Moments of entanglement
Following the sociomaterial trajectories of an intersubjective studio practice
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7577/formakademisk.4191Emneord (Nøkkelord):
co-creation, craft and design, qualitative network analysis, sociomateriality, studio practiceSammendrag
This paper investigates the sociomateriality of collective creation in the context of a design studio project. Grounded in a relational approach that has influenced a multitude of studies in various fields, the notion of sociomateriality accounts for the constitutive entanglement of the social and the material in practice. How this entanglement occurs or what exactly is subjected to it, however, remains largely unarticulated, especially in studies where the handling of materials lies at the heart of the research process. By adopting a relational approach operationalized through qualitative network analysis, we traced the sociomaterial trajectories of a studio project to identify the moments in which various actors were entangled. The resulting network visualizes these moments and assists in explicating how they enabled the instantiation of intersubjective design ideas.
Referanser
Carolan, B. (2014). Social Network Analysis and Education. Theory, Methods and Applications. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452270104
Coole, D. & Frost, S. (2010). Introducing the new materialisms. In D. Coole, & S. Frost (Eds.), New materialisms: Ontology, agency, and politics, 1-4. Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822392996-001
Decuypere, M. (2019). Visual network analysis: a qualitative method for researching sociomaterial practice. Qualitative research, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794118816613
Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. (2004). A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Continuum.
Dépelteau, F. (2013). What is the direction of the 'relational turn'? In Powell, C. & Dépelteau, F. (Eds.), Conceptualizing relational sociology (pp. 163-185). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137342652_10
Ericsson, K. & Simon, H. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. MIT Press (Original work published 1984). https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5657.001.0001
Flick, U. (2014). An Introduction to Qualitative Research (5th Edition). SAGE.
Gherardi, S. & Perrotta, M. (2013). Doing by Inventing the way of Doing: Formativeness as the Linkage of Meaning and Matter. In P. Carlile, D. Nicolini, A. Langley & H. Tsoukas (Eds.), How Matter Matters: Objects, Artifacts, and Materiality in Organization Studies (pp. 227-259). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199671533.003.0010
Gibson, J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin.
Groth, C. (2017). Making sense through hands: Design and Craft Practice Analysed as Embodied Cognition. [Aalto University Publication Series, Doctoral Dissertations]. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-60-7130-5
Hultin, L. (2019). On becoming a sociomaterial researcher: Exploring epistemological practices grounded in a relational, performative ontology. Information and Organization, 29(2), 91-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2019.04.004
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the Wild. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1881.001.0001
Ingold, T. (2007). Lines: A Brief History. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203961155
Ingold, T. (2013). Making: Anthropology, Archaeology, Art and Architecture. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203559055
Jones, M. (2013). Untangling Sociomateriality. In P. Carlile, D. Nicolini, A. Langley & H. Tsoukas (Eds.), How Matter Matters: Objects, Artifacts, and Materiality in Organization Studies (pp. 227-259). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199671533.003.0009
Knorr-Cetina, K. (2001). Objectual practice. In Knorr-Cetina, K.; Schatzki, T. & Von Savigny, E. (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 184-197). Routledge.
Knox, H.; Savage, M. & Harvey, P. (2006). Social networks and the study of relations: networks as method, metaphor and form. Economy and Society 35(1), 113-140. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085140500465899
Latour, B. (1996). On Interobjectivity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3(4), 228-245. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327884mca0304_2
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford University Press.
Latva-Somppi, R., & Mäkelä, M. (2020). Exploring Ecological and Material Sensitivity through Craft Practice in the Context of the Venice Lagoon. Aisthesis, 13(1), 31-46. https://doi.org/10.13128/Aisthesis-10916
Law, J. (2002). Objects and Spaces. Theory, Culture & Society, 19(5-6), 91-105. https://doi.org/10.1177/026327602761899165
Leonardi, P. (2013). The Emergence of Materiality within Formal Organizations. In P. Carlile, D. Nicolini, A. Langley & H. Tsoukas (Eds.), How Matter Matters: Objects, Artifacts, and Materiality in Organization Studies (pp. 227-259). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199671533.003.0007
Liu, F. & Maitlis, S. (2010). Nonparticipant Observation. In A.J. Mills, G. Durepos & E. Wiebe (Eds), Encyclopedia of Case Study Research (pp. 610-612). SAGE.
