IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v98y2013icp95-105.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Technology identity: The role of sociotechnical representations in the adoption of medical devices

Author

Listed:
  • Ulucanlar, S.
  • Faulkner, A.
  • Peirce, S.
  • Elwyn, G.

Abstract

This study explored the sociotechnical influences shaping the naturally-occurring adoption and non-adoption of device technologies in the UK's National Health Service (NHS), amid increasing policy interest in this area. The study was informed by Science and Technology Studies and structuration and Actor Network Theory perspectives, drawing attention to the performative capacities of the technology alongside human agentic forces such as agendas and expectations, in the context of structural and macro conditions. Eight technologies were studied using a comparative ethnographic case study design and purposive and snowball sampling to identify relevant NHS, academic and industry participants. Data were collected between May 2009 and February 2012, included in-depth interviews, conference observations and printed and web-based documents and were analysed using constructivist grounded theory methods. The study suggests that while adoption decisions are made within the jurisdiction of healthcare organisations, they are shaped within a dynamic and fluid ‘adoption space’ that transcends organisational and geographic boundaries. Diverse influences from the industry, health care organisation and practice, health technology assessment and policy interact to produce ‘technology identities.’ Technology identities are composite and contested attributes that encompass different aspects of the technology (novelty, effectiveness, utility, risks, requirements) and that give a distinctive character to each. We argue that it is these socially constructed and contingent heuristic identities that shape the desirability, acceptability, feasibility and adoptability of each technology, a perspective that policy must acknowledge in seeking to intervene in health care technology adoption.

Suggested Citation

  • Ulucanlar, S. & Faulkner, A. & Peirce, S. & Elwyn, G., 2013. "Technology identity: The role of sociotechnical representations in the adoption of medical devices," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 95-105.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:98:y:2013:i:c:p:95-105
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.09.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953613005145
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.09.008?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. Dana Goldman & Darius Lakdawalla & Tomas J. Philipson & Wesley Yin, 2010. "Valuing health technologies at nice: recommendations for improved incorporation of treatment value in HTA," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(10), pages 1109-1116, October.
    2. Dana Goldman & Darius Lakdawalla & Tomas J. Philipson & Wesley Yin, 2010. "Erratum: Valuing health technologies at NICE: recommendations for improved incorporation of treatment value in HTA," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(12), pages 1510-1510, December.
    3. Faulkner, Alex & Kent, Julie, 2001. "Innovation and regulation in human implant technologies: developing comparative approaches," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 53(7), pages 895-913, October.
    4. Mats Alvesson & Hugh Willmott, 2002. "Identity Regulation as Organizational Control: Producing the Appropriate Individual," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(5), pages 619-644, July.
    5. Hughes, David & Doheny, Shane, 2011. "Deliberating Tarceva: A case study of how British NHS managers decide whether to purchase a high-cost drug in the shadow of NICE guidance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(10), pages 1460-1468.
    6. Wiebe E. Bijker, 2010. "How is technology made?--That is the question!," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 34(1), pages 63-76, January.
    7. 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.
    8. Saukko, Paula M. & Reed, Matthew & Britten, Nicky & Hogarth, Stuart, 2010. "Negotiating the boundary between medicine and consumer culture: Online marketing of nutrigenetic tests," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(5), pages 744-753, March.
    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. Abrishami, Payam & Boer, Albert & Horstman, Klasien, 2014. "Understanding the adoption dynamics of medical innovations: Affordances of the da Vinci robot in the Netherlands," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 125-133.
    2. Gardner, John & Higham, Ruchi & Faulkner, Alex & Webster, Andrew, 2017. "Promissory identities: Sociotechnical representations & innovation in regenerative medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 70-78.
    3. Ivlev, Ilya & Vacek, Jakub & Kneppo, Peter, 2015. "Multi-criteria decision analysis for supporting the selection of medical devices under uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 247(1), pages 216-228.
    4. Stanislav Birko & Edward S Dove & Vural Özdemir, 2015. "Evaluation of Nine Consensus Indices in Delphi Foresight Research and Their Dependency on Delphi Survey Characteristics: A Simulation Study and Debate on Delphi Design and Interpretation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-14, August.
    5. Askfors, Ylva & Fornstedt, Helena, 2018. "The clash of managerial and professional logics in public procurement: Implications for innovation in the health-care sector," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 78-90.
    6. Gardner, John & Webster, Andrew, 2016. "The social management of biomedical novelty: Facilitating translation in regenerative medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 90-97.
    7. Dahlke, Johannes & Beck, Mathias & Kinne, Jan & Lenz, David & Dehghan, Robert & Wörter, Martin & Ebersberger, Bernd, 2024. "Epidemic effects in the diffusion of emerging digital technologies: evidence from artificial intelligence adoption," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(2).

