We introduce postphenomenology to organization studies to address the question: How is moral agency mediated through everyday technologies? Drawing on our everyday experiences of academic knowledge production as an empirical illustration, we argue that the extent to which technological mediations are visible and invisible has important implications for moral agency. We conceptualize the visibilities of technological mediations through two dimensions: (1) visibilities of the source of mediation, and (2) visibilities of the connection between the means of mediation and its effects. Using these dimensions, we differentiate four different modes of mediation – coercive, persuasive, decisive and seductive – each varying in terms of moral agency. We problematize the invisibility of technological mediations, as evinced by a condition we term seductive mediation where both the sources of mediation and the means of mediation are invisible, then conclude with specific implications for organization studies.
AdlerNancy J.HarzingAnne-Wil (2009). When knowledge wins: Transcending the sense and nonsense of academic rankings. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8, 72–95.
2.
AhmedSarah (2010). Foreword. In Ryan-FloodRoísínGillRosalind (Eds.), Secrecy and silence in the research process: Feminist reflections (pp. xvi–xxii). London: Routledge.
3.
AmooreLouise (2020). Cloud ethics: Algorithms and the attributes of ourselves and others. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
4.
BergerPeter L. (1966). Invitation to sociology. Harmondsworth, UK: Pelican.
5.
BeyesTimon (2017). ‘The machine could swallow everything’: Satin Island and performing organization. In BeyesTimonLeekerMartinaSchipperImanuel (Eds.), Performing the digital: Performativity and performance studies in digital cultures (pp. 229–246). Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.
6.
BeyesTimonHoltRobinPiasClaus (Eds.) (2019). The Oxford handbook of media, technology, and organization studies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
7.
BirchallClare (2021). Radical secrecy: The end of transparency in datafied America. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press.
8.
BrighentiAndrea M (2007). Visibility: A category for the social sciences. Current Sociology, 55, 323–342.
9.
BrighentiAndrea M. (2010). Visibility in social theory and social research. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
10.
ButlerNickSpoelstraSverre (2012). Your excellency. Organization, 19, 891–903.
11.
CampbellTimothy C. (2011). Improper life: Technology and biopolitics from Heidegger to Agamben. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
CurchodCorentinPatriottaGerardoCohenLaurieNeysenNicolas (2020). Working for an algorithm: Power asymmetries and agency in online work settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 65, 644–676.
15.
de BoerBasHoekJonneKudinaOlga (2018). Can the technological mediation approach improve technology assessment? A critical review from ‘within’. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 5, 299–315.
16.
Delgado López-CózarEmilioRobinson-GarcíaNicolásTorres-SalinasDaniel (2012). Manipulating Google Scholar citations and Google Scholar metrics: Simple, easy and tempting. arXiv preprint arXiv:1212.0638, EC3 Working Papers 6 (29 May, 2012).
17.
DourishPaulGrahamConnorRandallDaveRouncefieldMark (2010). Theme issue on social interaction and mundane technologies. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 14, 171–180.
18.
FlemingPeter (2019). Robots and organization studies: Why robots might not want to steal your job. Organization Studies, 40, 23–38.
19.
FlyverbomMikkel (2015). Sunlight in cyberspace? On transparency as a form of ordering. European Journal of Social Theory, 18, 168–184.
20.
FlyverbomMikkel (2019). The digital prism: Transparency and managed visibilities in a datafied world. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
21.
FlyverbomMikkelDeibertRonaldMattenDirk (2017). The governance of digital technology, big data, and the internet: New roles and responsibilities for business. Business & Society, 58, 3–19.
22.
FlyverbomMikkelLeonardiPaul M.StohlCynthiaStohlMichael (2016). The management of visibilities in the digital age. International Journal of Communication, 10, 98–109.
23.
FoucaultMichel (1975). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Random House.
24.
FoucaultMichel (1985/1990). The history of sexuality volume 2: The use of pleasure (Robert Hurley, Trans.). New York: Vintage Books.
25.
