Stein Et Al 2014 Felt Quality

Information and Organization 24 (2014) 156175
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Information and Organization

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/infoandorg
Felt quality of sociomaterial relations: Introducing

emotions into sociomaterial theorizing
Mari-Klara Stein a,, Sue Newell b, Erica L. Wagner c, Robert D. Galliers d
a
Copenhagen Business School, IT Management Department, Howitzvej 60, Frederiksberg 2000, Denmark
Sussex University, Department of Business and Management, Jubilee Building, Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9SL, UK
c
Portland State University, School of Business Administration, 631 SW Harrison St., Portland, OR, United States
d
Bentley University, Information and Process Management and Sociology Departments, 175 Forest Street, Waltham, MA 02452,
United States
b
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 25 September 2012
Received in revised form 14 April 2014
Accepted 21 May 2014
Available online 19 June 2014
Keywords:
Computer-mediated work practice
Sociomateriality
Critical realism
Agential realism
Emotion
Felt quality
Interpretive eld research
a b s t r a c t
Sociomateriality, in helping to overcome the longstanding dualism
between the social and the technical, has become an increasingly
popular theoretical perspective in Information Systems (IS) research.
However, while recognizing the usefulness of sociomaterial theorizing, we contend that it also inadvertently perpetuates other kinds of
dualismsparticularly that of objectivismsubjectivism and cognitionemotion. We argue that sociomateriality's current inability to
express what it feels like to be a human agent, and the inadvertent
perpetuation of the cognitiveemotional dualism, is problematic in
terms of the limited practical insights these perspectives generate. To
address this limitation, we propose and illustrate two different
approaches for including emotions in sociomaterial theorizing. By
proposing two approaches for the inclusion of emotions into
applications of sociomateriality in IS research (one founded on critical
realism, and the other on agential realism), we provide researchers
with the conceptual tools to generate richer practical and theoretical
insights.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Sociomaterial theorizing (Orlikowski & Scott, 2008) has entered the arena of IT implementation studies
relatively recently and is an increasingly popular choice for generating a nuanced understanding of this
Corresponding author. Tel.: +45 41 85 21 50.
E-mail addresses: mst.itm@cbs.dk (M.-K. Stein), sue.newell@sussex.ac.uk (S. Newell), elwagner@pdx.edu (E.L. Wagner),
rgalliers@bentley.edu (R.D. Galliers)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2014.05.003
1471-7727/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.-K. Stein et al. / Information and Organization 24 (2014) 156175
157
phenomenon (cf. Leonardi, 2009; Wagner, Newell, & Piccoli, 2010). It does not attribute social change to
either the material features of the technology or see it as a product of social agendas; rather it considers
social change to be the emergent outcome of the mutual constitution of the social and the material. For
example, packaged software is inscribed with standard templates from which to congure the product.
The product becomes entangled with decision makers' choices and activities to buy rather than build; to
enter long-term partnerships with vendors; to adhere to so-called software-based best practices, and to
change long-standing work practices. Such activities are only relevant in the circumstance of congurable
packaged software, and of shifting work practices and power relations that become bound up with the
standard templates. A broadly sociomaterial perspective, therefore, focuses researcher attention and helps
draw insights related to the joint agency of the social and the material, acting together.
While sociomaterial theorizing can help overcome the longstanding dualism of the social and the
technical in IS research (Latour, 2005; Leonardi & Barley, 2008; Orlikowski & Scott, 2008; Pickering, 1995), it
inadvertently perpetuates other dualismsparticularly that of the objective/cognitive vis vis the subjective/
emotional (cf. Thompson, 2012). This critique has been leveled against IS research in general, as well as
against practice-oriented explanations of technology implementation more specically. Thus, IS research is
generally characterized by a relative lack of consideration of the emotional side of individuals (Bagozzi, 2007;
McGrath, 2006; Zhang, 2013), partly due to its roots in computer science and rational scientic management
(cf. Hirschheim & Klein, 2006). In practice-oriented research, it has been pointed out that, while processes of
meaning-making are illuminated, the subjective experience of agencyhow human agents feel about
themselves and their circumstancestends to be devalued (Thompson, 2012: 189). Most studies adopting a
sociomaterial perspective have also tended to focus on social norms and standards, work goals and collective
practices, as the social or human agency (e.g., Leonardi, 2011). The point that human agency often works
through the reexive intentionality and motivations of individuals has been recognized (e.g., Pickering,
1995); however, what tends to get neglected in such studies is that what often motivates humans are their
emotions (Thompson, 2009; 2012). Notwithstanding, it is precisely this biographical awareness (elaborate
sense of self) that allows a person to position herself relationally against unfolding social reality, [and] this
juxtaposition occurs within consciousness, which is felt affectively (Thompson, 2012: 195). This suggests that
in many IT projects key concerns for all stakeholders are related to their biographical awareness, which
includes issues of self and identity on an individual and a collective level and which is reected in how they
feel their sociomaterial circumstances. In sum, many sociomaterial accounts of IT implementation offer an
under-personalized view, where human emotions and biographical awareness play little or no role in the
dynamic interplay between the social and the technical. Thompson (2012: 204) calls for the examination of
the mutually constitutive relationships between, not only the social and material dimensions of reality, but
also the subjective/biographical dimension. He only explores the duality (as against the dualism) of the social
and biographical structures in detail, however.
In order to investigate how sociomaterial theorizing could include emotions, we rst need a better
grasp of what sociomateriality actually means. In recent years it has been increasingly recognized that
there are multiple appropriate and valid ways of conducting a sociomaterial inquiry (Feldman &
Orlikowski, 2011; Leonardi, 2013). While researchers subscribe broadly to a relational ontology, they
differ in the specics of how they theorize the status of nonhuman agency relative to human agency
(Feldman & Orlikowski, 2011: 1244). Furthermore, over the years many, slightly different, relational
perspectives have been proposed, all of which can be broadly characterized as sociomaterial (Leonardi,
2013; Orlikowski & Scott, 2008). Examples include the mangle of practice (Pickering, 1995); actor
network theory (Latour, 2005); humanmachine (re)congurations (Suchman, 2007); imbrication
(Leonardi, 2011), and constitutive entanglement (Orlikowski, 2007). Recently, two broad philosophical
foundations for sociomaterial theorizing have been discussed: critical realism and agential realism
(Leonardi, 2013). The choice of foundation inuences not only the kinds of theoretical arguments and
contributions one can make, but is also expected to have pragmatic consequences in terms of research
methods and empirical inquiry (Leonardi, 2013: 73). More importantly from the perspective of this paper,
as we illustrate below, theories associated with both foundations have tended to ignore emotional aspects
as they examine relations between the social and the technical. In this paper, then, we consider both of
these types of sociomaterial theorizing and examine how each perspective could include the emotive
domain. In sum, our study focuses on the research question: How can sociomaterial theorizing include
emotions?
158
Our contribution is to highlight the neglected area of emotion in sociomaterial theorizing. In doing this,
we provide researchers with means to enhance their sociomaterial accounts based on either a critical or
agential realism foundation. We rst introduce the theoretical foundation for our paper, before we turn to
our method. Finally, we discuss our ndings, drawing out our contributions and conclusions as they relate
to our research question.
2. Theoretical background
The context for our paper is packaged software implementation. This topic has been studied from many
different perspectives. Traditionally, IT implementations have been studied from a deterministic point of
view (Perrow, 1967; Woodward, 1958), yielding insights, for example, as to circumstances in which
technology (as a discrete material entity) produces particular forms of organizing (as a separate and also
discrete but social entity). Criticisms of such deterministic approaches are well rehearsed (e.g., Robey &
Boudreau, 1999), and have increasingly encouraged scholars to accept that the effects of technology and
humans on each other are socially constructed (Leonardi & Barley, 2010). However, strong social
constructivist positions have also been criticized in the literature: for example, because they tend to fade
the technology into the background, or because they hinder us from being able to account for the complex
interplays between IT and its human implementers and users (Leonardi, 2011; Orlikowski & Scott, 2008;
Pickering, 1995; Sassen, 2002). This is where sociomaterial theorizing (Orlikowski & Scott, 2008) enters
the arena as an increasingly popular choice for a nuanced account of IT implementation (cf. Leonardi,
2009; Wagner et al., 2010).
The next sections introduce the different sociomaterial perspectives we explore in our study as well as
our initial theorizing around emotions in sociomateriality.
2.1. Sociomateriality
As discussed, the distinguishing feature of the concept of sociomateriality is the ontological integration
of the social and the material. From this viewpoint, it is not that the social inuences the material (as in
social construction studies, which focus on how people enact a particular technology); nor is it that the
material inuences the social (as in technological determinism, which focuses on how a technology
forces some kind of structure or practice outcome). It is not even that there is a recursive relationship
between the social and the material (as with the socio-technical view, which sees technology both
enabling and constraining people's actions). Rather, as Orlikowski (2007: 1437) indicates, the social and
the material are inextricably related. Thus, the material and social are enmeshed in any work practice. As
an example, the ultramarathon runner Anton Krupicka used to take an Exacto knife and slice thin layers of
sole from his trail shoes, essentially whittling a customized pair of low prole trainers. What is interesting
for us in this story is the entanglement of the runner and his technology as he runs. The investigation of
practice will neither be found in the out-of-the-box shoe, nor in Anton's customized pair; rather it is in
what they do together on the trails.1
While a relational ontology is a fundamental characteristic of a sociomaterial perspective, it has also
been increasingly recognized that there are multiple appropriate and valid ways of conducting
sociomaterial inquiry (Feldman & Orlikowski, 2011; Leonardi, 2011). For example, researchers may differ
in the specics of how they theorize the status of nonhuman agency relative to human agency (Feldman
& Orlikowski, 2011: 1244). These may be viewed as symmetrical (Latour, 1987), entangled or fused
(Orlikowski & Scott, 2008) or asymmetrically weaved together, with human agency in the lead role
(Leonardi, 2011). Furthermore, three ways of studying sociomaterial practices have been proposed
(Feldman & Orlikowski, 20112): adopting an empirical, theoretical and/or a philosophical focus. The
empirical approach focuses on exploring and describing the everyday practices and performances of both
human and non-human agents in producing their organizational realities. The theoretical approach
extrapolates from the empirical descriptions of sociomaterial practices to theories that explain the
1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ofkrxZvyrI.
see also Academy of Management 2012 Symposium Theoretical Elements of a Sociomaterial Perspective in Organization
Studies (OCIS, OMT), Boston, MA.
2
159
dynamics between the social and the material, the conditions for the emergence and change of
sociomaterial practices, etc. The philosophical or ontological approach engages with the position that
reality is not made up of independent objects (social or material), but rather emerges from the joint
agency of humans and material objects. This focus explores the implications of the ontological position on
our theories of technology and organizations.
There are, then, somewhat different approaches to the study of sociomateriality. To illustrate such
differences we present two well-known sociomaterial perspectivesthe mangle of practice (Pickering,
1995) and actornetwork theory (Callon, 1986; Latour, 1987; 2005) in Table 1.
As can be seen from Table 1, while both theories adopt a relational perspective, they differ in respect
to the ontological status of what is related. For Pickering, the materiality of the bubble chamber is
independent of Glaserthe bubble chamber presenting resistances that Glaser has to accommodate. For
Callon, the actornetwork of marine biologists; shermen; Japanese techniques for shing, and towlines
with attached collector bags is what matters: it is not relevant to look at the collector bags, for example,
independent of the human actors who are using them to try and make the larvae safe. These differences
underscore that sociomaterial theorizing can have different philosophical roots. In this regard, Leonardi
(2013) identied two distinct philosophical foundations for the study of sociomateriality: agential
realism and critical realism. These differ subtly, but signicantly, in their ontological and epistemological
assumptions and are argued to produce different kinds of contributions (Leonardi, 2013). ANT, for
example, is closer to Barad's (1998, 2003) agential realist philosophy, while MOP has something of a
critical realist orientation (Archer, Bhaskar, Collier, Lawson, & Norrie, 1998; Bhaskar, 1978). From an
agential realist perspective, nothing (neither people nor objects) have any inherent properties; rather
any properties that are attributed to a thing are seen to be a relational effect, produced and performed in
and through the network of relations. On the other hand, from a critical realist perspective human and
material agencies exist independently, but it is their synergistic interaction, which produces effects as
they act on each other (Slife, 2004). Since both philosophical perspectives are presented as
sociomaterial, we consider each as we turn to identify how we can incorporate emotions into our
sociomaterial theorizing.
2.2. Emotions and sociomateriality

