A Developmental Perspective to Studying Objects in Robotic Surgery
Drawing on interventionist activity theoretical approaches, this paper describes a method of self-confrontation as a way in which to study objects in technology-mediated practices. In addition to research interests, the aim of examining the objects is to
- PDF / 1,160,957 Bytes
- 17 Pages / 439.37 x 666.14 pts Page_size
- 8 Downloads / 174 Views
1
4
Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, Finland [email protected] 2 University of Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel, Switzerland [email protected] 3 Pirkanmaa Hospital District, Tampere, Finland [email protected] VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd., Espoo, Finland [email protected]
Abstract. Drawing on interventionist activity theoretical approaches, this paper describes a method of self-confrontation as a way in which to study objects in technology-mediated practices. In addition to research interests, the aim of exam‐ ining the objects is to develop the capacity of professionals and organizations to work and learn better in complex technology-mediated work. The method was applied in robotic surgery, in which instruments are tele-operated by a surgeon. The robot offers better, collective visualization of the area under surgical opera‐ tion than previous techniques. In particular, the paper shows how objects were revealed and new objects emerged during the intervention. We suggest that activity theoretical developmental interventions such as self-confrontations may help understand the complexity and evolution of objects, and thus contribute to studies of technology and organizations. Keywords: Developmental intervention research · Object · Robotic surgery · Activity theory · Self-confrontation
1
Introduction: The Developmental Perspective
The focus of sociomaterial assemblages is on agencies such as actors and objects, which have saturated each other so thoroughly that previously taken-for-granted boundaries have now dissolved [1]. According to a relational ontology, entities ‒ whether human or technological ‒ have no inherent properties; they acquire their form, attributes and capabilities through their interpenetration. The notion of “sociomaterial” attempts to signal this ontological fusion [1] (p. 456). Similarly, Annemarie Mol [2], in discussing the way out of the dichotomy between the knowing subject and the objects-that-areknown, suggests spreading “the activity of knowing widely over tables, knives, records, microscopes, or other things of habits in which it is embedded” [2] (p. 50). Instead of subjects knowing objects, we may come to talk about enacting reality in practice [2]. © IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2016 Published by Springer International Publishing AG 2016. All Rights Reserved L. Introna et al. (Eds.): IS&O 2016, IFIP AICT 489, pp. 229–245, 2016. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-49733-4_14
230
L. Seppänen et al.
The view that objects are enacted in practice, for Mol, suggests that something is enacted only there and then, in the act. Although activities take place, the actors remain vague [2]. Sociomaterial assemblages are important in their consideration of humans and other living entities such as technologies and other materials, and have many advantages in terms of science and policy. The concept of sociomaterial assemblages implies that concrete practices or activities are important in the assemblages enactment (or becoming). Howeve
Data Loading...
