Taking the ontological and materialist turns: Agential realism, representation theory, and accounting information systems

Abstract

Karen Barad’s (2007) agential realism conceives the world as intra-acting agencies that take definite form only when an agential cut is made. In the information systems discipline, her theory underpins much of the work that goes under the rubric of sociomateriality. Importantly, her work challenges the validity of theories about the world based on representationalism and so-called Cartesian dualism. At least some scholars who subscribe to sociomateriality argue that one consequence of Barad’s theory is that information systems theories such as representation theory stand on shaky grounds. I subject this proposition to scrutiny. I begin by summarizing the major tenets of representation theory and agential realism. Next, I use agential realism to provide an account of phenomena that are associated with an accounting information systems case study. I then evaluate the account, particularly from the perspective of what novel, innovative insights occur by using an agential realism lens. Compared to existing theories such as actor-network theory and general systems theory, I conclude that little new is learned. Moreover, I argue that representation theory provides an alternative, robust account of the case-study phenomena. I also consider the question of whether agential realism potentially provides accounting information systems scholars with a means of identifying the core of their field and constructing theories about any core they might identify.

Introduction

For much of my academic career, I have pursued the idea that the essence of an information system is that it is a representation of another real-world system (e.g., Recker et al., 2019). Several years ago, however, some colleagues whom I greatly respect challenged my commitment to this idea. They pointed to narratives in the nascent (at that time) literature on sociomateriality that argued humans and information systems were now intertwined so inextricably that conceiving of information systems and humans as separate entities that interacted with each other was problematic (e.g., Orlikowski and Scott, 2008). They also pointed to Barad’s (2007) work on “agential realism,” which at least some proponents of sociomateriality argue undergirds their views about the nature of those parts of the world where human-created information systems are present (see Cecez-Kecmanovic et al., 2014, p. 812). Barad is a fierce, articulate, and compelling critic of “representational” and so-called Cartesian-dualist views of the world that supposedly ascribe sharp boundaries and properties to as well as causal structures among things in the world (e.g., Barad, 2007, pp. 46–59). In short, my colleagues essentially were arguing that my view of information systems as representations of real-world systems was based on a debunked, discredited, outdated philosophy about the nature of the world.

My response was to introduce two three-hour sessions on sociomateriality into a graduate information systems research-methods seminar I was teaching. I assigned a number of the seminal as well as some highly cited papers on sociomateriality as the compulsory readings for these sessions. I know that one of the best ways to learn about a topic is to engage in discussions on the topic with bright, highly motivated graduate students. The cut-and-thrust of graduate seminar debates is sure to test if one has a deep understanding of a topic.

Around the same time, I began work with Ting-Peng Liang to try to find a new theoretical lens that might be used to account for some of the findings he had obtained with neuroimaging devices when he studied human decision-making and judgement processes. We decided to try agential realism as our lens in the hope that we could produce novel theories and insights. By applying agential realism in a particular domain, we felt we would be forced to reach a deeper understanding of the nature of agential realism and its implications for the conduct of research. Thus, we commenced to read Barad’s work in earnest—in particular, Barad (2007)—to try to assimilate her ideas into our work. After multiple readings of Barad’s book, one outcome of our endeavors was a working paper that introduced agential realism for colleagues who were unfamiliar with Barad’s work (Liang and Weber, 2019). In this paper, we sought to provide a more accessible overview of Barad’s work, to critique the extent to which agential realism was internally consistent, and to canvass ways in which agential realism might be enacted by researchers.

In the sections below, I describe some reflections on my journey with agential realism. I hope these reflections will be useful for colleagues who have an interest in agential realism and its potential implications for accounting information systems (AIS). My conclusions also have implications for colleagues who are interested in the extent to which sociomateriality has implications for AIS. In a somewhat polemical vein, I reach some fairly strong conclusions about agential realism (and, by implication, sociomateriality). I hope some understanding of the context of my engagement with agential realism might provide some insights about why I reached these conclusions. I hope in particular that my reflections will provide a platform for debate and further discourse about the implications of agential realism (and sociomateriality) for AIS. For colleagues who hold alternative views to mine about the value of agential realism (and sociomateriality), I hope some points in my narrative below will provide a focus for contrary arguments that they wish to make.

The paper proceeds as follows. First, I provide an overview of representation theory. Second, I briefly describe the major elements of Barad’s agential realism. Third, because Barad’s narrative is often arcane, I present a case study that shows how agential realism might be used to frame some accounting-related phenomena. Fourth, I provide some reflections on the case study in terms of whether it produces any new, insightful outcomes. Fifth, I address the question of whether agential realism potentially enables AIS scholars to identify the core of their field¹ and to build theories about such a core (if indeed a core exists). Finally, I present some brief conclusions.