2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
Does the IS Artifact Matter in Sociomateriality Research?
A Literature Review of Empirical Studies
Silke Weißenfels
University of Hagen,
Germany
silke.weissenfels@
studium.fernuni-hagen.de
Katharina Ebner
University of Hagen,
Germany
katharina.ebner@
fernuni-hagen.de
Sven Dittes
University of Hagen,
Germany
sven.dittes@
fernuni-hagen.de
Abstract
(social) accountability [7]. What is evident in these
examples is that through interpretation and engagement
with the material, activities (e.g. transfer of a document
in another type of materiality [7] or the development of
new documents [7]) as well as (work) practices (e.g.
modification how to fill in a document [7] or planning
practices [8]) change.
Thus, the interplay and enacted practices are central
to explain socio-technical phenomena. Hence, one
main field in IS research is studying the role of the
artifact in material-discursive practices. In this regard,
the concept of sociomateriality has evolved to illustrate
the interaction of the social and material in different
environments, such as organizations [2, 3, 9].
Since Orlikowski and Iacono [10] called for
opening the black box of the IT artifact and, later,
Orlikowski and Scott [2] called for giving up the
“assumption that technology, work, and organizations
should be conceptualized separately” [2, p. 434], a
large number of researchers have expanded our
knowledge of how the material and the social
intertwine and influence each other [2, 11-14]. A vast
amount of papers focus on frameworks [2, 11-14],
highly ontological discussions [15-18], and theoretical
constructs [12, 19, 20].
Still, although various definitions have emerged,
sociomateriality remains a buzzword; however, its
application in real world and empirical settings often
remains unclear. Accordingly, empirical papers are
rare [21-24]. The various definitions describing the
relation and interaction between the social and material
cause the challenging application of sociomateriality.
For instance, one might question whether the
ontological dichotomy of the social and material is
suited in any way to explain the multifaceted and
inherently
complex
sociomaterial
phenomena.
Sociomaterial approaches either focus on observed
practices or investigate the co-design of an IS artifact
and its users in a work context to unfold “how
materiality is intrinsic to everyday activities and
relations” [2, p. 455]. In addition, sociomateriality
A fundamental objective of IS research is the
investigation of the dynamic interplay between the
social and the material. As a consequence, the concept
of sociomateriality has evolved to depict the
interaction of the social and material in different
environments, such as organizations. Although various
definitions have emerged, sociomateriality remains a
buzzword; however, its application in real world
settings often remains unclear. Our study’s objective is
to assess the IS artifact in sociomaterial research and
to clarify the intertwining of the social and material
agencies. On the basis of the conceptualization of the
IS artifact and the dominances of the agencies, we
suggest a framework to systematically evaluate the
artifact’s role in sociomaterial research settings, and
derive opportunities and potentials for future research
on sociomateriality. Our approach will be helpful to
focus greater attention on the dynamic interplay and
the role of the IS artifact in sociomaterial inquiries.
1. Introduction
A fundamental objective of the information systems
(IS) research is to investigate the dynamic interplay
between the social and the material [1-3]. This coconstitution does not always occur in a steady way. In
particular, through the digitalization in everyday life
[4] and evolving Internet technologies, the social and
material intertwining affords new opportunities and
collaborative (working) practices [5], for example in
online communities, where “people with varied access
to and understanding of the work at hand, (..) must
collaborate through documents of various kinds” [6, p.
1600], or in governmental work environments which
have traditionally been focused on working with
(digital and analogue) documents. Especially the latter
example [7] showed that government documents
represent more than just excessive bureaucracy. On the
contrary, they provide clarity, transparency, and
1530-1605/16 $31.00 © 2016 IEEE
DOI 10.1109/HICSS.2016.252
Stefan Smolnik
University of Hagen,
Germany
stefan.smolnik@
fernuni-hagen.de
1997
social and material intertwining [26]. However, it
should be noted that many other fruitful avenues to
study the phenomenon of sociomateriality exist [27,
28].
studies in terms of practical assessment is at an early
stage of development [25].
Given this background, our motivation for this
research paper is twofold. First, we seek to understand
how sociomateriality as a concept has been applied in
empirical studies. In doing so, we hope to provide
guidance for future researchers who employ the
sociomateriality concept in their studies but are still
uncertain how to go about it. Second, we investigate
how researchers have taken into account the IS artifact
in their empirical work to illustrate the idea of a dayby-day entanglement of three constitutive parts:
organization, humans, and technology [2]. In
particular, we are asking whether the concept of
sociomateriality has the power to open the black box of
the IS artifact [10].
In pursuit of these goals, we adopt the idea of
agencies relating to materiality and the distinction
between the social and material. Thus, we offer one
alternative to explore the IS artifact and hope to open
up a stimulating discussion in a broad body of work
across disciplines around materiality and the
perspectives of sociomateriality.
To address the aforementioned research objectives,
we have reviewed the existing empirical literature on
sociomateriality in three steps: First, we identified how
the IS artifact was conceptualized in previous studies.
Second, we analyzed the dynamics of social and
material intertwining in practices. Third, we pursued
the evolution and change of sociomaterial practices in
a temporal perspective.
This paper is organized as follows: We begin in
Section 2 with an overview of the theoretical
foundations of sociomateriality and introduce our
research framework, which we follow up with an
introduction of our research method in Section 3. In
Section 4, we present our findings and propose future
research opportunities, and we finalize our examination
with the discussion in Section 5 and the conclusion in
Section 6.