What we observe from Table 1 is that both MOP and ANT highlight the importance of understanding
the typical consequences or outcomes we observe in any kind of practice as emergent results of
sociomaterial mangling or networks. How such negotiations and networks are typically described,
however, tends to be in terms of, for example, rational alterations in one's goals and plans in the face of
material constraints or affordances, and rational choices of attempting to enrol and translate other actors'
interests to one's own. We can separate one practice or network from another based on the different
human and non-human elements involved, the strength of associations between the elements (i.e., the
stability of the practice or network), or different emergent outcomes. We are unable to differentiate
between them based on their felt or emotive characteristics, however. Both approaches, then, provide us
with little understanding about what emotive coloring the sociomaterial associations have. We cannot
see the disappointment and elation as Glaser fails and succeeds to develop the bubble chamber; nor do we
see the frustration or satisfaction as the marine biologists fail or succeed in making the scallop larvae safe.
Yet, when reading the case descriptions, one has the idea that, without these elements, the stories are
somehow incomplete.
This is an interesting omission since in recent years emotions have become widely researched in
organization studies (Ashkanasy, 2003; Barsade & Gibson, 2007; Elfenbein, 2007). Although in the IS eld,
the topic has received more limited attention (see Zhang, 2013 for a recent theory-building attempt),
authors have been calling for more in-depth investigations of various emotion-related phenomena
(Bagozzi, 2007; McGrath, 2006; Ortiz de Guinea & Markus, 2009; Thompson, 2012). Our aim in this paper
is to answer this call with respect to sociomaterial theorizing. To begin this exploration, we briey
introduce the various existing conceptualizations of emotions, followed by a discussion of two
perspectives on how emotions can be seen as relationally producedemerging not just from interpersonal
social relations, but, as we argue and demonstrate, from sociomaterial relations.
160
Table 1
Overview of two different sociomaterial perspectives.
Pickering (1995): Mangle of Practice (MOP)
Callon (1986), Latour (1987; 2005): ActorNetwork Theory (ANT)
Ontology
The social and the material exist separately. Human and material agencies
are continuously mangled through series of resistances and accommodations
propelled by intentional and goal-oriented human actors.
Epistemology
Analysts make determinations about how and why the separate social
and material become the sociomaterial and persist that way over
time (Leonardi, 2013)
The arrangement of an artifact's physical and/or digital materials into
particular forms that endure across differences in place and time
Abstract concepts such as norms, policies, communication patterns, etc.
There is no social and no material, only fused sociomaterial networks.

Human and non-human actants are seen as working together in an
ontological network to create environments. Nothing lies outside the
network of relations, and each actant is merely the summation of
smaller actants.
Analysts follow the action that culminates around heterogeneous
networks rather than particular individuals or artifacts.
What is materiality?
(Leonardi, 2013)
What is social?
(Leonardi, 2013)
What is 3sociomateriality?
(Leonardi, 2013)
Human and non-human
agency
Dynamics of agents
Nature of the emerging

outcome
Consideration of
existing structures
Example empirical case
Practices involving material objects inter-relating with all phenomena we

typically dene as social, including roles, norms, discourses
Agency: ability to continually do things.
Both human & material agencies are temporally emergent: we can only see
the contours of material/human agency in the resistances and knowledge/
goals/plans produced at the intersection of human/non-human agency.
Human agency is distinctly characterized by intentionality and
future-orientation.
Human and material agencies are effectual in producing outcomes only
when joined together. Human and material agencies are constitutively
enmeshed in practice by means of a dialectic of resistance and
accommodation.
Resistances arise at the intersection of human/non-human agency, while
accommodations are human agent's responses to these resistances.
A snapshot of a particular conguration of human and material agencies,
where the mangling process is not visible (depends on the timescale adopted)
Interactions between human and material agencies produce durable patterns.
Cultural eld of practice accounts for prior sequences of resistances and
accommodations (knowledge, models), which all become part of current
mangling.
There is no separable materiality. There is only an actor network.

