This study aims to examine the role of devices in assessing the social impact of an organization. The study examines the effects of device and analyst expertise on the contents and conclusions of the report.
Six impact reports based on the same data from the same organization were compared to each other, to the charity data and to the devices used. Specific attention is paid to the role of the device’s sociomaterial form and discursive entanglements.
The six reports assessed the impact differently from each other and in ways that were consistent with the devices used. The devices performatively reconfigured the charity in impact reports through a series of omissions and misrepresentations which could be traced to the discourses hardwired into the devices themselves. The devices did not simply present the same impact assessment to different audiences or for different purposes, but (mis)represented the charity in specific ways aligned with the discursive entanglements.
The performativity of sociomaterial impact devices has implications for how researchers approach the study of impact measurement.
In this study, faithful adherence to an impact device led to greater omissions and misrepresentations than less expert impact assessments. Analysts should be supported to identify biases in their devices and be aware of sorts of omissions and misrepresentations that may result. Faithful adherence may not be the mark of rigorous analysis.
Performativity of impact measurement devices is explored with a unique data set.
