Resources: Main Page | Research Methods (A) | Major Theories (B) | Issues and Contemporary Topics (C) | Professional Community (D)
Aisle B (Major Theories): Classical Theories (BA) | Org. Behavior – Individual (BB1) | Org. Behavior – Groups & Teams (BB2) | Org. Behavior – Systems & Culture (BB3) | Contingency Theories (BC) | Org. Design (BD) | Org. Development & Change (BG) | Human Relations Theories (BH) | Institution Theories (BI) | Leadership Theories (BL) | Modern Management Perspectives (BM) | Postmodern & Critical Theories (BQ) | Sociology & Anthropology (BS)
Rack BQ (Postmodern & Critical Theories): Critical Management Studies | Postmodernist Organization Theory | Labor Process Theory | Sociomateriality (BQ.S) | Postcolonial Theory (BQ.P)
Jump to: Importance | Foundational Works | Research Areas | Curated List of Articles | TAOP Resources | References
The perspective of sociomateriality emphasizes how social life is produced through recurring patterns of action that combine both human and material elements. It has strong connections to critical theory and post-structuralist approaches in organizational studies, therefore it is binned here in Rack BQ. Sociomaterial perspectives are skeptical toward dualistic thinking (e.g., separation of technology and society) and interested in how power relations are embedded in material arrangements.
Importance of Sociomateriality Research in Organization Studies
Sociomateriality began as emerging information technologies in the late 20th century exposed important interactions between these technologies and organizations. Prior to that, scholars was more likely to see social outcomes as a product of the introduction of new technologies. For example, Trist & Bamforth’s (1951) study of the introduction of the longwall method of coal-getting (Episodes 34 & 114) placed the technology as the external force or stimulus that produced undesired and unexpected impacts on the coal miners and their social structures. But, as Orlikowski (1992) put it, this insufficiently explained the impacts and roles that technologies play in organizations because it looked at technology predominantly as “hardware” (specifically criticizing Blau [1976]) that replaced labor or was treated as equivalent to labor.
A later perspective attempted to rectify this by expanding the definition of technology to “social technologies” in use for education and service industries. Instead of just hardware, technologies in these settings could include tasks, techniques, and knowledge (Orlikowski, 1992) and that this perspective might have broader applicability. However, theory building here also ran into difficulties, as there was “boundary and measurement ambiguity. It also overlooks valuable information about the mediation of human action by machines” (Orlikowski, 1992: 399).
Another founding perspective was Actor-Network Theory, or ANT, developed by scholars such as Bruno Latour, Michel Callon, and John Law. ANT emphasizes the agency of non-human actors such as technologies and artifacts) in shaping social dynamics. This approach highlights how both human and non-human elements interact to produce social phenomena, thus laying the groundwork for sociomaterial perspectives (Ogden et al., 2023). Additionally, practice theory, particularly as articulated by theorists like Pierre Bourdieu (see Rack BS), focuses on the habitual practices of individuals and groups, suggesting that these practices are inherently tied to the material contexts in which they occur (Jones, 2014).
So, the subfield of sociomateriality emerged at the intersection of several other perspectives including contingency theory (operationalizing the ideas that there is no one best way to organize, see rack BC), structuration theory (see Rack BD), and ANT. But this is not just about theory building; there are practical insights this perspective provides. For example, traditional approaches might treat technology implementation as simply installing new tools and training people to use them. But sociomateriality research allows exploration of how any new technology fundamentally changes work practices, professional identities, and organizational relationships. For example, when hospitals implement electronic health records, it doesn’t just digitize existing practices – it changes how healthcare professionals think about patient care, how they relate to each other, and even how they understand their professional roles. But not just those in healthcare, it also changes behaviors of other actors such as patients and insurers! How do patients interact overall with the health system regarding expectations of how medical records are shared among providers and protected against unauthorized access? How do insurers use the electronic information to manage care, reduce costs, and avoid unnecessary treatments? And how has the sum of all these phenomena changed the meaning of healthcare?
