IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v70y2010i9p1285-1294.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Theorising big IT programmes in healthcare: Strong structuration theory meets actor-network theory

Author

Listed:
  • Greenhalgh, Trisha
  • Stones, Rob

Abstract

The UK National Health Service is grappling with various large and controversial IT programmes. We sought to develop a sharper theoretical perspective on the question "What happens - at macro-, meso- and micro-level - when government tries to modernise a health service with the help of big IT?" Using examples from data fragments at the micro-level of clinical work, we considered how structuration theory and actor-network theory (ANT) might be combined to inform empirical investigation. Giddens (1984) argued that social structures and human agency are recursively linked and co-evolve. ANT studies the relationships that link people and technologies in dynamic networks. It considers how discourses become inscribed in data structures and decision models of software, making certain network relations irreversible. Stones' (2005) strong structuration theory (SST) is a refinement of Giddens' work, systematically concerned with empirical research. It views human agents as linked in dynamic networks of position-practices. A quadripartite approcach considers [a] external social structures (conditions for action); [b] internal social structures (agents' capabilities and what they 'know' about the social world); [c] active agency and actions and [d] outcomes as they feed back on the position-practice network. In contrast to early structuration theory and ANT, SST insists on disciplined conceptual methodology and linking this with empirical evidence. In this paper, we adapt SST for the study of technology programmes, integrating elements from material interactionism and ANT. We argue, for example, that the position-practice network can be a socio-technical one in which technologies in conjunction with humans can be studied as 'actants'. Human agents, with their complex socio-cultural frames, are required to instantiate technology in social practices. Structurally relevant properties inscribed and embedded in technological artefacts constrain and enable human agency. The fortunes of healthcare IT programmes might be studied in terms of the interplay between these factors.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:70:y:2010:i:9:p:1285-1294
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(10)00077-8
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Wanda J. Orlikowski & Jack J. Baroudi, 1991. "Studying Information Technology in Organizations: Research Approaches and Assumptions," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 1-28, March.
    2. repec:dau:papers:123456789/4907 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Dorothy Leonard-Barton, 1990. "A Dual Methodology for Case Studies: Synergistic Use of a Longitudinal Single Site with Replicated Multiple Sites," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 1(3), pages 248-266, August.
    4. Ole Hanseth, 2007. "Introduction: Integration–Complexity–Risk – The Making of Information Systems Out-of-Control," Chapters, in: Ole Hanseth & Claudio Ciborra (ed.), Risk, Complexity and ICT, chapter 1, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Gerardine DeSanctis & Marshall Scott Poole, 1994. "Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(2), pages 121-147, May.
    6. François-Xavier de Vaujany, 2005. "Information Technology Conceptualization: Respective Contributions of Sociology and Information Systems," Post-Print hal-00644428, HAL.
    7. Brian T. Pentland & Martha S. Feldman, 2007. "Narrative Networks: Patterns of Technology and Organization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(5), pages 781-795, October.
    8. Wanda J. Orlikowski, 2000. "Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(4), pages 404-428, August.
    9. Wanda J. Orlikowski & JoAnne Yates & Kazuo Okamura & Masayo Fujimoto, 1995. "Shaping Electronic Communication: The Metastructuring of Technology in the Context of Use," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(4), pages 423-444, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Wanda J. Orlikowski & C. Suzanne Iacono, 2001. "Research Commentary: Desperately Seeking the “IT” in IT Research—A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 12(2), pages 121-134, June.
    2. Carlos A. Osorio & Dov Dori & Joseph Sussman, 2011. "COIM: An object‐process based method for analyzing architectures of complex, interconnected, large‐scale socio‐technical systems," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(4), pages 364-382, December.
    3. Kummitha, Rama Krishna Reddy, 2020. "Why distance matters: The relatedness between technology development and its appropriation in smart cities," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    4. Verstegen, Luuk & Houkes, Wybo & Reymen, Isabelle, 2019. "Configuring collective digital-technology usage in dynamic and complex design practices," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(8), pages 1-1.
    5. Robert G. Fichman & Rajiv Kohli & Ranjani Krishnan, 2011. "Editorial Overview ---The Role of Information Systems in Healthcare: Current Research and Future Trends," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 419-428, September.
    6. Paul M. Leonardi, 2007. "Activating the Informational Capabilities of Information Technology for Organizational Change," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(5), pages 813-831, October.
    7. Aaltonen, Aleksi Ville & Alaimo, Cristina & Kallinikos, Jannis, 2021. "The making of data commodities: data analytics as an embedded process," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 110296, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    8. Sulin Ba & Jan Stallaert & Andrew B. Whinston, 2001. "Research Commentary: Introducing a Third Dimension in Information Systems Design—The Case for Incentive Alignment," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 225-239, September.
    9. Pamela J. Hinds & Diane E. Bailey, 2003. "Out of Sight, Out of Sync: Understanding Conflict in Distributed Teams," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(6), pages 615-632, December.
    10. Dragos Vieru & Pierre-Emmanuel Arduin, 2016. "Sharing Knowledge in a Shared Services Center Context: An Explanatory Case Study of the Dialectics of Formal and Informal Practices," Post-Print hal-01458031, HAL.
    11. Jie Mein Goh & Guodong (Gordon) Gao & Ritu Agarwal, 2011. "Evolving Work Routines: Adaptive Routinization of Information Technology in Healthcare," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 565-585, September.
    12. Alexander Brem & Pierre Wolfram, 2017. "Organisation of new product development in Asia and Europe: results from Western multinationals R&D sites in Germany, India, and China," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 159-190, January.
    13. Hung-pin Shih & Kee-hung Lai & T. C. E. Cheng, 2015. "Examining structural, perceptual, and attitudinal influences on the quality of information sharing in collaborative technology use," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 455-470, April.
    14. Sharath Sasidharan & Radhika Santhanam & Daniel J. Brass & Vallabh Sambamurthy, 2012. "The Effects of Social Network Structure on Enterprise Systems Success: A Longitudinal Multilevel Analysis," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 23(3-part-1), pages 658-678, September.
    15. Mariana Guerra & Adalmir de Oliveira Gomes & Antônio Isidro da Silva Filho, 2015. "Case study in public administration: a critical review of Brazilian scientific production," RAC - Revista de Administração Contemporânea (Journal of Contemporary Administration), ANPAD - Associação Nacional de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em Administração, vol. 19(2), pages 270-289.
    16. Pingsheng Tong & U. N. Umesh & Jean L. Johnson & Ruby P. Lee, 2016. "Collaborative Relationships — The Role of Information Technology," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 13(03), pages 1-30, June.
    17. Daniel Beverungen, 2014. "Exploring the Interplay of the Design and Emergence of Business Processes as Organizational Routines," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 6(4), pages 191-202, August.
    18. Michiel Bal & Jos Benders & Lander Vermeerbergen, 2022. "‘Bringing the Covert into the Open’: A Case Study on Technology Appropriation and Continuous Improvement," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(10), pages 1-17, May.
    19. Jonatan Pinkse & René Bohnsack, 2021. "Sustainable product innovation and changing consumer behavior: Sustainability affordances as triggers of adoption and usage," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(7), pages 3120-3130, November.
    20. Nicholas Berente & Kalle Lyytinen & Youngjin Yoo & John Leslie King, 2016. "Routines as Shock Absorbers During Organizational Transformation: Integration, Control, and NASA’s Enterprise Information System," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 551-572, June.

    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:70:y:2010:i:9:p:1285-1294. 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.