    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. Andrew Briggs, 2016. "A View from the Bridge: Health Economic Evaluation — A Value‐Based Framework?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(12), pages 1499-1502, December.
    2. Daskalopoulou, Athanasia & Palmer, Mark, 2021. "Persistent institutional breaches: Technology use in healthcare work," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 289(C).
    3. Goldman Dana P. & Lakdawalla Darius N. & Baumgardner James R. & Linthicum Mark T., 2016. "Are Biopharmaceutical Budget Caps Good Public Policy?," The Economists' Voice, De Gruyter, vol. 13(1), pages 27-42, December.
    4. Ake Blomqvist & Colin Busby & Don Husereau, 2013. "Capturing Value from Health Technologies in Lean Times," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 396, December.
    5. Aris Angelis & Ansgar Lange & Panos Kanavos, 2018. "Using health technology assessment to assess the value of new medicines: results of a systematic review and expert consultation across eight European countries," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(1), pages 123-152, January.
    6. Eveline Bruijn & Gail Whiteman, 2010. "That Which Doesn’t Break Us: Identity Work by Local Indigenous ‘Stakeholders’," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 96(3), pages 479-495, October.
    7. Carlos Martin-Rios, 2016. "Innovative management control systems in knowledge work: a middle manager perspective," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 181-204, May.
    8. 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.
    9. Havas, Attila & Weber, K. Matthias, 2017. "The 'fit' between forward-looking activities and the innovation policy governance sub-system: A framework to explore potential impacts," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 327-337.
    10. Minbaeva, Dana & Rabbiosi, Larissa & Stahl, Günter K., 2018. "Not walking the talk? How host country cultural orientations may buffer the damage of corporate values’ misalignment in multinational corporations," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 53(6), pages 880-895.
    11. Suzan Lewis & Deirdre Anderson & Clare Lyonette & Nicola Payne & Stephen Wood, 2017. "Public sector austerity cuts in Britain and the changing discourse of work–life balance," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 31(4), pages 586-604, August.
    12. Sharon Koppman & Elisa Mattarelli & Amar Gupta, 2016. "Third-World “Sloggers” or Elite Global Professionals? Using Organizational Toolkits to Redefine Work Identity in Information Technology Offshore Outsourcing," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 825-845, August.
    13. Paul, Michael & Hennig-Thurau, Thorsten & Groth, Markus, 2015. "Tightening or loosening the “iron cage”? The impact of formal and informal display controls on service customers," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1062-1073.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Yves Gendron & Laura F. Spira, 2009. "What Went Wrong? The Downfall of Arthur Andersen and the Construction of Controllability Boundaries Surrounding Financial Auditing," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(4), pages 987-1027, December.
    17. Joseph Olita Omekede & Dr. Joseph Musungu & Dr. Felix Orina, 2022. "Intrafemale Civility: Sisterhood in Ellen Sirleaf’s “This Child Will Be Greatâ€," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 6(8), pages 447-453, August.
    18. Danielle Treiber & Lize A. E. Booysen, 2021. "Identity (Re)Construction of Female Adolescents with Substance Use Disorders," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(13), pages 1-19, June.
    19. 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.
    20. Dentoni, Domenico & Pascucci, Stefano & Poldner, Kim & Gartner, William B., 2018. "Learning “who we are” by doing: Processes of co-constructing prosocial identities in community-based enterprises," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 603-622.

    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:98:y:2013:i:c:p:95-105. 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.