Some Foundational Works on Sociomateriality in Organization Studies
Triangulating a simple set of foundational works in this subfield was challenging, because the ideas arose long before researchers specifically identified sociomateriality as a theoretical perspective. Thus the below represents a couple sources of the intellectual foundations before diving into some of the early works that identified as sociomaterial research. We offer the below in part to present some of the texts that we have covered in our program along with others that are perhaps high on our priority list for the future.
Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. This 1962 book made many contributions to the sociology of science, but among its conclusions were how scientific knowledge is inseparable from the material practices and instruments through which it is produced. This challenged the idea that the material and the social could be cleanly separated even in the natural sciences where there are strong beliefs in the existence of one objective truth.
Berger & Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality. The sociology of knowledge was another thread. This 1966 book examined how knowledge emerges through social processes, but their work also touched on how material arrangements participate in this construction. While this book did not develop an identifiably sociomaterial perspective, their insights about how reality is socially constructed provided important theoretical foundations.
Wanda Orlikowski, “The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations” (1992) and “The sociomateriality of organizational life: Considering technology in management research” (2010). We are going to bracket the work of Wanda Orlikowski who is one of the scholars responsible for placing the sociomaterial perspective on the map. The first articles was published in Organization Science and represents her formative work in the field, and we cited it in the description of sociomateriality above because it initiated the conversation about the shortcomings in extant theory including how treating technologies as things led to an incomplete view. The second article is an interesting example of how the changing workplace of the early 21st century could benefit from sociomaterial analysis. It opened with a semi-futuristic scenario of workers engaging each other remotely using avatars in a remote work environment, except that it was not futuristic — it employed a live, virtual, constructive world that was already in use in a tech company. Such rapidly emerging technologies and their impacts on the workplace were not being adequately studied in management research but needed to be.
Contemporary Areas of Research
As the above shows, sociomateriality research shows a lot of promise for addressing the unprecedented technological changes of the contemporary workplace. As artificial intelligence, automation, and digital platforms become more prevalent, frameworks are needed that help understand how these technologies are actively participating in reshaping organizational life, and sociomateriality provide one such suite of tools (for more, see Rack CD). This area of research can help explain why some technology implementations fail even when they might be technically sound. Did they fail to account for how deeply intertwined social and material aspects of work really are?
The perspective also helps us understand environmental challenges better. Climate change and sustainability about more than changing behaviors or implementing new technologies. They help researchers and practitioners (especially leaders and managers) fundamentally rethink how material practices and social arrangements are interconnected. Sociomateriality research can help explain why simple technical solutions often fail to address environmental problems and helps us develop more effective approaches that consider both social and material dimensions together (for more, see Rack CS).
Healthcare and Critical Care. Research in healthcare settings often employs a sociomaterial lens to explore how technologies and practices interact in critical care environments. One study discusses how sociomateriality can illuminate the complexities of care practices, emphasizing that entities in healthcare settings only come into existence through their relations with one another (Jones, 2014). This approach helps in understanding the nuances of patient care, technology use, and the roles of healthcare professionals.
Education and Learning Environments. The sociomaterial perspective is well recognized in educational research, particularly in understanding how learning materials and environments shape educational practices. Researchers are focusing on how relationships between people and materials can enhance understanding in education programs ranging from medicine (MacLeod & Ajjawi, 2020) to primary and secondary education (“K-12” in the US) (Meyer et al., 2021). They can also illuminate interprofessional education and practice, such as considering the power dynamics and inclusion of non-health professionals in collaborative settings (Sy et al., 2024). This perspective allows researchers to explore how various educational practices are influenced by both social interactions and material conditions.
Digital Public Spheres. Using the sociomaterial lens can enhance analysis of digital communication platforms. Some scholars are arguing that understanding computer-mediated communications as sociomaterial practices enables researchers to analyze the political implications of these technologies within public spheres (Grace & Fonseca, 2014). This research area examines how digital technologies shape social interactions and political engagement.
