10.6092/issn.2038-3460/17253
This paper draws upon a video ethnography of building care and makes this work available to an investigation of how “non human agency” is sustained in actual cases of repair and maintenance activities. Therefore, the paper homes in on a particular situation of maintenance work, bringing together a caretaker and a couple of tenants, regarding a low water pressure problem (LWPP) at the couple’s flat. The paper examines how the participants engage in a situated, temporally unfolding, collaborative and yet distributed inquiry regarding the encountered problem and its candidate solutions. Maintenance routine, in the course of the examined situation, appears to stand in an asymmetrical relationship with repair work due to a prior “botched job”, and the outlined video analysis demonstrates just how the involved participants establish, elaborate and, eventually, suspend this relationship. The expression “reassembling repair” encapsulates this moment of suspension, when the caretaker, upon the tenants’ final hint, indeed repairs the LWPP (by reassembling and removing its “root cause”), instead of sustaining his maintenance routine (to temper only the problem’s “symptoms”). In describing participants’ situated inquiry, their practical deliberations and its eventual denouement, the paper offers an apt opportunity to reflect upon socio-material approaches that simplify, simply invoke, or actually “neglect the situation” in favor of renewed epistemologies or generalized ontologies in Science and Technology Studies.
application/pdf
2038-3460
17253
2
en
Alain Bovet
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/
Tecnoscienza – Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies
reassembling repair
Reassembling Repair: of Maintenance Routine, Botched Jobs, and Situated Inquiry
Text.Serial.Journal
https://tecnoscienza.unibo.it/
6
Essays
2016-01-29
2023-06-17
2016-01-29
2023-08-03
41-60
TS
Alain Bovet
2015
10.6092/issn.2038-3460/17253
41
ETH Wohnforum
2038-3460
2
reassembling repair
en
60
Reassembling Repair: of Maintenance Routine, Botched Jobs, and Situated Inquiry
https://tecnoscienza.unibo.it/article/download/17253/16117
6
                                                                                   Essay
                                                                                          41




Reassembling Repair: of Maintenance
Routine, Botched Jobs, and Situated
Inquiry
       Philippe Sormani                      Ignaz Strebel           Alain Bovet
       University of Vienna and               ETH Wohnforum          ETH Wohnforum
        Swiss Institute - Rome
	
  
         Abstract: This paper draws upon a video ethnography of building care and
         makes this work available to an investigation of how “non human agency” is
         sustained in actual cases of repair and maintenance activities. Therefore,
         the paper homes in on a particular situation of maintenance work, bringing
         together a caretaker and a couple of tenants, regarding a low water
         pressure problem (LWPP) at the couple’s flat. The paper examines how the
         participants engage in a situated, temporally unfolding, collaborative and yet
         distributed inquiry regarding the encountered problem and its candidate
         solutions. Maintenance routine, in the course of the examined situation,
         appears to stand in an asymmetrical relationship with repair work due to a
         prior ‘botched job’, and the outlined video analysis demonstrates just how
         the involved participants establish, elaborate and, eventually, suspend this
         relationship. The expression “reassembling repair” encapsulates this
         moment of suspension, when the caretaker, upon the tenants’ final hint,
         indeed repairs the LWPP (by reassembling and removing its ‘root cause’),
         instead of sustaining his maintenance routine (to temper only the problem’s
         ‘symptoms’). In describing participants’ situated inquiry, their practical
         deliberations and its eventual denouement, the paper offers an apt
         opportunity to reflect upon socio-material approaches that simplify, simply
         invoke, or actually “neglect the situation” in favor of renewed
         epistemologies or generalized ontologies in Science and Technology
         Studies.

         Keywords: situated inquiry; respecification; building care; caretaker;
         maintenance routine; reassembling repair.

         Corresponding author: Philippe Sormani, Department of Science and
         Technology Studies, University of Vienna, Universitätsstraße 7 Staircase
         II/6th floor (NIG), A-1010 Vienna – Email: philippe.sormani@univie.ac.at




TECNOSCIENZA
Italian Journal of Science and Technology Studies
6 (2) pp. 41-60 - ISSN 2038-3460
	
  
www.tecnoscienza.net                                 2015

	
  
42                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Tecnoscienza – 6 (2)

1. Introduction
                                                                                                                                                                                                                        One cannot decline to have a situation for
                                                                                                                                                                                                                        that is equivalent to having no experience,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                        not even one of disagreement (Dewey
                                                                                                                                                                                                                        2008[1938], 74)

    Of late, repair and maintenance work has become a topic of both em-
pirical and conceptual interest in Science and Technology Studies (STS).
Given that repair and maintenance has presumably always constituted the
flipside of the artifacts, infrastructures, and technologies devised by man-
and womankind, one may wonder why – and how – it has become an im-
portant part of the topical agenda of current STS. That it has entered the
core concerns of STS seems without doubt, at least ‘from within’ the field.
Indeed, not only does this special issue of Tecnoscienza bear testimony to
the special place given to this special topic, but prior and parallel research
endeavors do so as well (e.g., Denis and Pontille 2015; Jackson 2014; Jar-
zabkowski and Pinch 2013). In our view, this topical emphasis and re-
newed interest in maintenance and repair (see already Graham and Thrift
2007; Henke 2000; Orr 1996) might be usefully related to the emphasis
on “non human agency” (cf. Sayes 2014) put by “actor-network theory”
(ANT) and its successor projects, in and beyond the field of STS (see, e.g.,
Latour 2005; Law 2009; Mol 2010). It seems indeed only a small step
from placing one’s methodological emphasis on “non human agency” –
or, less technically put, the material features of the social world – to inves-
tigating how such agency is sustained, if not secured, in actual cases. One
way of doing so, then, is to closely examine particular practices of
maintenance and repair, as such practices can be shown to constitute and
support those material features. Recently, several ethnographic studies
have been conducted on urban infrastructures and public transport sys-
tems in this vein (e.g., Denis and Pontille 2010, 2015; Tironi 2015), some
of which point “beneath materiality” (cf. Denis and Pontille 2015), and
others “beyond repair” (Ureta 2014)1.
    Drawing upon a video ethnography of building maintenance, this pa-
per offers an ethnomethodological study of repair work. In doing so, the
paper gives a particular twist to the “small step” evoked in the previous
paragraph. More specifically, the study analyzes through which practical
methods of situated inquiry – or locally deployed “diagnostic work”
(Buscher et al. 2010) – the filmed participants – a married couple of ten-
ants and the caretaker of the block of flats they live in – engage in recog-
nizable courses of repair work to have a particular problem fixed – a low
water pressure problem (henceforth, LWPP) at the couple’s flat. Hence,
the paper’s title – “reassembling repair” – hints at the participants’ repair
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
    1
      For a trajectory of STS as a series of provocative ‘reversals’ (e.g., from the
sociology of scientific knowledge to ANT), see Woolgar (2004).
Sormani, Strebel e Bovet                                                                                                                                                                                                           43
work in situ, rather than a theorist’s revolutionary project in STS (e.g.,
Latour 2005, 2006). How does the situation that had brought participants
together, the LWPP at the couple’s flat, actually unfold? How do they
manifestly repair the problem in reaching a common “definition of the
situation”? In answering this twin question, the outlined paper should
prove of double interest:

