The DOI matches its Crossref record; 170 of the 171 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet.
What’s Under Construction Here? Social Action, Materiality, and Power in Constructivist Studies of Technology and Organizing
Abstract
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 they grappled with materiality and power, which they have heretofore downplayed in an attempt to counteract the field’s earlier tendency toward technological determinism.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“In particular, focusing on situated configurations emphasizes that individuals' understandings about a given technology vary across local meaning systems (Leonardi and Barley 2010, Mol 2003, Pinch and Bijker 1987).”
From To Engage or Not to Engage with AI for Critical Judgments: How Professionals Deal with Opacity When Using AI for Medical Diagnosis (2022) · cites this paper as Leonardi and Barley 2010
In the citing paper
“To this understanding, approaches from industrial relations and labour process studies of work and technology can offer those things that are often omitted in social constructivist and socio-material approaches (Leonardi & Barley, 2010).”
From New social relations of digital technology and the future of work: Beyond technological determinism (2023) · cites this paper as Leonardi & Barley, 2010
Citations
Cites
Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/226550 · Cited by 28,308
The social construction of reality : a treatise in the sociology of knowledge
Simpson, G., Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2091739 · Cited by 16,462
External Control of Organizations: Resource Dependence Perspective
(2011) · Organizational Behavior 6 · doi:10.4324/9781315701967-54 · Cited by 14,181
The Social Psychology of Organizations.
Hackman, J. R., Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1979) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2989929 · Cited by 12,235
Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society
Bijker, W. E., & Latour, B. (1988) · Technology and Culture · doi:10.2307/3105094 · Cited by 10,767
(1969) · Virtual Defense Library (Ministerio de Defensa) · Cited by 10,735
The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective
Reitz, H. J., Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1979) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1979.4289039 · Cited by 9,409
The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective
Reitz, H. J., Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1979) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/257794 · Cited by 9,172
(1987) · Cited by 8,955
Powers, C. H., & Giddens, A. (1988) · Social Forces · doi:10.2307/2579442 · Cited by 8,828
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- Barley S.R., 1988, Biomedicine examined
- Baum J.A.C., 1996, Handbook of organizational studies, 77
- Boczkowski P.J., 2004, Journal of Communication, 54, 197, 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2004.tb02624.x · DOI · Paper page
- Cummings T.G., 1978, Academy of Management Review, 3, 625, 10.5465/amr.1978.4305900 · DOI · Paper page
- DiMaggio P.J., 1991, The new institutionalism in organizational analysis, 1
- Emery F., 1959, Characteristics of sociotechnical systems
- Gould R.V., 1989, Sociological methodology, 89
- Green S.G., 1988, Academy of Management Review, 13, 287, 10.5465/amr.1988.4306891 · DOI · Paper page
- Jepperson R.L., 1991, The new insitutionalism in organizational analysis, 143
- Knorr‐Cetina K.D., 1983, Emerging principles in social studies of science
- Levi‐Strauss C., 1976, Structural anthropology
- Phillips N., 2004, Academy of Management Review, 29, 635, 10.5465/amr.2004.14497617 · DOI · Paper page
- Powell W.W., 2008, Handbook of new institutionalism
Cited by
Organizing for Innovation in the Digitized World
Yoo, Y., Boland, R. J., Lyytinen, K., & Majchrzak, A. (2012) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1120.0771 · Cited by 2,469
The Autonomy Paradox: The Implications of Mobile Email Devices for Knowledge Professionals
Mazmanian, M., Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (2013) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1120.0806 · Cited by 1,364
Automation, Algorithms, and Beyond: Why Work Design Matters More Than Ever in a Digital World
Parker, S. K., & Grote, G. (2022) · Applied Psychology · doi:10.1111/apps.12241 · Cited by 960
Social Construction of Communication Technology
Fulk, J., & Connie Yuan, Y. (2017) · The International Encyclopedia of Organizational Communication · doi:10.1002/9781118955567.wbieoc190 · Cited by 733
The Materiality of Technology: An Affordance Perspective
Faraj, S., & Azad, B. (2012) · Materiality and Organizing · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199664054.003.0012 · Cited by 583
Metadata
- Authors
- Leonardi, P. M., & Barley, S. R.
- Affiliations
- Northwestern University (US)
- Venue
- Academy of Management Annals
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 2010-01
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-51
- ISSN
- 1941-6067 (ISSN-L)
- 1941-6520
- OpenAlex
- W2154824354
- Cited by
- 733
- References
- 170
- Citations by year
- 2026: 30 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 52 · 2021: 86 · 2020: 62 · 2019: 48 · 2018: 42 · 2017: 44 · 2016: 48 · 2015: 49 · 2014: 60 · 2013: 48 · 2012: 35
- FWCI
- 104.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Academy of Management Annals (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › ERP Systems Implementation and Impact
- Keywords
- social construction of technology, organizational change, implementation, constructivism, materiality, power, technological determinism, affordances, appropriations, enactment, alignment, perception, interpretation, levels of analysis
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.