ASSOCIATION FOR CONSUMER RESEARCH Labovitz School of Business & Economics, University of Minnesota Duluth, 11 E. Superior Street, Suite 210, Duluth, MN 55802 Stakeholder Involvement in Value Co-Destruction: a Case of Promoting Condoms in India Samanthika Gallage, Nottingham University Business School Sameer Deshpande, Griffith University This paper explores the reasons for low condom usage in India by elucidating the stakeholder involvement in the value creation and delivery process. Data was collected from non-profit organisations in India and findings suggested that value co-destruction resulted from cultural incongruencies amplified by stakeholders [to cite]: Samanthika Gallage and Sameer Deshpande (2020) ,"Stakeholder Involvement in Value Co-Destruction: a Case of Promoting Condoms in India", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 48, eds. Jennifer Argo, Tina M. Lowrey, and Hope Jensen Schau, Duluth, MN : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 758-757. [url]: http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/2661294/volumes/v48/NA-48 [copyright notice]: This work is copyrighted by The Association for Consumer Research. For permission to copy or use this work in whole or in part, please contact the Copyright Clearance Center at http://www.copyright.com/. Sociomaterial Performativity of the Surveillant Assemblage on Healthcare Platforms Handan Vicdan, Emlyon Business School, France EXTENDED ABSTRACT technologies (Orlikowski and Scott, 2008; Kjellberg and Helgesson, This conceptual paper proposes a sociomaterial lens for under- 2006) that enact performances (Barad, 2003) at micro/meso/macro standing how surveillance functions and produces outcomes in plat- levels, and how these outcomes reshape existing practices and trans- form organizations, and draws attention to this performative process form power dynamics among market actors (Cecez-Kecmanovic et of knowledge generation in healthcare. Platform organizations en- al., 2014; Orlikowski and Scott, 2015). able distant and asynchronous monitoring of people as assemblages The emergence of alternative healthcare platforms (e.g., Pa- of data (Zwick and Denegri-Knott, 2009). With this surveillant as- tientsLikeMe, trackmystack, myhealthteams, 23andme, raremark) semblage, purposes and hierarchies of begin to shift from one-sided for medical knowledge generation is a good example to study the power disparities (Foucault, 1979) to more complex surveillance net- different performances and their related sociomaterial outcomes works (Haggerty and Ericson, 2000) because those who were once at micro/meso/macro levels. Surveillant assemblage on these plat- under surveillance, and thereby disciplined, now enact surveillance forms operates via different levels and involvement of multiple ac- themselves. Questions emerge concerning how platform organiza- tors, human (e.g., patients, physicians, caregivers, platform opera- tions constitute a surveillant assemblage that challenge the existing tives, pharmaceuticals, researchers, and state) and non-human (e.g., practices and power relations for medical knowledge constitution. genetic reports, symptom tracking tools, mood maps, doctor visit Conventional theories of surveillance do not suffice to describe the sheets, disease rating scales, disease outcome measures). At the mi- complexity of the contours and effects of surveillance phenomena cro and meso levels, patient practices are configured by surveillance observed in the datafication of everyday life, as the effects of and technologies and exist through material artefacts (e.g., doctor visit responses to surveillance are much more complex than resistance sheets produced on platforms and used in clinical settings, symptom and compliance (Brivot and Gendron, 2011). Hence a need to move trackers to track patient well-being), and their outcomes yield ma- beyond a dichotomous and reactive view of surveillance (Visser et terial (e.g., application of new treatments, patient self-tracked data al., 2017), and focus on how patients, the surveilled, can enact sur- influence his and others’ bodily experiences), and social (tracking veillance is warranted; a perspective often missing in surveillance tools organize relations among patients and new forms of interaction literature (Visser et al., 2017). between patients and doctors in clinical settings) effects. Patients use With the emergence of participatory medicine, Web 2.0 tech- tracking tools to gain a deeper sense of self and others (Moore and nologies transform the ways patients manage their health by tracking Robinson, 2015) - a potential of surveillance and its reflexive nature health data in real-time and enabling big data generation. Hierarchies (Iedema and Rhodes, 2010). Self-tracking is the result of a dynamic of knowledge