A further interpretation of the relational agency of information systems: A research note

This paper proposes a reinterpretation of the agency of information system (IS) as relational. It explores how the agency of IS has been articulated in the extant stream of accounting information system (AIS) research and explains how a relational view of agency can enhance our understanding of IS in its organizational context. This reinterpretation highlights the limitation of viewing IS as technology (technocentric view) with predefined functionality and predictable effects. Attention is also shifted away from an anthropocentric conceptualization of IS; where the technology is seen as a tool and agency is attributed only to humans. We argue in the paper that both the technocentric and anthropocentric views of IS limit what can be learned about the agency of IS. Drawing on actor-network theory (ANT), this study conceptualizes IS as a relational network and proposes a relational view of the agency of IS. This relational view suggests that the social and material entities that make up IS have no absolute essence when viewed in isolation; rather, their collective force defines the agency of IS. The implications of the relational view of agency for AIS research are also highlighted.

[1]  Habib Mahama,et al.  The Effect of Network Ties on Accounting Controls in a Supply Alliance: Field Study Evidence , 2006 .

[2]  Miklos A. Vasarhelyi,et al.  Continuous monitoring of business process controls: A pilot implementation of a continuous auditing system at Siemens , 2006, Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst..

[3]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  The Identity Crisis Within the IS Discipline: Defining and Communicating the Discipline's Core Properties , 2003, MIS Q..

[4]  Dennis F. Galletta,et al.  The antecedents of the use of continuous auditing in the internal auditing context , 2012, Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst..

[5]  E. Rogers.  Diffusion of Innovations, Fourth Edition , 1982 .

[6]  Matthew Jones,et al.  A Matter of Life and Death: Exploring Conceptualizations of Sociomateriality in the Context of Critical Care , 2014, MIS Q..

[7]  Vicky Arnold,et al.  The impact of tagging qualitative financial information on investor decision making: Implications for XBRL , 2012, Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst..

[8]  Salvatore T. March,et al.  Design and natural science research on information technology , 1995, Decis. Support Syst..

[9]  Alan R. Hevner,et al.  POSITIONING AND PRESENTING DESIGN SCIENCE RESEARCH FOR MAXIMUM IMPACT 1 , 2013 .

[10]  Arlyn J. Melcher,et al.  A meta-analysis of information system success: A reconsideration of its dimensionality , 2011, Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst..

[11]  N. Carr.  IT doesn't matter , 2003, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[12]  Alan R. Hevner,et al.  Design Science in Information Systems Research , 2004, MIS Q..

[13]  B. Latour.  Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory , 2005 .

[14]  Sue Newell,et al.  Understanding Project Survival in an ES Environment: A Sociomaterial Practice Perspective , 2010, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[15]  B. Latour.  On Recalling Ant , 1999 .

[16]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Entanglements in Practice: Performing Anonymity Through Social Media , 2014, MIS Q..

[17]  Paul M. Leonardi,et al.  Activating the Informational Capabilities of Information Technology for Organizational Change , 2007, Organ. Sci..

[18]  Guido L. Geerts,et al.  A design science research methodology and its application to accounting information systems research , 2011, Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst..

[19]  B. Latour.  Science in action : how to follow scientists and engineers through society , 1989 .

[20]  Flurina Schneider,et al.  No‐tillage farming: co‐creation of innovation through network building , 2012 .

[21]  Fragile differences, relational effects: Stories about the materiality of race and sex , 2010 .

[22]  Miklos A. Vasarhelyi,et al.  The case for process mining in auditing: Sources of value added and areas of application , 2013, Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst..

[23]  M. Wade,et al.  Review: the resource-based view and information systems research: review, extension, and suggestions for future research , 2004 .

[24]  B. Latour.  We Have Never Been Modern , 1991 .

[25]  Susan V. Scott,et al.  10 Sociomateriality: Challenging the Separation of Technology, Work and Organization , 2008 .

[26]  M. Callon,et al.  Mapping the dynamics of science and technology : sociology of science in the real world , 1988 .

[27]  M. Callon,et al.  Economization, part 1: shifting attention from the economy towards processes of economization , 2009 .

[28]  Nicholas Berente,et al.  Toward Generalizable Sociomaterial Inquiry: A Computational Approach for Zooming In and Out of Sociomaterial Routines , 2014, MIS Q..

[29]  Rob Kling,et al.  The Web of Computing: Computer Technology as Social Organization , 1982, Adv. Comput..

[30]  Miklos A. Vasarhelyi,et al.  Collaborative design research: Lessons from continuous auditing , 2013, Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst..