Learning Technologies. Research into the implementation of learning technologies often employs a sociomaterial perspective to understand how these technologies are integrated into educational practices. Studies into how sociomaterial entanglements shape the use of learning management systems in educational settings are revealing the complexities of technology adoption and its impact on teaching practices (Hannon, 2012). This has become more important as adult learners are increasingly looking to further their professional development through online education, spurred in part by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Curated List of Articles from the Management Learning Journal
This is a curated list of resources originated provided by the Management Learning Journal for the TAOP website. Many thanks to Jarryd Daymond and Cara Reed for assembling this.
Mowles, C. (2017) ‘Experiencing uncertainty: On the potential of groups and a group analytic approach for making management education more critical’, Management Learning, 48(5), pp. 505–519. doi: 10.1177/1350507617697868.
This article points to the potential of methods derived from group analytic practice for making management education more critical. It draws on the experience of running a professional doctorate for more experienced managers in a university in the United Kingdom over a 16-year period. Group analysis is informed by the highly social theories of S.H. Foulkes and draws heavily on psychoanalytic theory as well as sociology. First and foremost, though, it places our interdependence at the heart of the process of inquiry and suggests that the most potent place for learning about groups, where we spend most of our lives, is in a group. The article prioritises three areas of management practice for which group analytic methods, as adapted for research environment, are most helpful: coping with uncertainty and the feelings of anxiety which this often arouses; thinking about leadership as a relational and negotiated activity, and encouraging reflexivity in managers. The article also points to some of the differences between the idea of the learning community and psychodynamic perspectives more generally and the limitations of group analytic methods in particular, which may pathologise resistance in the workplace.
Gray, D. E. and Gabriel, Y. (2018) ‘A community of practice or a working psychological group? Group dynamics in core and peripheral community participation’, Management Learning, 49(4), pp. 395–412. doi: 10.1177/1350507618761774.
The concept of communities of practice has become increasingly influential in management literature. Yet, many scholars regard the term as too homogeneous and lacking in empirical support. Our study explores the Silver Academy, a project involving over 100 unemployed and self-employed managers over the age of 50, who came together with the purpose of sharing knowledge and experience in starting up their own businesses. The study shows how the Academy matches the notion of community of practice, including mutual relationships, shared engagement and a common consensus of membership. However, applying Bion’s theory of groups, we challenge the homogeneous and consensual notion of a community of practice, illustrating how, through unconscious group processes, some group members exhibit work-group mentality and the capacity for realistic hard work (and leadership), while others are caught in a basic-assumption mentality, prone to feelings of anxiety, guilt and depression. This is particularly so for a group that has gone through the recent trauma of unemployment.
Mughal, F., Gatrell, C. and Stead, V. (2018) ‘Cultural politics and the role of the action learning facilitator: Analysing the negotiation of critical action learning in the Pakistani MBA through a Bourdieusian lens’, Management Learning, 49(1), pp. 69–85. doi: 10.1177/1350507617740273.
This empirical study contributes to critical action learning research by theorizing the role of an action learning facilitator from a cultural perspective. Our article adds to critical action learning by conceptualizing the dynamics of facilitation in managing interpersonal politics within action learning sets. Employing Bourdieu’s notion of habitus as a theoretical lens, we explore both participant and facilitator accounts of action learning at three Pakistani business schools, shedding light on the culturally influenced social practices that shape their learning interactions. Through a critical interpretation of our data, we illuminate the challenges of facilitation by revealing how deeply ingrained power relations, within the context of gender and asymmetric relationships, influence participants’ ability to organize reflection. We contribute to critical action learning by theorizing the critical role of facilitator mediation in managing interpersonal and intra-group relations within the Pakistani MBA context, outlining the implications for the dynamics and facilitation of action learning.
Means, A. and Mackenzie Davey, K. (2022) ‘‘Maybe it’s culture and maybe it isn’t’: An ethnographic study of sensemaking, culture and performance in a multicultural team’, Management Learning. doi: 10.1177/13505076211070358.
