Análisis de contenidos

» Regimes of Truth

» Care of the self

» Problematization

» Aesthetics of Existence.

Technical Rationality

Throughout the earlier sections of this thesis the debates about the nature, that is, the ontology of technology were discussed. A sociotechnical perspective was adopted which rejects the ambitions of technological determinism on the one hand, or social constructivism on the other. It was argued that neither of these positions captures adequately the process of technological change (Kimble and McLoughlin, 1995). However, technical reasons must not be brushed aside. A

39 technical/rational objective does not necessarily translate into rational- efficient gains and hence the consequences of technological adoption cannot be reduced to deterministic means-ends relations. In the generation of technical/rational objectives, the legitimacy of a strategy for change is institutionally mediated by regimes of truth. The legitimacy for technical change may contradict the rational-efficient needs of the organization through the conformation to institutionalized norms and consequently “…institutional rules may have effects on organizational structures and their implementation in actual technical work which are very different from the effects generated by the networks of social behaviour and relationships which compose and surround a given organization” (Meyer and Rowan, 1977; 341). Consequently, the technical rationalities that accompany the material elements of technology need to be viewed as part of the sociotechnical constituency. The interplay between competing and complementary rationalities are key components of institutional stability or change. Technical rationality in this research is considered to lie between the technological artefact and the organization; it is a conduit that links the mutually constitutive realms of social and technical. For example, the situated technical rationality in one organization will be enabled and constrained by the material capabilities of technology and will simultaneously have impact on the domains of adoption and patterns of use of technology. Here a politicized account of technical rationality is proposed, unlike that mobilised in technical determinist accounts of technological change

40 (Avgerou and McGrath, 2007). The technical rationalities involved in the case studies in this research do not harbour to a deterministic analysis, rather it is a rationale mobilised in the formation of strategies for technological and organizational change. Wajcman captures why technical rationalities are significant in the study of technological innovation (2002; 351):

“…[W]e need to ask why a technical reason was found to be compelling, when it could have been challenged, and what counts as technical superiority in specific circumstances.”

This underlies the importance of technical rationality in explaining organizational responses to IS innovation. It also redraws the relationship between the social and the technical. Neither technical reason nor the socially constructed realities of individuals are given primacy. Instead, under this framework, the role of technical rationality is appraised through the reflexive practice of care of the self and problematization. Thus, technology is not made infinitely malleable by the practice of social construction, yet nor does technology determine specific outcomes through its use Avgerou and McGrath argue that technical rationality concerns “…the objectives and action that constitute a strategy in the formation of truth about organizational change” (2007; 307).

41

Regimes of Truth

Avgerou and McGrath draw on the Foucauldian concept of ‘regimes of truth’. These are the power-constituted legitimations of the knowledge that supports a society’s institutions. Regimes of truth are embedded in power relations and evolve through in discourse among constituents of a sociotechnical constituency. Where there are dominant regimes of truth the authors also point to the presence of competing “knowledges”, or in Foucault’s terminology; “subjugated knowledge”. The strategies of the dominant regime of truth will seek to sustain its dominance by subjugating these competing knowledges, dismissing them as “inadequate or naïve”. The combination of discourses in a sociotechnical constituency produces knowledge and power and, in turn, shapes the regimes of truth in operation at that time. Because regimes of truth are embedded in power relations, the dominance of a regime of truth can be sustained or destabilized by changes in broader discourses in a sociotechnical system. For example, the concern and awareness of climate change and global warming has empowered a regime of truth that legitimates carbon neutral or carbon minimizing activities among people and organizations. Avgerou and McGrath use the example of IS innovation being part of a broader political vision of modernizing government agencies, in their case study a Greek Social Security organization. In their study competing regimes of truth are seen between the established bureaucratic order and the program of

42 modernization. Despite the bureaucratic regime becoming subjugated to the program of modernization, the process of IS innovation was regularly stifled by the rationality of the bureaucratic regime.

Regimes of truth should not be considered static entities. Just as power relations shift over time, the dominance of any regime of truth may also become destabilised. This can be brought about by changes in broader social discourses which can lead to discontinuities in the empowerment of a dominant regime. Secondly the continuous care of self (see below) of the constituent population of a sociotechnical contingency; people reflect and act upon their acceptance or rejection of regimes of truth. This has the effect of empowering or disempowering regimes of truth.