[31]  Kenneth L. Kraemer,et al.  Review: Information Technology and Organizational Performance: An Integrative Model of IT Business Value , 2004, MIS Q..

[32]  John Law,et al.  Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity , 1992 .

[33]  W. Orlikowski.  Sociomaterial Practices: Exploring Technology at Work , 2007 .

[34]  Patrick Wheeler,et al.  Experimental methods in decision aid research , 2011, Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst..

[35]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Technology and Institutions: What Can Research on Information Technology and Research on Organizations Learn from Each Other? , 2001, MIS Q..

[36]  J. Mouritsen,et al.  Actor-Network Theory and the Study of Interorganisational Network-Relations , 2010 .

[37]  Steve G. Sutton,et al.  A research discipline with no boundaries: Reflections on 20 years of defining AIS research , 2010, Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst..

[38]  Mohamed Z. Elbashir,et al.  The Role of Organizational Absorptive Capacity in Strategic Use of Business Intelligence to Support Integrated Management Control Systems , 2011 .

[39]  Youngjin Yoo,et al.  Computing in Everyday Life: A Call for Research on Experiential Computing , 2010, MIS Q..

[40]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Research Commentary: Desperately Seeking the "IT" in IT Research - A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact , 2001, Inf. Syst. Res..

[41]  Lucy Suchman,et al.  Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions , 2006 .

[42]  M. Callon.  Europe wrestling with technology , 2004 .

[43]  Claes-Fredrik Helgesson,et al.  On the nature of markets and their practices , 2007 .

[44]  Stewart A. Leech,et al.  Audit Support Systems and Decision Aids: Current Practice and Opportunities for Future Research , 2007 .

[45]  Mark W. Dirsmith,et al.  The Effect of Network Ties on Accounting Controls in a Supply Alliance: Field Study Evidence Discussion of "The Effect of Network Ties on Accounting Controls in a Supply Alliance: Field Study Evidence" , 2007 .

[47]  E. Rogers.  Diffusion of Innovations , 1962 .

[48]  Paul Keys,et al.  OR as technology revisited , 1998, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[49]  Mary B. Curtis,et al.  An examination of contextual factors and individual characteristics affecting technology implementation decisions in auditing , 2008, Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst..

[50]  Steve Woolgar,et al.  After Word? – On Some Dynamics of Duality Interrogation , 2002 .

[51]  W. Orlikowski.  Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations , 2000 .

[52]  Carlin Dowling,et al.  Appropriate Audit Support System Use: The Influence of Auditor, Audit Team and Firm Factors , 2008 .

[53]  Steve G. Sutton,et al.  The changing face of accounting in an information technology dominated world , 2000, Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst..

[54]  Miklos A. Vasarhelyi,et al.  Innovation and practice of continuous auditing , 2011, Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst..

[55]  Bruno Latour,et al.  The Powers of Association , 1984 .

[56]  P. Leonardi,et al.  What’s Under Construction Here? Social Action, Materiality, and Power in Constructivist Studies of Technology and Organizing , 2010 .

[57]  Stewart A. Leech,et al.  A Big 4 Firm's Use of Information Technology to Control the Audit Process: How an Audit Support System is Changing Auditor Behavior , 2014 .

[58]  Samer Faraj,et al.  Using signature matrix to analyze conflicting frames during the IS implementation process , 2013, Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst..

[59]  Will Venters,et al.  A Trichordal Temporal Approach to Digital Coordination: The Sociomaterial Mangling of the CERN Grid , 2014, MIS Q..

[60]  William E. McCarthy,et al.  An ontological analysis of the economic primitives of the extended-REA enterprise information architecture , 2002, Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst..

[61]  Paul M. Leonardi,et al.  Materiality and Change: Challenges to Building Better Theory about Technology and Organizing , 2008, Inf. Organ..

[62]  Steve G. Sutton,et al.  Enablers of top management team support for integrated management control systems innovations , 2013, Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst..

[63]  William L. Fuerst,et al.  Information technology and sustained competitive advantage: a resource-based analysis , 1995 .

[64]  D. Goodman.  Ontology Matters: The Relational Materiality of Nature and Agro-Food Studies , 2001 .

[65]  Steve G. Sutton,et al.  Continuous Auditing in ERP System Environments: The Current State and Future Directions , 2010, J. Inf. Syst..

[66]  Paul Dourish,et al.  Dynamic Reconfiguration in Planetary Exploration: A Sociomaterial Ethnography , 2014, MIS Q..

[67]  Daniel E. O'Leary,et al.  Event Study Methodologies in Information Systems Research , 2011, Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst..