Advertisement

Making a Difference in ICT Research: Feminist Theorization of Sociomateriality and the Diffraction Methodology

  • Amany ElbannaEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 543)

Abstract

Over the last decade, sociomateriality appeared as a theme in IS research that has been interrogated with a variety of theoretical lenses. However, researchers have since raised methodological concerns regarding its application. This paper argues that a research methodology cannot be separated from either the theoretical lens that the research adopts or from its overarching purpose. Considering the broad range of theoretical lenses through which sociomateriality could be examined, this paper focuses on Barad’s theory of agential realism [25]. The paper provides a brief history of agential realism to shed light on the reasons behind IS researchers methodological difficulty and offers a diffraction methodology as a possible methodological guide to IS research adopting this lens. Implication for research is discussed.

Keywords

Sociomateriality Agential realism IS research methodology Diffraction methodology 

References

  1. 1.
    Orlikowski, W.J., Scott, S.V.: 10 sociomateriality: challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2(1), 433–474 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Orlikowski, W.J.: Sociomaterial practices: exploring technology at work. Org. Stud. 28(9), 1435–1448 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Robey, D., Anderson, C., Raymond, B.: Information technology, materiality, and organizational change: a professional odyssey. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 14(7), 379 (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Leonardi, P.M.: Car Crashes Without Cars: Lessons about Simulation Technology and Organizational Change from Automotive Design. MIT Press, Cambridge (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Leonardi, P.M.: When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: Affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies. MIS Q. 35, 147–167 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Whyte, J.: Beyond the computer: changing medium from digital to physical. Inf. Org. 23(1), 41–57 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Almklov, P.G., Østerlie, T., Haavik, T.K.: Situated with infrastructures: interactivity and entanglement in sensor data interpretation. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 15, 263 (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pentland, B.T., Singh, H.: Materiality: what are the consequences? In: Paul, M. Leonardi, B.A., Nardi, J.K. (eds.) Materiality and Organizing, pp. 287–295. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Majchrzak, A., Markus, M.L.: Technology affordances and constraints in management information systems (MIS) (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wagner, E.L., Newell, S., Piccoli, G.: Understanding project survival in an ES environment: a sociomaterial practice perspective. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 11(5), 276–297 (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    de Albuquerque, J.P., Christ, M.: The tension between business process modelling and flexibility: revealing multiple dimensions with a sociomaterial approach. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 24(3), 189–202 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dery, K., et al.: Lost in translation? An actor-network approach to HRIS implementation. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 22(3), 225–237 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Quattrone, P., Hopper, T.: What is IT?: SAP, accounting, and visibility in a multinational organisation. Inf. Organ. 16(3), 212–250 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., Kautz, K., Abrahall, R.: Reframing success and failure of information systems: a performative perspective. MIS Q. 38(2), 561–588 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Østerlie, T., Almklov, P.G., Hepsø, V.: Dual materiality and knowing in petroleum production. Inf. Org. 22(2), 85–105 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Orlikowski, W.J., Scott, S.V.: What happens when evaluation goes online? Exploring apparatuses of valuation in the travel sector. Org. Sci. 25(3), 868–891 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Orlikowski, W.J., Scott, S.V.: The algorithm and the crowd: considering the materiality of service innovation. MIS Q. 39(1), 201–216 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Leonardi, P.M.: Materiality, sociomateriality, and socio-technical systems: what do these terms mean? How are they related? Do we need them? In: Materiality and Organizing: Social Interaction in a Technological World, pp. 25–48 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., et al.: The sociomateriality of information systems: current status, future directions. MIS Q. 38(3), 809–830 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Elbanna, A.: Doing ‘sociomateriality’ research in information systems. Data Base Adv. Inf. Syst. 47, 84–92 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Constantinides, P., Barrett, M.: A narrative networks approach to understanding coordination practices in emergency response. Inf. Org. 22(4), 273–294 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Johri, A.: Sociomaterial bricolage: the creation of location-spanning work practices by global software developers. Inf. Softw. Technol. 53(9), 955–968 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Faulkner, P., Runde, J.: On sociomateriality. In: Leonardi, P.M., Nardi, B.A., Kallinikos, J. (eds.) Materiality and Organizing: Social Interaction in a Technological World. Oxford University Press on Demand, pp. 49–66 (2012)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jarzabkowski, P., Pinch, T.: Sociomateriality is ‘the New Black’: accomplishing repurposing, reinscripting and repairing in context. M@ n@ gement 16(5), 579–592 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Barad, K.: Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Duke University Press, Durham (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Scott, S.V., Orlikowski, W.J.: Sociomateriality—taking the wrong turning? A response to Mutch. Inf. Org. 23(2), 77–80 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Barad, K.: Diffracting diffraction: cutting together-apart. Parallax 20(3), 168–187 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Barad, K.: Getting real: technoscientific practices and the materialization of reality. Differ. J. Feminist Cult. Stud. 10(2), 87–91 (1998)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Alaimo, S., Hekman, S.: Introduction: emerging models of materiality in feminist theory. In: Alaimo, S., Hekman, S. (eds.) Material Feminisms. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN (2008)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Alaimo, S.: Material Feminisms. Indiana University Press, Bloomington (2008)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lykke, N.: Feminist Studies: A Guide to Intersectional Theory, Methodology and Writing. Routledge, Abingdon (2010)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Taguchi, H.L.: A diffractive and Deleuzian approach to analysing interview data. Feminist Theory 13(3), 265–281 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Butler, J.: Bodies that Matter: on the Discursive Limits of Sex, 1st edn. Taylor & Francis, Didcot (1993)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Haraway, D.: Simians, cyborgs, and women. Univ. PA Law Rev. 154(3), 477 (1991)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Haraway, D.J.: Modest_Witness@ Second_Millennium. FemaleMan_Meets_OncoMouse: Feminism and Technoscience. Psychology Press, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lykke, N.: Intersectional analysis: black box or useful critical feminist thinking technology. In: Framing Intersectionality: Debates on a Multi-faceted Concept in Gender Studies (2011)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Taguchi, H.L.: Going Beyond the Theory/Practice Divide in Early Childhood Education: Introducing an Intra-active Pedagogy. Routledge, Abingdon (2010)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hultman, K., Taguchi, H.L.: Challenging anthropocentric analysis of visual data: a relational materialist methodological approach to educational research. Int. J. Qual. Stud. Educ. 23(5), 525–542 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Barad, K.: Posthumanist performativity: toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs 28(3), 801–831 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Barad, K.: A feminist approach to teaching quantum physics. In: Teaching the Majority: Breaking the Gender Barrier in Science, Mathematics, and Engineering, pp. 43–75 (1995)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Barad, K.: Agential Realism: Feminist Interventions in Understanding Scientific Practices. The Science Studies Reader, pp. 1–11 (1999)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Haraway, D.: The promises of monsters: a regenerative politics for inappropriate/d others. In: Grossberg, L., Nelson, C., Treichler, P. (eds.) Cultural Studies, pp. 295–337. Routledge, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kruks, S.: Gender and subjectivity: Simone de beauvoir and contemporary feminism. Signs 18(1), 89–110 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Gibson-Graham, J.-K.: ‘Stuffed if i know!’: reflections on post-modern feminist social research. Gend. Place Cult. J. Feminist Geogr. 1(2), 205–224 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Parpart, J.L.: Who is the ‘Other’?: a postmodern feminist critique of women and development theory and practice. Dev. Change 24(3), 439–464 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Friedman, S.S.: Mappings: Feminism and the Cultural Geographies of Encounter. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Eschle, C.: Feminist studies of globalisation: beyond gender, beyond economism? Glob. Soc. 18(2), 97–125 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ferber, M.A., Nelson, J.A.: Beyond Economic Man: Feminist Theory and Economics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (2009)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Eschle, C.: Global Democracy, Social Movements, and Feminism. Westview Press Inc., Boulder (2001)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Pollock, G.: Generations and Geographies in the Visual Arts: Feminist Readings. Routledge, Abingdon (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Silvey, R.: Power, difference and mobility: feminist advances in migration studies. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 28(4), 490–506 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Elwood, S.: Volunteered geographic information: future research directions motivated by critical, participatory, and feminist GIS. GeoJournal 72(3–4), 173–183 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Erevelles, N.: Disability and Difference in Global Contexts: Enabling a Transformative Body Politic. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137001184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Mol, A.: The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Duke University Press, Durham (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Mol, A.: Ontological politics. A word and some questions. Sociol. Rev. 47(S1), 74–89 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Mol, A.: The Logic of Care: Health and the Problem of Patient Choice. Routledge, Abingdon (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Mol, A., Law, J.: Regions, networks and fluids: anaemia and social topology. Soc. Stud. Sci. 24(4), 641–671 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
  59. 59.
    Suchman, L.: Located accountabilities in technology production. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 14(2), 7 (2002)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Suchman, L.: Feminist STS and the Sciences of the Artificial, pp. 139–164. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2008)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Jones, M.: A matter of life and death: exploring conceptualizations of sociomateriality in the context of critical care. MIS Q. 38(3), 895–925 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Barad, K.: Erasers and erasures: Pinch’s unfortunate ‘uncertainty principle’. Soc. Stud. Sc. (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312711406317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Barad, K.: Quantum entanglements and hauntological relations of inheritance: Dis/continuities, spacetime enfoldings, and justice-to-come. Derrida Today 3(2), 240–268 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Stumpf, S.A.: Applying new science theories in leadership development activities. J. Manag. Dev. 14(5), 39–49 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Baskerville, R., Pries-Heje, J.: Discovering the significance of scientific design practice: new science wrapped in old science. In: Proceedings of the IT Artefact Design & Work Practice Intervention Workshop, Tilberg, Netherlands (2016)Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Barad, K.: TransMaterialities trans*/matter/realities and queer political imaginings. GLQ J. Lesbian Gay Stud. 21(2), 387–422 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Bozalek, V., Zembylas, M.: Diffraction or reflection? Sketching the contours of two methodologies in educational research. Int. J. Qual. Stud. Educ. 30(2), 111–127 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Van der Tuin, I.: Diffraction as a methodology for feminist onto-epistemology: on encountering Chantal Chawaf and posthuman interpellation. Parallax 20(3), 231–244 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Palmer, A.: “How many sums can I do”?: performative strategies and diffractive thinking as methodological tools for rethinking mathematical subjectivity. Reconceptualizing Educ. Res. Methodol. (RERM) 1(1), 3–18 (2011)Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Sehgal, M.: Diffractive propositions: reading Alfred North Whitehead with Donna Haraway and Karen Barad. Parallax 20(3), 188–201 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Butler, M.L.: Making waves. In: Women’s Studies International Forum, Elsevier (2001)Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Allegranti, B.: The politics of becoming bodies: sex, gender and intersubjectivity in motion. Arts Psychother. 40(4), 394–403 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Van der Tuin, I.: A different starting point, a different metaphysics: reading Bergson and Barad diffractively. Hypatia 26(1), 22–42 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Davies, B.: Reading anger in early childhood intra-actions: a diffractive analysis. Qual. Inq. 20(6), 734–741 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Edmond, J.: Diffracted waves and world literature. Parallax 20(3), 245–257 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Kaiser, B.M., Thiele, K.: Diffraction: onto-epistemology, quantum physics and the critical humanities. Parallax 20(3), 165–167 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Webster, J., Watson, R.T.: Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review. MIS Q. 26, xiii–xxiii (2002)Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Hoel, A.S., Van der Tuin, I.: The ontological force of technicity: Reading Cassirer and Simondon diffractively. Philos. Technol. 26(2), 187–202 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Grosz, E.: Time Travels: Feminism, Nature. Power. Duke University Press, Durham (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Davies, B.: Listening to Children: Being and Becoming. Routledge, Abingdon (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Schwandt, T.A.: Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry. In: Handbook of Qualitative Research, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 189–213 (2000)Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Kleinman, A.: “Intra-action” - Interview With Karen Barad. Mousse, vol. 34, pp. 76–81 (2012). (http://johannesk.com/posthumanist/readings/barad-mousse.pdf)
  83. 83.
    Mazzei, L.A.: Beyond an easy sense: a diffractive analysis. Qual. Inq. 20(6), 742–746 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Berlant, L.: Cruel optimism. In: Gregg, M., Seigworth, G.J. (eds.) The Affect Theory Reader. Duke University Press, London (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Chia, R.: The problem of reflexivity in organizational research: towards a postmodern science of organization. Organization 3(1), 31–59 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Chia, R.: Reflections: in praise of silent transformation–allowing change through ‘letting happen’. J. Change Manag. 14(1), 8–27 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Cecez-Kecmanovic, D.: From substantialist to process metaphysics–exploring shifts in IS research. In: Introna, L., Kavanagh, D., Kelly, S., Orlikowski, W., Scott, S. (eds.) Beyond Interpretivism? New Encounters with Technology and Organization: IFIP WG 8.2 Working Conference on Information Systems and Organizations. Springer, Dublin (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49733-4_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Davies, B., et al.: The ambivalent practices of reflexivity. Qual. Inq. 10(3), 360–389 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Taguchi, H.L., Palmer, A.: A diffractive methodology to ‘disclose’ possible realities of girls’ material-discursive health/’wellbeing’ in school-settings. Gend. Educ. 25(6), 671–687 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Taguchi, H.L., Palmer, A.: A more ‘livable’school? A diffractive analysis of the performative enactments of girls’ ill-/well-being with (in) school environments. Gend. Educ. 25(6), 671–687 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Heywood, L., Drake, J.: Third Wave Agenda: Being Feminist, Doing Feminism. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis (1997)Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Gillis, S., Howie, G., Munford, R.: Third Wave Feminism. Springer, London (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230523173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Butler, J., Scott, J.W.: Feminists Theorize the Political. Routledge, Abingdon (2013)Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Hirschheim, R., Klein, H.K.: Crisis in the IS Field? A critical reflection on the state of the discipline. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 4(1), 10 (2003)Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Mingers, J., Walsham, G.: Toward ethical information systems: the contribution of discourse ethics. MIS Q. 34(4), 833–854 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Walsham, G.: Are we making a better world with ICTs? Reflections on a future agenda for the IS field. J. Inf. Technol. 27(2), 87–93 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Royal Holloway University of LondonEghamUK

Personalised recommendations