Links between cultural diversity and team performance remain unclear despite extensive research. This study critiques essentialist ‘Input-Process-Output’ logics to focus on team members’ sensemaking. Using observation and interview data from an ethnographic study of an Indian-German team over an 18-month high-pressure project, we used thematic analysis and event sequencing to map sensemaking of culture and performance over time. Team members initially constructed a prospective frame linking stereotypes of cultural difference to performance, which plausibly explained problems while protecting identity. This frame proved resistant to updating. While overt conflict was avoided, the failure to confront difficulties closed down alternative explanations and prevented innovation and learning. Team performance was evaluated both positively and negatively reflecting ongoing ambiguity around performance. The role of culture in performance was only challenged post-project after time for reflection. The longitudinal, ethnographic approach enables this research to contribute to sensemaking by demonstrating the importance of prospective framing and highlighting the role of identity and plausibility in resisting updating frames. We argue that essentialist conceptions of the unequivocal positive or negative outcome of cultural diversity as ‘double-edged sword’ should be reframed to stress agency and the importance of facilitating conditions for learning in multicultural teams.
Jones, O. and Giordano, B. (2021) ‘Family entrepreneurial teams: The role of learning in business model evolution’, Management Learning, 52(3), pp. 267–293. doi: 10.1177/1350507620934092.
There is limited research linking entrepreneurial learning and business models in start-up businesses. Business models are important cognitive devices that link entrepreneurial thinking and engagement with customers and suppliers during business start-up. This research examines business model evolution during the first 6 years of a family-based start-up, which was formed in 2008 by 2 young brothers. The business grew quickly and achieved a turnover of £4.5 million with 15 staff members by 2014. The case study contributes a better understanding of ways in which team-based learning in a family business links experiential and cognitive learning during business model evolution.
Related Episodes from the Talking About Organizations Podcast
126: Labor and Monopoly Capital — Harry Braverman
124: Postcolonial Theory — Anshuman Prasad
99: Gendering in Organizations — Joan Acker
96: Informating at Work – Shoshana Zuboff
70: Epistemic Coloniality in Latin America – Eduardo Ibarra-Colado
53: Taylorism in Motion — Charlie Chaplin’s Modern Times
34: Sociotechnical Systems – Trist and Bamforth
32: Organizational Stupidity with Mats Alvesson and Bjorn Erik Mork LIVE
30: Corporate Culturalism — Hugh Willmott
28: Organizations as Rhetoric — Mats Alvesson
22: Human-Machine Reconfigurations – Lucy Suchman
18: Gig Economy, Labor Relations and Algorithmic Management
Related Resource Pages
Rack BA — Classic Organization and Management Theory
Rack BB1 – Organizational Behavior (Micro-Individual)
Rack BB2 — Organizational Behavior (Meso-Groups and Teams)
Rack BB3 — Organizational Behavior (Macro-Org/System)
Rack BC — Contingency Theory
Rack BD — Organizational Design
Rack BG — Organizational Development and Change
Rack BH – Human Dimension – Culture, Climate, Identity
Rack BI — Institution Theory
Rack BL — Leadership Theories
Rack BM – Modern Management Theories
Rack BQ — Postmodern and Critical Theories
Rack BS — Sociology & Anthropology
References
Anthropic. (2024). What is sociomateriality and why is it important in organization studies; Please explain in more detail the origins of sociomateriality thought and list some of its foundational texts from before 1990; Why is sociomateriality research important. Claude (March 2024 version) [Large Language Model].
Berger, P. L. & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. Anchor Books.
Blau, P. M. (1976). Approaches to the study of structure. Open Books.
Grace, W. R., & Fonseca, F. (2014). Adopting a Sociomaterial Perspective for the Analysis of Digital Public Spheres. iConference 2014 Proceedings.