There is no separable social. There is only an actor network
The inherent inseparability between the material and the social
forming an actor network
Agency is not an attribute or an essence of either humans or
non-humans.
Agency is a capacity realized in their relations
(so it is always emergent and shifting).
Generalized symmetryhumans and non-humans are treated the
same for analytical purposes because what is interesting is the
emergent network of interests.
Relations and boundaries between humans and technologies are
not pre-given or xed, but enacted in practice (performativity).
Associations between human and non-human actors are translated
over time to re-produce another actornetwork.
Irreversible actornetwork (fused association of human and

nonhuman actants) that has a degree of stability for a period
of time.
Structures are not spoken of, rather, more consistent practices
(routines) are seen as the outcome of a stable actornetwork.
Citation/descriptor
Citation/descriptor
Pickering (1995):
Mangle of Practice
(MOP)
Callon (1986), Latour (1987; 2005): ActorNetwork Theory (ANT)
Donald Glaser's creation of the bubble chamber described by Pickering (1995)

to demonstrate a dialectic of resistance and accommodation. As Glaser attempts
to construct a new kind of device that can detect strange particles, his efforts to
do this face a number of material resistances from the detector he was developing
(the detector did things like explode that were separate from Glaser and
his practice). Glaser then responded with accommodations so that there
was a gradual emergence of a prototype chamber that worked.
Time period: covers the invention time period (approx. 2 years)
Well-suited to describe cases where humans revise goals (accommodations)

based on the constraints of material agency (resistances) in relation to the
previous goal.
Well suited to describe the emerging contours of human and material agency
(e.g., emergence of a bubble chamber by Donald Glaser)
Human and material agencies can be separated.
What the perspective

obscures
Cases where material agency accommodates (rather than constrains) are

not explicitly considered.
Potential conceptual
contributions
Showcase how organizations, people and technologies come to be as they

are. Move technology into a constitutive role in organizing/society,
while showing how organizing/society shapes technology (Leonardi, 2013).
For example, the bubble chamber that emerges from Glaser's practice then
allows other discoveries to emerge because of its ability to detect
strange particles.
Consideration (or lack

there) of emotions
Human intentionality is discussed purely in relation to goals and plans.

Emotions are not mentioned.
What the perspective

emphasizes
Actornetwork of marine biologists, shermen, Japanese techniques

for shing, and towlines with attached collector bags attempt (A)
to enroll the interests of St. Brieuc Bay scallops by encouraging the
scallop larvae to anchor onto the bags (B) and secure themselves
from predators. Alternative networks of tide currents, parasites and
visitors are opposing forces (C) that inhibit the enrollment of the
larvae (B) into A. Negotiations occur between the networks but also
within network A as it modies the nature and design of its
actornetwork (depth of line placement, material used in bag
collectors, etc.).
Time period: duration of the negotiations across actornetworks.
Well-suited to describe the performativity of practices.
Human and material agencies cannot and should not be separated.
Materiality is integral to human activities (e.g., in the Japanese
shing techniques).
General symmetry between human and non-human actors that
join together through shared interest to form an actornetwork.
Actornetworks are not conrmed to place but are determined
by alignment of interest. Representatives act and speak on behalf
of other actants.
The intentionality of human and non-human actors. It may be
unclear what the goals and political positions of actors are. The
currents of St. Brieuc Bay inhibit the attachment of larvae onto the
collector bags. The intentionality of this action is not addressed.
Showcase how all organizational processes are sociomaterial
(networks of heterogeneous materials). Demonstrate that organizing
occurs in practice. Ability to zoom-in and out and see things as
networks at a macro or micro level.
For example the scientists and their research presentation form a
new network within which the scallops are actants represented by
graphs and charts of ndings. The macro is seen in the micro network.
Not explicit. Networks are described through technical features,
human knowledge and choices.
161
162
2.2.1. Emotions as personal inner states and social performances

Emotions have been dened in various ways depending on whether the individual physiological and
psychological aspects or the collective social aspects of emotions are stressed. Commonly, emotions are
dened as object-oriented (focused on a specic target), relatively intense and short-lived (Barsade &
Gibson, 2007; Brave & Nass, 2002). On the more individual side, a component-based denition is often
used and is gaining acceptance in the IS literature (cf. Zhang, 2013). According to this, emotions typically
arise as reactions to situational events in an individual's environment that are appraised to be relevant to
his/her needs, goals, or concerns. Once activated, emotions generate subjective feelings motivational
states with action tendencies, arouse the body with energy-mobilizing responses and express the
quality and intensity of emotionality outwardly and socially to others (Zhang, 2013: 251). Emotion is,
thus, formally dened as an episode of interrelated, synchronized changes in the states of all or most of the
ve organismic subsystems (cognitive, neurophysiological, motivational, motor expression and subjective
feeling) in response to the evaluation of an external or internal stimulus event as relevant to major concerns
of the organism (Scherer, 2005: 697). Other, more sociological, denitions have also been offered. For
example, Fineman (2008: 1) sees emotions as produced through interpersonal work that is conditioned
by cultural imperatives: the social rules that sanction what is appropriate to feel and express. Emotions,
therefore, inherently express a valuation and collectively produce emotionologies or emotion cultures
society's and organizations' understanding of how certain emotions should be directed and expressed towards
certain groups, such as royalty, asylum seekers, sexual minorities, etc.
These denitions reect two broad approaches to emotions: one that sees emotions largely as
individual bodily and mental statespersonal, but measurable experiences accompanied by changes in
bodily sensations, expressive gestures and action tendencies (Scherer, 2005)and one that sees emotions
largely as social, collective performances oriented towards an audience, possibly with a strategic goal
(Fineman, 2008). Most of the few prior studies dealing with emotions in relation to IS phenomena in
particular have adopted the more personal approach, dening emotions as mental states (Beaudry &
Pinsonneault, 2010; Stam & Stanton, 2010), as a person's response to various external and internal stimuli
(Stein, Newell, Wagner, & Galliers, 2012), or as valenced reactions to the emotion-eliciting objects/states being
processed by the individual (Kim, Chan, & Chan, 2007). In other words, technology or materiality is considered to
be a stimulus or event that elicits emotional responses in individuals. A more social approach has also been
taken, seeing emotion as inextricably linked to our historical sense of person-hoodtemporally-based,
affectively felt consciousness is deeply relational, and thus structuring of, our stance towards unfolding social
reality (Thompson, 2012: 195).
2.2.2. Theorizing emotions in sociomaterial relations: two possible approaches
In our sociomaterial theorizing around emotions we draw on the concept of affective spaces (Navaro
Yashin, 2009; Thrift, 2008). Affect in this instance is seen as referring broadly to an emotive domain, but
moving the scope of this emotive domain outside of the human subject and, therefore, beyond the
traditional denitions of emotions and feelings (NavaroYashin, 2009). In short, affect refers to sensual
intensities that may move through human bodies, but that do not necessarily emerge from them. The
reference-point for affect (which used to be, singularly, subjectivity) has been radically altered and
multiplied in this approach, making it possible to read many other things, such as space and the
environment, as affective (NavaroYashin, 2009: 12). For example, one's childhood home may exude and
generate an affect of nostalgia; a war memorialan affect of sadness and anger; a churchan affect of
reverence, and a bedroom and the objects in itan affect of safety and comfort. The particular affective
atmosphere of shopping malls (and how this is achieved through escalators, air conditioning, piped music,
etc.) and its inuence on shoppers and their behavior have also been examined (Healy, 2014). However,
like NavaroYashin (2009): 1415, we recognize that the human subject is still importanta particular
environment or object generates its own affectivity; those who inhabit the space experience it in
particular ways and have corresponding emotions. Furthermore, in particular social settings, individual
emotions may be mixed with collective emotionologies that inuence how emotions become expressed.
In sum, there are three important concepts to consider when theorizing emotions in sociomateriality:
affect, emotion and emotionology (see Table 2).
From a sociomaterial perspective the emotive domain is produced relationally or, in other words, it
occurs in an encounter between manifold beings, which we take to include the individual, the social and
163
the material (Thrift, 2008: 179). As in the study of sociomateriality itself, and consistent with our
discussion of MOP and ANT, it is useful to conceptualize the study of emotions in sociomateriality utilizing
two theoretical foundations: critical and agential realism. Table 3, below, outlines the characteristics of the
two different possible approaches.
If one were to adopt a critical realist stance, one could describe instances of subjective emotions and
feelings accumulating over time, relating to the possible affectivity of objects and spaces, and being
expressed according to particular emotionologies. Together, these elements would produce an emergent
emotive domain characteristic of a sociomaterial relationship. We adopt the term, felt quality (Stein et al.,
2012; see also Ciborra, 2006) to describe this emerging emotive domain and dene it as an emergent
characteristic of a sociomaterial relationship. From an agential realist stance, however, a different
understanding of this felt quality would arise. If there are no properties that are distinctly social or
material, only emergent characteristics of the sociomaterial, then the felt quality cannot be the result of
the meshing of human emotions, material affect and social emotionologies. Rather, the felt quality is an
emergent characteristic of a particular sociomaterial conguration, which can be dissected into elements
of emotions, affect and emotionologies only for analytical purposes. We will illustrate both stances below
using examples from our empirical study; we rst, though, describe the methodological approach used in
our study.
3. Methodology
We analyzed data gathered at two universities (Public and Private) as part of an in-depth multi-site
case study focused on understanding the dynamics in packaged software implementation and use. We
considered the implementation and post-roll-out phases of a packaged software product that has been
designed to manage faculty data in university settings so that these data are available in a standard format
across departments and institutions, thus allowing for analysis of productivity, assessment and
accreditation. We refer to this package as Faculty Output or FO. Our eldwork comprised interviews
with key participants regarding their project involvement and use of the software; observation of
meetings/small group discussions, and systematic review of ofcial project documentation.
Following Walsham (1993: 15), the cases are designed to seek validity not [from] the
representativeness of the case in a statistical sense, but on the plausibility and cogency of the logical
reasoning used in describing the results and in drawing conclusions from them. We used interpretive
research techniques to gather, interpret and analyze eld data (Klein & Myers, 1999; Walsham, 1993). The
research focus was specically on the sociomaterial practices or the coming together of social, material
and subjective agencies (depending on the perspective taken) that characterized each university's
packaged software implementation.
Collecting data from various stakeholders in different university contexts helped us to become aware of
multiple interpretations in order to improve the plausibility and cogency of our interpretive accounts
Table 2
Relevant concepts for theorizing emotions in sociomateriality.
Concept
Affect
Denition
Sensual intensities that may move through human bodies, but that do not necessarily emerge from them. The
reference-point for affect lies outside of the human body, making it possible to read many other things, such as
space, the environment and physical objects, as affective (NavaroYashin, 2009: 12).
Similar to the concept of affective quality (Zhang, 2013)affective property of a stimulus that has the ability to
cause a change in a person's emotions (cf. Zhang, 2013). Whereas emotions exist inside humans (people feel
upset), affective quality/affect exists in the stimulus (it is the environment/object that is upsetting).
Emotion
Episode of interrelated, synchronized changes in the states of all or most of the ve organismic subsystems
(cognitive, neurophysiological, motivational, motor expression and subjective feeling) in response to the
evaluation of an external or internal stimulus event as relevant to major concerns of the organism (Scherer,
2005: 697)
Emotionology Society's and organizations' collective understanding of how certain emotions should be directed and expressed
towards certain groups (Fineman, 2008). Emotionologies provide standards or norms of appropriate
emotional expression for different occupational groups, genders, etc. (Wright & Nyberg, 2012) and are,
therefore, politico-ideological constructions (Fineman, 2010: 27).
164
Table 3
Two possible approaches to theorizing emotions in sociomateriality.
Overall ontological
position
What is affect?
Critical realism
Agential realism
Materiality has affect; humans have emotions;

