What's Under Construction Here? Social Action, Materiality, and Power in Constructivist Studies of Technology and Organizing
What's Under Construction Here? Social Action, Materiality, and Power in Constructivist Studies of Technology and Organizing
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/19416521003654160
复制
发表时间：
2010-01-01
影响因子：
21.2
通讯作者：
Barley, Stephen R.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Leonardi, Paul M.;Barley, Stephen R.
在过去的二十年里，组织学者越来越多地认为技术对组织的影响是社会建构的。研究实施的建构主义者通常认为，组织变革产生于持续不断的社会行动流，在这种社会行动流中，人们对技术的约束和支持做出反应，也对彼此做出反应。虽然大多数研究技术和组织的学生普遍同意建构主义的本体论，但当学者们说技术的影响是社会建构的时候，他们的意思有很大的不同。我们将实施集群的社会建构研究分为五个连贯的视角，我们称之为感知、解释、挪用、制定和对齐。关于他们研究的社会现象和他们声称的构建发生的过程，他们的观点是不同的。透视图还关注实现过程的不同阶段，并在不同的分析层次上操作。在阐明了每一个观点之后，我们认为，技术和组织的学生可以更直接地参与到组织理论的核心问题中，如果他们抓住物质性和权力，他们到目前为止一直轻描淡写，试图抵消该领域早期的技术决定论的倾向。
Over the past two decades, organizational scholars have increasingly argued that technology's affects on organizations are socially constructed. Constructivists who study implementation generally hold that organizational change emerges from an ongoing stream of social action in which people respond to a technology's constraints and affordances, as well as to each other. Although most students of technology and organizing generally agree on the ontology of constructivism, there are considerable differences in what scholars mean when they say that a technology's affects are socially constructed. We show that research on the social construction of implementation clusters into five coherent perspectives, which we call perception, interpretation, appropriation, enactment, and alignment. The perspectives differ with regard to the social phenomena they study and the processes by which they claim that construction occurs. The perspectives also focus on different phases of the implementation process and operate at different levels of analysis. After elucidating each perspective, we argue that students of technology and organizing could more directly engage issues central to organizational theory if grappled with materiality and power, which they have heretofore downplayed in an attempt to counteract the field's earlier tendency toward technological determinism.