The paper offers a fresh approach to the analysis of technology in organization through a critique of Orlikowski and Barley's assessment that institutional theory has the potential to bridge the social and material facets of organizational change when greater emphasis is placed on the materiality of technology. Through analysis of a major information and communication technologies outsourcing contract between UK Inland Revenue and Electronic Data Services, the authors follow institutional theory in problematizing studies in which technology is treated as a material cause or independent variable. But the approach commended by Orlikowski and Barley, they argue, is flawed by its unproblematized assumption of a separation between the physical and social aspects of technology. Drawing on the thinking of Laclau and Mouffe, the authors advocate an alternative framework that unsettles the commonsense, naturalized differentiation of the materiality of technology and the discursive field through which it is articulated and given meaning.
Barley, S. (1986). Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 78-108.
2.
Barley, S., & Tolbert, P. (1997). Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links between action and institution. Organization Studies, 18, 93-117.
3.
Bhaskar, R., & Laclau, E. (1998). Critical realism vs. discourse theory. Alethia, 1(2), 9-14.
4.
Bridgman, T., & Willmott, H. C. (2005). Coziness and cover-up at Inland Revenue/EDS? Managing relationships in a flagship public-private partnership(Reference No. 305-046-1). Available from www.ecch.com
5.
Button, G. (1993). The curious case of the vanishing technology. In G. Button (Ed.), Technology in working order: Studies of work, interaction and technology(pp. 10-28). London: Routledge.
6.
Callon, M. (1991). Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination(pp. 132-161). London: Routledge.
7.
Critchley, S., & Marchart, O. (2004). Introduction. In S. Critchley & O. Marchart (Eds.), Laclau: A critical reader(pp. 1-14). London: Routledge.
8.
Czarniawska, B., & Hernes, T. (Eds.). (2005). Actor-network theory and organizing. Malmo, Denmark: Liber and Copenhagen Business School Press.
9.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
10.
Fairclough, N. (2005). Discourse analysis in organization studies: The case for critical realism. Organization Studies, 26, 915-939.
11.
Holmström, J., & Robey, D. (2005). Inscribing organizational change with information technology. In B. Czarniawska & T. Hernes (Eds.), Actor-network theory and organizing(pp. 165-187). Malmo, Denmark: Liber and Copenhagen Business School Press.
12.
Kling, R. (1991). Computerization and social transformations. Science, Technology and Human Values, 6, 342-367.
13.
Kondra, A., & Hinings, C. R. (1998). Organizational change and diversity in change in institutional theory. Organization Studies, 19, 743-767.
14.
Laclau, E. (1990). New reflections on the revolution of our time. London: Verso.
15.
Laclau, E. (2002). Critical realism and discourse theory: Debate with Ernesto Laclau. In R. Bhaskar (Ed.), Fromscience to emancipation: Alienation and the actuality of enlightenment(pp. 79-95). London: Sage.
16.
Laclau. E., & Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and socialist strategy. London: Verso.
17.
Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (2001). Hegemony and socialist strategy(2nd ed.). London: Verso.
18.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19.
Latour, B. (1999). On recalling ANT. In J. Law& J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor network theory and after(pp. 15-25). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
20.
Law, J. (1992). Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity. Systems Practice, 5, 379-393.
21.
Law, J. (1999). After ANT: Complexity, naming and topology. In J. Law& J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor network theory and after(pp. 1-14). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
22.
Low, J., & Woolgar, S. (1993). Managing the social-technical divide: Some aspects of the discursive structure of information systems development. In P. Quintas (Ed.), Social dimensions of systems engineering: People, processes, policies and software development(pp. 34-59). New York: Ellis Horwood.
23.
McLean, C., & Hassard, J. (2004). Symmetrical absence/symmetrical absurdity: Critical notes on the production of actor-network accounts. Journal of Management Studies, 41, 493-519.
24.
Mol, A. (1999). Ontological politics. A word and some questions. In J. Law & J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor network theory and after(pp. 74-89). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
25.
Mutch, A. (2002). Actors and networks or agents and structures: Towards a realist view of information systems. Organization, 9, 513-532.
26.
National Audit Office. (1987). Inland Revenue: Control of major developments in use of information technology. London: HMSO.
27.
National Audit Office. (1995). Inland Revenue: Market testing the information technology office. London: HMSO.
28.
National Audit Office. (1996). Change management in the Inland Revenue. London: HMSO.
29.
Orlikowski, W. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3, 398-427.
30.
Orlikowski, W. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11, 404-428.
31.
Orlikowski, W., & Barley, S. (2001). Technology and institutions: What can research on information technology and research on organizations learn from each other?MIS Quarterly, 25, 145-165.
32.
Orlikowski, W., & Iacono, C. (2001). Research commentary: Desperately seeking the “IT” in IT research— A call to theorizing the IT artifact. Information Systems Research, 12, 121-134.
33.
Pinch, T., & Bijker, W. (1987). The social construction of facts and artifacts. In W. Bijker, T. Hughes, & T. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology(pp. 17-50). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34.
Powell, W. (1991). Expanding the scope of institutional analysis. In W. Powell & P. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis(pp. 183-203). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
35.
Scarborough, H., & Corbett, J. M. (1992). Technology and organization. London: Routledge.
36.
Treasury. (1991). Competing for quality: Buying better public services. London: HMSO.
37.
Walsham, G. (1993). Interpreting information systems in organizations. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
38.
Willmott, H. C. (2005). Theorizing contemporary control: Some post-structuralist responses to some critical realist questions. Organization, 21, 747-780.
