11 Second Move: Redistributing the Local 12 Third Move: Connecting Sites 13 Conclusion: From Society to Collective - Can the Social be Reassembled?
9,680 citations