Disentangling for Autonomy: Understanding the Sociomaterial Practices of Public Services

The Facets of Sociomateriality: A Systematic Mapping of Emerging Concepts and Definitions

“…This aspect is also at the core of the definition of information infrastructures provided by Star and Ruhleder [45], who present infrastructures as a relational concept that emerges in situ through organized practices, a feature explicitly indicated in two studies we retrieved [9,43]. Adding on the definition of imbrications, Bratteteig and Verne [43] make an interesting attempt at bridging the concepts of "sociomateriality" and "imbrication". The authors add to the view of sociomaterial entanglement of heterogeneous aspects the concept of "imbrication", to analytically "disentangle" the knots within sociomaterial assemblages at different levels of complexity.…”

“…Other studies take Leonardi's work as a starting point by drawing on his notion of "imbrication" [11], for instance [42,43,44]. This concept is more geared towards the role of the interweaving agencies that produce a result (the term is borrowed from the names of the interlocked roof tiles used in ancient Roman and Greek roofs).…”

“…According to Orlikowski and Scott [33] it is possible to untie the knots of sociomaterial assemblages only analytically. Bratteteig and Verne [43] contribute by suggesting a matrix of concepts to solve a sociomaterial entanglement in complex daily situation. But how does the analytical "disentanglement" of sociomaterial assemblages happen in literature?…”

“…Along the same lines, Monteiro et al [50] analyze how similarity between technologically mediated work practices is achieved as a political, pragmatic, and performative process. [5] x x (multidimensional networks) Almklov et al [9] x x (performativity of representations and models) Orlikowski [14] x x Monteiro et al [28] x x (performativity) Kuk and Davies [32] x x (performativity; Tweets as data) x (Case study: Linked Open Data) Johri [35] x (ANT and other) x x (sociomaterial bricolage; local vs. global) Gasson [36] x (ANT) x (political attachment and local group mobilization in misalignments) Thompson [37] x (later ANT) x (performativity of learning practices) x (Case study: online learning) Nicolini [38] x (ANT and other) x x (zoom-in/zoom-out) Al-Mahmood [39] x (ANT) x (multimedia as data) x (online learning; spaces emerging relationally) Awazu and Newell [41] x x (knowing through practice) x (implementation as cultural and historical practice) Introna and Hayes [42] x x (historical and cultural traditions) x (global practices vs. local contexts) Bratteteig and Verne [43] x x (entanglements + imbrications) Zorina and Avison [44] x x (inter-organizational imbrications) Leclerq et al [48] x x (norms) Monteiro and Rolland [49] x x (performativity) x (trans-situadedness) Monteiro et al [50] x x (performativity) x (family resemblance of distributed practices) Van Osch and Mendelson [51] x x (multimedia as data) x (Case study: multimedia) Orlikowski [52] x (materiality as scaffolding) Østerlie et al [53] x x (dual materiality; knowing emergent from different levels of materiality) Baptista et al [31] x x (institutionalization of technology) O'Farrell et al [54] x Riemer and Johnston [34] x (circular reference) Svahn et al [55] x…”

More rational discourse for designing information systems

“…To achieve this goal, we have started a research project to incorporate citizens' needs and opinions in designing governmental information systems. Our project also aims to engage governmental officials in designing governmental information systems, because their work conditions change when new governmental information systems are implemented (Bratteteig & Verne, 2012). Our project is grounded on Habermas' (1992) idea of rational discourse and it aims to include representatives of both of these stakeholder groups in the design process.…”