social has emotionologies. These become mangled
to form the felt quality of the sociomaterial
Sensual intensity/affective property that emerges
from a material object/space and moves through
human bodies
Emotion is a set of interrelated changes (bodily,
motivational, subjective feeling, etc.) in an individual
Sociomaterial relations/practices/
actornetworks have a felt quality
If there is no materiality, there is also no affect

that is distinctly characteristic of particular
material objects/spaces
What is emotion?
If there is no social, there is also no emotions
that are distinctly characteristic to individuals
that are part of this social
What is emotionology? Emotionology is society's/collective's understanding If there is no social, there is also no
how these emotions should be directed and
emotionologies that are distinctly
towards whom
characteristic of the society/collective
What is the felt quality An emergent emotive characteristic of sociomaterial An emergent emotive characteristic of
of sociomateriality?
activities; melding of subjective emotions, material sociomaterial activities; boundaries between
affect and social emotionology
subjective emotions, material affect and social
emotionology are not pre-given or xed, but
enacted in practice
Unit of analysis
Social, material and subjective agency
Sociomaterial practice, including its felt quality
(Klein & Myers, 1999). Following Levina and Vaast (2005), we present a cross-case comparison in the form
of a table that summarizes the research methods employed in the eld (Table 4).
Although the two cases were conducted separately, all researchers were informed by a sociomaterial
perspective, employed the same interview techniques, and focused data collection on the same unit of
analysisspecically, the organizational implementation and use of the same packaged software. Our
analysis involved articulating the dynamics of each case study, thereby developing a shared perspective
based on the themes that were present in either one or both settings. In doing so, we identied how
sociomaterial perspectives could include emotions.
Interviews were recorded and transcribed. The transcripts were shared via Dropbox and the research
team reviewed all data. Initial interpretations were communicated during Skype-based conference calls. In
our analysis we use the empirical data for illustrative purposes, rather than for developing new theoretical
concepts. Accordingly, we coded the data to identify instances of emotive content and then considered
how material affect, emotions and emotionologies were related to the ongoing sociomaterial dynamic.
These emergent themes were shared with one another in order to consider the principles of dialogical
reasoning and suspicion with a view to further improve our interpretive accounts (Klein & Myers, 1999).
An iterative process of discussion and ne-tuning of the case descriptions helped us to identify the
over-arching theme of emotion as related to the nature of sociomaterial thinking, and its value to IS
Table 4
Cross-case comparison of research methods.
Methods
Public
Private
Field work
Timing
Narrative interviews (inc. group
interviews and meeting
recordings)
Observations
Interviews and observations over 18 months

Implementation and post-implementation
30 with 23 stakeholders.
Recorded and verbatim transcriptions
Interviews and observations over 12 months

Implementation and post-implementation
18 with 30 stakeholders
Recorded and verbatim transcriptions
Field journal
Documentation
Follow-up contact
4 sessions with faculty lling out their

annual reports (video recorded) + limited
observations of faculty use
Pre and post interview notes and observations, Pre and post interview notes and
transcribed
observations, transcribed
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
2 faculty advisory group sessions + limited
observations of faculty use
165
scholarship in explaining implementation and use. The analytical themes were then organized around this
issue, allowing us to develop a coherent sense of the implementations across the two universities.
4. Case descriptions
Each case is organized into three key episodes in the implementation process: selection and
conguration of the FO package, university-wide roll-out, and initial faculty use of and responses to FO
post roll-out. In this section, we rst describe the FO package and then describe the introduction of the
package in our two sites (see overview in Table 5).
4.1. The Faculty Output vendor and package
The FO vendor rst offered the package in 1999. At the time of writing, FO employed approximately 30
staff and there were about 3000 FO adopters in over 25 countries. The FO package is somewhat different
from many software packages in that it is not congurable by the user organization. Rather, it comes as a
standard package with the vendor organization undertaking congurations in response to requests from
its clients. FO claims that the software package is tailored to individual clients (given its exible back-end)
and that it is congurable for many different specications. Conguration requests are handled uniquely
for each client organization, based on a system of ticketing, which clients use to submit their requests to
FO. Conguration requests can range from requesting particular reports to modifying input screens or
output formats. The faculty activity information that is input into FO is held on the vendor's cloud-based
repository. Individual institutions using FO can, however, get periodic back-ups of their data that they may
hold on their own server.
As a standardized software package, FO requires individual faculty members to record their activities
according to a xed classication system. In order to accommodate activities across academic disciplines,
FO is based on broad classications of faculty activitiestypically teaching, research and service. Each
individual activity must be manually entered into FO and categorized: for example, research activities can
be categorized into journal articles/books/book chapters; conference presentations; grants/sponsored
research; artistic performances; exhibits; patents or Other. Faculty members also need to provide
detailed information on each item (e.g., name; date; authors). There are no formatting or spell-checking
options in FO. Based on the data entered, FO also provides reporting functionality. Typically, faculty
members can pull out a (standardized) vita and annual activity report, while administrators can also run
aggregate reports across departments, schools, etc.
The next sections describe the series of phases around FO roll-out as they unfolded at Public and
Private. The phases, key implementation episodes in each phase, actors involved and outcomes are
summarized in Tables 6 and 7 below.
4.2. Public
4.2.1. Selecting FO and working with the vendor to customize FO
With the approval of the (now former) Provost, Public purchased the FO product, replacing a very
simple home grown, web-based, data entry form used for gathering faculty activity information. The
decision to purchase FO was mainly driven by the need for a central faculty vitae/activity database. The FO
Table 5
Overview of the research settings.
Type of institution
Orientation
Size
Founded
Public
Private
State university
Broad: three colleges and four schools; both
professional as well as arts & sciences
Approx. 30,000 students; 1564 faculty members
(888 full-time)
Post World War II
Private university
Narrow: business; arts and sciences
Approx. 5500 students; 280 full-time
members of faculty.
Post World War I
166
Table 6
Overview of FO implementation at public.
Key episodes
Actors involved
Early 2009: selecting FO; working with the vendor

