Most studies of technologies’ impact on occupational change focus on occupational groups’ adoption and use of particular technologies in a field or workplace. Drawing on an 18-month ethnographic study of a crime laboratory, I focus instead on “evaluative spillovers”: the comparisons that occupations encounter when technologies change the work of neighboring occupations in their field. I explore what happened when DNA profiling was held up as the “gold standard” of forensic evidence, resulting in scientific, public, and legal scrutiny of other forensic science occupational groups. Comparisons with DNA profiling challenged the working techniques and the values of firearms examiners, toxicologists, and narcotics analysts, but each group responded differently, either embracing or resisting changes to their work practices. Their responses were predicated on the institutional pathways that evaluative spillovers traveled through the field in locales such as professional association meetings and court proceedings. These three aspects of the occupational system—technique, values, and institutional pathways—influenced how workers negotiated the impact of technological change in the field of forensic science.
AbbottA.1988The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2.
AlvessonM.1995Management of Knowledge-intensive Companies. Berlin: de Gruyter.
3.
AntebyM.2010 “Markets, morals and practices of trade: Jurisdictional disputes in the U.S. commerce in cadavers.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 55: 606–638.
AutorD.2015 “Why are there still so many jobs? The history and future of workplace automation.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29 (3): 3–30.
7.
BarleyS. R.1986 “Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 31: 78–108.
8.
BarleyS. R.1988 “Technology, power, and the social organization of work: Towards a pragmatic theory of skilling and deskilling.”Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 6: 33–80.
9.
BarleyS. R.1990 “The alignment of technology and structure through roles and networks.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 61–103.
10.
BarleyS. R.1996 “Technicians in the workplace: Ethnographic evidence for bringing work into organization studies.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 401–441.
BeaneM.2019 “Shadow learning: Building robotic surgical skill when approved means fail.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 64: 87–123.
13.
BechkyB. A.2003 “Object lessons: Workplace artifacts as representations of occupational jurisdiction.” American Journal of Sociology, 109: 720–752.
14.
BechkyB. A.2011 “Making organizational theory work: Institutions, occupations and negotiated orders.” Organization Science, 22: 1157–1167.
15.
BinderA.2007 “For love and money: Organizations’ creative responses to multiple environmental logics.” Theory and Society, 36: 547–571.
16.
BinderA.DaviesS.2019 “Importing school forms across professional fields: An understudied phenomenon in the sociology of education.” In DominaT.GibbsB.NunnL.PennerA. (eds.), Education and Society, in press. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
17.
BlumerH.1969Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
18.
BourdieuP.1984Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19.
BravermanH.1974Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. New York: Monthly Review Press.
20.
BrynjolfssonE.McAfeeA.2012The Second Machine Age. New York: Norton.
21.
BucherR.1988 “On the natural history of health care occupations.” Work and Occupations, 15: 131–147.
22.
BurawoyM.1979Manufacturing Consent: Changes in the Labor Process under Monopoly Capitalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23.
Bureau of Labor Statistics2010Occupational Outlook Handbook (2010–2011 ed.). Washington, DC: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office.
24.
BurriR. V.2008 “Doing distinctions: Boundary work and symbolic capital in radiology.” Social Studies of Science, 38: 35–62.
25.
ChreimS.WilliamsB. E.HiningsC. R.2007 “Interlevel influences on the reconstruction of role identity.” Academy of Management Journal, 50: 1515–1539.
26.
ClarkeA. E.1991 “Social worlds/arenas theory as organizational theory.” In MainesD. R. (ed.), Social Organization and Social Process: Essays in Honor of Anselm Strauss: 119–158. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
27.
CohenL. E.2013 “Assembling jobs: A model of how tasks are bundled into and across jobs.” Organization Science, 24: 432–454.
28.
DastonL.GalisonP.2007Objectivity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29.
DavenportT. H.PatilD. J.2012 “Data scientist: The sexiest job of the 21st century.” Harvard Business Review, Oct. 1.
30.
DavidsonE. J.ChismarW. G.2007 “The interaction of institutionally triggered and technology-triggered social structure change: An investigation of computerized physician order entry.” MIS Quarterly, 31: 740–758.
31.
EdmondsonA.1999 “Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 350–383.
32.
EdwardsH. T.MnookinJ.2016 “A wake up call on the junk science infesting our courtrooms.” Washington Post, Sept. 20.
33.
EvansJ.2018 “Professional boundaries and the making of moral authority in stem cell science.” Working paper, HEC Paris.
34.
FayardA.-L.StiglianiI.BechkyB. A.2017 “How nascent occupations construct a mandate: The case of service designers ethos.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 62: 270–303.
35.
GalisonP.2000 “Objectivity is romantic.” In FriedmanJ.GalisonP.HaackS. (eds.), Humanities and the Sciences: 15–43. New York: American Council of Learned Societies.
36.
GalperinR. V.2017 “Mass-production of professional services and pseudo-professional identity in tax preparation work.” Academy of Management Discoveries, 3: 208–229.
37.
GilbertD. T.KingG.PettigrewS.WilsonT. D.2016 “Comment on ‘Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science.’” Science, 351: 1037.
38.
GlaserB. G.StraussA. L.1967The Discovery of Grounded Theory. New York: Aldine.
39.
GoffmanE.1983 “The interaction order: American Sociological Association, 1982 presidential address.”American Sociological Review, 48: 1–17.
