One Table – Several Practices: Material Controversies in the Hybrid Operating Room

  • Kajsa Lindberg
  • Lars Walter


In Chapter 3, Lindberg and Walter present a study of the introduction and use of a ‘hybrid operating room’ at a major Swedish hospital. Hybrid operating rooms are complex as they are both technology and knowledge intensive, and imply the collaboration of several disciplinary groups with different specializations and multiple understandings. Based on field material from an ethnographically inspired longitudinal study, the authors describe negotiations between the stubborn materiality of the table used in this particular room and the need to perform safe medical procedures, based on previous experiences gained in their separate practices. The table was translated into a multifunctional tool that brought about new types of flexibility, enabling as well as restricting what and how can be done in the hybrid room.


  1. Abrahamson, E. (2006). Review of Global ideas: How ideas, objects, and practices travel in the global economy (Eds. B. Czarniawska and G. Sevón). Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(3),512–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berwick, D. M. (2009). What a “Patient-Centered” should mean: Confession of an extremist. Health Affairs, 28(4),555–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonetti, J., Lehr, E., Vesley, M. R., Friedrich, G., Bonaros, N., & Zimrin, D. (2010). Hybrid coronary revascularization: which patients? When? How? Current Opinion Cardiology, 25, 568–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Czarniawska, B. (2002). Organizing, process of. In A. Sorge (Ed.) Organization (pp. 314–333). London: Thomson Learning.Google Scholar
  5. Czarniawska, B. (2004). On time, space, and action nets. Organization, 11(6), 773–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Czarniawska, B., & Joerges, B. (1996). Travels of ideas. In B. Czarniawska & G. Sevón (Eds.) Translating organizational change (pp. 13–48). Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Czarniawska, B., & Sevón, G. (1996). Introduction. In B. Czarniawska & G. Sevón (Eds.) Translating organizational change (pp. 1–12). Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Epstein, R. M., Frank, S. P., Fiscella, K., Shields, C. G., Meldrum, S. C., Kravitz, R. L., & Duberstein, P. R. (2005). Measuring patient-centered communication in patient-physician consultations: Theoretical and practical issues. Social Science & Medicine, 61(7), 1516–1528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  10. Hirsch, R. (2008). The hybrid cardiac catheterization laboratory for congenital heart disease: From conception to completion. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 71, 418–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hirschauer, S. (1991). The manufacture of bodies in surgery. Social Studies of Science, 21, 279–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jacob, A. L., Regazzoni, P., Steinbrich, W., & Messmer, P. (2000). The multifunctional therapy room of the future: Image guidance, interdisciplinary, integration and impact on patient pathway. European Radiology, 10, 1761–1769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Katz, P. (1981). Ritual in the operating room. Ethnology, 20(4),335–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Latour, B. (1986). The powers of association. In J. Law (Ed.) Power, action and belief (pp. 264–280). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  15. Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Lega, F., & DePietro, C. (2005). Converging patterns in hospital organizations: Beyond the professional bureaucracy. Health Policy, 74(3), 261–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lindberg, K., Styhre, A., & Walter, L. (2012). Assembling healthcare organizations: Practice, materiality and institutions. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Martin, P. Y., & Turner, B. A. (1986). Grounded theory and organizational research. The Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 22(2),141–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Moreira, T. (2004). Coordination and embodiment in the operating room. Body & Society, 10(1),109–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  22. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrae Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Strang, D., & Meyer, J. W. (1993). Institutional conditions for diffusion. Theory and Society, 22, 487–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tantchou, J. C. (2014). Blurring boundaries: structural constraints, space, tools, and agency in an operating theater. Science, Technology & Human Values, 39(3),336–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Business AdministrationSchool of Business, Economics and Law, University of GothenburgGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations