Towards an informed eclecticism: or

torturing ideas about theory, method and information systems research to

submission

Duane TruexCIS Department Robinson College of Business

CIS ColloquiumOct. 13, 2006

Motivation

“Content vs. Method in GSU Ph.D training” What is the my own the ‘value add’ of the GSU PhD

program? Promote an informed eclecticism in IS Research IS researcher ethos

Not theoretical nor methodological butterflies Not promote “methodological or theoretical promiscuity”

Struggled with the problem of theory adaptation for years

CST, ANT, Emergence Theory

Outline

Examine how two theories used in IS research to study the relationship between Organizations and Technology What if you have two good but incommensurate theories

Describing an approach to the problem of agency The controversy it generated

Recommendations importing and adapting theory Theory and method fit

Holding one’s concepts lightly..A reflexive view of the above

Socio-Theoretic Accounts of IS: The Problem of Agency

(Rose, Jones & Truex, 2005 SJIS)

Relationship between IT and organization often portrayed as technological or social determinism

Markus and Robey, 1988; George and King, 1991; Grint and Woolgar, 1997)

Two traditions Technology causes change in organizations powerless to resist

them Technology is the product of human intentions, designs and actions.

The notion of “agency” is another way to address this discussion

Agency relates to actions which have consequences Agent is something that produces change

an implied causal relationship

…hence agency.

“The study of the relationship between organisations and technology involves the study of actions and their effects, the causal relationships between those actions and effects, and the relation of particular consequences to particular agents and their actions–…”

Rose, Jones and Truex , 2005 pg 134

Technology => Organizations => Technology

What if two equally interesting theories regard an important construct in very different ways from one another? And neither deals with the construct satisfactorily?

The ‘problem of agency’ Structuration ≈ “a uniquely human property” Actor Network Theory ≈ “general symmetry and

‘actants’”

Structuration Theory of structuration, (Anthony Giddens, 1984 and 1977) is an attempt to

reconcile theoretical dichotomies of social systems such as agency/structure, subjective/objective, and micro/macro perspectives. The approach [focuses on] ”…social practices ordered across space and time" (p. 2). Its proponents adopt this balanced position, attempting to treat influences of structure (which inherently includes culture) and agency equally. See structure and agency.

Basic Assumptions Social life is not the sum of all micro-level activity, but social activity cannot be completely explained from a macro perspective: in other words, you can have your cake and eat it.

The repetition of the acts of individual agents reproduce the structure.Berger, P. L. and Luckmann, T. (1966) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of

Knowledge, Anchor Press, New York.

Social structures are neither inviolable nor permanent.

(The Constitution of Society,1984 and Central Problems of Social Theory, 1977)

Actor Network Theory (ANT1)

An approach to describing and explaining social, organisational, … scientific and technological structures, processes and events. It assumes, controversially, that all the components of such structures (human and non-human) form a network of relations that can be mapped and described in the same terms or vocabulary. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Law_%28sociologist%29)

Tries to explain how material-semiotic networks come together to act as a whole. It does this by mapping the relations the relations. Material because they are relations between things and semiotic because they are relations between concepts.

In ANT approach, for instance, a bank is both a network and an actor that hangs together, and for certain purposes acts as a single entity.

e.g., the interactions in a bank involve both people and their ideas, and computers.

(1 Latour, 1987, 1991, 1993, 1996)

The persistence of networks

ANT scholars assume actor-networks to be potentially precarious. Relations need to be

repeatedly 'performed' or the network will dissolve.

that networks of relations are not intrinsically coherent, and may indeed contain conflicts

Although called a "theory" ANT does not usually explain why a network takes the form that it does. It is much more interested in exploring how actor-networks get formed, hold themselves together, or fall apart. “ANT is partly a process theory about how heterogeneous human and

non-human components come to be stabilized in networks, which then become components in other networks” (Rose, Jones, Truex b, 2005, p 191)

the principle of generalized symmetry assumes that all the elements in a network, human and non-human, can

and should be described in the same terms.