2.1. Social and material agencies
Orlikowski and Scott [2] base their argument on the
idea that all (working) practices are inherently social
and material and, therefore, sociomaterial. Leonardi
[11] shifts the focus to social and material agencies and
their ongoing reconfigurations [29]. Agencies are
defined either as a capacity or quality of humans, or as
a relationship or process of engagement with the social
and material [30]. The social and material agencies are
not fixed, but rather enacted temporally in practice.
Moreover, only an agential cut [29] makes it possible
to separate the entities in a particular situational
context [2, 29]. Finally, the concept of agencies
supports the analysis of the reciprocal intertwining of
the social and material. In our understanding, the social
agency is influenced by the perception of a technology
and has the ability to achieve goals. The material
agency (trigged but not directly controlled by
individuals) is the way a technology acts, when
humans approach it with intention.
2.2. Entanglement, imbrication, and
assemblage
Literature discusses the reciprocal constitution of
the social and material as entanglement [31],
imbrication [11], or assemblage [32], each one based
on a different ontology. Other concepts in literature
include intra-action, interweaving, interlocking and
intertwining [18].
The notion of entanglement treats the social and
material as similar and inseparable, but an analytical
separation (in the sense of an agential cut) is
conceivable. Within this symmetrical relation, the
material influences the social, the social shapes the
material and every organizational process is bounded
with materiality [31].
The imbrication metaphor [11] considers the
human and non-human agencies as interwoven and not
entangled. Leonardi [11] stated that agencies are
distinct
elements
of
overlapping
patterns,
asymmetrically twisted together. The human agency
dominates the ongoing shaping process and adjusts its
goals with the materiality [11]. The point of view of
Leonardi [11] is that the social and the material are
analytically and ontologically separable.
Likewise, the idea of assemblage [32] describes the
relation between the social and material as components
and how they constitute each other. An assemblage is a
2. Theoretical foundations of
sociomateriality
The theoretical perspective of sociomateriality
results from various attempts to theorize the
relationship between humans, technologies, and
organization, and it enriches our understanding of their
interplay and dynamics. As we aim to challenge the
application of the sociomateriality concept, we
concentrate on the two representative foundations of
Orlikowski and Scott [2] and Leonardi [11]. In
particular, relying on this approach allows us to
disclose the black box of the IS artifact in
organizations [2] by focusing on the phenomenon of
1998
combination of components resulting in action patterns
that change over time and/or context. Depending on the
components’ performance and the researcher’s
ontological position (i.e. components are inseparable or
separable), different assemblages lead to different
sociomaterial practices. In fact, Orlikowski and Scott
[2] work with the idea of sociomaterial assemblage.
We correspond with that of Kautz and Jensen [33] who
argue that “an assemblage is assembled and thus a
priori consists of separable components. The concept
of the inseparability of sociomaterial assemblages
seems inconsistent and a contradiction in terms” [33, p.
2].
2.4. Research framework
Given the background discussed above, we
encourage the attempt [2, 31] to foreground the
material and assess whether the sociomaterial approach
discloses the black box of the IS artifact. Our research
framework outlines that we focus on three major
abstraction levels (marked with circled numbers in
Figure 1). First, we consider the material’s
conceptualization in literature. We are interested in
how well a particular conceptualization helps
researches to open the black box of the IS artifact [10].
Second, we interpret the dynamic intertwining of the
agencies in the papers and the role and impact of the
social and material agency on the resulting practice.
Finally, we analyze the papers with regard to observed
sociomaterial practices. Thus, we concentrate on the
practice itself and on how it emerges or changes over
time.
2.3. Sociomaterial practices
Orlikowski and Scott [2] outlined that the objects of
analysis in sociomaterial studies primarily have to be
practices at work. Practices are defined as what people
do every day [31]. Orlikowski [31] stated that
“focusing on these sociomaterial aspects of everyday
practices will open up important avenues for
examining and understanding the ongoing production
of organizational life” [31, p. 1445]. Every-day
practices are carried out through the entanglement and
mutual constitution [26] of the material and social. In
this perspective, only the present situation of an
organization or a fixed practice is focused while the
process of emergence and becoming of a practice is out
of scope. Besides, it seems difficult to analyze why
actions and practices emerge [12]. Other authors have
defined them as routinized complexes [34] or as
processes or actions [14] to produce an organizational
output, and materiality always plays an important role
[31]. Instantaneous practices are situated in enactment
as a result of the intertwining [35].
By contrast, Leonardi [11, 12] concentrates on the
social and material agencies’ imbrication as an object
of analysis and how they become sociomaterial. His
work is based on the social idea of practice [34, 36, 37]
and state that the human, its intelligence and
understanding, as well as emotions and actions
dominate and perform the practice. We agree that
while, “organizations and people's practices exist in
time” [12] or in everyday working flow [38], it is
crucial that an observable practice in the study of
sociomateriality always be tied to a particular time
period. In other words, considering a temporal
dimension allows to determine how practices emerge
and change over time [39] and how the reconfiguration
of agencies leads to new practices.
Figure 1. Review framework
3. Research approach and method
To address our objectives, we performed a
literature review of sociomateriality and sociomaterial
practices. We rely on established guidelines for
reviewing and synthesizing literature [40-43]. As the
basis for our review, we used the eight journals listed
in the AIS Senior Scholar’s Basket of Journals 1, as
they represent the top journals in our discipline
(Table 1).
