Disabled People and Digitalization: Disruptive documents in distributing digital devices

Abstract

This article examines the selection process in a pilot project aimed at distributing computers to disabled people to allow for digitalization. Particular attention is paid to the complexities generated by an allocation assessment form, designed to help these people improve their social interactions through electronic media. There is a paucity of discussions on forms in the organization studies literature but, when studied, an over-reliance on semantics such that their enactment in embodied sociomaterial performances is easily glossed over. Our problematic revolves around how forms and their surrounding sociomaterial performances constitute, but are also transformed by, subjects, objects and organizational relations. The contribution of this article is, therefore, to address the embodied enactments and sociomaterial practices that are embedded within these allocation processes. So, for example, assessors in the project deviated from a strict interpretation of the questions on the form and sometimes ignored clients’ responses so as to prevent formal allocations of computers from being seen as illegitimate, and potentially disruptive to the organization’s objectives of distributing digital devices. This enabled us to focus on the sociomaterial and embodied relations that are enacted within the selection process and how these place limits on, but also possibilities for, those allocating and those seeking to be allocated computers. The case study shows how distributing computers to disabled people is a complex sociomaterial process that is conditioned by the embodied performances and textual devices deployed. At the same time, the process was informed by humanistic and normalizing assumptions about sociability that are inscribed on the assessment form as criteria for allocating the computers. One implication, we found, was a tendency to reinforce the marginalization of disabled people.

Keywords

disabled people documents/forms embodiment selection interviews sociomateriality

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Atkinson

Hammersley

(1994). Ethnography and participant observation. In Denzin

N. L.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 248–261). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Austin

J. L.

(1970). Performative utterances. In Austin

J. L.

Philosophical papers (pp. 233–252). London: Oxford University Press.

Barad

(2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs, 28, 801–831.

Barad

(2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Barad

(2013). Ma(r)king time: Material entanglements and re-memberings: Cutting together-apart. In Carlile

P. R.

Nicolini

Langley

Tsoukas

(Eds.), How matter matters (pp. 16–31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bittner

(1967). The police on skid row: A study of peace keeping. American Sociological Review, 32, 699–715.

Bloomfield

B. P.

Latham

Y. L.

Vurdubakis

(2010). Bodies, technologies and action possibilities: When is an affordance? Sociology, 44, 415–433.

Braidotti

(2011). Nomadic theory: The portable Rosi Braidotti. New York: Columbia University Press.

Butler

(1990). Gender trouble. New York: Routledge.

10.

Coffey

(1999). The ethnographic self. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

11.

Cooper

(1986). Organization/disorganization. Social Science Information, 25, 299–335.

12.

Cooper

(1993). Technologies of representation. In Ahonen

(Ed.), Tracing the semiotic boundaries of politics. Berlin: de Gruyter.

13.

Cooper

(2001). Interpreting mass: Collection/dispersion. In Lee

Munro

(Eds.), The consumption of mass (pp. 16–43). Oxford: Blackwell.

14.

Cooren

(2004). Textual agency: How texts do things in organizational settings. Organization, 11, 373–393.

15.

Cooren

Kuhn

Cornelissen

J. P.

Clark

(2011). Communication, organizing and organization: An overview and introduction to the special issue. Organization Studies, 32, 1149–1170.

16.

Dale

(2005). Building a social materiality: Spatial and embodied politics in organizational control. Organization, 12, 649–678.

17.

Dale

Latham

(2015). Ethics and entangled embodiment: Bodies–materialities–organization. Organization, 22, 166–182.

18.

Foucault

(2011). The courage of truth: Lectures at the College de France 1983–4. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

19.

Garfinkel

(1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

20.

Grosz

(1994). Volatile bodies: Toward a corporeal feminism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

21.

Harding

N. H.

Ford

Lee

(2017). Towards a performative theory of resistance: Senior managers and revolting subject(ivitie)s. Organization Studies, 38, 1209–1231.

22.

Holmqvist

Maravelias

Skalen

(2012). Identity regulation in neo-liberal societies: Constructing the ‘occupationally disabled’ individual. Organization, 20, 193–211.

23.

Iedema

(2007). On the multi-modality, materiality and contingency of organization discourse. Organization Studies, 28, 931–946.

24.

Knights

O’Leary

(2006). Leadership, ethics and responsibility to the other. Journal of Business Ethics, 67, 125–137.

25.

Latour

(2005). Reassembling the social. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

26.

Law

(1987). Technology and heterogeneous engineering: The case of the Portuguese expansion. In Bijker

Hughes

Pinch

(Eds.), The social construction of technological systems (pp. 111–134). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

27.

Lennie

(2001). Language that organizes: Plans and lists. In Westwood

Linstead

(Eds.), The language of organization (pp. 47–66). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

28.

McLean

Hoskin

(1998). Organizing madness: Reflections on the forms of the form. Organization, 5, 519–541.

29.

Mol

(2002). The body multiple. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

30.

Mol

Law

(2004). Embodied action, enacted bodies: The example of hypoglycaemia, Body & Society, 10, 43–62.

31.

Moser

(2005). On becoming disabled and articulating alternatives: The multiple modes of ordering disability and their interferences. Journal of Cultural Studies, 19, 667–700.

32.

Moser

Law

(2003). Making voices: New media technologies, disabilities, and articulation. In Liestøl

Morrison

Rasmussen

(Eds.), Digital media revisited: Theoretical and conceptual innovation in digital domains (pp. 491–520). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

33.

Orlikowski

W. J.

(2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28, 1435–1448.

34.

Price

Shildrick

(2002). Bodies together: Touch, ethics and disability. In Corker

Shakespeare

(Eds.), Disability/postmodernity: Embodying disability theory (pp. 62–75). London: Continuum.

35.

Pullen

Rhodes

Ten Bos

(2015). Special issue on ethics, embodiment and organization, Organization, 22, 159–165.

36.

Reed

(2006). Documents unfolding. In Riles

(Ed.), Documents: Artifacts of modern knowledge (pp. 158–177). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

37.

Rhodes

Brown

(2005). Writing responsibly: Narrative fiction and organization studies. Organization, 12, 467–481.

38.

Shildrick

(2009). Dangerous discourses of disability, subjectivity and sexuality. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

39.

Shildrick

Price

(1996). Breaking the boundaries of the broken body. Body and Society, 2(4), 93–113.

40.

Smith

D. E.

(1978). ‘K is mentally ill’: The anatomy of a factual account. Sociology, 12, 23–53.

41.

Spinoza

(1955). On the improvement of human understanding: The ethics and selected letters, trans. Elwes

R. H. M.

New York: Dover.

42.

Thanem

Knights

(2019). Embodied research methods. London: SAGE Publications.

43.

Wacquant

(2006). Body and soul. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

44.

Wacquant

(2015). For a sociology of flesh and blood. Qualitative Sociology, 38, 11.

45.

Williams

Mavin

(2012). Disability as constructed difference: A literature review and research agenda for management and organization studies. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14, 159–179.