The rationale for this is that differences between them are generated in the network of relations, and should not be presupposed

‘Agency’ in ANT

for Latour, Callon and others The terms agency and agents become actors and

actants in the context of the network Actant was designed to move away from a solely

human notion of agency (Latour, 1987)

Distancing from the agency issue because do not accept ontological dualism

The terms are applied symmetrically, and indifferently to both human and non-human actors (Latour, 1991)

‘Agency’ in ST for Giddens and Structuration theory

a Social actor connotes human action ≠ machines; they are allocative resources Adaptive structurationists (e.g., DeSanctis and Pool, 1994) violate

canonical ST by locating structure in technology or allocating agency to technology

ST is very much towards the ‘social’ end of the scale

Agency AND structure belong to humans in social practice, “…technology does nothing except as implicated in the actions of human beings.” (Giddens and Pierson, 1998 p 22)

ST and IS/IT studies

There has been a good bit of structurational analysis of IT Barley (1986, 1990), “Occasion for structuring”; “soft

determinism”; technologies material constraints drive social change (structural change)

Orlikowski (1991, 1992, 2000) “duality of technology” , embedded social rules in technology

Problematic --ascribes material existence to social structures Later “Practice lens notion”, structure inures form repeated

and situated interaction with IT Problematic in privileging human agency (Berg, 1998)

Technology drops away except in accounts of “occasions for structuring”

ANT in IS/IT research

General Symmetry assumption no a priori distinction is made between human and

non-human actors. Agency influenced/arises from the network of

actors (both human and non-human actants)Appeals to IS researchers

Who do not buy technical determinism but who wish to take technology seriously

ANT seeks a position in the middle Between technical and social determinism

Instances of ANT in IS/IT research

Large systems as living independent actors (Monterio, 2000)

Infrastructures as actors; the agency of SAP (Hanseth & Braa, 2000)

“technology is an actor because it has been endowed to act through is position in the network” (Holmstrom and Stadler, I&O, 2001)

“Aye laddie here’s the rub”

Each approach (ST and ANT) addresses the issue of agency

Researchers have tried to resolve and have pushed each theory further.

But each have limitations In ST

technologies capability “to make a difference” is unacknowledged

In ANT technology becomes and independent actor in its own right, but no distinction is made between the agency of technology

versus the agency of humans

Redux: the problem of agency in both ST and ANT

ST Only humans have agency; technology cannot act

independentlyANT

Actants treated symmetrically (in principle) i.e., the enroll, translate, delegate, inscribe

Questionable because this requires humans attributing agency to machines

In the IS research literature ST accounts often relegate IT to status of props

and when they do not they often violate Giddens’ explicit intentions ANT accounts are never clear exactly how it is machines act

with intention

ERP. A domain to study agency?

“…an enterprise system by it very nature imposes a logic on a company’s strategy…” (Davenport, 1998, 2)

“..computer dictated how they would do things.” (Ross and Vitale, 2001)

Among others (Wilcox and Sykes,CACM, 2000; Rooney and Bangert,

2000) Produces a picture of a social vs. technical

determinism dilemma

Our analysis: three companies three

narratives (Rose, Jones & Truex, 2005)

OMEGA Danish production company Success or failure seen wholly as the outcome of manager’s human

agency Martin Group

Danish firm providing support for arts productions Agency of the system used to impose structure on organizational

processes. The human agent marshals the agency of the machine. BCTel

Canadian Telco Viewed by the TWU (its Union) as the “Armageddon machine” ERP was marshaled to structure new work practices experienced concomitant strategic resistance and organizational disruption A more complex interaction of both human and machine agency

Discussion: how might IS research advance

the discourse? Acknowledge the agency and differences in the agency of

humans and machines Machines are built to anticipate human interaction Over time the human intentionality or design history of the

controlling program may be forgotten or become ‘irrelevant’ (a social Eigen value c.f., von forrester, 1984)

Understand that agency cannot be seen apart from the situational conditions that both frame its interpretation and make agency possible.

The exercise of agency is an emergent process Humans base actions on interpretation of past actions and

responses, interpretations of present conditions and attributions of agency to machines

Outcomes from the interaction of both forms of agency

Challenges and provocations

1. To social theoristsBe more specific about what technology does; point to the

effects of technology

2. To those influenced by structuration theoryIt has proven difficult to reconcile structuration theory’s central

tenets with technical structure and technical agencySo move on, borrowing that which is useful, but stop calling

notions ‘structurational’ if they violate the theory.

3. To those influenced by Actor Network TheoryTake symmetry seriously, show how IT actants act, and what the

consequences are. If symmetry is not satisfactory, theorize the difference in ways

consistent with ANT.

Challenges and provocations 2

4. To those interested in the problem of agencyNoting the two types of agency, then identify:

a. relevant structural contextsb. how the contexts are formedc. the emergent processes contributing to the formation

5. To system developers influenced by structuration theoryNoting that your technical artefacts may become a factor in the emergent

development of the organizationa. try to use social theories to anticipate and manage that impact on the social systems they are designed for. To those influenced by Actor Network Theory

6. To social theorists in ISNoting a tendency to move onto fashionable theories and reinvent the wheel …

a. try not to forget what we have already learnedb. try to integrate theoretical notions of human action in relation to technology and how IT influences human action

Five responses (or refutations, critiques and critical

admonishments)(SJIS v. 17, 2005)

Walsham leave it alone and let a 1,000 flowers bloom; “there cannot be a grand

theory of agency” (p. 156)

Olikowski Agrees with our analysis! But…Criticizes our theorizing of agency; suggesting a distinction between

human agency and material performativity instead. Holmström

Challenges the need for a consistent theorization of agency in IS research Focuses on historical contexts of theories and likely trajectories of the

theories “What is the difference between being faithful to an original theory and

developing it further?” (Holmström, 2006, p. 171) Tries to shed light on the process of theory adaptation from one domain to

another

Five responses (the tough ones)

Hanseth Challenges our critique of ANT, is more critical of ST and advocates for more

theory development Argues that we do not need theories of society, but theories of collectives

McMaster & Wastell Go for the jugular--call us symmetrophobs! Mere moderists, dualists Dismiss symmetry as an historical non issue

Both Prefer investigating agency as an emergent or shared property of the network

(hybrid or collective) Say is it meaningless to separate out the components of a hybrid and attribute

agency to them individually. “Humans and technologies are not equal or symmetrical beyond the fact that they are,

when they act, parts of a hybrid collectif which should be seen as the ‘real’ actor” (Hanseth, p. 161)

“only collectives can act.” (McMaster & Wastell, p 178)

Theorizing in IS Research: a reflexive analysis of theory

adaptation (Truex, Keil and Holmström, 2006)

RQ: What must be considered when borrowing theories from another discipline? When is it appropriate to draw upon theories from other areas? How can researchers best do this? How can IS researchers begin to ‘give back’ in efforts to theorize?

Four recommendations:1) Consider the fit2) Consider the historical context3) Consider how theory impacts method choice4) Consider the contribution to cumulative theory

Uses a reflexive analysis of Keil and Escalation Theory to illustrate

Importing and adopting theory is difficult

Theories are imbedded in a historical context Part of a cumulative history Each carry underlying assumptions Part of a rich discourse with supporters and detractors

Informed use of a borrowed theory Requires in-depth familiarity with the discourse

Understanding the history and the weaknesses as well as strengths

becoming familiar with a rich discourse with supporters and detractors

Also hard becauseGrand theories of society

e.g., Habermas and Critical Social Theory; Giddens and Structuration Theory; Bourdieu, Latour and so on…

They don’t come with instruction books Often blind when it comes to technology They require substantial adaptation Face challenges and may reintroduce old problems

e.g., Orlikowski’s putting of technology between human agency and structure reintroduces the dualism Giddens sought to overcome.

e.g., the question of material agency in Latour’s ANT vs Structuration theory

Quick and dirty is dangerous

It takes time to understand and master the discourse in the home setting

Uninformed use imports and replicates the errors already made elsewhere e.g., use of Chomsky’s and ‘deep

structure’ concept

We disagree that importing theories is a sign of weakness in IS research New/imported theories help our field grow & brings

fresh insights IS research remains a “fragmented adhocracy” (Banville and

Landry, 1989)

Many instances where porting theories have been very helpful e.g., Keil’s use of Escalation theory e.g., Structuration Theory, ANT, CST….

We see the problem as the manner in which they are borrowed We hold for reflexive borrowing

Towards an informed eclecticism: four recommendations

1. Consider the fit between the selected theory and the phenomenon of interest.

–how sensitive is the theory towards the details of the phenomenon under study?

2. Consider the selected theory’s historical context.

3. Consider how the selected theory impacts the choice of research method.

4. Consider the theorizing process’ contribution to cumulative theory.

Recommendation 1:

The fit between theory an phenomenon of interest

Be aware of the domain of inquiry for which the theory was developed

Don’t take theoretical doxa in one domain of inquiry as a given in another domain of inquiry. May need to reestablish an assertion in the home discipline

to the new discipline

Keil searched for a theory that had something to suggest about a phenomena he was observing Followed several unsatisfactory starts

Recommendation 2: Consider the selected theory’s

historical context

Free improvisation risks repeating old errors Use of the theory aught to at least be recognizable by those in

the parent discipline Be aware of and acknowledge the conflicts in the home

discipline Be aware of superficial similarities in multiple theories.