1
http://aisnet.org/general/custom.asp?page=
SeniorScholarBasket
1999
joint discussion. After this step, 25 papers were left
over which we reviewed in detail using established
classification criteria of reviews in the field of
sociomateriality [2, 26, 35].
All of these 25 empirical papers were published
between 2010 and 2014, which indicated that
researchers started only recently to transfer the concept
of sociomateriality to a more practical realm. These
papers involve 16 case studies, five field studies and
four other empirical research methods. Considering the
area of application, three studies were conducted in the
automotive sector [49-51], two in health care [21, 35]
and two in the governmental environment [45, 52].
Other areas of application range from education [22],
the oil and gas sector [53], space science [54], nuclear
research [55], and the travel industry [23].
Interestingly, we found that seven of our reviewed
articles [53, 56-61] either discussed the practice in
highly abstract terms or did not focus on practice at all.
Table 1. Overview of literature sources
Journals
Conference
proceedings
European Journal of Information
Systems, Information Systems
Journal, Information Systems
Research, Journal of Information
Technology, Journal of the
Association for Information Systems,
Journal of Management Information
Systems, Journal of Strategic
Information Systems, MIS Quarterly,
Scandinavian Journal of Information
Systems
International Conference on
Information Systems (ICIS),
European Conference on Information
Systems (ECIS), Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences
(HICSS)
We also included the Scandinavian Journal of IS,
since it has published various articles on
sociomateriality. In particular, we found three articles
supporting the understanding of the theoretical
discussion [18, 33, 44] and one of our findings [45] in
this journal. Furthermore, we included three major
international IS conferences since they provide access
to the most recent developments in the field [42, 46].
While a database search may have resulted in a larger
number of potential articles, we wanted to control for
the quality and relevance of the papers from the start
[47].
We started our literature review by searching article
abstracts, titles, and keywords for the strings
“sociomaterial,”
“sociomateriality,”
“social
materiality,” ”socio-material,” “socio-materiality,” and
“sociomaterial practice.” Additionally, backward
search assured that we would not miss relevant articles
published in other journals [43, 46]. We also analyzed
recent review articles on sociomateriality for additive
relevant sources [26, 35]. Our selected time frame
ranges from the early beginnings of “rethinking the
concept of technology in organizations” in 1992 [48]
until January 2015. Our search yielded 171 papers in
total. From these papers, only those that applied an
empirical research setting were included for in-depth
analysis. 68 papers fit this criterion.
In the next step, two researchers independently
reviewed every identified paper’s relevance according
to the following criteria: First, the paper had to be
engaged in deeply describing sociomaterial practices or
theories. Second, papers concentrating on affordances
or social affordances were excluded since these do not
allow a direct link with sociomateriality. In case of
disagreement, we clarified a paper’s relevance in a
4. Findings
4.1. Conceptualization of the IS artifact
One major objective of our research is to identify
how far sociomaterial studies have incorporated the
artifact in their investigations. Researchers have
approximated the IS artifact with four apparently
different conceptualizations of the artifact, described in
terms of affordances, capabilities, features, or technical
components.
Our analysis illustrates that more and more scholars
rely on the conceptualization of features and
components. Yet, the artifact itself remains undertheorized, even though the digital and intangible
properties are deeply interwoven in our lives. We
reflect on reasons for selecting a particular type of
conceptualization for the analysis. In particular, we
consider whether academics intend to produce an
outcome that is different than to the concepts of
affordances or capabilities. Moreover, we are
interested in the implications of this trend of
acknowledging the real properties of an artifact and
what kind of coherences is seen between the artifact
and the analyzed practices.
4.1.1. Affordances and capabilities. Keeping in mind
that we seek to open the black box of the IS artifact, we
start with the two conceptualizations that are
affordances and capabilities: Affordances display the
least artifact-related conceptualization since they use a
social perception of what an artifact can do. According
to Heft [62] affordances say nothing about the real
properties of objects they result from their usage and
the relations between the user and the technology.
2000
Similarly, capabilities also consider an artifact as a
bundle of abilities rather than a technical system with
existing
properties
[63].
Hence,
neither
conceptualization alone is suitable to unpack the
artifact in sociomateriality. Seven publications in our
sample relied on one of these two conceptualizations.
For instance, affordances described the role of the
material agency of generative support applications [61]
or showed the entanglement of the digital visualization
board and the medical staff [21]. But we found no
detailed insights into the IS artifact itself.
We conclude with the same findings of an opaque
IS artifact for authors like Zheng [58] and Hylving and
Schultze [50], who worked with constraints and
perception and therefore in the broadest sense with
affordances. Moreover, the conceptualization of
capabilities was applied in the case of ES
implementation and its best practice approach [22].
The whole system and practice were vaguely
discussed, and the IS artifact remained covered. These
findings were in line with the results of the studies of
Stein, Galliers and Markus [60] and Mikalsen [53].
These authors either described a practice with the
social and material agencies without analyzing the
artifact itself [60], or focused much more on the social
agencies instead of the IS artifact [53].
