The notion of a “work-around” is a much-used resource within the sociology of technology, reflecting an interest in showing how users are not simply shaped by technologies but how they, through adopting artifacts in ways other than those for which they were designed or intended, are also shapers of technology. Using the language and concerns of actor-network theory and focusing on recent developments within computer-systems implementation, this article seeks to explore and add to our understanding of work-arounds through unpacking the work of one group of “users” as they attempt to tailor and roll out a system within the administration departments of their university. This article argues that paying attention to the various networks that lead to and from work-arounds can improve our understanding of the way users both shape and are shaped by technologies. Focusing on work-arounds as “networks in place” also allows us to highlight some of their contingencies; for example, the other actors and entities on which these depend and are constituted.
Akrich, M.1992. The de-scription of technical objects. In Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, ed. W. Bijker, and J. Law. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2.
Agre, P.2000. Infrastructure and institutional change in the networked university. Information, Communication & Society, 4:494-507.
3.
Berg, M.1997. Of forms, containers, and the electronic medical record: Some tools for a sociology of the formal. Science, Technology, & Human Values22 (4): 403-433.
4.
Berg, M.1998. The politics of technology: On bringing social theory in to technological design. Science, Technology, & Human Values23 (4): 456-490.
5.
Born, G.1996. (Im)materiality and sociality: The dynamics of intellectual property in a computer software research culture. Social Anthropology4 (2): 109-109.
6.
Born, G.1997. Computer software as a medium: Textuality, orality and sociality in an artificial intelligence research culture. In Rethinking Visual Anthropology, eds. Banks, M. and H. Morphy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
7.
Brady, T.
, M. Tierney, and R. Williams. 1992. The commodification of industry applications software. Industrial and Corporate Change1 (3): 489-514.
8.
Button, G.
and W. Sharrock. 1994. Occasioned practices in the work of software engineers. In Requirements Engineering, eds. Jirotka, M. and J. Goguen. London: Academic Press Ltd.
9.
Button, G.
and W. Sharrock. 1998. The organization accountability of technological work. Social Studies of Science28 (1): 73-102.
10.
Ciborra, C.2002. The Labyrinths of Information: Challenging the Wisdom of Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11.
Friedman, A.1989. Computer Systems Development: History, Organisation and Implementation.Chicester: John Wiley.
12.
Fujimura, J.1992. Crafting Science: Standardised Packages, Boundary Objects, and “Translation.” In Science as Practice and Culture, ed. A. Pickering. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
13.
Gasser, L.1986. The integration of computing and routine work. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems4:257-270.
14.
Goddard, A.
, and P. Gayward. 1994. MAC and the Oracle family: Achievements and lessons learnt. Axix1 (1): 45-50.
15.
Henderson, K.1999. On Line and On Paper: Visual Representation, Visual Culture, and Computer Graphics in Design Engineering. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16.
Latour, B.1992. Where are the missing masses? Sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, eds. W. Bijker and J. Law. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Law, J. 2000. Economics as interference. Draft, published by the Centre for Science Studies and Department of Sociology, Lancaster University at http://www/comp.Lancaster.ac.uk/sociology/soc034jl.html.
19.
Luff and Heath
. 1993. System use and social organisation: Observations on human-computer interaction in an architectural practice. In Technology in Working Order: Studies of Work, Interaction, and Technology, ed. G. Button. London: Routledge.
20.
Mackay, H.
, C. Carne, P. Benynon-Davies, and D. Tudhope. 2000. Reconfiguring the user: Using rapid application development. Social Studies of Science, 30 (5): 737-757.
21.
Michael, M.
1996. Technologies and tantrums: Hybrids out of control in the case of road rage. Paper presented at the “Signatures of Knowledge Societies” Joint 4S/EASST conference at the University of Bielefeld, Germany, October 10-13.
Pickering, A.1995. The mangle of practice: Time, agency & science.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
24.
Pollock, N.
and J. Cornford. 2004. ERP systems and the university as a “unique organisation.”Information Technology & People17 (1): 31-52.
25.
Rachel, J.1994. Acting and passing, actants and passants, action and passion. American Behavioral Scientist37 (6): 809-823.
26.
Shapiro, D., and S. Woolgar. 1995. Balancing acts: Reconciling competing visions of the way software technologies work. Working paper, CRICT, Brunel University, UK, 16.
27.
Singleton, V.
and M. Michael. 1996. Actor networks and ambivalence: General practitioners in the cervical screening programme. Social Studies of Science23:227-264.
28.
Star, S. L.
, ed. 1995. Ecologies of Knowledge: Work and Politics in Science and Technology.New York: State University of New York Press.
29.
Star, S. L.
and K. Ruhleder. 1996. Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: design and access for large information spaces. Information Systems Research7 (1): 111-134.
30.
Suchman, L.1994. Working relations of technology production and use. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)2:21-39.
