This article draws on the concept of “performance” to argue for greater recognition of preexisting practices in the configuration of users. Through an Australian case study of a computer-based dairy decision-support system introduced via a two-day workshop to participating farmers, the article examines the assembling of imputed farmer users in the design of the software. It then explores how the designer and trainers attempt, through the decision-support system, to mobilize their network and align the imputed user with farmers' preexisting performances. The case study highlights that attempts to make workable on-farm the “new” performances of users inscribed in the software are highly contingent on farmers' preexisting knowledge practices. These “old” performances problematize the designer's and trainers' version of imputed users and contribute to partial translation of the decision-support system. A focus on performance is argued to provide a useful starting point in mapping the effects of preexisting knowledge practices on attempts to enroll users in technosocial programs.
Akrich, M.1992. The de-scription of technical objects. In Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change, ed. W. E. Bijker and J. Law, 205-24. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2.
Akrich, M., and B. Latour.1992. A summary of a convenient vocabulary for the semiotics of human and nonhuman assemblies. In Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change, ed. W. E. Bijker and J. Law, 259-265. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3.
Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE).2003. Australian dairy industry: Productivity and profit. Melbourne: Dairy Australia .
4.
Barry, A.2001. Political machines: Governing a technological society . London: Athlone Press.
5.
Berg, M.1997a. Of forms, containers, and the electronic medical record: Some tools for a sociology of the formal. Science, Technology, & Human Values22 (4): 403-33.
6.
———. 1997b. Rationalizing medical work: Decision-support techniques and medical practices. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7.
Büscher, M., and P.H. Mogensen.1997. Mediating change: Translation and mediation in the context of bricolage. In Facilitating technology transfer through partnership: Learning from practice and research, ed. T. McMaster, E. Mumford, E. Swanson, B. Warboys, and D. Wastell, 76-91. London: Chapman and Hall.
8.
Buttel, F., O. Larson, and G. Gillespie.1990. The sociology of agriculture. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
9.
Clark, J., and J. Murdoch.1997. Local knowledge and the precarious extension of scientific networks: A reflection on three case studies. Sociologia Ruralis37 (1): 38-60.
10.
Cocklin, C., and J. Dibden.2002. Taking stock: Farmers' reflections on the deregulation of Australian dairying. Australian Geographer33 (1): 29-42.
11.
Collins, H.M.1990. Artificial experts: Social knowledge and intelligent machines . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12.
Collins, H.M., and S. Yearley.1992. Epistemological chicken. In Science as practice and culture, ed. A. Pickering , 310-26. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
13.
Cowan, R.S.1987. The consumption junction: A proposal for research strategies in the sociology of technology. In The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology , ed. W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, and T. J. Pinch, 261-80. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14.
Dairy Business Planning2002. Dairy Planning Course Training Notes, Shepparton, Victoria : DBA.
15.
Dugdale, A.1999. Materiality: Juggling sameness and difference. In Actor network theory and after, ed. J. Law and J. Hassard, 113-35. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
16.
Gray, I., and G. Lawrence.2001. A future for regional Australia: Escaping global misfortune. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
17.
Higgins, V.2002. Constructing reform: Economic expertise and the governing of agricultural change in Australia. New York: Nova Science.
18.
Howden, P., F. Vanclay, D. Lemerle, and J. Kent.1998. Working with the grain: Farming styles amongst Australian broadacre croppers. Rural Society8 (2): 109-25.
19.
Jofre-Giraudo, E., D.H. Streeter, and W. Lazarus.1990. The impact of computer information systems on dairy farm management decisions. Agribusiness6 (5): 463-74.
20.
Kline, R.2003. Resisting consumer technology in rural America: The telephone and electrification. In How users matter: The co-construction of users and technologies, ed. N. Oudshoorn and T. Pinch, 51-66. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21.
Kline, R., and T. Pinch.1996. Users as agents of technological change: The social construction of the automobile in the rural United States. Technology andCulture37(4):763-95.
22.
Latour, B.1987. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23.
———. 2002. Morality and technology: The end of the means. Theory, Culture, and Society19 (5): 247-60.
24.
Law, J.1999. After ANT: Complexity, naming and topology. In Actor network theory and after, ed. J. Law and J. Hassard, 1-14. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
25.
Law, J., and V. Singleton.2000. Performing technology's stories: On social constructivism, performance and performativity. Technology andCulture41 (4):765-75.
26.
Lee, N., and S. Brown.1994. Otherness and the actor network: The undiscovered continent. American Behavioral Scientist37 (6): 772-90.
27.
Mackay, H., C. Carne, P. Beynon-Davies, and D. Tudhope.2000. Reconfiguring the user: Using rapid application development. Social Studies of Science30 (5): 737-57.
28.
McCown, R.L.2002. Changing systems for supporting farmers' decisions: Problems, paradigms and prospects. Agricultural Systems74 (3): 179-220.
29.
Mol, A.1999. Ontological politics: A word and some questions. In Actor network theory and after, ed. J. Law and J. Hassard, 74-89. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
30.
Oudshoorn, N., and T. Pinch.2003. Introduction: How users and non-users matter. In How users matter: The co-construction of users and technologies, ed. N. Oudshoorn and T. Pinch, 1-25. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
31.
Pinch, T., and W. Bijker.1987. The social construction of facts and artefacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In The social construction of technological systems: New Directions in the sociology and history of technology, ed. W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, and T. J. Pinch, 17-50. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32.
Singleton, V., and M. Michael.1993. Actor-networks and ambivalence: General practitioners in the UK cervical screening programme. Social Studies of Science23 (2): 227-64.
33.
Star, S.L.1991. Power, technology and the phenomenology of conventions: On being allergic to onions. In A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination, ed. J. Law, 26-56. Boston: Routledge.
34.
Suchman, L.1994. Working relations of technology production and use. Computer Supported Cooperative Work2 (1): 21-39.
35.
Timmermans, S., and M. Berg.1997. Standardization in action: Achieving local universality through medical protocols. Social Studies of Science27 (2): 273-305.
36.
Van derPloeg, J.D.1993. Rural sociology and the new agrarian question: A perspective from the Netherlands. Sociologia Ruralis33 (2): 240-60.
37.
Wolf, S.A., and S.D. Wood.1997. Precision farming: Environmental legitimation, commodification of information, and industrial coordination. Rural Sociology62 (2): 180-206.
38.
Woolgar, S.1991. Configuring the user: The case of usability trials. In A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination , ed. J. Law, 58-99. Boston : Routledge.
39.
Wynne, B.1996. May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In Risk, environment and modernity: Towards a new ecology, ed. S. Lash, B. Szerszynski, and B. Wynne , 44-83. London: Sage.
