Marlot Kuiper

113 On Ethnography ing data and analysing, I identified other relevant themes and inductively added thematic codes. ‘Team composition” for example, emerged as an important factor explaining differences in routine performances. Although I analytically focused on ostensive/performative aspects, I ultimately also included an artefact code, as I learned that artefacts are inherently linked to dynamics. The ‘soup protocol’ proved an valuable artefact in laying bare ostensive aspects regarding organisational control. For the analysis of routine interactions (chapter 6), I started off with an initial coding scheme, again listing ostensive and performative. This time I focused on routine interactions and therefore included (informed by the theoretical study) “prioritization” and “coordination” as initial codes. From the literature review, I also learned that specialization, socialization and segmentation could be important for understanding how routine interactions ‘played out’. Yet, as I did not know how these themes would matter, they were not used as initial codes. During the fieldwork, I found out that “conflicting routine demands” was a very prominent theme, which I divided into ‘standards problems’ and ‘unexpected events’, thereby distinguishing between conflicts that are firmly embedded in the organisation of surgical work (e.g. all theatres start at 8.00am) and less foreseen situations (e.g. doctors get sick too). Further, I could distinguish three major responses on the performative dimension; work on it, work around it, and work without it. These empirical findings were input for a discussion in terms of theoretical developments. For the analysis of the role of artefacts (chapter 7), I started off with an initial coding scheme differentiating between artefacts that represent the checklist (paper, digital, and so on) and other artefacts (equipment, furniture, physical setting). The code “representation artefact” soon evolved into “artefactual arrangement”, as I found out that multiple artefacts were used to model the checklist routine. Based on the theoretical study, I used material and spatial affordances to analyse the (perceived) uses of the artefacts. During the fieldwork, I added a temporal dimension, as I found out that artefacts were constantly changing. Concerning the other artefacts (furniture, equipment, physical setting) I added the code “boundary”, split up in three sub codes, reflecting how artefacts (1) create boundaries, (2) are used to create boundaries, and (3) are used to overcome boundaries. In short, I used theory to reflect on and further guide the research. With this ethnographic study, I did not test theoretical presumptions (deduction), rather 4