Sociomateriality: Theories, methodology, and practice

Abstract

This article aims to present the theoretical trends that constitute the notion of sociomateriality in the field of organizational studies and to describe a methodological framework for conducting empirical research in this field. It is a contribution for those interested in understanding and using the sociomateriality approach theoretically and methodologically. The main conclusion is that sociomateriality is a valuable alternative not only for comprehending how the entanglement of human and non‐human actors may produce organizations, their practices, and changes, but also for (re)thinking organizational phenomena both ontologically and methodologically.

Developing Lawful Technologies – A Revelatory Case Study on Design Patterns

“…For this purpose, socio-materiality [18,25,26] is a powerful instrument when considering the theoretical basis of IT artifacts in practice [27,35]. Socio-materiality focuses interactions between humans and nonhumans, which [22]. Thus, sociomateriality is a prime candidate when researching the interface of IT artifact design knowledge and human centricity.…”

Introducing ficto-feminism: a non-fiction, fictitious conversation with Hallie Flanagan, director of the Federal Theatre Project (1935–1939)

“…Collective biography also reveals the sociomateriality of living gendered lives. My protagonist and I are nested in a specific spatial arrangement which reveals our individual and shared constitutive entanglement and how we are bound up in material forms and human interaction (Moura and Bispo, 2020). In a way, I map myself onto her and become part of her and she becomes part of me.…”

Moments of entanglement

“…Strictly speaking, sociomateriality accounts for a relational ontology that assumes no a priori distinction between the social and the material. However, multiple fields of inquiry have adopted this concept as an umbrella term to describe a myriad of theoretical and methodological approaches that seem to ignore this ontological positioning (see e.g., Moura & Bispo, 2019). Most of these fields use the word 'sociomaterial' merely as an adjective, sometimes even spelling it with a hyphen (i.e., 'sociomaterial'), thus conflating an ontological claim with a descriptive word.…”

“…Practitioner 1 was asked to articulate her thoughts while she was building a ceramic vessel. Echoing the notion of reflection-in-action as conceptualized by philosopher Donald Schön (1983), this method sits somewhere in between of what design researchers call think-aloud protocols (Ericsson & Simon, 1993) and sociomaterial researchers call interviews to the double (Moura & Bispo, 2019). Then, Practitioner 2 was asked to let the prototype of another vessel speak through her voice, resembling what social anthropologist Sophie Woodward ( 2016) calls an object interview.…”