FO implementation assigned to CA
ofce (CAO)
Change in scope: collection of all faculty

activities (historical data), not just
annual activities
Congurations (pre roll-out)
Late 2009/2010: university-wide roll-out
FO ofcially announced as a vitae database
Data entry support personnel is offered

to faculty
Provost, CAO, FO
Provost, CAO,
deans, faculty, FO
CAO, vendor, FO
Outcome
CAO reluctantly takes on the role (having no prior
experience with IT implementations)
Faculty are overwhelmed with the amount of data
they have to enter
FO fullls the basic requirements of Public
Provost, faculty,
Still very limited faculty use of system + negative
FO
backlash
Faculty, CAO, data
Some faculty feel resentful for not getting support
entry personnel,
FO
2011/2012: faculty backlash and reverting back to original scope of the project
Entry of whole vita is no longer required
CAO, faculty, FO
Limited impact on already-formed patterns of use
and non-use
implementation project was assigned to a central administrative ofce (CAO). The project team comprised
two people: one staff member handling the conguration, communication with vendor and faculty
requests, and a senior administrator/faculty member responsible for the initiative as a whole but not
involved in day-to-day matters. Public had no prior experience with any kind of formal faculty activity
database. Once the package had been purchased, the Provost changed the scope of the projectrather than
simply using it to produce standardized annual activity reporting, FO could be used for many different
purposes, provided that it included all faculty output data from all years.3
[1] From the institutional research standpoint we wanted a better way to capture faculty activity. We
had been using a questionnaire Initially, we hadn't intended it [FO] to be the entire vita for a faculty
member. It was supposed to be the information that covered the same period as the questionnaire It
was never quite clear, where it [FO] was supposed to land. So, because we had been administering the
questionnaire, we said OK Frankly I want the reports out of it, but I don't want to implement the
software and I don't want to deal with all the faculty stuff.
[(Senior CAO administrator)]
Prior to rolling-out the software to the university community, a few major congurations took place.
Most importantly, the CV report was modied to make it conform to Public's Promotion and Tenure (P&T)
format guidelines. Additional edits/amendments were made after FO was in production, based on
feedback from faculty users, date entry assistants, and the FO administrator's on-going review of screens
and reports. The single CAO staff member was responsible for all aspects of planning and implementation.
While she was allocated 100% to the project for the rst year, 30% of her prior work responsibilities were
not covered, leading to her being regularly over capacity.
[2] We didn't get additional resources in [CAO] to support [FO] And when the Provost kind of
changed the focus and said that he wanted faculty to put their whole vitae in there, that's when we said,
Okay, this is how many data-support people we would need. And I think neither one of us [staff
member and boss] knew at the time what that really meant, and since then we've surveyed a long list of
institutions and it seems a lot of people have fallen into that trap. And part of that, I think is that they
may have oversold their product and we were very nave, having never done it before .
Quotes are numbered so that we can refer to them in our analysis.
167
Table 7
Overview of FO implementation at Private.
Key episodes
Actors involved
2009: Selecting FO; working with the vendor

FO implementation assigned to CT
Committee, CTO, FO
ofce (CTO)
CTO, faculty, FO
One major customization (faculty web
CTO, vendor, FO
proles)
Congurations (pre roll-out)
2010: university-wide roll-out: FO use is voluntary
FO ofcially announced as a tool for
Provost, faculty, FO
web proles, CVs and annual reports
2011/2012: FO use becomes required (strongly encouraged)
All faculty are requested to ll out their
Provost, CTO,
annual reports in FO
faculty, FO
Outcome
CTO takes on the role naturally, having done
similar projects before
FO automatically links to faculty web proles
FO fullls the basic requirements at Private
Faculty try out the system, different use patterns

form; continuing conguration efforts
Some frustration, but mostly neutral compliance
[3] FO was not well received by our faculty the faculty who were using it weren't pleased that it
didn't produce a CV that looked like anything like a CV So, it was constant customization of what we
had already created .
[(CAO staff member)]
4.2.2. Rolling out FO across the university

At the beginning of the roll-out, Public's Provost attended an early committee meeting and explained
the history and motivation of the initiative. Subsequently, he gave an explicit directive that faculty should
use FO, where FO was described as a vitae database. Despite this announcement, signicant numbers of
faculty did not input data into FO. As a result some academic units and individuals received support for
data entry while others were required to input CV data themselves. This created a negative backlash from
those faculty members who had not been so supported.
4.2.3. Faculty response to and use of FO
For those who did attempt to input data, many found that the input screen options were inappropriate
for describing their activities. The antipathy towards the system was evident in angry comments about the
amount of time being wasted on FO, mixed with community-mindedness of wanting to do the right
thing. Once collected, data could be used for a variety of different purposes other than that which had been
presented to faculty as CV management. Exactly what those purposes might be was unclear and
sometimes threatening to faculty, however:
[4] There's a widespread fear that these meaningless statistics will be used to determine budget
allocations. Such fears are extremely demoralizing for faculty .
[(anonymous faculty member)]
[5] The Provost is saying that we're not productive enough in the library. And that's based on some of
these reporting measures, right? So all of this starts to feel like it's really a big deal. Like I need to make
sure to check this box or else, what, we don't get a new tenure-line position? I'm not actively worried,
but it's denitely being aware of the ramications of the little boxes you choose to ll in [X] did
something really interesting, he probably mentioned this, he found out from somebody [in the CAO],
which categories will be reported up. And then he sent it out to all of us and said, These are the
categories that are going to be reported up, so these are the most essential pieces of information..
[(Librarian/Assistant Professor)]
There were a few exceptions, with some faculty appreciating the usefulness of manipulating data and
not seeing the more sinister implications of the kind highlighted above:
168
[6] My instincts say: jump on board and go for it, because it's really a nice tool. I love the idea of being
able to roll up [data] I think that's useful.
[(Director of a PhD program)]
In response to continued dissatisfaction on the part of the majority, it was decided that only entry of
the most recent year's activities would be mandatory for the 2011/2012 academic year. This had a
relatively limited impact on the already-established patterns of use and non-use:
[7] We decided to go back to just asking the faculty to populate, I think, it's seven different elds. In
some departments, 90 percent of the faculty responded to that, in others, only 38 percent. Essentially, it's
not really being used by very many people.
4.3. Private
4.3.1. Selecting FO and working with the vendor to customize the FO
At Private, the decision to purchase FO was made by a special committee, comprising administrators,
faculty representatives and technology support personnel from a central technology ofce [CTO] that
supports faculty members both in terms of their research and teaching. This committee attended product
demonstrations for two different software packages and decided on FO due mainly to the perceived better
availability of customization support from the FO vendor. The CTO, having prior experience with IT
implementations at the university, was put in charge of the implementation. In the event, they felt, like
Public, that vendor support for product tailoring had not met their expectations:
[8] I think [FO] was better at selling the product and still only had one developer. And once we installed, we
gured out [that] what was good for them in terms of generating sales was terrible for us because their own
developer was overwhelmed and I had some frustrating conversations with the owner. And we really got
up to around here [points above his head] with requests that had been made and sitting in the queue for
literally months. We can't touch the system ourselves; everything is a request. It was a horror show.
[(Project leader, CTO)]
The CTO team handling the implementation consisted of four people responsible for overall
implementation and conguration, including communication with faculty, administrators and the vendor;
faculty training, and the like. The main customization was the in-house creation of standardized web
proles for all faculty membersa faculty member's data input into FO is displayed on the Internet
webpage as a prole of their various activities, including a listing of all publications.
Aside from this, many hundreds of other congurations were requested to the input screens and
output reports, based on feedback from faculty members:
[9] We wanted to have as little information to ll out for the faculty as possible. We went through every
screen and said Okay, what elds are required, what are optional, what's not there that we need to
have.
[(FO project team member, CTO)]
4.3.2. Rolling out FO across the university
At roll out, some of the requested congurations had not been made (estimated to be 15 to 20% by the FO
project leader) because of the time it was taking the vendor to respond to requests. However, given the need
to launch the system in preparation for an accreditation review, the Provost made a decision to push ahead
with this, and a communication about the initiative came in April 2010. In this, FO was labeled as a way to
maintain an attractive public web prole, generate a standardized CV, and produce an annual activity report.
4.3.3. Faculty response to and use of FO
Approximately one year after the university-wide roll out, all departments at Private had been using FO
to some degree. A similar pattern has emerged in most departmentstwo or three active users update
169
their information almost monthly, while the rest of the faculty input their recent activities into FO once a
year (at the time when annual reports are due). Faculty responses to the system have been more diverse at
Private than at Public. The reaction towards maintaining a public web prole through FO was rather
positive, and the most active FO users seem to be driven by the desire to keep their on-line prole
up-to-date:
[10] I know if someone's going to be looking for me on the web, they're going to want to nd what I've
done most recently. And from looking over other faculty members [proles], probably about 75% of folks
keep theirs updated I'm very gratied with the results
[(Associate Professor)]
In relation to using FO for annual activity reporting, faculty responses ranged widely. Some department
chairs found the standardized report to be helpful:
[11] I can understand [FO's] desire to bring all that information together and to somehow mechanize
the generation of the report. I'm not without guilt when it comes to trying to put faculty into boxes to
some extent. I don't know how else you'd do it if you're going to make some kind of evaluation.
Evaluating people to me is a very scary thing, so I was looking for some mechanism whereby I could
justify my own answers with some degree of condence
[(Department chair)]
Others grudgingly incorporated FO into their annual activity reporting, but kept using other, more
familiar, formats and documents on the side:
[12] My faculty were extremely resistant to [FO] because, in their opinion, [FO] was clumsy, ineffective
and didn't present them in a way that they wanted to be presented. Most of my faculty now maintain
two CVs And I want it all on paper. So it's [the faculty member's] job to present to me a complete
picture of the work they've done over the last year and I do not take it to be my job to enforce a
particular format on their presentation..
[(Department chair)]
Following this relatively successful introduction of FO at Private, in late 2011 the use of FO for annual
activity reporting became required of all faculty members. This mandate created some frustration and
annoyance amongst the faculty who were used to producing their reports in MS Word. However, because
FO is associated with non-essential administrative tasks, many faculty members also felt neutral or even
positive about FO:
[13] I put in my activities and then apparently [FP] makes an annual report. I'm not real happy about
that magic behind the scenes. It's not an essential part of my work though, so it's not such a big deal
[(Associate Professor)]
5. Analysis
Having described the FO implementations, we next analyze the results by applying the two
sociomaterial perspectives previously introduced to explore how emotions can be incorporated into
each. Before we turn to this, however, we briey illustrate how a traditional MOP and ANT study might
analyze our data, focusing on the pre-roll out phase only (Table 8).
What this analysis shows is that neither account really addresses the emotional aspects of our cases,
even though these were clearly evident in our case descriptions. For example, the MOP perspective draws
attention to the series of resistances and accommodations through which particular sociomaterial
congurations develop, while the ANT perspective highlights the dynamic development of congurations
of human and non-human actants through enrolment and translation. Little of the various emotive
elements that were evident in the quotes were present in either analysis. The frustrations, fears, worries
and guilt, so evident in our case descriptions have fallen away to produce descriptions that are accurate in
basics, but that paint a monochrome and passionless picture, failing to capture what it means to act in this
170
Empirical observation
MOP perspective
ANT perspective
Pre roll-out practices: working with

