Theorizing Information Technology as a Material Artifact in Information Systems Research

Abstract

Research that includes information technology (IT) artifacts within its scope of focus (e.g., “computer impact” studies) often fails to engage adequately with the material properties of those IT artifacts. The result is a limited theoretical account of the relationship between IT and organizations and individuals. This chapter seeks to address that issue by tracing the disappearance of materiality from the concept of technology in organization theory and offering suggestions for meeting the challenge of carefully defining materiality concepts for IT (e.g., affordances), adapting them to a sociomaterial context, and including them in established theories commonly used in information systems (IS) research (e.g., adaptive structuration theory, organizational routines theory, theory of work–life boundary management).

Affordances for practice

“…Despite the general interpretation of affordances as relational, Robey et al (2012), in a recent review of the concept and its uses in IS research, stress the need to take a clear ontological stance vis-à-vis affordances, reminding us that they could be understood as real or relational. They argue that, while affordances offer a relevant concept for theorizing IT as a material artifact in IT impact studies, taking a realist or relational interpretation of the concept has important consequences for defining technology.…”

“…While that viewpoint might seem more fruitful when seeking to understand how technology shapes social practices, it requires a higher level of abstraction and does not provide clear guidelines on how one might recognize an affordance. Robey et al (2012) argue that researchers who aim to restore materiality in IS studies must clarify their ontological beliefs regarding affordances because these beliefs inform their epistemological stance (e.g., What phenomenon to study? How to recognize an affordance?).…”

“…The concept of affordance provides such a conceptual tool. Indeed, an important number of scholars (Gaver, 1996;Hutchby, 2001;Norman, 1988), especially those in IS (Faraj & Azad, 2012;Leonardi, 2011Leonardi, , 2013bRobey, Raymond, & Anderson, 2012;Zammuto, Griffith, Majchrzak, Dougherty, & Faraj, 2007) have drawn upon the concept of affordance as they attempted to study technology -design, adoption, or use -while recognizing social context and agency. However, the concept of affordance is diversely used and understood as unidimensional: Some scholars take a dispositional perspective; others take a relational interpretation, thus reproducing the dualisms mentioned above.…”

From Longhand Writing to Word Processing: A Phenomenological Study of the Technophobe Turned Novelist

“…Digital technology is an inviting and interpretively flexible artefact that offers a dense and variable set of functionalities to individuals [5]. Individuals exercise judgment through critical consciousness in order to assess how and to what extent digital technology can help them address their needs and achieve their goals [6,7]. Furthermore, the assessment of the usefulness of technology for attaining specific aims is influenced by their personal histories and circumstances [8].…”

Desperately seeking structures

“…In other cases, ICTs can remove categories of action or make them available selectively (e.g., by requiring passwords). This kind of influence maps directly onto the notion of "technology as affordance" (Robey et al, 2012;D'adderio, 2012), or the structurationist view of technology as enabling and constraining action (Orlikowski, 1992).…”