Gray, D. E. & Gabriel, Y. (2018). A community of practice or a working psychological group? Group dynamics in core and peripheral community participation’, Management Learning, 49(4), 395–412. doi: 10.1177/1350507618761774
Hannon, J. (2012). Incommensurate practices: sociomaterial entanglements of learning technology implementation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(2), 168-178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00480.x
Jones, M. (2014). A matter of life and death: Exploring conceptualizations of sociomateriality in the context of critical care. Mis Quarterly, 38(3), 895-925. https://doi.org/10.25300/misq/2014/38.3.12
Jones, O. and Giordano, B. (2021). Family entrepreneurial teams: The role of learning in business model evolution, Management Learning, 52(3), 267–293. doi: 10.1177/1350507620934092.
Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
MacLeod, A. and Ajjawi, R. (2020). Thinking sociomaterially: why matter matters in medical education. Academic Medicine, 95(6), 851-855. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000003143
Means, A., & Mackenzie Davey, K. (2023). ‘Maybe it’s culture and maybe it isn’t’: An ethnographic study of sensemaking, culture and performance in a multicultural team. Management Learning, 54(2), 223-243.
Meyer, B., Bergström, P., & Wiklund-Engblom, A. (2021). Sociomaterial entanglement in one-to-one computing classrooms: exploring patterns of relations in teaching practices. Education Inquiry, 12(4), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2021.1893497
Mowles, C. (2017). Experiencing uncertainty: On the potential of groups and a group analytic approach for making management education more critical, Management Learning, 48(5), 505–519. doi: 10.1177/1350507617697868.
Mughal, F., Gatrell, C. & Stead, V. (2018). Cultural politics and the role of the action learning facilitator: Analysing the negotiation of critical action learning in the Pakistani MBA through a Bourdieusian lens. Management Learning, 49(1), 69–85. doi: 10.1177/1350507617740273.
Ogden, K., Kilpatrick, S., & Elmer, S. (2023). Examining the nexus between medical education and complexity: A systematic review to inform practice and research. BMC Medical Education, 23(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04471-2
Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization studies, 28(9), 1435-1448.
Orlikowski, W. J., and Scott, S. V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1)433-474.
Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science 3(3), 398–427.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404–428.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2010). The sociomateriality of organisational life: considering technology in management research. Cambridge journal of economics, 34(1), 125-141.
Scite. (2024). Please explain in more detail the origins of sociomateriality thought and list some of its foundational texts from before 1990; What are contemporary areas of research employing the sociomaterial perspective. Scite (April 2024 version) [Large Language Model].
Sy, M., Siongco, K. L., Pineda, R. C., Canalita, R., & Xyrichis, A. (2024). Sociomaterial perspective as applied in interprofessional education and collaborative practice: a scoping review. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 29(3), 753-781.
Trist, E. L., & Bamforth, K. W. (1951). Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall method of coal-getting: An examination of the psychological situation and defences of a work group in relation to the social structure and technological content of the work system. Human relations, 4(1), 3-38.
The inclusion of external links is for informational purposes only and does not necessarily constitute endorsement by TAOP or any of its members.
Jump to: Importance | Foundational Works | Research Areas | Curated List of Articles | TAOP Resources | References
Rack BQ (Postmodern & Critical Theories): Critical Management Studies | Postmodernist Organization Theory | Labor Process Theory | Sociomateriality (BQ.S) | Postcolonial Theory (BQ.P)
Aisle B (Major Theories): Classical Theories (BA) | Org. Behavior – Individual (BB1) | Org. Behavior – Groups & Teams (BB2) | Org. Behavior – Systems & Culture (BB3) | Contingency Theories (BC) | Org. Design (BD) | Org. Development & Change (BG) | Human Relations Theories (BH) | Institution Theories (BI) | Leadership Theories (BL) | Modern Management Perspectives (BM) | Postmodern & Critical Theories (BQ) | Sociology & Anthropology (BS)
Resources: Main Page | Research Methods (A) | Major Theories (B) | Issues and Contemporary Topics (C) | Professional Community (D)