⎯ on the one hand, the paper contributes to empirical inquiry on repair and
   maintenance work in STS by delivering a case study that homes in on partici-
   pants’ work of “accomplishing materials and activities in context” (Jarzab-
   kowski and Pinch 2013, 581). More specifically, it focuses upon lay partici-
   pants’ working at “reassembling repair” as a particular concern of housing (by
   said couple of tenants) in the face of a professional’s studious display of
   maintenance routine regardless of this concern (as in the case of the caretaker,
   to begin with; see already Hughes 1951);
⎯ on the other hand, the study questions the inclination of leading practitioners
   in (post-) “Actor-Network Theory” (ANT) to address issues primarily on a
   theoretical level (for example when substituting a “script” or “affordance”
   approach with an “accomplishing” one, as in the case of Jarzabkowski and
   Pinch). In turn, the paper points out that any such conceptual substitution –
   even if we may agree with it (as we largely do with Jarzabkowski and Pinch) –
   typically assumes, rather than explicates, a prior understanding of the every-
   day situations that it uses for illustrative purposes (in particular, the practical
   understanding that participants display to each other, in and through their
   situated conduct)2.

    In answer to the critical argument, the paper follows Garfinkel’s piv-
otal recommendation to turn the phenomena of everyday life and the sit-
uated inquiries conducted by their participants into an explicit topic of
analysis, rather than to rely upon them as a tacit resource for a theoretical
move. Hence, the present paper does not privilege this or that conceptual
definition of “the social” and its “reassembly” as a theoretical choice (see
Latour 2005, 2006, and section 6 below). Rather, the paper describes how
participants’ own conduct already entails such choices as a practical mat-
ter, as their recognizable courses of repair work do entail particular “def-
initions of the situation”, be it in terms of maintenance routine, urgent
repair, or both (see sections 2 and 4)3.
    In ethnomethodology, this strategy of relocating theoretical issues in
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
                     2
      In other words, any theoretical interpretation of situated conduct in general
terms (e.g., those of ANT) presupposes its intelligible achievement by participants
in particular situations (otherwise, there would be nothing to be interpreted, let
alone generalized by the theorist). This intelligible achievement, in turn, remains
ethnomethodology’s key phenomenon (cf. Garfinkel 1967, 2002).
    3
      On Garfinkel’s recommendation to avoid the conflation between analytic
topic and mundane resource, see Zimmermann and Pollner (1970). On
recovering “ANT” as a situated, analyzable, mundane phenomenon, see Lynch
(2013); Quéré (1998) and below (sections 5 and 6).
44                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Tecnoscienza – 6 (2)

practical concerns is referred to as “respecification” (e.g. Button 1991;
Garfinkel 1991; Lynch 1993). Before introducing more fully our video
ethnography and ethnomethodological approach, let us turn to a first ex-
ample to briefly indicate in which sense such respecification may prove
instructive.


2. Maintenance Routine as a Situated Achievement: a First
Definition

    How do participants configure a problematic situation that brings
them together, such as the situation involving an unresolved low water
pressure problem (LWPP)? How do they orient their respective inquiries,
trial-and-error procedures, and verbal formulations, in the manifest at-
tempt to solve this particular problem? A pervasive feature of the exam-
ined situation of pending repair was that its participants – a couple of
tenants and a caretaker4 – would define their encounter in alternative
ways, with the result of opening up alternative trajectories of diagnostic
work, regarding alternative “problem/solution pairs” (Livingston 2008,
235). A first definition of the problematic situation at hand and its poten-
tial solution in situ is offered by the caretaker (Edy) as he enters the ten-
ants’ (family S.’) flat. Consider the following field-note excerpt to begin
with:

                     Excerpt 1 (bathroom)

                          On the morning of 30 November 2013 water supply was shut down in
                     the residential building Kanalweg 26 by caretaker Edy and plumber
                     Thomas, to replace some 20 bonnets of gate valves on the head water pipe
                     of this building. Once this replacement work finished and water turned
                     back on, family S. on floor 13 let caretaker Edy know that there was hard-
                     ly any water flowing at their flat. That, at least, is what he told us.
                          We follow Edy with the video camera as he goes into the flat of family
                     S., to change sink and bathtub aerators. This, according to Edy, is a com-
                     mon thing to do after a shut down and restart of water supply in residen-
                     tial buildings: aerators can indeed get clogged by flushed shed material
                     and mineral deposits from the pipes.
                          Edy enters the flat and walks straight into the bathroom. Without
                     checking the water flow he begins changing the aerators. After some mi-
                     nor difficulties, Edy finally succeeds in changing the aerators of the two
                     sinks in the bathroom. Then he begins working on the aerator of the bath-

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
                     4
      The caretaker works full time for the real estate agency. He is in charge of
five buildings (78 flats) but does not live there. He has a workshop-office in one
of the buildings. When faced with a problem, tenants can either call him or find
him in his office. When the task is too technical or requires too much time, he
may call a technician.
Sormani, Strebel e Bovet                                                                                                                                                                                                           45
                     tub spout. After several tries he still cannot untwist the aerator on the
                     bathtub and gives up, saying that the plumber is needed to solve this
                     problem.