production become leveled with increased access to sociomaterial arrangement (Bode and Christensen, 2016). Digital medical knowledge (Rier and Indyk, 2006). Questions emerge con- tracking tools predict patient diagnostic/prognostic data as patients cerning how platform organizations constitute a surveillant assem- quantify and visualize their data, and shape their management of blage of humans and technology, and its outcomes, which challenge care and relations in material and social terms (Callon, 2008; Or- the existing practices and power relations for knowledge production. likowski and Scott, 2008). Outcome measures shared with other pa- Sociomateriality is a useful lens for exploring the materiality and tients and healthcare stakeholders make surveillance more relational performativity (Jones, 2014) of surveillant assemblages and their than ever. They improve communication on patient care with diverse outcomes as enacted in the practices and relations of human and stakeholders in clinical settings, influence patient embodied practices nonhuman actors (Callon, 2008; Orlikowski and Scott, 2015). The and organizing relations to others accordingly, prevent hospitaliza- inextricably related material, digital and social outcomes of surveil- tion or wrong treatments, hence producing both social and material lance in knowledge constitution (Barad, 2003; Orlikowski, 2007; outcomes in and beyond the platform. Institutional actors (pharma- Orlikowski and Scott, 2008) yield both material and social effects, ceuticals) also track patient data, recruit patients for clinical trials, which draws attention to the performativity of surveillance technolo- track drug effectiveness and side effects, and partner with patients for gies, a key concept related to sociomateriality (Jones, 2014). improving self-tracking tools. At the macro level, patient practices Sociomaterial lens in information systems and organizational such as directly reporting drug side effects to government agencies research emphasizes the relationality and the constitutive entangle- using surveillance technologies further shape state pharmacovigi- ment of humans and technology (Barad, 2003; Orlikowski, 2007, lance of pharmaceuticals, and patient generated medical research via 2010; Orlikowski and Scott, 2008, 2015) that enact performances surveillance technologies inform scientific medical research. Hence, via their practices (Barad, 2003), which is rarely studied (Gond et al., multiple performativities of the surveillant assemblage demonstrate 2015) yet is critical for studying the constitution of knowledge as a the potential for shaping the practices of its actors, organizations and sociomaterial practice (Barad, 2003; Orlikowski, 2007; Orlikowski their markets (Callon, 2008; Orlikowski and Scott, 2008). and Scott, 2008). With advancement in digital technologies, wear- Sociomaterial performativity of a surveillant assemblage also able devices, and tracking tools, scholars may study the performativ- draws attention to the performative struggles (Callon, 2007) or coun- ity of different sociomaterial arrangements and their consequences terperformativities (Mackenzie, 2007) in the era of datafication. Mi- for a more distinct sociomaterial theorizing and understanding the cro/meso counterperformativities include the exclusion of illiterate change of power dynamics in these arrangements (Cecez-Kecma- patients in the surveillant assemblage. Platforms may also create a novic, 2014). Furthermore, studies in marketing and consumer re- “technology of the self” via self-tracking, which may lead to ma- search focus on performativity by exploring how marketing tools nipulation of data by users. Data (il)literacy is also an important per- and models shape markets (Kjellberg and Helgesson, 2006; Mason formative struggle, as it may obstruct decisions concerning patient et al., 2015) as well as how consumer-enacted performativities (Mar- care and scientific knowledge production, as well as power dynam- tin and Schouten, 2014; Scaroboto, 2015) shape markets. However, ics. Future research should work on to explore the impact of these less attention is given to the constitutive entanglement of humans and counter-performativities in alternative markets. Advances in Consumer Research 758 Volume 48, ©2020 Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 48) / 759 REFERENCES Jones, Matthew (2014), “A Matter of Life and Death: Exploring Barad, Karen (2003), “Posthumanist Performativity: Toward an Conceptualizations of Sociomateriality in the Context of Understanding of How Matter Comes to Matter,” Journal of Critical Care,” MIS Quarterly, 38 (3), 895-925. Women in Culture and Society, 28(3), 801-831. Kjellberg, Hans and Claes-Fredrik Helgesson (2006), “Multiple Barad, Karen (2007), Meeting the Universe Halfway: