Towards an informed eclecticism:

or

torturing ideas about theory, method and information systems research to submission
Duane Truex CIS Department Robinson College of Business CIS Colloquium Oct. 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 ones 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 (ANT )

1

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 heres 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 independently

ANT
 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 companys 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 managers 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. 2. To social theorists
Be more specific about what technology does; point to the effects of technology

To those influenced by structuration theory

It has proven difficult to reconcile structuration theorys central tenets with technical structure and technical agency So move on, borrowing that which is useful, but stop calling notions structurational if they violate the theory.

3.

To those influenced by Actor Network Theory

Take 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

4. To those interested in the problem of agency
Noting the two types of agency, then identify: a. relevant structural contexts b. how the contexts are formed c. the emergent processes contributing to the formation

5.

To system developers influenced by structuration theory

Noting that your technical artefacts may become a factor in the emergent development of the organization a. 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 IS
Noting a tendency to move onto fashionable theories and reinvent the wheel a. try not to forget what we have already learned b. 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!  ButCriticizes our theorizing of agency; suggesting a distinction between human agency and material performativity instead.

Holmstrm
 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? (Holmstrm, 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 Holmstrm, 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) 2) 3) 4) Consider the fit Consider the historical context Consider how theory impacts method choice 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 because

Grand theories of society

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

 They dont come with instruction books  Often blind when it comes to technology  They require substantial adaptation  Face challenges and may reintroduce old problems
e.g., Orlikowskis putting of technology between human agency and structure reintroduces the dualism Giddens sought to overcome. e.g., the question of material agency in Latours 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 Chomskys 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., Keils 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 theorys 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
Dont 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 theorys 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 Chomskys

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 Staws 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

Q i Ti e and a T FF ZW de o re or are needed to ee thi i t re

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 fields 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.

And, you ask, whats new?

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 Weicks 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

Hold your concepts lightly and update them frequently

(Weick, 1996)

Drop your tool: Exploring Theoretical Explanations of Technological Change (Holmstrm & 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 theorys 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

Dichotomy
From 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) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) Latour, B. Science in Action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1987. 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. Latour, B. We Never Have Been Modern (Nous n'avons jamain modernes). Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead, 1993. Latour, B. ARAMIS or the Love of Technology. Harvard university Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1996. 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. 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. 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 & mud, 1992)