     This field-note excerpt, which also describes the filming situation,
makes available Edy’s definition of the LWPP and its attendant solution
(i.e., changing the aerators) in terms of his maintenance routine. Several
aspects of his conduct manifest that he defines the situation in just these
terms: first, he casts the LWPP as a typical problem of prior maintenance
(i.e., the gate valve replacement on the head water pipe), problem which
then lends itself to a typical solution (i.e., aerator replacement at the ‘con-
cerned’ flat). Second, he attempts to reach that typical solution without
examining any particular manifestation of the problem involved (i.e.,
“without checking the water flow he begins changing the aerators”)?
Third, he appeals to the plumber’s help as he encounters difficulties
(when attempting to “untwist the aerator on the bathtub”). Having taken
part in the initial maintenance (i.e., the building’s gate valve replacement),
the “plumber Thomas” is now being recruited to complete its routine
achievement (i.e., by solving its incidental problems, as encountered at
family S.’ flat). Taken together, these three aspects of the caretaker’s con-
duct recognizably define the encountered situation in terms of mainte-
nance routine (rather than “urgent repair”, as we shall see), notably by
preempting any situated inquiry into the flat’s particularities (which re-
main part of the “environment”, cf. Quéré 1998, 239)5.
     This first description of repair work proves instructive, insofar as it
demonstrates how such work develops and draws upon a particular “def-
inition of the situation”. That is to say, the very way in which Edy, our
caretaker, goes about his repair work implies not only a particular defini-
tion of the working situation (as a “routine” encounter), but also a partic-
ular understanding of the work to be done in that situation (a “mainte-
nance” intervention). This mutual elaboration of situation and work may
change and, as it manifestly does, will be further described. The offered
description, so far, affords us with an ethnomethodological respecifica-
tion of the “definition of the situation” as a sociological notion: a defini-
tion of the situation is already implied and manifestly disclosed in Edy’s
embodied professional practice, without (or prior to) any discursive for-
mulation, which is not to say that it cannot be formulated, either by Edy

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
    5
      Edy’s pre-emptive move appears to be twofold at least, as he walks not only
“straight into the bathroom” (instead of asking the tenants for a specification of
the problem, for instance), but also starts working on the pre-decided typical
solution at once (i.e., changing the aerators). In refraining from engaging in
conversation with the tenant couple, he embeds his maintenance routine in the
local setting without further investigating its particular features, thereby making
the maintenance routine visible as “maintenance routine” in the first place
(regardless of particular setting features, its parties’ local knowledge, etc.).
46                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Tecnoscienza – 6 (2)

or by a professional sociologist. The remainder of this paper spells out
some of the key consequences of this kind of practice description for our
empirical understanding of repair work, STS more broadly, and Latour’s
notion of “reassembling the social” in particular6.


3. Video Ethnography and Ethnomethodology

    The previous section offered a first glimpse at how a video ethnogra-
phy of building maintenance makes this work available to an “ethno-
methodological respecification”. The video ethnography that this paper is
based on involved one of us in documenting over a one-year period the
working routines of professional caretakers and building maintenance
personnel in Switzerland. Therefore, over twenty-four hours of video re-
cordings were made and eventually organized into a searchable data basis.
The main purpose of this ethnographic effort was to make visible the
caretaker’s ordinary work – indeed, mostly men at work were filmed – in
its recurrent patterns, conditions and contingencies, whilst highlighting
the technical and social problems that building maintenance would ordi-
narily deal with. The video footage, then, was based upon ethnographic
fieldwork that involved ‘shadowing’ individual caretakers when they were
making their daily rounds and fulfilling their routine duties. To get the
ethnography under way, specific working days were agreed upon between
the filming team and the filmed caretaker. To start with, the work of three
caretakers was filmed and documented in this way7.
    The outlined video ethnography allowed us to take a renewed empiri-
cal interest in a “low status” occupation, with a special focus on its every-
day tasks and technical argot. In so doing, the video ethnography took up
the classic interest of field studies in occupations of all kinds as promoted
by E. Hughes at the “Chicago school” in the 1940s, an interest which had
also led up to a prolonged ethnography of caretakers’ work in urban areas
(e.g., Gold 1950, 1964). Based upon participant observation and inter-
views, this now seminal ethnography paid special attention to the peculiar
relationship, typical encounters and characteristic tensions between ten-
ants and caretakers. Yet, as an ethnographic study written in a “realist”
mode (cf. Van Maanen 1988), the study left unanswered the ethnometh-
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
                     6
      For further discussion of the notion of “situation” and its continued
“neglect” in some quarters of the social sciences, see Quéré (1998).
    7
      Building Care: That’s why our cities do not fall apart (Ignaz Strebel and
Susanne Hofer, 41 min, Swiss German, German, Subtitles E). The documentary
movie can be accessed via http://vimeo.com/ethwohnforum/building-care. From
the outset, the documentary movie was also made with the intention to afford us
with audiovisual recordings to be used in an ethnomethodological analysis. The
consequences of this double use remain to be analyzed. On non-fiction film more
generally, see Macbeth (1999).
Sormani, Strebel e Bovet                                                                                                                                                                                                           47
odological concern for just how the realities described were recognizably
achieved as such:

⎯                              Just how did any caretaker effectuate his everyday tasks so that they could
                                be made accountable to a standard of proper building care?
⎯                              Just how might tenants, on any given occasion, become involved in the prac-
                                tical effectuation, verbal formulation, and visual monitoring of caretakers’
                                tasks?
⎯                              And just how would tools, materials, and objects be used at work?

     Whilst these questions remained largely unstudied, a video-based ap-
proach offers us an apt opportunity to have them (re-)addressed. The ac-
tual situation of building maintenance and repair work is thus fore-
grounded and, as we shall see, the contingency of the situation upon itself
– that is, upon how the situation may become a participants’ issue from
within its very unfolding, regarding notably its definition and the kind of
repair work that this definition entails8.
     In what follows, an ethnomethodological respecification is offered, in-
sofar as our (video) ethnographic interest in building maintenance is de-
veloped in a distinctive direction. This direction has perhaps been best
indicated by Sharrock and Anderson, when they distinguished “ethno-
methodology’s query: how do people organize their social actions so that
sense can be made of them?” (1986, 56) from the “general investigative
question which any sociologist may ask, namely ‘how are social actions
organized’”(ibid.). Accordingly, our description shall bear upon how co-
present participants – a caretaker and a couple of tenants – make intelli-
gible to each other the kind of social activity they engage in, in situ and in
vivo. “Ethnomethodological respecification”, then, involves two tasks:
first, an empirical description or specification of participants’ practical
methods of repair work, methods through which they make that work in-
telligible to each other in its actual course (for example, through the em-
bodied definition of the situation that is presupposed in “maintenance
routine”). Second, a reexamination of existing concepts and concerns in
STS (such as Latour’s notion of “reassembling the social”) in the light of
that prior empirical specification. For this second task, the final discus-
sion of this paper will draw upon the video analysis conducted in the next
section.


	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
                     8
      That we focus on how caretaker and tenants deal with a deficient tap does
not mean that we ignore or neglect classical themes in the sociology of building
maintenance, such as the status gap between caretaker and tenants or the
influence of the presence of the latter on the former’s work. We rather stick to
how such themes may or may not emerge from within the situation. In the present
case, the first theme did not emerge but as we shall see the second did, though in
a very specific way.
48                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Tecnoscienza – 6 (2)

4. Problem Formulation as a Situated Achievement: two
Redefinitions

    As we have seen in the second section of the paper, caretaker Edy re-
places all aerators in the bathroom except one. He then proceeds to the
kitchen with the manifest intent to pursue his maintenance routine, as vis-
ible on our video recording. His very conduct manifests (t)his intent, as
he rushes into the kitchen with the special aerator screwdriver in his right
hand (to remove the presumably clogged kitchen sink aerator) and then
fish out a clean one from his pockets with his ‘free’ left hand. To reach
the kitchen, Edy has to pass through the living room, where the tenants,
Mister and Misses S., have taken a seat waiting for him to finish his tech-
nical intervention. As Edy rushes into the kitchen and attempts to do so,
he offers Mr. S. an opportunity to spell out the problem at hand, as the
following video recording excerpt suggests9:

                     Excerpt 2 (kitchen)

                     1                                Edy:                                                   und hier in der Küche
                                                                                                             and here in the kitchen
                     2                                MrS:                                                   ‘ja das ist das ist das Problem
                                                                                                             ‘yes this is this is the problem
                                                                                                             ‘((gets up and follows Edy into the kitchen))
                     3                                MrS:                                                   da ist immer weniger Wasser gelaufen seit er ‘das mon-
                                                                                                             tiert hat
                                                                                                             there is less and less water running since he has installed
                                                                                                             ‘this
                                                                                                                                              ‘#1 ((taps on new mixer tap))
                     4                                MrS:                                                   heute Morgen ist folgendes passiert
                                                                                                             this morning the following happened
                     5                                                                                       dass praktisch kein warm Wasser mehr ausläuft
                                                                                                             there was virtually no warm water running
                     6                                                                                       also nur ganz wenig
                                                                                                             well, only very little
                     7                                Edy:                                                   gut
                                                                                                             okay
                     8                                MrS:                                                   das kalte auch, ganz wenig
                                                                                                             cold too, very little
                     9                                                                                       warum ‘weiss ich auch nicht, ich weiss auch nicht was der
                                                                                                             do gemacht hat
                                                                                                             why       ‘I do not know […] what he has done here
                                                                                                                       ‘((walks out of the kitchen))
                     10                               Edy:                                                   ((removes kitchen sink aerator, turns on water flow))

                     11                                                                                      #2 ((only little water flows))
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
   9
     Transcription conventions are to be found in Appendix I. Screenshots
(numbered #1, #2, etc.) follow the transcribed excerpts.
Sormani, Strebel e Bovet                                                  49

    12     Edy:        hhh oi
                       hhh oh




                            #1 ((Mr. S. taps on new mixer tap))




                                #2 ((only little water flows))

    Upon Edy’s place formulation (“and here in the kitchen”, line 1), Mr.
S. follows him into the kitchen (line 2) and ventures a formulation of the
problem (from line 2 onwards). That is, Mr. S. formulates the LWPP as
requiring an urgent repair (due to a previous seemingly ‘botched job’
“since he has installed this”, line 3), rather than as being simply addressed
as part of general maintenance routine (due to the building’s central gate
valve replacement). How does Mr. S. achieve this redefinition of the situ-
ation, recognizably so? First, he points out a particular problem in the
50                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Tecnoscienza – 6 (2)

kitchen, regarding the “new mixer tap” in the kitchen sink, namely the
problem that “there is less and less water running” (line 3). Second, he
hints at an alternative cause of this problem, relating it back to the
plumber’s prior intervention in the kitchen, a potentially ‘botched job’
(“since he has installed this”, ibid.), rather than to the plumber’s joint
maintenance routine with Edy in the morning (the general gate valve re-
placement). Third, the latter’s maintenance routine is identified as occa-
sioning the acute expression of the problem, which would thus require an
urgent repair (its cause remaining the potentially ‘botched job’, (“I do not
know what he has done here”, line 9). In walking out of the kitchen (at
line 9), Mr. S. demonstrably leaves the floor to Edy for making the pend-
ing repair, then and there. Edy, in turn, seems to be responding to this
technical expectancy. Indeed, he does not only engage in the routine task
as before (by removing the kitchen sink aerator, line 10), but he also
checks its local grounds now (by turning on the water flow prior to re-
placing the aerator with a new one, ibid.). As only little water flows even
without an installed aerator (ibid.), no clogged aerator can be the cause of
the LWPP, much to Edy’s surprise (“oh”, line 12)10.
In particularizing the problem and relocating its cause, the described re-
definition of the situation (by tenant Mr. S.) raises the question of its spe-
cific solution in situ (rather than its standard solution across sites). After
his local solution attempt fails (see note 10 above), Edy – manifestly at his
wits’ end – decides to call plumber Thomas. His call builds upon Mr. S.’
redefinition, whilst spelling out his own efforts in the kitchen so far, as
can be seen in the following video excerpt:

                     Excerpt 3 (kitchen call)

                     1                                pb:                                                    Ja Edy, hallo?
                                                                                                             Yes Edy, hallo?
                     2                                Edy:                                                   #3 Grüss Dich ((Thomas))
                                                                                                                 Hello ((Thomas))
                     3                                Edy:                                                   Du? du hast doch bei Frau Familie S. eine neue Mischba-
                                                                                                             terie reingemacht?
                                                                                                             you have put in at Mrs … family S. a new mixer tap, right?
                     4                                pb:                                                    bei Frau?
                                                                                                             at Mrs?