Malafouris, L. (2008). At the potter's wheel: An argument for material agency. In C. Knappett & L. Malafouris (Eds.), Material agency: Towards a non-anthropocentric approach (pp. 19-36). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-74711-8_2
Mäkelä, M. & Nimkulrat, N. (2018). Documentation as a practice-led research tool for reflection on experiential knowledge. FormAkademisk, 11(2). Mäkelä, M. & Nimkulrat, N. (2018). Documentation as a practice-led research tool for reflection on experiential knowledge. FormAkademisk, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.7577/formakademisk.1818
Mäkelä, M. (2016). Personal Exploration: Serendipity and intentionality as altering positions in a creative process. FormAkademisk, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.7577/formakademisk.1461
Mehto, V.; Riikonen, S.; Hakkarainen, K.; Kangas, K. & Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P. (2020). Epistemic roles of materiality within a collaborative invention project at a secondary school. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(4), 1246-1261. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12942
Moura, E. de & Bispo, M. de S. (2019). Sociomateriality: Theories, methodology, and practice. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 37(3), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjas.1548
Nicolini, D. (2009). Zooming in and out: Studying practices by switching theoretical lenses and trailing connections. Organization Studies, 30(12), 1391-1418. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840609349875
Nimkulrat, N. (2012). Hands-on intellect: Integrating craft practice into design research. International Journal of Design, 6(3), 1-14. http://www.ijdesign.org/index.php/IJDesign/article/view/1228
Orlikowski, W. (2007). Sociomaterial Practices: Exploring Technology at Work. Organization Studies, 28(9), 1435-1448. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607081138
Orlikowski, W. & Scott, S. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the Separation of Technology, Work and Organization. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433-474. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520802211644
Pedgley, O. (2007). Capturing and analyzing own design activity. Design Studies, 28(5), 463-483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2007.02.004
Rajmakers, B. & Arets, D. (2015). Thinking through making. The Readership in Strategic Creativity (10). Design Academy Eindhoven.
Ryan, G. & Bernard, A. (2003). Techniques to Identify Themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85-109. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X02239569
Salomon, G. (1993). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge University Press.
Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books.
Scott, J. & Carrington, P. (2011). Social network analysis. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756841-0100
Scrivener, S. (2002). Characterising Creative-production Doctoral Projects in Art and Design. International Journal of Design Sciences and Technology, 10(2), 25-44.
Spuybroek, L. (2011). The Sympathy of Things: Ruskin and the Ecology of Design. V2 Publishing. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474243896
Vega, L. (2018). Objects of knowing: Collaborative craft analyzed as a platform for knowledge articulation. Master's Theses Collection, Aalto University School of Arts, Design and Architecture. http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:aalto-201811145793
Woodward, S. (2016). Object interviews, material imaginings and "unsettling" methods: interdisciplinary approaches to understanding materials and material culture. Qualitative Research, 16(4), 359-374. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794115589647
Nedlastinger
Publisert
Hvordan referere
Utgave
Seksjon
Lisens
Opphavsrett 2021 Luis Vega, Maarit Mäkelä, Tzuyu Chen, Pirita Seitamaa-Hakkarainen
Dette verket er lisensiert under Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
- Forfatteren(e) beholder sin opphavs- og kopieringsrett til eget manuskript, men gir tidsskriftet varig rett til 1) å fremføre manuskriptet for offentligheten i den opprinnelig publiserte digitale form, og 2) å registreres og siteres som første publisering av manuskriptet.
- Forfatteren må selv forvalte sine økonomiske kopieringsrettigheter overfor eventuell tredjepart.
- Tidsskriftet gir ingen økonomisk eller annen kompensasjon for innsendte bidrag, medmindre det er gjort særskilt avtale om dette med forfatteren(e).
- Tidsskriftet plikter å arkivere manuskriptet (inklusive metadata) i den opprinnelig publiserte digitale form, i minst ett dertil egnet åpent tilgjengelig langtidsarkiv for digitalt materiell, som for eksempel i de norske universitetenes institusjonsarkiv innen rammen av NORA-samarbeidet.
- Lesere av tidsskriftet kan ta utskrift av de fremførte manuskriptene under samme betingelser som gjelder ved kopiering av fysiske eksemplar. Dette innebærer at masseframstilling av fysiske eksemplar, eller framstilling av eksemplar for kommersielle formål, ikke er tillatt uten etter avtale med forfatteren(e).
Cited by