40.
GormanE.SandefurR.2011 “‘Golden age,’ quiescence, and revival: How the sociology of professions became the study of knowledge-based work.”Work and Occupations, 38: 275–302.
41.
HallettT.2010 “The myth incarnate: Recoupling processes, turmoil, and inhabited institutions in an urban elementary school.” American Sociological Review, 75: 52–74.
42.
HallettT.VentrescaM.2006 “Inhabited institutions: Social interactions and organizational forms in Gouldner’s Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy.” Theory and Society, 35: 213–236.
43.
HalpernS. A.1992 “Dynamics of professional control: Internal coalitions and crossprofessional boundaries.” American Journal of Sociology, 97: 994–1021.
44.
HughesE. C.1958Men and Their Work. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
45.
HuisingR.2015 “To hive or to hold? Producing professional authority through scut work.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 60: 263–299.
46.
JordanK.LynchM.1998 “The dissemination, standardization and routinization of a molecular biological technique.” Social Studies of Science, 28: 773–800.
KronusC. L.1976 “The evolution of occupational power: An historical study of task boundaries between physicians and pharmacists.” Sociology of Work and Occupations, 3: 3–37.
49.
LynchM.ColeS. A.McNallyR.JordanK.2009Truth Machine: The Contentious History of DNA Fingerprinting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
50.
McPhersonC.SauderM.2013 “Logics in action: Managing institutional complexity in a drug court.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 58: 165–196.
MisaT. J.1994 “Retrieving sociotechnical change from technological determinism.” In SmithM. R.MarxL. (eds.), Does Technology Drive History? The Dilemma of Technological Determinism: 115–141. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
National Research Council2009Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
55.
NelsonA. J.IrwinJ.2014 “‘Defining what we do—all over again’: Occupational identity, technological change, and the librarian–Internet search relationship.” Academy of Management Journal, 57: 892–928.
56.
Open Science Collaboration2015 “Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science.” Science, 349 (6251). DOI: 10.1126/science.aac4716.
57.
OrlikowskiW. J.1992 “The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations.” Organization Science, 3: 398–427.
58.
OrlikowskiW. J.2000 “Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations.” Organization Science, 11: 404–428.
59.
OrrJ. E.1996Talking about Machines: An Ethnography of a Modern Job. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
60.
Pew Research Center2016 “The state of American jobs: How the shifting economic landscape is reshaping work and society and affecting the way people think about the skills and training they need to get ahead.” https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016/10/06/the-state-of-american-jobs/.
61.
PineK. H.MazmanianM.2017 “Artful and contorted coordinating: The ramifications of imposing formal logics of task jurisdiction on situated practice.” Academy of Management Journal, 60: 720–742.
62.
PowellW. W.SnellmanK.2004 “The knowledge economy.” Annual Review of Sociology, 30: 199–220.
63.
ReayT.Golden-BiddleK.GermannK.2006 “Legitimizing a new role: Small wins and microprocesses of change.” Academy of Management Journal, 49: 977–998.
64.
SaksM. J.KoehlerJ. J.2005 “The coming paradigm shift in forensic identification science.” Science, 309: 892–895.
Science Friday2009 “Evaluating forensic science.”First broadcast on NPR, Feb. 27.
67.
SlackJ. D.WiseJ. M.2007Culture and Technology: A Primer. New York: Peter Lang.
68.
SmithM. R.1994 “Technological determinism in American culture,” In SmithM. R.MarxL. (eds.), Does Technology Drive History? The Dilemma of Technological Determinism: 1–36. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
StraussA.1978 “A social world perspective.” In DenzinN. (ed.), Studies in Symbolic Interaction, 1: 119–128. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
71.
StraussA.CorbinJ. M.1990Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
72.
SuddabyR.GreenwoodR.2005 “Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 50: 35–67.
73.
SusskindR.SusskindD.2015The Future of the Professions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
74.
SusskindR.SusskindD.2016 “Technology will replace many doctors, lawyers, and other professionals.” Harvard Business Review, Oct. 11.
75.
TimmermansS.EpsteinS.2010 “A world of standards but not a standard world: Toward a sociology of standards and standardization.” Annual Review of Sociology, 36: 69–89.
76.
ToobinJ.2007 “The CSI effect: The truth about forensic science.” New Yorker, May7.
77.
TrueloveE. S.KelloggK. C.2016 “The radical flank effect and cross-occupational collaboration for technology development during a power shift.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 61: 1–40.
78.
VallasS. P.1999 “Rethinking post-Fordism: The meaning of workplace flexibility.” Sociological Theory, 17: 68–101.
79.
WatsonA. L.2013 “Implementing the 2010 Standard Occupational Classification in the Occupational Employment Statistics program.”Monthly Labor Review, May: 36–49.
80.
WilkinsonB.1983The Shopfloor Politics of New Technology. London: Heinemann Educational Books.
81.
ZbarackiM. J.1998 “The rhetoric and reality of total quality management.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 43: 602–636.
82.
ZetkaJ. R.Jr.2003Surgeons and the Scope. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
83.
ZetkaJ. R.Jr.2011 “Establishing specialty jurisdictions in medicine: The case of American obstetrics and gynaecology.” Sociology of Health and Illness, 33: 837–852.
84.
ZuboffS.1988In the Age of the Smart Machine. New York: Basic Books.
