Sociomateriality — Taking the wrong turning?

Addressing the tacit knowledge gap in knowledge systems across agential realism

“…In critical realism, structures and interactions are two objects of study that mutually shape and inform each other, but that can nonetheless be analytically separated in time [36]. In a recent analysis of agential realism made by both Mutch [37] and Leonardi [38], agential realism's break with the dichotomy established by social constructivism and naïve realism, both of which retain commitments to separatism and representationalism, is seen as being problematic for studying "the combinations of the social and the material" [47, p. 2 and 11], or of examining the "nature" of "material properties" [32, p. 22]. More precisely, agential realism's presumptions of non-separability or entanglement (for example, between action and structure considered as being one in the form of action alone) and non-essentialism ("indeterminacy") make it unsuitable to studying the "impacts" of technology or how technology "inscribes" aspects of social structure [37, p. 22].…”

“…More precisely, agential realism's presumptions of non-separability or entanglement (for example, between action and structure considered as being one in the form of action alone) and non-essentialism ("indeterminacy") make it unsuitable to studying the "impacts" of technology or how technology "inscribes" aspects of social structure [37, p. 22]. Both Mutch [37] and Leonardi [38] use this argument to indicate the contrasting strength of critical realism in this regard, whereby action and structure (in a manner similar to Gidden's structuration theory) are considered as separate or dual entities and as such allows for the opportunity to analyse both structure (which, in borrowing from Cook and Brown [2] is explicit or known) and the role of action (which borrowing from both Polanyi as well as Cook and Brown [2] in terms of 'knowing', is predominantly tacit in nature) and how they imbricate one another [38, p. 73]. In answering this critique, Scott and Orlikowski [39, p. 77-80], argue "Precisely!…”

Exploring collaboration technology use: how users’ perceptions twist and amend reality

“…There is a dynamic process created by recursive interactions between the technology, human agency, and institutional norms and values. Emerging "sociomaterial" perspectives (Orlikowski, 2007(Orlikowski, , 2010Mutch, 2013) focus on both social context and the materiality of the technological artifact and should be theorized as inextricably interrelated.…”

“…Sociomaterial approaches draw special analytic attention to the materiality of technology, allowing researchers to investigate how the social and material intertwine to give shape to complex organizational structures and practices. Thus, two different sociomaterial approaches have emerged in the literature -agential realism and critical realism (Mutch, 2013) -and each highlights important aspects. Their main difference is that critical realism views the social and the material as separate entities put into association with one another but that become inseparable only through human agency occurring over time.…”

Introducing public sector eIDs: The power of actors’ translations and institutional barriers

“…For instance, shortcomings regarding how technology is handled and an evident neglect of social structures are put forth, resulting in the neglect of systems' specificity and an inability to handle practice in a broader context (Mutch, 2013). However, in response to Mutch, the authors reply that sociomateriality can not be judged by the way it is applied since it is still in its infancy.…”