2016ACM SIGMIS Database the DATABASE for Advances in Information SystemsRequires access

Critical Realism as a Sociomaterial Stream of Research

Michael J. Cuellar

Open publisher page 8 citations

Abstract

Niemimaa (2016) argues that agential realism (Barad 2003) represents a radical form of sociomateriality (Cecez-Kecmanovic et al. 2014a; Orlikowski and Scott 2008) and that critical realism (Bhaskar 1979; Bhaskar 1997) represents a conservative form of sociomateriality and attempts to bring to the foreground the differences in the approaches so as to avoid inappropriate "theoretical mélanges." This response argues that critical realism is not properly part of the sociomaterial stream of research as it violates the five basic notions of sociomateriality (Jones 2014). It further suggests that given the criticisms of Mutch (2013) and Leonardi (2013) as confirmed by Scott and Orlikowski (2013) of Agential Realism represent significant issues that compromise the usefulness of agential realism for IS research. Nevertheless, it is important that whatever paradigm is chosen, it is important to use it faithfully to its meta-theoretical commitments.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Niemimaa (2016) argues that agential realism (Barad 2003) represents a radical form of sociomateriality (Cecez-Kecmanovic et al. 2014a; Orlikowski and Scott 2008) and that critical realism (Bhaskar 1979; Bhaskar 1997) represents a conservative form of sociomateriality and attempts to bring to the foreground the differences in the approaches so as to avoid inappropriate "theoretical mélanges." This response argues that critical realism is not properly part of the sociomaterial stream of research as it violates the five basic notions of sociomateriality (Jones 2014). It further suggests that given the criticisms of Mutch (2013) and Leonardi (2013) as confirmed by Scott and Orlikowski (2013) of Agential Realism represent significant issues that compromise the usefulness of agential realism for IS research. Nevertheless, it is important that whatever paradigm is chosen, it is important to use it faithfully to its meta-theoretical commitments.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 8 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Niemimaa (2016) argues that agential realism (Barad 2003) represents a radical form of sociomateriality (Cecez-Kecmanovic et al. 2014a; Orlikowski and Scott 2008) and that critical realism (Bhaskar 1979; Bhaskar 1997) represents a conservative form of sociomateriality and attempts to bring to the foreground the differences in the approaches so as to avoid inappropriate "theoretical mélanges." This response argues that critical realism is not properly part of the sociomaterial stream of research as it violates the five basic notions of sociomateriality (Jones 2014). It further suggests that given the criticisms of Mutch (2013) and Leonardi (2013) as confirmed by Scott and Orlikowski (2013) of Agential Realism represent significant issues that compromise the usefulness of agential realism for IS research. Nevertheless, it is important that whatever paradigm is chosen, it is important to use it faithfully to its meta-theoretical commitments.

Key concepts: Critical realism (philosophy of perception), Realism, Epistemology, Compromise, Sociology, Philosophy, Direct and indirect realism, Social science

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Critical Realism as a Sociomaterial Stream of Research — Research Paper | ScholarLens