Marlot Kuiper

60 Connective Routines There is scholarly agreement that checklists (can) transform professional work. However, there is a sharp contrast in how different disciplines view checklists as ‘entity’, let alone in how they consequently reason how such standards transform professional practice. From the different bodies of literature we can identify four different perspectives on checklists as entity; as (1) technical instrument, as (2) legitimizing tool, (3) as performance facilitator and/or indicator, and (4) as organised response, and their (hypothesized) effects on professional work and professionalism. I will describe each line of reasoning. 2.4.1 Checklist as technical instrument In the field of healthcare and implementation science, scholars mostly approach checklists as ‘technical instrument’. Most focus is therefore on its outcomes, that will follow automatically after introduction (De Vries et al., 2010). Standards can “reduce errors and make healthcare services safer” is the assumption (Sunyaev et al., 2008, p. 813). Besides, from this perspective, the information exchange between the various actors is presented an inextricably linked outcome of the checklist. Bliss et al. (2012, p.766, emphasis added) for example state that: “A surgical checklist is an inexpensive tool that will facilitate effective communication and teamwork.” Firm connections between professionals will thus automatically result from implementing a checklist. Moreover, this idea of checklists as simple tools also suggests that they are easily adopted and transferrable to other domains. It is assumed that the experiences of other high- risk industries like aviation, which use checklists to direct behaviour in risky situations, can be transferred to health settings (Clay-Williams & Colligan, 2015; Reason & Hobbs, 2003). Davidoff (2010) referred to this type of thinking as “magic bullet thinking”; the expectation that using a checklist alone can, somehow, ‘automatically’ solve a problem. However, checklists do not perform surgical operations, nor can checklists make anyone follow them. The issue with the “simple checklist” story thus is the assumption that a technical solution (a checklist) can solve a social and relational problem (see also Bosk et al., (2009). 2.4.2 Checklist as legitimizing tool Scholars that study professional occupations have mostly adopted quite the opposite perspective. In Sociology of Professions literature, there are predominantly accounts of procedural standards as complex social interventions, rather than simple technical interventions. From this perspective developed different theories on how professional work evolves through standardization.