Hidrogeno

The empirical material for this research came from multiple sources collected in two phases. During the first phase, which ran from September 14 – October 16, 2015, I visited three sites: DAFS (local child support agency in Las Vegas, Nevada), OCSE (federal agency responsible for the program in Washington D.C.), and NCSEA (largest professional body advocating for the child support community with offices located in McLean, Virginia). I spent three and a half weeks at DAFS, the chosen site for my network-tracing. I then proceeded to the federal office, where I met with members of staff from both the Division of Policy and Training and Division of Performance and Statistical Analysis. The first phase ended with an interview with the NCSEA representative in Virginia. To explore further the emerging themes from my 2015 fieldwork, I secured funding from the Russell Trust to support my second phase of data collection held at a training event in Salt Lake City, Utah from October 1 – 6, 2016. The event was organized by the Western Interstate Child Support Enforcement Council (WICSEC14_{), a child support professional organization that holds annual}

training conferences for public and private child support professionals from the western states.

I relied on ethnographic and case-study methods for recording and exploring the measures’ network of relations to explain their performative effects on DAFS’ performance. I conducted 26 face-to-face interviews and 8 group interviews of two to six participants (see Table 4-1 and Table 4-2). A total of 51 study participants, which included managers, supervisors, team leads, analysts, caseworkers, lawyers, and heads of agencies, agreed to be recorded during the sessions, each averaging approximately an hour. I used semi-structured interviews (see Appendix) to help navigate the exploration but remained open to and pursued unexpected leads. This means that I

14 _{On 2018, WICSEC has changed to the Western Intergovernmental Child Support Engagement}

59 consciously used the interview schedule as a thematic guide, with a lot of flexibility, to allow the respondent to develop his or her own story (Meuser & Nagel, 2009). I conducted eight observations (see Table 4-3) involving staff across all levels of the organization. I also collected several internal and publicly available materials (in electronic and conventional forms). This research project, however, was not exempt from snags. When uncertainties cropped up or I realized that I could have done something better, I quickly changed gears and tried to respond to the situation (see Appendix).

Pseudonym Classification Venue Duration _DAFS Yrs Yrs _CS Transcribed Coded

Andy Leadership My office 01:29:38 15 15 Y Y Erwin Leadership My office 01:14:58 8 8 Y Y Alison Leadership Conference Rm 01:31:44 21 21 Y Y John Support Staff My office 00:50:04 4 4 Y Y Rachel Leadership Interviewee's office 00:32:16 18 18 Y Y Marie Leadership Interviewee's office 01:17:45 11 11 Y Y Kristine Leadership Conference Rm 00:47:29 12 17 Y Y Bill Leadership Interviewee's office 01:17:39 5.5 15.33 Y Y Jim Support Staff Conference Rm 00:56:38 8 8 Y Y Lesley Leadership Conference Rm 00:49:35 17 17 Y Y Alyssa Leadership Conference Rm 01:16:59 10 16 Y Y Kathlyn Support Staff Conference Rm 00:50:36 3 3 Y Y Kati Support Staff Conference Rm 00:52:31 13 13 Y Y Eleanor Support Staff Interviewee's office 00:48:22 15 15 Y Y Tona Leadership Conference Rm 00:38:04 12 12 Y Y Paula Leadership Conference Rm 00:58:39 11 11 Y Y Sonia Leadership Interviewee's office 00:39:18 18 18 Y Y Suzanne Support Staff Interviewee's office 00:45:56 30 30 Y Y Daria Support Staff Conference Rm 00:59:38 14 14 Y Y Eddie Leadership Conference Rm 00:58:43 2.5 3.5 Y Y Andrea Support Staff Conference Rm 00:41:36 26 26 Y Y Marta Leadership Conference Rm 01:00:53 8 8 Y Y Kevin Leadership Interviewee's office 01:01:05 8 8 Y Y Trixie Leadership Conference Rm 00:56:33 1 1 Y Y Jessica* NCSEA External 00:34:01 N/A 5 Y Y Sally* WICSEC External 00:18:51 N/A - P N/A

60

Focus Group Pseudonym Classification Venue Duration _DAFS Yrs Yrs _CS Trans Coded

FG1PatStaff Simone Support Staff Conference Rm _00:38:16 15 15 Y Y FG1PatStaff Nancy Support Staff Conference Rm 19 19 Y Y FG2EnfSup Sarah Leadership Conference Rm

01:12:59

20 20 Y Y FG2EnfSup Deb Leadership Conference Rm 16 16 Y Y FG2EnfSup Donna Leadership Conference Rm 19 19 Y Y FG2EnfSup Joanna Leadership Conference Rm 11 11 Y Y FG3EnfStaff Jenny Support Staff Conference Rm

01:04:47

10 10 Y Y FG3EnfStaff Edelyn Support Staff Conference Rm 16 16 Y Y FG3EnfStaff Katrina Support Staff Conference Rm 10 10 Y Y FG4IntStaff Veronica Support Staff Conference Rm _00:56:14 19 19 Y Y FG4IntStaff Shiela Support Staff Conference Rm 13 13 Y Y FG5LegStaff Alistair Support Staff Conference Rm _00:49:20 17 17 Y Y FG5LegStaff Alex Support Staff Conference Rm 13 13 Y Y FG6Support Judith Support Staff Conference Rm _00:38:03 21 21 Y Y FG6Support Mariana Support Staff Conference Rm 18 18 Y Y FG7Mix Lori Support Staff Conference Rm

01:18:25

8 8 Y Y FG7Mix Kay Support Staff Conference Rm 5 5 Y Y FG7Mix Sally Support Staff Conference Rm 16 16 Y Y FG7Mix Jill Support Staff Conference Rm 12.5 12.5 Y Y FG8FEDS* Graham Leadership OCSE Office

01:26:10

N/A 10 Y Y FG8FEDS* Margaret Leadership OCSE Office N/A 25 Y Y FG8FEDS* Judy Leadership OCSE Office N/A 8 Y Y FG8FEDS* Ann Leadership OCSE Office N/A 3 Y Y FG8FEDS* Betty Leadership OCSE Office N/A 5 Y Y FG8FEDS* Steve Leadership OCSE Office N/A 39 Y Y

Table 4-2 Group interviews

Observation Participants Venue Date

Management Mtg Managers & Guest Staff Meeting Room/Legal Library 21-Sep-15 Software Update Mtg Managers & Analysts IT Conference Room 24-Sep-15 Software Demo IT Staff Small Conference Rm 25-Sep-15 Management Mtg Managers & Guest Staff Meeting Room/Legal Library 28-Sep-15 Training Session Supervisors & Managers Large Conference Rm 29-Sep-15 Mailroom Planning IT & Mailroom Staff Large Conference Rm 29-Sep-15 Supervisors Mtg Manager & Supervisors Small Conference Rm 30-Sep-15 Drug Court* DAFS Attorney, Court Staff, & Public DAFS Court Room 2-Oct-15

Table 4-3 Observations

These methods allowed me to get to the ‘associations and assembling’ (Latour, 2005) that held DAFS’ network together, and the controversies that actants had to address and stabilize through their re-associations and re-assembling, or what Callon (1998a, 1999, 2007) refers to as framing and reframing. Knowing that it was not going to be easy to ‘catch up with [actors’] often wild innovations in order to learn from them what the collective existence has become in their hands, which methods

61 they have elaborated to make it fit together’ (Latour, 2005: 12), I decided to begin by letting human actors deploy their ‘world’ through reflexive interviews (Denzin, 2001). I used the interview as a narrative device that lets actors tell their story, creating and giving meaning to the world they perform (Denzin, 2001). I also observed some of their practices (e.g. meetings and training sessions) to get a sense of how their

narratives play out to express their concerns. I examined the traces they left behind by reviewing documents and artifacts (approximately 60) they produced, mentioned, or regularly consulted. I visited several websites to obtain a better understanding of their connections with the outside world. Without letting methodological standards or rules set the limits, I used these methods with flexibility, recognizing that the world I am trying to understand is a ‘generative flux of forces and relations that work to produce particular realities’ (Law, 2004: 7). But, like Law (2004), I acknowledge that there is a world out there, and it is how my knowledge, actions, and re-actions help generate that world.