I argue that the contemporary organization of professional work indicates the limits of answering typical questions about automation and technology in work to understand the practices of experts. Examining the case of automation in medicine, specifically Stereotaxis technology, I analyze a colligation of data on decisions about the uptake of this robotic technology among United States surgeons. I examine data including: procedure efficiency over time, the technology’s affordances for the preservation of surgeons’ bodily capital, changes in the profession’s demographic profile, physician social networks, and clinical researchers’ published assessments. The data suggest that automation of a central task can support and enhance the work of individual experts. They also show that using robotics does not improve efficiency. This case thus challenges the assumption that automation displaces work, at least in the case of professionals. And so, because Stereotaxis becomes more of a complement to surgeons’ work as opposed to a substitute, this case points towards the importance of focusing attention less on job automation than on task automation. The case also highlights that users of the technology (physicians) value it differently than do purchasers (administrators). In addition, it identifies the differing considerations motivating their decisions to adopt or not adopt the technology. And in light of the finding that robotics use is more common among the rank-and-file than the elite, it may be that some professionals perceive automation to afford mobility opportunities. Based on these findings I propose new questions for scholarship on medicine, work, and automation, including those around “expert” versus “unskilled” labor, the body, and workplace divisions of labor.
AbbottA. (1984). Event sequence and event duration: Colligation and measurement. Historical Methods, 17(4), 192–204.
2.
AbbottA. (1988). The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor. The University of Chicago Press.
3.
AutorD. H.LevyF.MurnaneR. J. (2003). The skill content of recent technological change: An empirical exploration. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(4), 1279–1333.
4.
BeaneM. I. (2020). In storage, yet on display: An empirical investigation of robots’ value as social signals [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Cambridge, UK.
5.
BenanavA. (2020). Automation and the future of work. Verso.
6.
Ben-DavidJ. (1960). Roles and innovations in medicine. American Journal of Sociology, 65(6), 557–568.
7.
BlauP. M.FalbeC. M.McKinleyW.TracyP. K. (1976). Technology and organization in manufacturing. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 20–40.
8.
BravermanH. (1974). Labor and monopoly capital. Monthly Review Press.
9.
BurrellJ.FourcadeM. (2021). The society of algorithms. Annual Review of Sociology, 47(1), 213–237.
10.
CollinsH. M. (1981). The place of the ‘core-set’ in modern science: Social contingency with methodological propriety in science. History of Science, 19(1), 6–19.
11.
CollinsH. M. (2007). Bicycling on the moon: Collective tacit knowledge and somatic-limit tacit knowledge. Organization Studies, 28(2), 257–262.
12.
Da CostaA.GuichardJ.B.Roumeyer-BouchardC.GerbayA.IsaazK. (2016). Robotic magnetic navigation for ablation of human arrhythmias. Medical Devices: Evidence and Research, 9, 331–339.
13.
DavisJ. (2020). How artifacts afford: The power and politics of everyday things. MIT Press.
14.
DelfantiA. (2019). Machinic dispossession and augmented despotism: Digital work in an Amazon warehouse. New Media and Society, 23(1), 39–55.
15.
DelfantiA.FreyB. (2020). Humanly extended automation or the future of work seen through Amazon patents. Science, Technology, & Human Standards, 46, 1–28.
16.
DesmondM. (2007). On the fireline: Living and dying with wildland firefighters. The University of Chicago Press.
17.
DomhoffG. W. (1967). Who rules America?Prentice Hall.
18.
EyalG. (2013). For a sociology of expertise: The social origins of the autism epidemic. American Journal of Sociology, 118(4), 863–907.
19.
FligsteinN.McAdamD. (2012). A theory of fields. Oxford University Press.
20.
FreidsonE. L. (1970). Profession of medicine: A study of the sociology of applied knowledge. The University of Chicago Press.
21.
FreyC. (2019). The technology trap. Princeton University Press.
22.
FreyC. B.OsborneM. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation?Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 254–280.
23.
GillespieT. (2013). The relevance of algorithms. In GillespieT.BoczkowskiP.FootK. (Eds.), Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society. (pp. 167–193). MIT Press.
24.
GinzburgC. (2013 [1976]). The cheese and the worms. Johns Hopkins University Press.
25.
GriswoldW. (1987). A methodological framework for the sociology of culture. Sociological Methodology, 17, 1–35.
26.
HeinzJ.LaumannE. (1982). Chicago lawyers: The social structure of the bar. Russell Sage Foundation and American Bar Foundation.
27.
HillL.MadaraJ. (2005). Role of the urban academic medical center in US health care. JAMA, 294(17), 2219–2220.
28.
HirschmanD.Popp BermanE. (2014). Do economists make policies? On the political effects of economics. Socio-Economic Review, 12(4), 779–811.
29.
HodsonR.SullivanT. A. (1990). The social organization of work. Wadsworth Pub. Co.
30.
HughesE. C. (1951). Men and their work. Free Press.
31.
KelloggK. C.ValentineM. A.ChristinA. (2020). Algorithms at work: The new contested terrain of control. Academy of Management Annals, 14(1), 366–410.
32.
Knorr CetinaK. D. (1984). The reappropriation of technology. In KnorrD.WatkinsT. (Eds.), Alterations in food production (pp. 223–237). University of Delaware Press.
33.
LeichtK. V.FennellM. L. (1997). The changing organizational context of professional work. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 215–231.
34.
McDonnellT. E. (2016). Best laid plans: Cultural entropy and the unraveling of AIDS media campaigns. The University of Chicago Press.
35.
MenchikD. (2017). Interdependent career types and divergent standpoints on the use of advanced technology in medicine. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 58, 488–502.
36.
MenchikD. (2020). Moving from adoption to use: Physicians’ mixed commitments in deciding to use robotic technologies. Work and Occupations, 47, 314–347.
37.
MenchikD. (2021). Managing medical authority. Princeton University Press.
38.
MenchikD.JinL. (2014). When do doctors follow patients’ orders? Organizational mechanisms of physician influence. Social Science Research, 48, 171–184.
39.
MizruchiM. S. (1996). What do interlocks do? An analysis, critique, and assessment of research on interlocking directorates. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 271–298.
ParsonsT. (1975). The sick role and the role of the physician reconsidered. The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly: Health and Society, 53(3), 257–278.
42.
PerrowC. (1965). Hospitals: Technology, goals and structure. In MarchJ. (Ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 910–71). Rand McNally.
43.
PicanoE.VanoE. (2011). The radiation issue in cardiology: The time for action is now. Cardiovascular Ultrasound, 9(35), 1–13.
44.
PrenticeR. (2012). Bodies in formation: Remaking anatomy and surgery education. Duke University Press.
45.
ShapiroS. P. (2005). Agency theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 31, 263–284.
46.
StrangD.SouleS. A. (1998). Diffusion in organizations and social movements: From hybrid corn to poison pills. Annual Review in Sociology, 24, 265–290.
47.
SwedbergR. (2018). Colligation. In LeiulfsrudH.SohlbergP. (Eds.), Concepts in action. Brill.
48.
ThompsonJ. D. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. Routledge.
49.
TillyC. (1991). How (and what) are historians doing?American Behavioral Scientist, 33, 685–711.
50.
UndermanK. (2020). Feeling medicine: How the pelvic exam shapes medical training. NYU Press.
51.
WacquantL. (2004). Body and soul: Notebooks of an apprentice boxer. Oxford University Press.
52.
WeissJ. P.MayH. T.BairT. L.CrandallB. G.CutlerM. J.DayJ. D.OsbornJ. S.MallenderC.BunchT.J. (2016). A comparison of remote magnetic irrigated tip ablation versus manual catheter irrigated tip catheter ablation with and without force sensing feedback. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, 27(S1), S5–S10.
53.
WhewellW. (1840). The philosophy of the inductive sciences. J.W. Parker.
54.
WoodwardJ. (1958). Management and technology. Oxford University Press.
55.
WoodwardJ. (1970). Industrial organization: Behaviour and control. Oxford University Press.
56.
WrightJ. D.AnanthC. V.LewinS. N.BurkeW. M.LuY. S.NeugutA. I.HerzogT. J.HershmanD. L. (2013). Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. Journal of the American Medical Association, 309(7), 689–698.
