On Sociomateriality

Abstract

This chapter examines the foundations of the emerging sociomateriality perspective via a critical analysis of three of its guiding themes: relationality, interpenetration, and “agential cuts.” The chapter argues that what its proponents have to say about relationality is largely unexceptional, but that their claims about the interpenetration of things are probably not sustainable outside a restricted range of cases. While the chapter accepts some aspects of the notion of agential cuts, the chapter qualifies some of the claims made about the extent to which the object world depends on the practices of “agencies of observation.”

Computing the everyday: Social media as data platforms

“…We assume that the ways social media platforms are structured and operate have a serious impact on what users can do on the user interface (see e.g., Kallinikos and Mariategui 2011;Marton and Mariategui 2015). Yet, such a focus should not be read as suggesting that social media as organizations exhaust user choices or the freedom users may have against systemic forces of technological, economic and organizational nature (see e.g., Faulkner and Runde 2012;Levy 2015;Zuboff 1988). All our stance assumes is that systemic forces of this type matter.…”

The Sociomaterialty of Information Systems: Current Status, Future Directions

“…Faulkner and Runde (2012), for instance, specifically dispute the relational basis of sociomateriality, arguing that its key determination is the focus on material agency in explaining the social, for which they prefer a substantialist ontology. They agree that "technological objects are shaped by the activities of humans, [and] that technological objects in turn shape human activities" (p. 64), but assume their separate existence.…”

Schatzki and Techno-Organizational Practice

“…Despite its success in redirecting attention to the situated and emergent nature of technology in organizational practice and the significant strides in rebalancing humannon-human relations in technology research, the shift to theories of arrangements in techno-organizational research has been extensively criticized (Faulkner & Runde, 2012;Jones, 2014;Kautz & Jensen 2012;Mutch, 2013). For example, the sociomaterial search for balance between human and non-human actors seems to be met with only partial success.…”