Cecez-Kecmanovic, Kautz and Abrahall [24]
considered various technical components such as the
rule-based engine or the mainframe. On the other hand,
these components were rather described in terms of
their functionalities and capabilities. Furthermore,
Riemer and Vehring [59] relied on features within their
testing of usability as a property. But defining usability
as sociomaterial routines and discussing how
sociomaterial entanglements influence the perception
of technologies do not match with our definition of
sociomateriality.
Based on our discussion above, we suggest the
following research opportunities:
Research Opportunity 1: Researchers should
continue with the positive trend to work with features
and components to conceptualize the IS artifact in
sociomaterial studies.
Research Opportunity 2: Future researchers should
also investigate whether particular types of
conceptualizations are better suited than others to study
specific phenomena and outcomes.
4.2. Dominating agencies and dynamic intertwining
In this section we focus on the process of becoming
or the emergence of a practice through the
intertwining. “Sometimes, human and material
agencies interweave in ways that create or change
routines, and other times, they weave together in ways
that produce or alter technologies” [11, p. 151]. We
experienced that an agential cut in time or space helps
to assert these dimensions and to analyze the role and
power of the IS artifact in the intertwining. Our
particular interest is whether an agency sometimes
dominates the intertwining and why. Therefore, we
clustered our papers and found five papers with
material dominances at some point in time, another
five with a social one and four with no dominance or a
balanced interplay between the social and the material
(Figure 2).
4.1.2. Features and components. By contrast,
publications using features as functional building
blocks of an information system [64, 65] or technical
components specifically consider the real properties
and characteristics of artifacts. They mostly enfold a
rich and detailed perspective of material agencies.
Therefore, we argue that researchers building on this
view are able to derive more precise and differentiated
insights on the entanglement between the social and
material agencies. In our sample, eight publications
relied on these conceptualizations, for example, on the
components of a RFID technology [51] or of home
LANs [66]. We found various technical components
such as the role of the frontend of a database model
and pivot tables to interpret the IS development in
action [67], and a component-based logic [49], that
centered on the implementation of an architecture such
as an IS artifact (instead of a technology). A second
component based study used various materialities of
computing grid infrastructure to analyze digital
coordination by recognizing the material [55]. In brief,
other authors conceptualized features of a wiki [68], of
a crowd funding website [57], and finally the
functional building [69].
However, in four papers [54], [23], [45] and [70]
we did not find any clear conceptualizations. In
addition, two publications could not clearly be
classified within our framework: On the one hand,
Figure 2. Varying dominances of
social and material agencies
We confirm that the IS artifact and technology are
shaped and obtained their attribute through ongoing
reconfigurations. The intertwining of technology, user,
organization and tools result in an enactment of the IS
artifact in sociomaterial practices. In general, scholars
are capable of showing the intertwining between the
2001
social and material and their shaping process in their
studies. However, the mutual constitution that occurs
in notions of inseparability is very complex. In other
words, based on the foundation of Orlikowski and
Scott [2] sociomateriality is processual and the
differentiation is impossible, as only an “instance of
practice” [35, p. 919] is in focus. Furthermore, the
intertwining is often invisible. It is also apparent that
other properties, features, constraints or norms of both
agencies are ignored during the analysis of the
performed practice. To interpret the dominance of
agencies, we take into consideration, that the social
agency is characterized by deliberateness and
intentions, whereas the material agency is unintentional
and explored by the social agency in emergent
practices [39].
Next, in developing an understanding of project
survival [22] the artifact was experienced as disruptive.
Thus, a dialectic process of resistance and
accommodation occurred. The project and its survival
could only be achieved through negotiation and the
constitutive adaption of the technology. In the study of
an online e-business service tool for insurance brokers
[24], the intertwining and agential cuts resulted in
documentation with specified meaning, a technology
with other features and people performing differently.
In other words, through the intertwining a
transformation of relations, boundaries and properties
appeared. The social agency dominated the process,
whereas the IS artifact nebulous.
4.2.3. No dominances. We found that way in which
material and social were constituted and changed and
how they changed their relevance within a process of
dynamic reconfigurations [54]. A new analysis tool
adjusted the work of NASA scientists the organization
as well as the mission whereas the social and material
influences were in balance. In addition, these authors
investigated whether if one of the components shifts,
the other is reconfigured too (reciprocity). Similarly,
the complete design and testing process of software
designers [51] was intertwined with the material
components of the technology and a business strategy
alternate from solution provider to integrator occurred.
From our point of view, the intertwining of the social
and material and their influences on the practice were
even-tempered. Likewise, an analysis of anonymity
[23] illustrated that various forms of hotel ranking
occurred through agential cuts. Lastly, Venters, Oborn
and Barrett [55] concentrated on “the human–material
“mangle”—an unstable and evolving sociomaterial
configuration” [55, p. 931] instead of the social or
material.
In summary, our literature analysis indicates that
artifacts and configurations of the social and material
agencies have different impacts on the intertwining.
Furthermore, we recognize that the dominating
agencies changed within the study when scholars add
the time dimension to their applied research. Based on
our discussion above, we suggest the following
research opportunities:
Research Opportunity 3: Future research should
evaluate whether an agency’s dominance is influenced
by intention, dependent from context or is just a result
of randomized incidence.
Research Opportunity 4: Future research should
also evaluate the conditions under which a specific
agential dominance occurs and why it changes.
