A B S T R AC TBorrowed from ecological psychology, the concept of affordances is often said to offer the social study of technology a means of re-framing the question of what is, and what is not, 'social' about technological artefacts. The concept, many argue, enables us to chart a safe course between the perils of technological determinism and social constructivism. This article questions the sociological adequacy of the concept as conventionally deployed. Drawing on ethnographic work on the ways technological artefacts engage, and are engaged by, disabled bodies, we propose that the 'affordances' of technological objects are not reducible to their material constitution but are inextricably bound up with specific, historically situated modes of engagement and ways of life. K E Y WO R D Saffordances / body / disabilities / sociomateriality / technology Introduction S ocial science, Dennis Wrong (1961) has argued, tends to oscillate between 'undersocialized' and 'oversocialized' conceptions of 'man' (sic). 1 According to many commentators, the sociology of technology is currently caught up 415 Sociology

In this article, we are concerned with the ethical implications of the entanglement of embodiment and non-human materialities. We argue for an approach to embodiment which recognises its inextricable relationship with multiple materialities. From this, three ethical points are made: first, we argue for an ethical relation to 'things' not simply as inanimate objects but as the neglected Others of humanity's (social and material) world. Second, there is a need to recognise different particularities within these entanglements. We draw on the work of Merleau-Ponty and Levinas to think through how the radical alterity of these Others can be acknowledged, whilst also recognising our intercorporeal intertwining with them. Third, we argue that recognition of this interconnectedness and entanglement is a necessary ethical and political position from which the drawing of boundaries and creation of separations that are inherent in social organising can be understood and which contribute to the denigration, discrimination and dismissal of particular forms of embodiment, including those of non-human Others. In order to explore the ethical implications of these entanglements, we draw upon fieldwork in a large UK-based not-for-profit organisation which seeks to provide support for disabled people through a diverse range of services. Examining entanglements in relation to the disabled body makes visible and problematises the multiple differences of embodiments and their various interrelationships with materiality.

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.

Bringing together insights from Organisation Studies andScience and Technology Studies this paper provides a multilevel analysis of a planned change initiative. Focusing on different layers of this change the emergent ambiguities, multiplicities and tensions are explored serving to highlight the 'back stage complexities' often hidden by the 'front stage slickness' (Moser and Law) of organisational routines.

BACKGROUND Telecare is claimed to support people to live in their own home for longer by providing monitoring services that enable responses to emergencies at home. Although most telecare technologies commissioned in the UK predominantly supply reactive services, there has been recent interest by policy makers to develop proactive telecare services, to provide additional understanding of older adults’ health and well-being needs to provide a means for more preventative interventions. Proactive telecare refers to providing regular well-being calls or encouraging users to regularly confirm their well-being, with the aim of anticipating and/or preventing crises through increased understanding of individuals’ needs and building social relationships with older adults. Such technologies have already begun to be introduced, yet little research has explored the potential value of proactive telecare. OBJECTIVE This paper explores the perceptions of different stakeholders to understand the extent to which using a proactive telecare service can support older adults to live independently, what potential health and well-being benefits may be elicited from its use, and what the limitations are. METHODS Semi-structured interviews were conducted with older people (those with experience in using proactive telecare and those without), family members of proactive telecare users, and proactive telecare staff regarding their perceptions and opinions on the value of a proactive telecare service. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS A total of 30 individuals participated in this study. Older adults described the value of proactive telecare in feeling safe and in control, and appreciated feeling connected. Family members and staff valued the potential to detect early health deterioration in older adults and all participants highlighted the benefit of strengthening access to social networks, particularly for socially isolated older people. However, telecare is often viewed as a last resort, and so anticipatory care may not suit all populations, as demonstrated by a mixed acceptance of the technology among older adults who did not have experience of using it. Participants also reported limitations, including the requirement for family, friends or neighbours to assist older adults in an emergency and the need for financial resources to fund the service. CONCLUSIONS This study presents the first known qualitative inquiry into a proactive telecare system, which provides rich and detailed insights from different perspectives into the potential benefits of this intervention. Proactive telecare may promote and facilitate the accumulation of social and technological resources as individuals prepare to cope with age-related challenges, helping to avoid negative outcomes prematurely. However, like reactive telecare, proactive telecare must be matched to individual preferences, and existing financial and social resources.