                     5                                Edy:                                                   S Familie S
                                                                                                             S. family S.
                     6                                pb:                                                    eh in welchem Block wohnt sie?

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
                     10
      In the sequel to the examined episode, Edy starts opening up the shutoff
valves of both the hot and cold water supply in the kitchen. These valves are to be
found underneath the kitchen sink (cf. Appendix II). However, as the water flow
remains the same, the LWPP remains, at least as far as the hot water supply is
concerned (see below).
Sormani, Strebel e Bovet                                                            51
                       uh in which block do they live?
    7      Edy:        sechundzwanzig
                       twenty six
    8      pb:         ja
                       yes
    9      Edy:        jetzt, Kaltwasser war der Hahn fast zu
                       now, coldwater the tap was almost closed
    10                 den habe ich jetzt aufgemacht
                       I have now opened it
    11                 und jetzt auf der linken Seite ist der Warmwasserhahn
                       and now on the left side is the hot water tap
    12                 den kannst Du nicht weiter aufmachen und es kommt fast
                       kein warmes Wasser
                       this you cannot open more and there is almost no hot water
    13     pb:         ja
                       yes
    14                 kannst Du das dann noch anschauen
                       can you have a look at it again




                            #3 Edy: Grüss Dich ((Thomas))

    How does caretaker Edy, in turn, reformulate the problematic situa-
tion at hand, if only for plumber Thomas to recognize it as such (rather
than in terms of their unproblematic maintenance routine)? Edy’s call to
plumber Thomas is interesting, insofar as it accepts and elaborates Mr. S.’
prior redefinition of the problem and its cause (the ‘botched job’, requir-
ing an urgent repair), whilst shifting the burden of the problem’s solution
(from himself to Thomas, identified as being initially or at least potential-
ly responsible). In so doing, Edy reproduces indeed Mr. S.’ prior redefini-
tion (in terms of a “particular problem,” its “alternative cause,” and now
“acute expression”). There is, however, one aspect of Mr. S.’ redefinition
that Edy modifies, and that is the “technical expectancy” that he, Edy,
being already present in the kitchen, should and would repair the prob-
    52                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Tecnoscienza – 6 (2)

    lem at hand. Indeed, Edy first reports his unsuccessful efforts so far (lines
    9-12), and then solicits the plumber to step in (line 14). In suggesting his
    sustained maintenance routine to have failed, Edy manifestly makes the
    case for the plumber’s next urgent repair (or arguably urgent repair)11.


    5. Reassembling Repair as a Situated Achievement:
    Denouement

        As we have seen, the LWPP at family S.’ flat has been defined and re-
    defined in alternative ways: first in terms of “maintenance routine” (by
    Edy, the caretaker), then in terms of “urgent repair” (by Mr. S., one of
    the tenants), and finally by taking into account maintenance routine for
    achieving swift repair (by Edy, on the basis of Mr. S.’ prior definition, in
    view of the plumber’s subsequent intervention). The participants’ config-
    uration (and reconfiguration) work suggested that, and how, maintenance
    routine stands in an asymmetrical relationship with urgent repair – that is,
    not only both of which, maintenance and repair, mobilized alternative
    scales (“building” vs. “kitchen”), alternative problem formulations
    (“standard” vs. “particular”), and alternatively expected solutions (“re-
    placement” vs. “repair”), but it also took the involved participants work
    to establish, exhibit, and elaborate this asymmetrical relationship (starting
    with Edy’s studious display of maintenance routine). The participants’
    encounter, however, came to a temporary ending with the suspension of
    this manifest asymmetry, as the final video excerpt suggests:

                         Excerpt 4 (living room and bathroom again)

                         1                                Edy:                                                   da kommt dann der Sanitär schnell vorbei
                                                                                                                 there the plumber will drop by quickly
                         2                                MrsS                                                   ja, ja
                                                                                                                 yes, yes

                         3                                Edy:                                                   also das Kaltwasser ist jetzt offen, das ist gut
                                                                                                                 the cold water is open, this is fine
                         4                                MrsS                                                   ja, ja,
                                                                                                                 yes, yes
                         5                                Edy:                                                   der Hahn war fast zu
                                                                                                                 the tap was almost closed
→                       6                                 MrsS                                                   ja, ‘eben warm kommt ja im Badezimmer auch nicht
                                                                                                                 yes, ‘hot water is not flowing in the bathroom either
    	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
                         11
           In the remainder of the call, the urgency of this next repair is further
    elaborated by Edy – “maybe you can do it straight away”, “when are you
    coming?”, etc. – as well as by the plumber – “should I come right now?” – to
    whom Edy responds: “that would be good, we can then do that, then we can tick
    it off.” Participants’ conduct displays thus the relative urgency of the repair.
Sormani, Strebel e Bovet                                                             53
                            ‘( ((walks into bathroom)) )
    7      Edy:        auch ‘nicht?
                       also ‘not?
                            ‘( ((follows Mrs S. to bathroom)) )
    8      MrsS        nein
                       no
    9      Edy         dann hat er        ‘hier nicht geöffnet
                       then he has not opened ‘here
                                          ‘( ((points to main hot water tap of the
                                              flat)) )
    10     MrsS        ‘schau jetzt hier
                       ‘look here now
                       ‘( ((points to water taps in bathroom sinks)) )
    11     Edy:        ja dann ist klar, also da habe ich jetzt zwei neue Siebchen
                       reingemacht
                       yes then it is clear, here I have put in two new aerators
    12     MrsS        ja, ja,
                       yes, yes
    13     Edy:        die waren verkalkt
                       they have been calcified

    In what sense may we speak of a “denouement” of the unfolding situ-
ation and its manifest asymmetry between maintenance and repair? The
video excerpt selected from the closing of the encounter suggests that its
participants, through their respective formulations and situated inquiries,
reach a new definition of the situation. Through that redefinition, the sit-
uation not only caused the LWPP (at Mr. and Mrs’ S. flat) in the first
place, but may also be mobilized to have this problem solved (namely, the
“(closed) main hot water tap of the flat”, line 9). In the selected excerpt,
Edy starts with summarizing the situation in asymmetric terms, namely by
announcing the upcoming repair in the kitchen (“there, the plumber will
drop by quickly”, line 1), whilst making sure to highlight his partially suc-
cessful maintenance so far (“the cold water is open, this is fine”, line 3).
In so doing, Edy recognizes the pending problem in the kitchen (the un-
satisfactory hot water flow). At the same time, he manifestly assumes his
prior intervention to have solved the LLWP in the bathroom (as he al-
ready did when rushing from the bathroom into the kitchen). Mrs S.’ in-
terjection (at line 6), in turn, challenges this basic assumption, as it singles
out the remaining “hot water” problem in the bathroom, too (in addition
to the blocked aerator on the bathtub, for instance). Her interjection,
then, contributes to the denouement of the situation, insofar as it con-
nects the various expressions of the acute LWPP (in the kitchen and in
the bathroom) and hints at their common cause, eventually spelled out by
Edy: the “(closed) main hot water tap of the flat” (line 9; emphasis add-
ed). Incidentally, the asymmetry between “maintenance routine” and
“urgent repair” seems to be dissolved, as the prior definition and redefini-
tion that it hinged upon (made by both Edy and Mr. S.) now turn out to
be false (in the light of Mrs. S.’ interjection). In conclusion, we may speak
54                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Tecnoscienza – 6 (2)

of the situation’s denouement as its participants’ “reassembly of repair,”
insofar as the situation’s denouement challenges the studious display of
maintenance routine and calls for material intervention to fix the local
problem at hand12.


6. Discussion and Conclusion: ‘Reassembling Repair’ as a
Members’ Phenomenon, STS Implications

    In Reassembling the Social, Bruno Latour invites his readers, ad-
dressed as “interested enquirers”, to actually do so: “It is to help the in-
terested enquirers in reassembling the social that this book has been writ-
ten” (Latour 2005, 8). A closer look at Latour’s invitation is in order, pri-
or to spelling out some of the implications of our video analysis of repair
work for ANT, if not for STS more broadly.
    Latour’s invitation takes a both programmatic and methodological
form. The invitation takes a programmatic form, insofar as said book is
intended as an “introduction to ANT” (at least if we stick to its ironic
subtitle). This introduction, then, sets up ANT, as the renewed “sociology
of associations,” in competition with the received “sociology of the so-
cial” (Latour 2005, 1-17). The latter, arguably, has become part of “com-
mon sense” well beyond the social sciences: “Offering comments about
the inevitable ‘social dimension’ of what we and others are doing ‘in soci-
ety’ has become as familiar to us as using a mobile phone, ordering a beer,
or invoking the Oedipus complex – at least in the developed world”
(Latour 2005, 4). ANT, in turn, challenges this “common sense” assump-
tion of an inevitable and homogenous “social dimension” which, as part
of a stable and objective “society,” may be routinely invoked for explana-
tory purposes (e.g., whenever an economic explanation fails to account
for an economic phenomenon). Instead, ANT sets out to explain how the
inevitability, homogeneity, stability, and objectivity of “the social” (or,
better, “a social”) were themselves achieved as its consequential proper-
ties, and that is, so the alternative assumption goes, as a contingent result
of “associations between heterogeneous elements” and “things that are
not themselves social” (Latour 2005, 4). The methodological task, then,
becomes the empirical task of “tracing” these intricate associations and
their assumed effectiveness – if not in practice, then at least in principle13.
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
    12
       In sum, Mrs S.’ interjection turns this maintenance routine into an
instrumental part of the pending repair (in contrast to Edy’s prior delegation of
repair work, in his pervasive attempt to stick to and sustain his maintenance
routine only). In so doing, she is “reassembling repair” by defining its proper
scale: the “flat”, rather than the entire “building” or sole “kitchen”.
    13
       In so doing, we may add, the empirical inquiry risks turning into an
“applied metaphysics” (Latour 2006, 73), or an “actant-network ontology”
(Lynch 2013, 10), where “the theorist’s monism frames the heterogeneous
Sormani, Strebel e Bovet                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     55
    Drawing upon a video ethnography of building maintenance, this pa-
per examined repair work and its situated “reassembly” as a society-
members’ phenomenon, rather than a social theorist’s strategic choice. An
ethnomethodological respecification was thus not only offered of the ini-
tial video ethnography and its documented realities, but also of ANT,
similarly generalized ontologies, or alternatively renewed epistemologies
(e.g., Jarzabkowski and Pinch 2013) in STS. A single situation of mainte-
nance routine (and, eventually, repair work) was examined for how its
participants’ configured its manifest course. Particular attention was paid
to their respective (re-)definitions of the situation, inquiry procedures and
verbal formulations, as part and parcel of the practical methods in terms
of which they managed to recognize and solve a particular housing prob-
lem (the LWPP at Mr. and Mrs. S.’ flat). In that sense, participants could
be observed at “reassembling repair,” rather than simply taking for grant-
ed an established maintenance routine. In what sense, however, might
this ethnomethodological description of the unfolding situation differ
from an ANT, “ANO” (Actor-Network Ontology) (see footnote 13
above), or related conceptual framework in STS? Set aside our methodo-
logical choice to use a video recording (rather than more common docu-
mentary sources), the difference may be briefly elaborated upon by re-
turning to Latour’s theoretical exercise in “reassembling the social.” How
is this exercise conducted14?
    One feature of its conduct, as a discursively available phenomenon, is
that it introduces working definitions and, on that basis, builds its socio-
logical arguments (at least in the “programmatic” and “methodological”
form, as highlighted above). For example, Latour introduces three work-
ing definitions of “the social” (numbered as such in the French edition, cf.
Latour 2006, 93-101):

                         Definition no. 1:
                         “I have argued that most often in social sciences, ‘social’ designates a
                     type of link (as in ‘social ties’): it’s taken as the name of a specific domain,
                     a sort of material like straw, mud, string, wood, or steel” (Latour 2005, 64,
                     emphasis added).