4.2.1. Material dominances. Jones [35] reports a
substantial example of strong entanglement with the
technology. Clinical practice was modified through the
change of materiality (paper to electronic record). The
technology itself also seemed to be experienced as a
virtual patient: Both were seen as inseparable. In the
same way, Doolin and Mcleod [67] showed how the
material artifact (prototype), the social agency (project
member), and their dynamic interplay generated
various options for knowledge sharing and meaning
creation. The material configures the practice. Next,
the artifact (layered architecture) dominated the
process of intertwining and changed the digital
innovation process as well as social structures
(including power structures). The artifact itself attained
a stronger position [50]. Subsequently, the introduction
of a wiki [68] changed the working practice into
decentralized dynamic content generation. The unit of
analysis was the intertwining, and through repeated
resistance and accommodation with the technology, an
incremental transformation of working practices
occurred. Finally, one paper concluded that only the
technology features support the change of presence,
not the human agency [69].
4.2.2. Social dominances. A study on stepwise
institutional changes [21] proved that the social agency
(intention of the medical staff) and the material agency
(digital visualization board) involved in a dynamic
interplay include a change in either practice or
technology. This stepwise co-constituting process
resulted in new entanglements, while the social agency
dominates the process. Similarly, humans dominated
the process of intertwining in an innovation process
and overcame the tension between the digital and
physical materiality by means of a continuing dialectic
[49]. The analysis of social computing showed that the
perception of constraints led to a change of technology.
2002
during daily ward rounds. The quality of the nursing
notes also changed. Interestingly, these practices were
accompanied by norms, emotions and power games.
Sometimes parallel and façade routines occurred,
became stable and then changed. From time to time,
agency dominances switched. The constitution of
emergent practices and their changes was irregular and
there was no indication of defined cycles or sequences.
In summary, our discussion of two cases
demonstrates that various practices are carried out over
multiple dimensions of time and are being shaped by
varying agential dominances. This intertwining
sometimes occurred on a regular basis, and at other
times on an irregular or parallel basis. The literature
illustrated that sociomaterial practices often appear to
be affected by small and nearly invisible changes
occurring unpredictably or not fixed to a specific point
of time. Based on our discussion above, we suggest the
following research opportunity:
Research Opportunity 5: Future researchers should
investigate whether and how the time dimension
supports the understanding of when and how the
dominances of the agencies and thus practices change
over time.
4.3. Evolution and change of sociomaterial practices
While studying the dominances of social and
material agencies and the intertwining, we recognized
that dominance and practice changed in the study when
scholars added the time dimension to their analysis.
Hence, our interest in this section is to debate how this
evolution over time and the becoming of the social and
material in organizations occurs [12]. Jones argues that
“exploring the variety of ways in which [practices] in
different settings and at different times change […]
offers insights on the range of influences on […]
practices that might be overlooked by viewing them
simply as instances” [35, p. 919].
In our review, we found that the interplay of the
material and social sometimes occurs in sequential
steps. For instance, in the study of physical and digital
visualization [21] we see that new routines resulted in
new technologies. Obviously, one technology
constitutes and develops the other. The social agency
shapes the process, and moreover, explores the
material in everyday work. As the team afforded
constraints or had negative experiences they did not
change their practice. In the next period of time, as the
staff perceived a need to improve work practices, the
technology changed. A new social and material
entanglement occurred. During the subsequent time
frame, as the material agency was perceived to offer
affordances (e.g. broaden understanding by visualizing
data), the team changed its operational work. Again, a
new entanglement between the social and material
occurred. This interplay between the social and
material agency emerged in sequential steps, meaning
it happened alternatively again and again. The will and
motivation of the human resulted in changing the
technology. Moreover, the dominances of the social
and material changed at irregular intervals.
Next, we explored how these routines and the
interplay between the social and material changed
dynamically or in parallel. Also, the dominances of the
social and material changed without any regularity: In
a clinical care study [35] a change of materiality (from
the patient’s paper to an electronic record) led to an
ongoing interplay between the social and the material
in enacted situated practices. These practices occurred
at various locations inside a hospital. The author
discovered that the staff changed its working practices
because of the materiality. In fact, the treatment of the
patient altered. Moreover, the staff carried out fewer
examinations and visits to the patients’ bed but
consequently performed an intensive review of the
electronic data. In another context and over a certain
time period, the communication behavior altered
because of extensive accessible electronic data. This
data caused time-consuming communication processes
5. Discussion
The aim of our research was to explore the IS
artifact in the empirical sociomateriality literature. In
particular, we investigated how the artifact and the
material were conceptualized and linked to each other
and to work practices. Our findings emphasize that
scholars may benefit from disclosing the artifact’s
conceptualization in sociomaterial inquiries for various
reasons: First, while studies concentrating on features
and components provide access to the more physical
properties of an artifact, those focusing on affordances
and capabilities are closer to the more intangible ones.
Second, unboxing the conceptualization of the IS
artifact can help to sharpen the discussion on the
mutual constitution of the artifact and work process
[54] by highlighting “the importance of physical
objects in work tasks” [71, p. 1764]. Third, the artifact
and the configurations of the social and material
agencies have different impacts on the intertwining and
emergence of practices. Disclosing the artifact’s
conceptualization supports examining the varying
dominances of the social and material and interpreting
the role and power of the IS artifact in the intertwining.
Beyond these benefits, our literature review also
shows that studying organizational practices using a
separation between the social and material is a
challenging endeavor, for example, if studies shift their
research aim from analyzing impacts, influences, and
2003
interactions “to examining how materiality is intrinsic
to everyday” [2, p. 455].