FoucaultMichel (1997). Ethics: Subjectivity and truth (Paul Rabinow Ed.). New York: New Press.
26.
HafermalzElla (2021). Out of the panopticon and into exile: Visibility and control in distributed new culture organizations. Organization Studies, 42, 697–717.
27.
HansenHans K.ChristensenLars T.FlyverbomMikkel (2015). Introduction: Logics of transparency in late modernity: Paradoxes, mediation and governance. European Journal of Social Theory, 18, 117–131.
28.
HansenHans K.FlyverbomMikkel (2014). The politics of transparency and the calibration of knowledge in the digital age. Organization, 22, 872–889.
29.
HansenHans K.WeiskopfRichard (2021). From universalizing transparency to the interplay of transparency matrices: Critical insights from the emerging social credit system in China. Organization Studies, 42, 109–128.
30.
HarcourtBernard E. (2015). Exposed: Desire and disobedience in the digital age. Cambridge, MA, and London: Harvard University Press.
31.
HaylesN. Katherine (2016). Cognitive assemblages: Technical agency and human interaction. Critical Inquiry, 43, 32–55.
32.
HeideggerMartin (1927/1962). Being and time. New York: Harper & Row.
33.
HernesTor (2010). Actor-network theory, Callon’s scallops, and process-based organization studies. In HernesTorMaitlisSally (Eds.), Process, sensemaking, and organizing (pp. 161–184). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
34.
HillmanAmy J.RynesSara L. (2007). The future of double-blind review in management. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 622–627.
35.
HirschJorge E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569–16572.
36.
HirschauerStefan (2010). Editorial judgments: A praxeology of ‘voting’ in peer review. Social Studies of Science, 40, 71–103.
37.
HörlEric (2015). The technological condition. Parrhesia, 22, 1–15.
38.
IhdeDon (1990). Technology and the lifeworld. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
39.
Kudos Innovations Ltd (2019). Accelerating research impact. Retrieved from https://www.growkudos.com
40.
LatourBruno (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
41.
LatourBruno (1992). Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane facts. In BijkerWiebe E.LawJohn (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society (pp. 225–258). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
42.
LatourBruno (1996). On actor-network theory: A few clarifications. Sociale Welt, 47, 369–381.
43.
LeonardiPaul M. (2012). Materiality, sociomateriality, and socio-technical systems: What do these terms mean? How are they different? Do we need them? In LeonardiPaul M.NardiBonnie A.KallinikosJannis (Eds.), Materiality and organizing: Social interaction in a technological world (pp. 25–48). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
44.
LeonardiPaul M. (2013). Theoretical foundations for the study of sociomateriality. Information and Organization, 23, 59–76.
45.
LyotardJean-François (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
46.
MacdonaldStuartKamJacqueline (2007). Ring a ring o’ roses: Quality journals and gamesmanship in management studies. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 640–655.
47.
MacKenzieAdrianMunsterAnna (2019). Platform seeing: Image ensembles and their invisualities. Theory, Culture & Society, 36(5), 3–22.
48.
MathewmanSteve (2014). Michel Foucault, technology, and actor-network theory. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 17, 274–292.
49.
McLeanChrisHassardJohn (2004). Symmetrical absence/symmetrical absurdity: Critical notes on the production of actor-network accounts. Journal of Management Studies, 41, 493–519.
50.
MichaelMike (2003). Between the mundane and the exotic: Time for a different sociotechnical stuff. Time & Society, 12, 127–143.
51.
MorrisonL. Alexandra (2020). Situating moral agency: How postphenomenology can benefit engineering ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26, 1377–1401.
52.
MutchAlistair (2013). Sociomateriality: Taking the wrong turning?Information and Organization, 23, 28–40.
53.
NewlandsGemma (2021). Algorithmic surveillance in the gig economy: The organization of work through Lefebvrian conceived space. Organization Studies, 42, 719–737.
54.
NybergDaniel (2009). Computers, customer service operatives and cyborgs: Intra-actions in call centres. Organization Studies, 30, 1181–1199.