                         Definition no. 2:
                         “For ANT (…), the definition of the term is different: it doesn’t desig-
                     nate a domain of reality or some particular item, but rather is the name of
                     (…) an enrollment. (…) Thus, social, for ANT, is the name of a type of
                     momentary association which is characterized by the way it gathers togeth-
                     er into new shapes” (Latour 2005, 64-65, emphasis added).

                                           Definition no. 3:

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
ontologies attributed to the actors within the frame” (Lynch 2013, 10, emphasis
added).
   14
      On “social theory as a practice,” see also Taylor (1983).
56                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Tecnoscienza – 6 (2)

                         “the local, face-to-face, naked, unequipped, and dynamic interactions”
                     (Latour 2005, 65, emphasis added).

    In contrast to Latour’s theoretical exercise, the key point of this paper,
as an ethnomethodological respecification, was not to make an argument
for this or that working definition of “the social” (for example, by favour-
ing definition no. 3 over definitions no. 1 and no. 2). Rather, it was (or
would be) to turn such arguments themselves into observable phenomena.
In the examined case of building maintenance, it could thus for instance
be observed how the involved participants themselves would act under
the auspices of alternative “working definitions” of the social. To begin
with, caretaker Edy could be seen to be acting under the auspices of con-
ventionally characterized “social ties” (definition no. 1), which imply an
asymmetric, socially sanctioned distribution of knowledge, in terms (say)
of “caretaker expertise” vs. “lay knowledge” (indeed, Edy attempted to
sustain his maintenance routine, regardless of any untrained intervention
by the co-present tenants). Bringing the examined encounter to a close,
Mrs S.’ final interjection in turn challenged these conventional auspices
and, more interestingly, achieved a “momentary association” (definition
no. 2) of a different kind (which, indeed, involved her and her partner,
Mr. S., in the diagnostic work – no longer the silent prerogative of the
professional – leading up to the pending repair). Finally, Mr. S.’ problem-
formulation-in-the-kitchen, and demonstrative walking-away-out-of-the-
kitchen, could be seen as initiating a particular “local interaction” (defini-
tion no. 3), if only to have its addressee (caretaker Edy) fix the indicated
problem15.
    Where does the outlined difference leave us with respect to STS and
other studies of repair and maintenance work? What our video analysis
has offered, we trust, is an empirical reminder of just how participants
themselves do not only act and interact in situ, but do also configure the
very site and situation of their (inter-)action in vivo. This configuration
work, as we have attempted to show, includes their own progressive (re-
)definitions of inquiry, (re-)definitions which build upon each other, in
and as the unfolding situation, rather than providing them with mutually
exclusive “definitions of the social” (e.g., Latour 2005, 131). Accordingly,
and with respect to repair and maintenance in situ, “the problem is not so
much to break out of the situation as to understand fully how it allows the
finite beings that we are [including Edy, Mr. S. and Mrs S.] to gain access
to the world and the type of control it exercises on experience and activi-
ty” (Quéré 1998, 239). Whether “full understanding” in that direction is

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
                     15
       In contrast to Mrs S.’ achievement of a new “momentary association,” Mr. S.
seems to base the “local interaction” initiated by him on the conventional “social
ties” implied and enacted by caretaker Edy’s conduct. Incidentally, this contrast
may also to exhibit participants’ orientation to a gendered distribution of expertise
(cf. Lagesen 2012).
Sormani, Strebel e Bovet                                                          57
to be reached by video analysis or any other means, in the domain of
building maintenance or elsewhere, must remain an open question. In a
nutshell, we have not so much attempted yet another “reversal” in STS
(cf. Woolgar 2004) or introduced “yet another axis of symmetry” (Lynch
2013, 6-7), so as to then figure out how questions of “multiplicity” and
“unity” (cf. Mol 1999), “sociality” and “materiality” (cf. Law and Mol
1995), or “stability” and “fragility” (cf. Denis and Pontille 2015) play out
in particular situations. Rather, we have tried to make explicit the particu-
lar situation under scrutiny, including its participants’ ways of defining
and redefining it in their own terms, concepts, and distinctions (such as
“hot water is not flowing in the bathroom either”). “Common sense” was
thus not to be challenged, but to be described in its situated operation,
affording us with the very basis for the listed questions to be asked.


Acknowledgements

    First, we would like to thank the caretakers and tenants who participated in
our initial video ethnography. Without them, this ethnomethodological study of
repair work wouldn’t have been possible. Furthermore, we would like to
acknowledge the editors’ constructive criticism of our paper, as well as its two
anonymous reviewers’ observations and commentaries. They all helped us to im-
prove the paper, although we remain of course responsible for its shortcomings.
Finally, we thank the Swiss National Science Foundation (Project “Repair,
Maintenance and Urban Assemblage” No. 149478), the ETH Wohnforum – ETH
CASE at ETH Zurich, the Department of STS at the University of Vienna, and
the Swiss Institute in Rome for their support.