6. Conclusion
The goal of our review was to examine whether
Orlikowski’s and Scott’s [2] pursuit of foregrounding
the material in the sociomaterial approach has been put
into practice. In particular, we questioned whether
sociomateriality meets the expectation to disclose the
IS
artifact.
Furthermore,
we
explored
if
sociomateriality offers new insights into the interplay
and dominances of the agencies to understand
everyday working practices. Based on a review of
existing empirical sociomaterial studies, we propose an
integrative framework that covers the main
constituents of sociomateriality: the conceptualization
of the IS artifact, the intertwining of the social and
material, and sociomaterial practice. In addition, we
add the time component to demonstrate the evolution
and change of practices.
Our work contributes to the literature in three ways:
First, we support classifying the conceptualization of
the IS artifact and investigating the effects of different
conceptualizations on the results of a study. Second,
we explore the dynamics of dominating agencies and
offer starting points for studying the conditions under
which these dominances occur. Third, we provide
insights into the reconfiguration of practices in regular
or irregular cycles. Practitioners will benefit from our
findings as they offer more clarity on the materialdiscursive intertwining process and highlights new
directions for sharpening the sociomaterial inquiries
that need to be considered.
With these contributions in mind, our work has
limitations. First, our literature search and
classification process might be biased due to our
choice of keywords, journals, and subjective
interpretations during the paper selection and
classification processes. Thus, we cannot rule out that
publications that other researchers deem relevant were
not considered here. We also intentionally decided to
leave out related research streams to keep the review
manageable. Also, we acknowledge that the isolation
of materiality and the separation in social and material
agencies are a challenging undertaking. In fact, we
were also faced with the ontological dichotomy of the
social and material. In particular, while analyzing
sociomaterial practices, we have experienced that they
do not always occur in sequential steps. Determinants
are often implicit and the interplay between and
dominances of the social and material changed
dynamically or in parallel. However, to reach our
research goals, framing the social and material
agencies in the way we did it was valuable for the
reasons outlined in section 5.
Despite these limitations, we believe that our
insights have a sound theoretical grounding and that
we did not overlook critical aspects. We believe that
future researchers and practitioners will benefit from
our work, because it sustains and further develops the
concept of sociomateriality, unboxes the IS artifact,
and combines both in empirical studies.
7. References
[1] Latour, B., Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists
and Engineers through Society, Harvard University Press,
1987.
[2] Orlikowski, W.J., and S.V. Scott, "Sociomateriality:
Challenging the Separation of Technology, Work and
Organization", Annals of the Academy of Management, 2(1),
2008, pp. 433-474.
[3] Bijker, W.E., Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward
a Theory of Sociotechnical Change, MIT Press, Cambridge,
1995.
[4] Yoo, Y., "Computing in Everyday Life: A Call for
Research on Experiential Computing", MIS Quarterly, 34(2),
2010, pp. 213-231.
[5] Rosner, D.K., "The Material Practices of Collaboration",
Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer
Supported Cooperative Work, 2012, pp. 1155-1164.
[6] Osterlund, C., and K. Crowston, "Boundary-Spanning
Documents in Online Floss Communities: Does One Size Fit
All?", HICSS 2013 Proceedings, 2013, pp.1600-1609.
[7] Finn, M., J. Srinivasan, and R. Veeraraghavan, "Seeing
with Paper: Government Documents and Material
Participation", HICSS 2014 Proceedings, 2014, pp. 15151524.
[8] Steinhardt, S.B., and S.J Jackson, "Material
Engagements: Putting Plans and Things Together in
Collaborative Ocean Science", HICSS 2014 Proceedings,
2014, pp. 1505-1514.
[9] Leonardi, P.M., "Materiality, Sociomateriality, and
Socio-Technical Systems: What Do These Terms Mean?
How Are They Related? Do We Need Them?", in (Leonardi,
P.M., Nardi, B. A., Kallinikos, J. (Eds.), Materiality and
Organizing: Social Interaction in a Technological World,
Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012, pp. 25-48.
[10] Orlikowski, W.J., and C.S. Iacono, "Research
Commentary: Desperately Seeking the “IT” in IT Research a Call to Theorizing the It Artifact", Information Systems
Research, 12(2), 2001, pp. 121-134.
[11] Leonardi, P.M., "When Flexible Routines Meet Flexible
Technologies: Affordance, Constraint, and the Imbrication of
2004
Human and Material Agencies", MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 2011,
pp. 147-167.
[26] Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., R.D. Galliers, O. Henfridsson,
S. Newell, and R. Vidgen, "The Sociomateriality of
Information Systems: Current Status, Future Directions",
MIS Q., 38(3), 2014, pp. 809-830.
[12] Leonardi, P.M., "Theoretical Foundations for the Study
of Sociomateriality", Information and Organization, 23(2),
2013, pp. 59-76.
[27] Sarker, S., S. Chatterjee, and X. Xiao, "How
“Sociotechnical” Is Our Is Research? An Assessment and
Possible Ways Forward", ICIS 2013 Proceedings, 2013.
[13] Schutz, D.M., Y.-Y. Kim, Y. Yoo, and P.A. Pavlou, "An
Empirical Investigation on the Role of It Materiality in
Multidisciplinary Innovation"2009, pp. 73.
[28] Mikalsen, M., "Methodological Considerations in the
Study of Sociomateriality", ECIS 2014 Proceedings, 2014.
[14] Faulkner, P., and J. Runde, "On Sociomateriality", in
(Leonardi, P.M., B. Nardi, B, Kallinikos, J. (Eds), Materiality
and Organizing: Social Interaction in a Technological World,
Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012, pp. 49-66.
[29] Barad, K., "Posthumanist Performativity: Toward an
Understanding of How Matter Comes to Matter", Signs,
28(3), 2003, pp. 801-831.
[30] Gardner, A., "Agency", in: Bentley, R.A., Maschner, H.
D. G., Chippindale, C. (Eds.), Handbook of Archaeological
Theories, AltaMira Press, Lanham, MD, 2008, pp. 95-108.
[15] Yoo, Y., "The Tables Have Turned: How Can the
Information Systems Field Contribute to Technology and
Innovation Management Research?", Journal of the
Association for Information Systems, 14(5), 2013, pp. 227236.
[31] Orlikowski, W.J., "Sociomaterial Practices: Exploring
Technology at Work", Organization Studies, 28(9), 2007, pp.
1435-1448.
[16] Seidel, S., and N. Berente, "Toward "Third Wave"
Information Systems Research: Linking Sociomaterial
Practice with Broader Institutional Logics", ICIS 2013
Proceedings, 2013.
[32] Suchman, L., Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans
and Situated Actions, Cambridge University Press, 2007.
[33] Kautz, K., and B.T. Jensen, "Debating Sociomateriality:
Entanglements, Imbrications, Disentangling, and Agential
Cuts", Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 24(2),
2012.
[17] Alter, S., "Exploring the Temporal Nature of
Sociomateriality from a Work System Perspective, AMCIS
2012 Proceedings, 2012.
[18] Kautz, K., and T.B. Jensen, "Sociomateriality - More
Than Jargon Monoxide? Questions from the Jester to the
Sovereigns", ECIS 2012 Proceedings, 2012.
[34] Reckwitz, A., "Toward a Theory of Social Practices: A
Development in Culturalist Theorizing", European Journal of
Social Theory, 5(2), 2002, pp. 243-263.
[19] Boell, S., and D. Cecez-Kecmanovic, "Conceptualizing
Information Systems: From 'Input-Processing-Output'
Devices to Sociomaterial Apparatuses", ECIS 2012
Proceedings, 2012.
[35] Jones, M., "A Matter of Life and Death: Exploring
Conceptualizations of Sociomateriality in the Context of
Critical Care", MIS Quarterly, 38(3), 2014, pp. 895-925.
[20] Mansour, O., L. Askenäs, and A. Ghazawneh, "Social
Media and Organizing: An Empirical Analysis of the Role of
Wiki Affordances in Organizing Practices", 2013.
[36] Schatzki, T.R., The Site of the Social: A Philosophical
Exploration of the Constitution of Social Life and Change,
Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA,
2002.
[21] Hultin, L., and M. Mähring, "Visualizing Institutional
Logics in Sociomaterial Practices", Information and
Organization, 24(3), 2014, pp. 129-155.
[37] Schatzki, T.R., "The Site of Organizations",
Organization Studies, 26(2005), pp. 465-484.
[38] Giddens, A., The Constitution of Society: Outline of the
Theory of Structuration, University of California Press, 1984.
[22] Wagner, E.L., S. Newell, and G. Piccoli,
"Understanding Project Survival in an Es Environment: A
Sociomaterial Practice Perspective", Journal of the
Association for Information Systems, 11(5), 2010, Article 1.
[39] Pickering, A., The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency
and Science, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
1995.
[23] Scott, S.V., and W.J. Orlikowski, "Entanglements in
Practice: Performing Anonymity through Social Media", MIS
Quarterly, 38(3), 2014, pp. 873-895.
[40] Cooper, H., Synthesizing Research - a Guide for
Literature Reviews, Sage Publications, Inc, 1998.
[24] Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., K. Kautz, and R. Abrahall,
"Reframing Success and Failure of Information Systems: A
Performative Perspective", MIS Q., 38(2), 2014, pp. 561586.
[41] Fettke, D.-W.-I.P., "State-of-the-Art Des State-of-theArt", Wirtschaftsinformatik, 48(4), 2006, pp. 257-266.
[42] Levy, Y., and T.J. Ellis, "A Systems Approach to
Conduct an Effective Literature Review in Support of
Information Systems Research", Informing Science:
International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 9(1),
2006, pp. 181-212.
[25] Mutch, A., "Sociomateriality - Taking the Wrong
Turning?", Information and Organization 23(1), 2013, pp.
28-40.
2005
ICIS Proceedings 2013, 2013.
[43] Webster, J., and R.T. Watson, "Analyzing the Past to
Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review", MIS
Q., 26(2), 2002, pp. xiii-xxiii.
[58] Zheng, Y.Y., Ai, "Social Media, Institutional Innovation
and Affordances: The Case of Free Lunch for Children in
China", ICIS 2014 Proceedings, 2014.
[44] Kautz, K., and T.B. Jensen, "Sociomateriality at the
Royal Court of Is: A Jester's Monologue", Information and
Organization, 23(1), 2013, pp. 15-27.
[59] Riemer, K., and N. Vehring, "It's Not a Property!