the vendor at Public (see [1][2][3])
Series of (material) resistances and accommodations at Public:
Enacted sociomaterial relations at Public:

CAO actornetwork translates a signicant number of Public faculty into
the story of the importance of capturing faculty productivity which is
inscribed in the questionnaire. The rhetoric that counting something is
imperative helps further enroll actors into the network when FO is
introduced. An alternative network emerges when conversations about
effectively representing faculty CV-s/productivity ensue.
These networks are vying for dominance through each conguration that
slightly alters the CAO network through the modication of the FO software.
Pre roll-out practices: working with

the vendor at Private (see [8][9])
1. CAO administers questionnaire to capture faculty productivity.

a. Resistance: Questionnaire does not enable the capture of the
nuances of activities
b. Accommodation: Find a better way of collecting this info (i.e., FO)
2. FO is implemented and CAO starts working with the vendor
a. Resistance: CAO has no experience, is understaffed; FO lacks
certain capabilities (e.g., CV report does not match Public's needs)
b. Accommodation: CAO asks vendor to make congurations
Series of (material) resistances and accommodations at Private:
1. Committee decides to implement FO

a. Resistance: FO screens, etc. do not t the need of Private's faculty
(+FO has no built-in web prole element)
b. Accommodation: CTO builds web proles in-house; vendor is
asked to congure screens according to faculty input
c. Resistance: Vendor response is slow; FO cannot be congured
locally by CTO
d. Accommodation: CTO keeps pushing vendor (80% of
congurations are done for roll-out time)
Enacted sociomaterial relations at Private:

The PrivateFO actornetwork attempts to enroll and translate the
interests of faculty network. Mobilization fails because faculty resist the
enrollment and demand technical changes be incorporated into the FO
software. In response, the Private-FO network attempts to enroll the
Vendor network which includes the software code base that enables
customizations. The Vendor network prioritizes other interests and is
slow to respond to the PrivateFO network. All three networks remain
unable to translate interests of the other, although some conguration
changes are enacted in this period.
Table 8
Comparison of insights gained from different sociomaterial perspectives.
171
world. It is possible that emotional elements are so difcult to include in sociomaterial theorizing because
we associate emotions purely with humans, and, therefore, consider them to be outside the scope of an
account that emphasizes sociomateriality. However, as indicated above, and as illustrated next, there is no
need to restrict our understanding of the emotive domain in such a manner.
Table 9 provides an overview of how one could analyze the emotive elements in our empirical data
from the critical realism and agential realism perspectives. In this table we have analyzed the same pre roll
out practices as in Table 8 and in addition we also include post roll out practices. We show the results of
the analysis according to a critical realism and agential realism perspective side-by-side in order to
demonstrate the similarities and differences.
From Table 9, we see that, while there are obvious differences, both approaches are adequate for
examining the emotive domain unfolding in our two cases. Both the critical and agential realism
Table 9
Illustrative comparison of applying two approaches to develop emotions in sociomateriality.
Empirical observation
Pre roll-out practices: working

with the vendor at Public
(see [1][2][3])
Pre roll-out practices: working

with the vendor at Private
(see [8][9])
Critical realism
Agential realism
Felt quality as the emergent emotive

characteristic of sociomaterial activities,
resulting from the melding of existing
subjective emotions, material affect and
social emotionology.
1. Material affect: FO generates an affectivity
of a burden
2. Subjective emotions: frustration,
confusion
3. Emotionology: it is OK to feel that way
when you have no prior experience with
IT implementations
4. Emerging felt quality of the CAOFO
vendor relations: harassed
1. Material affect: FO generates an affectivity
of a too-good-to-be-true
2. Subjective emotions: frustration
3. Emotionology: this is what happens when
a vendor over-sells their product
4. Emerging felt quality of the CTOFO
vendor relations: horror show
Felt quality as the emergent emotive

characteristic of sociomaterial activities, where
boundaries between subjective emotions,
material affect and social emotionology are not
pre-given or xed, but enacted in practice.
As the alternative networks vie for dominance,
the emerging CAOFOvendor network is not
stable and feels harassed. FO is enacted as a
burden; it fails to enroll either CAO or faculty;
CAO, failing to enroll FO and, to a lesser extent,
the vendor, enacts a nave implementer, entitled to feel frustrated and confused.
Post roll-out practices: faculty 1.

use and non-use patterns of
FO at Public (see [4][5])
2.
3.
4.
Post roll-out practices: faculty 1.

use and non-use patterns of
FO at Private (see [11][12])
2.
3.
4.
As the FOCTO, FOVendor and FOFaculty