References

Buscher, M., Goodwin, D., and Mesman, J. (eds.) (2010) Ethnographies of Diag-
   nostic Work. Dimensions of Transformative Practice, London, Palgrave Mac-
   millan.
Button, G. (ed.) (1991) Ethnomethodology and the Human Sciences, Cambridge,
   Cambridge University Press.
Denis, J. and Pontille, D. (2010) Petite sociologie de la signalétique. Les coulisses
   des panneaux du metro, Paris, Presses des Mines ParisTech.
Denis, J. and Pontille, D. (2015) Material Ordering and the Care of Things, in
   “Science, Technology & Human Values”, 40 (3), pp. 338–367.
Dewey, J. (2008[1938]) Logic: The Theory of Inquiry, in E.J. Boydston (ed.), The
   Later Works of John Dewey, Volume 12, 1925 - 1953: 1938. (Collected Works
   of John Dewey 1882-1953), Carbondale, Southern Illinois University Press,
Garfinkel, H. (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Pren-
   tice-Hall.
58                                                                 Tecnoscienza – 6 (2)

Garfinkel, H. (1991) Respecification: evidence for locally produced, naturally ac-
   countable phenomena of order*, logic, reason, meaning, method, etc. in and as of
   the essential haecceity of immortal ordinary society (I) an announcement of
   studies, in G. Button (ed.), Ethnomethodology and the human sciences, Cam-
   bridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 10–19.
Garfinkel, H. (2002) Ethnomethodology's Program: Working out Durkheim's Aph-
   orism (Introduced and Edited by Anne Warfield Rawls), Boston, Rowman
   and Littlefield.
Gold, R. (1950) The Chicago Flat Janitor, University of Chicago, Department of
   Sociology, Unpublished PhD Thesis.
Gold, R. (1964) In the basement – The Apartment-Building Janitor, in P.L. Berger
   (ed.) The Human Shape of Work, New York, The Macmillan Company, pp.
   20–36.
Graham, S. and Thrift, N. (2007) Out of Order: Understanding Repair and
   Maintenance, in “Theory, Culture & Society”, 24 (3), pp. 1–25.
Henke, C. (2000) The Mechanics of Workplace Order: Toward a Sociology of Re-
   pair, in “Berkeley Journal of Sociology”, 44, pp. 55–81.
Hughes, E.C. (1951) Mistakes at Work, in “Canadian Journal of Economics and
  Political Science”, 17, pp. 320–327.
Jackson, S. (2014) Rethinking Repair, in T. Gillespie, P. Boczkowski and K. Foo
    (eds.), Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society,
    Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, pp. 221–240.
Jarzabkowski, P. and Pinch, T. (2013) Sociomateriality is ‘the New Black’: Accom-
    plishing Repurposing, Reinscripting and Repairing in Context, in
    “M@n@gement”, 16 (5), pp. 579–592.
Lagesen, V.A. (2012) Reassembling Gender: Actor-Network Theory (ANT) and the
   Making of the Technology in Gender, in “Social Studies of Science”, 42 (3), pp.
   442–448.
Latour, B. (2005) Reassembling the Social. An Introduction to Actor-Network-
   Theory, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Latour, B. (2006) Changer de société, refaire la sociologie, Paris, La Découverte.
Law, J. (2009) Actor Network Theory and Material Semiotics, in B.S. Turner (ed.)
   The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, Oxford, Blackwell, pp. 142–
   158.
Law, J. and Mol, A. (1995) Notes on Materiality and Sociality, in “Sociological Re-
   view”, 43 (2), pp. 274–294.
Livingston, E. (2008) Ethnographies of Reason, Aldershot, UK, Ashgate.
Lynch, M. (1993) Scientific Practice and Ordinary Action: Ethnomethodology and
   Social Studies of Science, New York, Cambridge University Press.
Lynch, M. (2013), Postscript Ontography: Investigating the Production of Things,
   Deflating Ontology, in “Social Studies of Science”, 43 (3), pp. 444–462.
Sormani, Strebel e Bovet                                                           59
Macbeth, D. (1999) Glances, Trances, and their Relevance for a Visual Sociology, in
   P.L. Jalbert (ed.), Media Studies: Ethnomethodological Approaches, Lanham,
   MD, University Press of America, pp. 135–70.
Mol, A. (1999) Ontological Politics. A Word and Some Questions, in J. Law and J.
   Hassard (eds.) Actor Network Theory and After, Oxford, Blackwell, pp. 74–89.
Mol, A. (2010) Actor-Network Theory: Sensitive Terms and Enduring Tensions, in
   “Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie”, 50, pp. 253–269.
Orr, J. (1996) Talking about Machines: An Ethnography of a Modern Job, Itacha,
   NY, Cornell University Press.
Quéré, L. (1998) The still-neglected situation?, in “Réseaux”, 6 (2), pp. 223–253.
Sayes, E. (2014) Actor-Network Theory and Methodology: Just what Does it Mean
   to Say that Nonhumans Have Agency?, in “Social Studies of Science”, 44 (1),
   pp. 134-149.
Sharrock, W. and Anderson, R.J. (1986) The Ethnomethodologists, Chichester, El-
   lis Horwood.
Taylor, C. (1983) Social Theory as Practice, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Tironi, M. (2015) (De)politicising and Ecologising Bicycles: The history of the Paris-
    ian Vélib'system and its controversies, in “Journal of Cultural Economy”, 8 (2),
    pp. 166–183.
Ureta, S. (2014) Normalizing Transantiago: On the Challenges (and Limits) of Re-
   pairing Infrastructures, in “Social Studies of Science”, 44, pp. 368–392.
Van Maanen, J. (1988) Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography, Chicago, Chi-
   cago University Press.
Woolgar, S. (2004) What Happened to Provocation in Science and Technology
  Studies?, in “History and Technology”, 20 (4), pp. 339–349.
Zimmerman, D. and Pollner, M. (1970) The Everyday World as a Phenomenon, in
   J. Douglas (ed.) Understanding Everyday Life: Toward a Reconstruction of So-
   ciological Knowledge, Chicago, Aldine Press, pp. 80–103.
60                                                          Tecnoscienza – 6 (2)

Appendix I: Transcription conventions and screenshots

     pb           plumber
     und hier     German language line
     and here     English translation line
     ()           incomprehensible passage
     (go ahead)   uncertain hearing
     ((does))     description, comment
     ‘            comment on simultaneous non-verbal activity; if
                  there is a verbal line, marked on the verbal line and
                  again on the comment line
                  Ex.:      ‘I do not know
                            ‘((walks out of the kitchen))
     #1           indication of video still placement in the transcribed
                  activity


Appendix II: Schematic representation of mixer tap