Exploring the Sociomateriality of Software Usability", ICIS
2010 Proceedings, 2010.
[45] Bratteteig, T., and G.B. Verne, "Creating a Space for
Change within Sociomaterial Entanglements", Scandinavian
Journal of Information Systems, 24(2), 2012, pp. 105-114.
[60] Stein, M.-K., R.D. Galliers, and M.L. Markus, "Towards
an Understanding of Identity and Technology in the
Workplace", Journal of Information Technology 28(3), 2013,
pp. 167-182.
[46] Vom Brocke, J., A. Simons, B. Niehaves, K. Riemer, R.
Plattfaut, and A. Cleven, "Reconstructing the Giant: On the
Importance of Rigour in Documenting the Literature Search
Process", ECIS 2009 Proceedings, 2009.
[61] Van Osch, W., and O. Mendelson, "A Typology of
Affordances: Untangling Sociomaterial Interactions through
Video Analysis", Thirty Second International Conference on
Information Systems, Shanghai 2011, 2011, pp. 1-18.
[47] Rowe, F., "What Literature Review Is Not: Diversity,
Boundaries and Recommendations", European Journal of
Information Systems, 23(3), 2014, pp. 241-255.
[62] Heft, H., "Affordances, Dynamic Experience, and the
Challenge of Reification", Ecological Psychology, 15(2003,
pp. 149-180.
[48] Orlikowski, W.J., "The Duality of Technology:
Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations",
Organization science, 3(3), 1992, pp. 398-427.
[63] Benbasat, I, R.W. Zmund, "The Identity Crisis within
the Is Discipline: Defining and Communicating the
Discipline’s Core Properties", MIS Quarterly, 27(2), 2003.
[49] Svahn, F.H., O. Henfridsson, and Yoo, Y., "A
Threesome Dance of Agency: Mangling the Sociomateriality
of Technological Regimes in Digital Innovation", ICIS 2009
Proceedings, 2009.
[64] Griffith, T.L., "Technology Features as Triggers for
Sensemaking", Academy of Management review, 24(3),
1999, pp. 472-488.
[50] Hylving, L., and U. Schultze, "Evolving the Modular
Layered Architecture in Digital Innovation: The Case of the
Car's Instrument Cluster", ICIS 2013 Proceedings, 2013.
[65] Sun, H., "Understanding User Revisions When Using
Information System Features: Adaptive System Use and
Triggers", MIS Quarterly, 36(2), 2012, pp. 453-478.
[51] Chatfield, A.T., and S.F. Wamba, "A Sociomaterial
Approach to Co-Creating Rfid Value in a Multi-Firm Supply
Chain Knowledge Sharing Environment: A Longitudinal
Case Study", ICIS 2012 Proceedings, 2012.
[66] Zorina, A., and D. Avison, "When Environment Matters:
Inter-Organizational Effects on Sociomaterial Imbrications
and Change", ICIS 2011 Proceedings, 2011.
[52] Nan, N., and Y. Yoo, "Social Construction of User
Beliefs of Collaborative Technology: A Multi-Method
Approach", ICIS 2010 Proceedings, 2010.
[67] Doolin, B., and L. Mcleod, "Sociomateriality and
Boundary Objects in Information Systems Development",
European Journal of Information Systems, 21(5), 2012, pp.
570-586.
[53] Mikalsen, M., "A Case Study of an Information
Infrastructure Supporting Knowledge Work in Oil and Gas
Exploration" 2014 in: Proceedings of the 11th International
Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems, Nice,
France 27-30 May, 2014 , pp. 121-136.
[68] Mueller, B., and P. Raeth, "What You See Is What You
Get? - A Comparison of Theoretical Lenses to Study
Technology in Organizations", ICIS 2012 Proceedings, 2012.
[54] Mazmanian, M., M. Cohn, and P. Dourish, "Dynamic
Reconfiguration in Planetary Exploration: A Sociomaterial
Ethnography", MIS Quarterly, 38(3), 2014, pp. 831-848.
[69] Schultze, U., "The Avatar as Sociomaterial
Entanglement: A Performative Perspective on Identity,
Agency and World-Making in Virtual Worlds", ICIS 2011
Proceedings, 2011.
[55] Venters, W., E. Oborn, and M. Barrett, "A Trichordal
Temporal Approach to Digital Coordination: The
Sociomaterial Mangling of the Cern Grid", MIS Quarterly,
38(3), 2014, pp. 927-949.
[70] Cunha, J., and A. Carugati, "The Sociomateriality of It
Surveillance: A Dramaturgical Model of It Adoption
(December 6, 2011)", ICIS 2011 Proceedings, 2011.
[71] Meyer, S.R., C.S. Pierce, K. Yubo, P.M. Leonardi, B.A.
Nardi, and D.E. Bailey, "Offshoring Digital Work, but Not
Physical Output: Differential Access to Task Objects and
Coordination in Globally Distributed Automotive
Engineering and Graphic Design Work", HICSS 2015
Proceedings, 2015, pp. 1758-1767.
[56] De Vaujany, F.-X., S. Carton, C. Dominguez-Péry, and
E. Vaast, "Moving Closer to the Fabric of Organizing
Visions: The Case of a Trade Show", The Journal of
Strategic Information Systems, 22(1), 2013, pp. 1-25.
[57] Beaulieu, T., and S. Sarker, "Discursive Meaning
Creation in Crowdfunding: A Socio-Material Perspective",
2006