networks each attempt to enroll others in their
interests, the emerging CTOFOvendor
network is not stable and feels like a horror
show. FO is enacted as not delivering on its
promise, it has difculty enrolling CTO and the
faculty; CTO has difculty enrolling the vendor
and enacts a frustrated implementer that has
been fooled to buy a product without sufcient
support.
Material affect: FO generates an affectivity As the FOlibrary and the FOAdministration
of threatening and unfair ramications
networks attempt to enroll others in their
Subjective emotions: fear
interest, the emerging libraryFOadmin
Emotionology: one should not show active network temporarily stabilizes in a
fear or worry
demoralizing felt quality. FO is enacted as
threatening and unfair, it fails to enroll the
Emerging felt quality of the LibraryFO
library; the administration has the power to
Administration relations: demoralizing
enforce library mobilization, so the library
enrolls a procedural manual to deal with FO
threat, while at the same time expressing their
lack of moral support for this conguration.
Material affect: FO generates an affectivity As the FOfaculty and the FOchairs networks
of mechanistic boxing of faculty
attempt to enroll others in their interest, the
members
emerging facultyFOchairs network
Subjective emotions: fear, guilt, deance
temporarily stabilizes in two contentious
Emotionology: one should be fair in
forms. FO is enacted as a boxing mechanism,
evaluating faculty
it enrolls some chairs, but not others; some
Emerging felt quality of the FacultyFO
chairs enroll/do not enroll FO as arguably a
Chairs relations: contention
fair/unfair way to do evaluations and assuage
their fears.
172
approaches can expose the emerging felt quality of particular sociomaterial congurations, even while
they go about analyzing the emergence of this felt quality in distinct ways. A critical realism approach
allows for the teasing out of clearly separable elements of material affect, human emotions and social
emotionologies; these are then observed coming together in particular ways through the joint acting of
human and machine agencies. An agential realism approach emphasizes the overall felt quality of the
actornetwork or sociomaterial conguration, but can also accommodate the examination of how
boundaries between humans, machines and social aspects, as well as their emotions, affective qualities
and emotionologies, are drawn in practice. Comparing these analyses to the ones given in Table 8 provides
descriptions that are both accurate and animated, presenting the world in its full colors. Importantly, this
can be done while staying true to the foundations of sociomaterial theorizing (i.e., without re-introducing
the dualism between the social and the material, and importantly also, without creating another dualism
between the subjective and objective). We discuss this more fully in the next section.
6. Discussion
We began this paper by outlining the differences between two sociomaterial perspectives (mangle of
practice and actornetwork theory) to illustrate the diversity in this new line of theorizing. It has been
argued that the choice of theoretical foundation will have a practical inuence on the kind of empirical
study undertaken, and consequently, on the kinds of contributions made to the study of sociomateriality
(Leonardi, 2013: 74). Our comparison of the two perspectives/foundations in Table 1, in line with previous
comparisons (Leonardi, 2013), showed that there are considerable differences in how various elements
are conceptualized, the kind of aspects the perspectives emphasize and obscure and, correspondingly, the
kinds of overall contributions the perspectives can make. Moving beyond the specic perspectives of MOP
and ANT, we also discussed broader philosophical differences between critical realism and agential realism
(Leonardi, 2013). While critical realism emphasizes the joint working of human and non-human agency
and can showcase the temporal emergence of particular sociomaterial congurations, agential realism is
more suited towards understanding sociomaterial practices and their performativity (i.e., the idea that
everything we see as a social or a technical consequence is actually a function of sociomaterial practices).
However, while both perspectives are useful for analyzing our data (as illustrated in Table 8), and can help
overcome the longstanding dualism of the social and the technical in IS research (Latour, 2005; Leonardi &
Barley, 2008; Orlikowski & Scott, 2008; Pickering, 1995), the exclusion of emotions limits our
understanding of the cases as they are experienced in practice. Both perspectives, therefore, contribute
to the continued prevalence of the dualism between subjectiveemotional and objectivecognitive
(Thompson, 2012). We argue that this is problematic both from a theoretical and practical point of view,
as we discuss next.
Table 9 demonstrates how emotional elements can be included in both an agential realist and critical
realist sociomaterial account. This is further shown in more abstract terms in Fig. 1 below. This gure
indicates that the mangling or imbrication of human and non-human agencies can be described, not just in
terms of plans, intentions and constraints, but also in terms of human emotions, social emotionologies and
material affects (Panel B). Similarly, the dynamics of an actornetwork theory or a sociomaterial practice
can be described, not just in terms of actants, enrolments, etc., but also in terms of the overall felt quality of
the network/practice (Panel A). The two approaches, therefore, provide researchers with the capability to
analyze, describe and explain sociomaterial congurations in a more nuanced way, including the full
spectrum of what actually transpires in an encounter between manifold beings (Thrift, 2008).
Interestingly, a sociomaterial perspective on emotions also allows us to theorize about those emotive
characteristics that are typically black-boxed or excluded in studies of emotions (e.g., the overall felt
quality of a sociomaterial association or material affect). By seeing emotions as a purely subjective or
intersubjective phenomena, researchers from all paradigms and perspectives miss out on much of what
characterizes our being-in-the-world (cf. Ciborra, 2006).
While there are some subtle differences, therefore, in terms of how emotions are examined and
interpreted depending on the particular theoretical foundation selected, the main point of our analysis is
to demonstrate how emotions can be added to sociomaterial theorizing without reverting to the
traditional mind/body dualism. From all sociomaterial perspectives, emotions can be treated as practices
(i.e., something that we do rather than something that we simply feel as an afterthought of some event
173
Fig. 1. Possible inclusion of emotions into key theoretical foundations for sociomateriality.
(Adapted from Leonardi, 2013)
that is a product of our mind's interpretations of that event). Others have similarly argued for an
emotion-as-practice perspective, examining emotional practices as socially contingent and as performative in the sense that putting a name on a practice (e.g., this is horrible) produces the experience
(Scheer, 2012). However, the sociomaterial perspective alerts us to the idea that emotional practices are
not only socially contingent but also materially contingent. Gherardi (2012) introduces the idea that
practices take place in an equipped context, with material objects fundamentally part of the practice. This
allows those involved in the practice to appear to practice effortlessly because objects are ready-to-hand,
as with a doctor with a stethoscope always around his/her neck. However, we would argue that the
context is not only equipped in the sense of functionalityallowing people to do the work at handbut
also equipped in the sense that it can produce emotional experiences, so that the stethoscope, as part of
the practice of treating patients, has affective and emotionological properties as well as goal-oriented
properties.
This emotional sociomaterial practice view, then, directs our attention as researchers away from trying
to discover the truth about particular emotional experiences associated with, for example, IT
implementation, to focusing our attention on what people are doing when they say they experience
certain emotions. It is in the sociomaterial practice, which includes the social scripts that allow us to put a
name on certain feelings, and the social objects, which carry emotionological meanings, that subjectivities
are produced and reproduced. As Bourdieu (1990: 53) indicated, stimuli (like a new IT package) only
elicit emotional responses when they encounter agents conditioned to recognize these. Paying more
attention to the emotional aspect (including both affect and emotionologies) of practices can therefore
help us to further unpack the embodied and socially and materially contingent aspect of our experience as
feeling subjects with biographical awareness (Thompson, 2012).
174
7. Conclusion
Sociomateriality offers considerable promise for researchers who want to examine IT implementation
and use as emergent. It allows for the tracing of the practices and outcomes of implementation and use to
relationships between social and material things and the exploration of how, in a particular context, these
relations produce a more or less expertly choreographed performance. Our analysis of a particular instance
of such practice (introducing a new IT tool for completing annual activity reports in university settings)
demonstrated how two different ontological views of sociomaterial relations were equally useful in terms
of enabling us to see the emergence, with both encouraging us to refrain from either overly social or overly
technical accounts. However, we also showed how both accounts remained rather at, in that they missed
out the essence of the situatedeness or being-in-the-world of the practice or, as we have named it the
felt quality of practice. We demonstrated that, without reverting to a personalized view of emotions as
something purely individual, it is possible to include an emotional register in our sociomaterial theorizing;
this, we argue, brings the account to life. By introducing this felt quality of practice we contend that, not
only is our theorizing improved, but the relevance of our research in enhanced. Thus, without explicit
attention to this felt quality, we might more readily throw new objects into a context, forgetting that
every context is not a neutral container, but an equipped context (Gherardi, 2012). Injecting or removing
new objects into any context, therefore, not only changes the extent to which the environment is prepared
for competent practice, but also relationally produces a new felt qualityone that might well include
negative emotions that can stabilize around a particular sociomaterial assemblage and so make it
extremely difcult for a productive practice to emerge.
References
Critical realism: Essential readings. Archer, M., Bhaskar, R., Collier, A., Lawson, T., & Norrie, A. (Eds.). (1998). London: Routledge.
Ashkanasy, N. M. (2003). Emotions in organizations: A multi-level perspective. Research in Multi-Level Issues, 2, 954.
Bagozzi, R. P. (2007). The legacy of the technology acceptance model and a proposal for a paradigm shift. Journal of the Association for
Information Systems, 8(4), 244254.
Barad, K. (1998). Getting real: Technoscientic practices and the materialization of reality. Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural
Studies, 10(2), 88128.
Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of Women in
Culture and Society, 28(3), 801831.
Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. (2007). Why does affect matter in organizations? Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(1), 3659.
Beaudry, B. A., & Pinsonneault, A. (2010). The other side of acceptance: Studying the direct and indirect effects of emotions on
information technology use. MIS Quarterly, 34(4), 689710.
Bhaskar, R. (1978). A realist theory of science. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Brave, S., & Nass, C. (2002). Emotion in humancomputer interaction. In J. A. Jacko, & A. Sears (Eds.), The HumanComputer Interaction
Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications (pp. 8193). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Inc.
Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the shermen of Saint Brieuc Bay.
In J. Law (Ed.), Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? (pp. 196233). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Ciborra, C. (2006). The mind or the heart? It depends on the (denition of) situation. Journal of Information Technology, 21(3),
129139.
Elfenbein, H. A. (2007). Emotion in organizations: A review and theoretical integration. Academy of Management Annals, 1(1),
315386.
Feldman, M. S., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2011). Theorizing practice and practicing theory. Organization Science, 22(5), 12401253.
Fineman, S. (2008). Introducing the emotional organization. In S. Fineman (Ed.), The emotional organization: Passions and power (pp.
114). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Fineman, S. (2010). Emotion in organizationsA critical turn. In B. Sieben, & . Wettergren (Eds.), Emotionalizing organizations and
organizing emotions (pp. 2341). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gherardi, S. (2012). Sociomaterial practices and technological environments. In S. Gherardi (Ed.), How to conduct a practice-based
study: Problems and methods (pp. 77102) (ElgarOnline).
Healy, S. (2014). Atmospheres of consumption: Shopping as involuntary vulnerability. Emotion, Space and Society, 10, 3543.
Hirschheim, R. A., & Klein, H. K. (2006). Crisis in the IS eld? A critical reection on the state of the discipline. In J. King, & K. Lyytinen
(Eds.), Information systems: The state of the eld (pp. 71146). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Kim, H. W., Chan, H. C., & Chan, Y. P. (2007). A balanced thinkingfeelings model of information systems continuance. International
Journal of HumanComputer Studies, 65(6), 511525.
Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive eld studies in Information Systems.
MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 6793.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actornetwork theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Leonardi, P. (2013). Theoretical foundations for the study of sociomateriality. Information and Organization, 23(2), 5976.
175
Leonardi, P. M. (2009). Why do people reject new technologies and stymie organizational changes of which they are in favor?
Exploring misalignments between social interactions and materiality. Human Communication Research, 35(3), 407441.
Leonardi, P. M. (2011). When exible routines meet exible technologies: Affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and
material agencies. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 147167.
Leonardi, P. M., & Barley, S. R. (2008). Materiality and change: Challenges to building better theory about technology and organizing.
Information and Organization, 18(3), 159176.
Leonardi, P. M., & Barley, S. R. (2010). What's under construction here? Social action, materiality, and power in constructivist studies
of technology and organizing. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 151.
Levina, N., & Vaast, E. (2005). The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice: Implications for implementation and
use of information systems. MIS Quarterly, 29(2), 335363.
McGrath, K. (2006). Affection not afiction: The role of emotions in information systems and organizational change. Information and
Organization, 16(4), 277303.
NavaroYashin, Y. (2009). Affective spaces, melancholic objects: Ruination and the production of anthropological knowledge. Journal
of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 15(1), 118.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28(9), 14351448.
Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008). Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. Academy of Management
Annals, 2(1), 433474.
Ortiz de Guinea, A., & Markus, M. L. (2009). Why break the habit of a lifetime? Rethinking the roles of intention, habit, and emotion in
continuing information technology use. MIS Quarterly, 33(3), 433444.
Perrow, C. (1967). A framework for the comparative analysis of organisations. American Sociological Review, 32(2), 194208.
Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency and science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Robey, D., & Boudreau, M. -C. (1999). Accounting for contradictory organizational consequences of information technology:
Theoretical directions and methodological implications. Information Systems Research, 10(2), 167185.
Sassen, S. (2002). Towards a sociology of information technology. Current Sociology, 50(3), 365388.
Scheer, M. (2012). Are emotions a kind of practice (and is that what makes them have a history)? A Bourdieuian approach to
understanding emotion. History and Theory, 51, 193220.
Scherer, K. R. (2005). What are emotions? And how can they be measured? Social Science Information, 44(4), 695729.
Slife, B. D. (2004). Taking practice seriously: Toward a relational ontology. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 24(2),
157178.
Stam, K. R., & Stanton, J. M. (2010). Events, emotions, and technology: Examining acceptance of workplace technology changes.
Information Technology & People, 23(1), 2353.
Stein, M. K., Newell, S., Wagner, E., & Galliers, R. D. (2012). Continued use of IT: An emotional choice. Proceedings of the International
Conference on Information Systems, Orlando, Florida, December 2012.
Suchman, L. (2007). Humanmachine recongurations: Plans and situated actions (2nd Ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Thompson, M. (2009). Where has everyone gone? Re-integrating people into accounts of organizational practice. Working Paper.
Judge Business School.
Thompson, M. (2012). People, practice, and technology: Restoring Giddens' broader philosophy to the study of information systems.
Information and Organization, 22(3), 188207.
Thrift, N. (2008). Non-representational theory. Space, politics, affect. London, UK: Routledge.
Wagner, E., Newell, S. M., & Piccoli, G. (2010). Understanding project survival in an ES environment: A practice perspective. Journal of
the Association for Information Systems, 11(5), 276298.
Walsham, G. (1993). Interpreting information systems in organizations. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Woodward, J. (1958). Management and technology. London, UK: Her Majesty's Stationery Ofce.
Wright, C., & Nyberg, D. (2012). Working with passion: Emotionology, corporate environmentalism and climate change. Human
Relations, 65(12), 15611587.
Zhang, P. (2013). The affective response model: A theoretical framework of affective concepts and their relationships in the ICT
context. MIS Quarterly, 37(1), 247274.

