دانلود رایگان مقاله کارایی برای تمرین

Abstract

This paper argues that Gibson's concept of affordance inserts a powerful conceptual lens for the study of sociomateriality as enacted in contemporary organizational practices. Our objective in this paper is to develop a comprehensive view of affordances that builds upon the existing conceptualizations in the psychology, human–computer interaction, sociology and information systems literatures and extend them in three important ways. First, we show that taking an integrative interpretation of affordance as dispositional and relational, rather than the standard unidimensional interpretation, provides a theoretical articulation of how the material and the social influence each other. Second, we propose to broaden the focus from the affordances of technology to the affordances for practice provided jointly by technology and organizing. This means considering social affordances alongside technological affordances. Finally, we argue that the best way to integrate the study of social and technological affordances is not to stretch Gibson's original concept to include the social but rather to complement it with a sociological concept that fits it neatly: Bourdieu's idea of habitus. Our claim is that the concepts of affordance and habitus complement and complete each other. Affordance offers a useful way of thinking about how practice is patterned by the social and physical construction of technology and the material environment and habitus offers a useful way of thinking about how practice is patterned by social and symbolic structures. We describe how affordances and habitus may be used together to provide a theoretical apparatus to study practice as a sociomaterial entanglement, thus adding to the methodological toolkit of scholars embracing a sociomaterial perspectives.

4. ConclusionIn conclusion, the theory of affordances offers IS and organizational researchers a framework for studying the influence of technology and environment on behaviors and practices in a nondeterministic way that takes into account the importance of both its material and social construction. In association with the concept of habitus, it provides a conceptual vocabulary that can make it easier for scholars sensitized to a sociomaterial explanation of organizational practices, and the technology, artifacts, and environments that they involve, to do empirical work in this area. We make three proposals for future research. First, we acknowledge two perspectives on affordances: dispositional and relational. Yet, rather than choosing one over the other, we contend that taking a truly integrative perspective allows researchers to explain how the material shapes practice without determining it and to acknowledge how the material both constrains yet is flexible and socially interpreted, related to a user's needs, practice, and organizational context. Second, we propose to shift the focus of affordance from the technology's features or environment's characteristics to the practice enacted through technology or within an environment. Thus, rather than the affordance of email, CAD, or open plan offices, one should focus on affordance for practice — e.g., for communication, collaboration, or informal interaction. Third, we argue for the power in middle-ground theories (Merton, 1968). The temptation to extend affordances to encompass concepts such as habitus should be resisted. How affordance and habitus complement one another is not that one is about the physical and the other about the social. It is that affordance offers a useful way of thinking about how practice is patterned by the social and physical construction of technology and the material environment and habitus offers a useful way of thinking about how practice is patterned by social and symbolic structures. Together, affordances and habitus shape the possibilities for action that show up, either consciously or unconsciously, for the actor. These two concepts that have traction in empirically-based studies, yet have only ever been used separately, yield a rich and subtle language to describe organizational practices as always and everywhere enacted through social and material entanglements, a crucial, yet challenging task for researchers embracing a sociomaterial perspective.