Vocabulary matters. (e.g., ‘agency’ in ST and ANT) “Deep structure” borrowed from Chomsky’s

Keils admits his initial awareness of the theory was based on a limited reading of the escalation literature But over time had to prob deeper after failing to receive expected

results in an experiment. Mistook Staw’s use of escalation as gospel

Recommendation 3:

Consider how the selected theory impacts the choice

of research method Theory and method are linked

Theory selection has method selection implications e.g., hard to imagine using ANT without a form of textual

analysis method or means to access key actants.

How it is linked is problematic e.g., Habermas, & Giddens did not provide method

recommendation or handbooks. Bourdieu gave examples. Latour provides examples but not to ICT

Keil Theory and Method

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Recommendation 4:

Consider the theorizing process’ contribution to

cumulative theory Ask oneself “what is the added value” of this use of a given theory? Why theory X and not theory Y? Consider this in light of our field’s cumulative tradition How is the adaptation of a theory adding to that cumulative

tradition Initially Keil borrowed and did not try to adapt escalation

theory; he assumed it would be applicable as is “push back” required testing why it was a uniquely useful theory

for IS study In his research he has applied the theory in ways not envisioned

in other fields. These applications and results are leading researchers to take note.

We do not see these four recommendations linked in the literature.

While implicit in theory adaptation practice by some researchers, we now make it explicit

In summary We agree with Karl Weick’s notion of theorizing as

“disciplined imagination” (Weick , 1989) Theories add discipline to the research process

But theories must grow to match the emergent underlying phenomena under study

Importing and adapting theories is a way to help assure that growth

And, you ask, “what’s new”?

“Hold your concepts lightly and update them

frequently” (Weick, 1996)

Drop your tool: Exploring Theoretical Explanations of Technological Change” (Holmström & Truex , 2006)

Motivated by the SJIS debate In particular the polarization and supremacist strategizing

evident in different theoretical camps Suggests when and why it might be important to step

back form your theoretical positions on occasion Improving practice Helping to build cumulative tradition Helping to return something new to the theory’s ‘mother’

discipline of a

Not a full circle

Theory needs to grow We have the opportunity to contribute to

that growth Participate in the discourse Experiment

But with awareness And with care

DichotomyFrom Wikipedia, 10/8/06

any splitting of a whole into exactly two non-overlapping parts.

a mutually exclusive bipartition of elements. i.e. nothing can belong simultaneously to both parts, and everything must belong to one part or the other. They are often contrasting and spoken of as "opposites."

For our purposes it is the presumed differences between the ‘social world’ and the ‘Physical (technological) world’.

“Eclecticism is a conceptual approach that does not hold rigidly to a single paradigm or set of assumptions, but instead draws upon multiple theories, styles, or ideas to gain complementary insights into a subject, or applies different theories in particular cases.” (Wikipedia)

References

1) Latour, B. Science in Action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1987.

2) Latour, B. Technology is society made durable. in Law, J. ed. A sociology of monsters: essays on power, technology and domination, Routledge, London, 1991, 103-131.

3) Latour, B. We Never Have Been Modern (Nous n'avons jamain 師� modernes). Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead, 1993.

4) Latour, B. ARAMIS or the Love of Technology. Harvard university Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1996.

5) Callon, M. Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. in Law, J. ed. Power, action and belief: a new sociology of knowledge?, Routledge, London, 1986, 196-233.

6) Callon, M. Society in the Making: The Study of Technology as a Tool for Sociological Analysis. in Bijker, W.E., Hughes, T.P. and Pinch, T. eds. The Social Construction of Technological Systems, MIT Press, London, 1987, 83-103.

7) Callon, M. Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. in Law, J. ed. A sociology of monsters: essays on power, technology and domination, Routledge, London, 1991, 132-161.

Theory as a kind of tool

The utility of a theory It is tested in its use

The meaning of a theory like the meaning of a word Meaning is given by its use

The test of a theory Helps draw parallels between theoretical constructs and

real-world problems (Robey & Zmud, 1992)