Stein Et Al 2014 Felt Quality

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stein Et Al 2014 Felt Quality

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Information and Organization 24 (2014) 156175

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Information and Organization

Felt quality of sociomaterial relations: Introducing

M.-K. Stein et al. / Information and Organization 24 (2014) 156175

M.-K. Stein et al. / Information and Organization 24 (2014) 156175

M.-K. Stein et al. / Information and Organization 24 (2014) 156175

2.2. Emotions and sociomateriality

Callon (1986), Latour (1987; 2005): ActorNetwork Theory (ANT)

There is no social and no material, only fused sociomaterial networks.

Nature of the emerging

Example empirical case

Practices involving material objects inter-relating with all phenomena we

There is no separable materiality. There is only an actor network.

Irreversible actornetwork (fused association of human and

M.-K. Stein et al. / Information and Organization 24 (2014) 156175

Callon (1986), Latour (1987; 2005): ActorNetwork Theory (ANT)

Donald Glaser's creation of the bubble chamber described by Pickering (1995)

Well-suited to describe cases where humans revise goals (accommodations)

What the perspective

Cases where material agency accommodates (rather than constrains) are

Showcase how organizations, people and technologies come to be as they

Consideration (or lack

Human intentionality is discussed purely in relation to goals and plans.

M.-K. Stein et al. / Information and Organization 24 (2014) 156175

What the perspective

Actornetwork of marine biologists, shermen, Japanese techniques

M.-K. Stein et al. / Information and Organization 24 (2014) 156175

2.2.1. Emotions as personal inner states and social performances

M.-K. Stein et al. / Information and Organization 24 (2014) 156175

M.-K. Stein et al. / Information and Organization 24 (2014) 156175

Materiality has affect; humans have emotions;

If there is no materiality, there is also no affect

Interviews and observations over 18 months

Interviews and observations over 12 months

4 sessions with faculty lling out their

M.-K. Stein et al. / Information and Organization 24 (2014) 156175

M.-K. Stein et al. / Information and Organization 24 (2014) 156175

Early 2009: selecting FO; working with the vendor

Change in scope: collection of all faculty

Data entry support personnel is offered

Quotes are numbered so that we can refer to them in our analysis.

M.-K. Stein et al. / Information and Organization 24 (2014) 156175

2009: Selecting FO; working with the vendor

Faculty try out the system, different use patterns

4.2.2. Rolling out FO across the university

M.-K. Stein et al. / Information and Organization 24 (2014) 156175

M.-K. Stein et al. / Information and Organization 24 (2014) 156175

Pre roll-out practices: working with

Series of (material) resistances and accommodations at Public:

Enacted sociomaterial relations at Public:

Pre roll-out practices: working with

1. CAO administers questionnaire to capture faculty productivity.

1. Committee decides to implement FO

Enacted sociomaterial relations at Private:

M.-K. Stein et al. / Information and Organization 24 (2014) 156175

M.-K. Stein et al. / Information and Organization 24 (2014) 156175

Pre roll-out practices: working

Pre roll-out practices: working

Felt quality as the emergent emotive

Felt quality as the emergent emotive

Post roll-out practices: faculty 1.

Post roll-out practices: faculty 1.

As the FOCTO, FOVendor and FOFaculty