55.
OrlikowskiWanda J.ScottSusan V. (2014). What happens when evaluation goes online? Exploring apparatuses of valuation in the travel sector. Organization Science, 25, 868–891.
56.
OvadiaSteven (2013). When social media meets scholarly publishing. Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian, 32, 194–198.
57.
PadulaDanielleBrembsBjörnHarnadStevanHerbUlrichMissinghamRoxanneMorganDanOrtbalJohn (2017). Democratizing academic journals: Technology, services, and Open Access. Retrieved from https://t.co/fjAZNUzDCU
58.
ParkerMartin (2013). Becoming editor: Or, Pinocchio finally notices the strings. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 11, 461–474.
59.
PietersWolter (2013). On thinging things and serving services: Technological mediation and inseparable goods. Ethics and Information Technology, 15, 195–208.
60.
PosadaAlejandroChenGeorge (2018). Inequality in knowledge production: The integration of academic infrastructure by big publishers. Paper presented at the ELPUB 2018, Toronto, Canada.
61.
RaoMithun B.JongerdenJoostLemmensPieterRuivenkampGuido (2015). Technological mediation and power: Postphenomenology, critical theory, and autonomist Marxism. Philosophy and Technology, 28, 449–474.
62.
RosenbergerRobertVerbeekPeter-Paul (2015). A field guide to postphenomenology. In RosenbergerRobertVerbeekPeter-Paul (Eds.), Postphenomenological investigations: Essays on human-technology relations (pp. 9–42). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
63.
ScharffRobert C.DusekVal (2014). Philosophy of technology: The technological condition: An anthology (2nd ed.). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
64.
ShawDebra B. (2018). Posthuman urbanism. London: Rowman & Littlefield International.
65.
StohlCynthiaStohlMichaelLeonardiPaul M. (2016). Managing opacity: Information visibility and the paradox of transparency in the digital age. International Journal of Communication, 10, 123–137.
66.
ThompsonJohn B. (2005). The new visibility. Theory, Culture & Society, 22(6), 31–51.
67.
TrompNynkeHekkertPaulVerbeekPeter-Paul (2011). Design for socially responsible behavior: A classification of influence based on intended user experience. Design Issues, 27(3), 3–19.
68.
Van Den EedeYoni (2011). In between us: On the transparency and opacity of technological mediation. Foundations of Science, 16, 139–159.
69.
VerbeekPeter-Paul (2005). What things do: Philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
70.
VerbeekPeter-Paul (2006). Materializing morality: Design ethics and technological mediation. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 31, 361–380.
71.
VerbeekPeter-Paul (2008a). Morality in design: Design ethics and the morality of technological artifacts. In KroesPeterVermaasPieter E.LightAndrewMooreSteven A. (Eds.), Philosophy and design (pp. 91–103). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
72.
VerbeekPeter-Paul (2008b). Obstetric ultrasound and the technological mediation of morality: A postphenomenological analysis. Human Studies, 31, 11–26.
73.
VerbeekPeter-Paul (2011). Moralizing technology: Understanding and designing the morality of things. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
74.
VerbeekPeter-Paul (2012). Expanding mediation theory. Foundations of Science, 17, 391–395.
75.
VerbeekPeter-Paul (2013). Resistance is futile: Toward a non-modern democratization of technology. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 17, 72–92.
76.
VerbeekPeter-Paul (2014). Some misunderstandings about the moral significance of technology. In KroesPeterVerbeekPeter-Paul (Eds.), The moral status of technical artefacts (pp. 75–88). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
77.
VerbeekPeter-Paul (2016). Toward a theory of technological mediation: A program for postphenomenological research. In FriisJan K. B. O.CreaseRobert C. (Eds.), Technoscience and postphenomenology: The Manhattan papers (pp. 189–204). London: Lexington Books.
78.
WhittleAndreaSpicerAndré (2008). Is actor network theory critique?Organization Studies, 29, 611–629.
79.
ZuboffShoshana (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. London: Profile Books.
