IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v104y2014icp210-219.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Choose and Book: A sociological analysis of ‘resistance’ to an expert system

Author

Listed:
  • Greenhalgh, Trisha
  • Stones, Rob
  • Swinglehurst, Deborah

Abstract

In 2004, the English Department of Health introduced a technology (Choose and Book) designed to help general practitioners and patients book hospital outpatient appointments. It was anticipated that remote booking would become standard practice once technical challenges were overcome. But despite political pressure and financial incentives, Choose and Book remained unpopular and was generally used reluctantly if at all. Policymakers framed this as a problem of ‘clinician resistance’. We considered Choose and Book from a sociological perspective. Our dataset, drawn from a qualitative study of computer use in general practice, comprised background documents, field notes, interviews, clinical consultations (directly observed and videotaped) and naturally occurring talk relating to referral to hospital in four general practices. We used strong structuration theory, Giddens' conceptualisation of expert systems, and sensitivity to other sociological perspectives on technology, institutions and professional values to examine the relationship between the external environment, the evolving technology and actions of human agents (GPs, administrators, managers and patients). Choose and Book had the characteristics of an expert system. It served to ‘empty out’ the content of the consultation as the abstract knowledge it contained was assumed to have universal validity and to over-ride the clinician's application of local knowledge and practical wisdom. Sick patients were incorrectly assumed to behave as rational choosers, able and willing to decide between potential options using abstracted codified information. Our analysis revealed four foci of resistance: to the policy of choice that Choose and Book symbolised and purported to deliver; to accommodating the technology's socio-material constraints; to interference with doctors' contextual judgements; and to adjusting to the altered social relations consequent on its use. We conclude that ‘resistance’ is a complex phenomenon with socio-material and normative components; it is unlikely to be overcome using the behaviourist techniques recommended in some health informatics and policy literature.

Suggested Citation

  • Greenhalgh, Trisha & Stones, Rob & Swinglehurst, Deborah, 2014. "Choose and Book: A sociological analysis of ‘resistance’ to an expert system," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 210-219.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:104:y:2014:i:c:p:210-219
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.12.014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953613006904
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.12.014?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dixon, Anna & Robertson, Ruth & Bal, Roland, 2010. "The experience of implementing choice at point of referral: a comparison of the Netherlands and England," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(3), pages 295-317, July.
    2. Greenhalgh, Trisha & Stones, Rob, 2010. "Theorising big IT programmes in healthcare: Strong structuration theory meets actor-network theory," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(9), pages 1285-1294, May.
    3. Stephen R. Barley & Gideon Kunda, 2001. "Bringing Work Back In," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(1), pages 76-95, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Assing Hvidt, Elisabeth & Grønning, Anette & Nisbeth Brøgger, Matilde & Møller, Jane Ege & Fage-Butler, Antoinette, 2021. "Multilevel structures and human agency in relation to email consultations: A strong structuration theory analysis of the Danish general practice setting," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 282(C).
    2. Patrick Krieger & Carsten Lausberg, 2021. "Entscheidungen, Entscheidungsfindung und Entscheidungsunterstützung in der Immobilienwirtschaft: Eine systematische Literaturübersicht [Decisions, decision-making and decisions support systems in r," Zeitschrift für Immobilienökonomie (German Journal of Real Estate Research), Springer;Gesellschaft für Immobilienwirtschaftliche Forschung e. V., vol. 7(1), pages 1-33, April.
    3. Pieter J. Kievit & Jeanette Oomes & Marianne Schoorl & Piet Bartels, 2018. "The missing link: toward an assessment of innovation capacity in health care organizations," International Journal of Quality Innovation, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 1-18, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Janssen, M. & Stoopendaal, A.M.V. & Putters, K., 2015. "Situated novelty: Introducing a process perspective on the study of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1974-1984.
    2. Stoopendaal, Annemiek & Bal, Roland, 2013. "Conferences, tablecloths and cupboards: How to understand the situatedness of quality improvements in long-term care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 78-85.
    3. Chen, Ping-Chuan & Hung, Shiu-Wan, 2016. "An actor-network perspective on evaluating the R&D linking efficiency of innovation ecosystems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 303-312.
    4. Barrett, Michael & Cooper, David J. & Jamal, Karim, 2005. "Globalization and the coordinating of work in multinational audits," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 1-24, January.
    5. Namrata Malhotra & Timothy Morris, 2009. "Heterogeneity in Professional Service Firms," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(6), pages 895-922, September.
    6. Beth A. Bechky, 2006. "Gaffers, Gofers, and Grips: Role-Based Coordination in Temporary Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 3-21, February.
    7. Merkel, Janet & Suwala, Lech, 2021. "Intermediaries, work and creativity in creative and innovative sectors. The case of Berlin," EconStor Open Access Book Chapters, in: Culture, Creativity and Economy. Collaborative practices, value creation and spaces of creativity., pages 56-69, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    8. Lee, Kenneth & Manochin, Melina, 2021. "Sell-side equity analysts and equity sales: a study of interaction," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 108953, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. Ricardo Azambuja & Gazi Islam, 2019. "Working at the boundaries: Middle managerial work as a source of emancipation and alienation," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) halshs-01959107, HAL.
    10. Naylor, Mary D. & Hirschman, Karen B. & Toles, Mark P. & Jarrín, Olga F. & Shaid, Elizabeth & Pauly, Mark V., 2018. "Adaptations of the evidence-based Transitional Care Model in the U.S," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 28-36.
    11. Richard A. Hunt & Mathew L. A. Hayward, 2018. "Value Creation Through Employer Loans: Evidence of Informal Lending to Employees at Small, Labor-Intensive Firms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 284-303, April.
    12. Greenhalgh, Trisha & Wherton, Joe & Sugarhood, Paul & Hinder, Sue & Procter, Rob & Stones, Rob, 2013. "What matters to older people with assisted living needs? A phenomenological analysis of the use and non-use of telehealth and telecare," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 86-94.
    13. Kingshuk K. Sinha & Andrew H. Van de Ven, 2005. "Designing Work Within and Between Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(4), pages 389-408, August.
    14. Ana Rivoir & Katherine Reilly, 2023. "Elder People and Personal Data: New Challenges in Health Platformization," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 11(3), pages 101-111.
    15. Michael J. Zyphur & Dean C. Pierides, 2020. "Making Quantitative Research Work: From Positivist Dogma to Actual Social Scientific Inquiry," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 167(1), pages 49-62, November.
    16. Sergey Shishkin & Alexandra Burdyak & Elena Potapchik, 2013. "Patient choice in the post-Semashko health care system," HSE Working papers WP BRP 09/PA/2013, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    17. Kennedy, Aileen & O'gorman, Colm & Lee, Kenneth, 2021. "Have your cake and eat it? Combining structure and agency in management research," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 112720, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    18. Burström, Thommie & Wilson, Timothy L. & Wincent, Joakim, 2020. "Dynamics of after-sales managers’ strategizing work: What, why and how," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 119-131.
    19. Benoît Journé, 2005. "Étudier le management de l’imprévu:méthode dynamique d’observation in situ," Revue Finance Contrôle Stratégie, revues.org, vol. 8(4), pages 63-91, December.
    20. Anna Jonsson & Maria Grafström & Mikael Klintman, 2022. "Unboxing knowledge in collaboration between academia and society: A story about conceptions and epistemic uncertainty [De-essentializing the Knowledge Intensive Firm: Reflections on Skeptical Resea," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(4), pages 583-597.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:104:y:2014:i:c:p:210-219. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.