ant

toc

Actor-network theory (ANT)
DRAFT 1159178557

What is ANT?
As described by John Law, actor-network theory (ANT) is > an approach to sociotechnical analysis that treats entities and materialities as enacted and relational effects, and explores the configurations of those relations. Its relationality means that major ontological categories (for instance ['culture'], 'technology,' and 'society' ...) are treated as effects or outcomes, rather than as explanatory resources. (2004, p. 156)

To Michael Callon > ANT is based on no stable theory of the actor; in other words, it assumes the radical indeterminacy of the actor. For example, neither the actor's size nor its psychological make-up nor the motivations behind its actions are predetermined. In this respect ANT is a break from the more orthodox currents of social science. This hypothesis (which Brown and Lee equate to political ultra-liberalism) has, as we well know, opened the social sciences to non-humans. (Callon, 1999, quoted http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/ant_dff.html, retrieved September 23, 2006)

Cordella and Shaikh emphasis that theory, in understanding a dynamic network of actors, needs to be allowed to ANT "theory evolves, and is defined within its use." What then is ANT? Cordella and Shaikh paraphrase Law (1990) to suggest perhaps wryly that "ANT is not anything in particular, " (2006, forthcoming, human agency sect.).

Some useful literature
e.g. Fox (2002); e.g. Roy (2000); e.g. Sasha Barab's 'theoretical inspiration; e.g. Benson & Standing, (2001/2005); e.g. Margaryan, Currier, Littlejohn, & Nicol, (2006); e.g. Macome's (2002) Ph.D

History and key concepts
> Actor-Network Theory (ANT) emerges from the application of social sciences to technology. [ANT recognises] there are many factors that influence the action of an individual. … [Influence factors are said to form a network of heterogeneous actors.] It should be realised that an 'actor' need not be human after all software may be regarded as a 'role' for hardware to perform. If we consider knowledge management [as the subject of an ANT investigation], then the key concepts we may draw from ANT are those of translation and inscription. Systems design should be seen as an act translating apparent needs into a //solution// which is inscribed into the system. The inscription includes explicit programs for action for uses and role definitions for the system and users. By inscribing a particular pattern onto technology, the technology becomes an actor and imposes its inscribed action onto its users. The process of inscription is cumulative; a single work routine may be inscribed into several system components. … (Boston & Standing, 2001/2005 p. 214-215, emphasis added)

> The power of ANT lies in its qualitative expressiveness, and understanding of how actor networks operate may allow the creation of more 'appropriate' network and the deployment of effective change agents. (p. 216)

According to Boston and Standing (2001/2005), the intimate relationship between computer architecture and software has produced a professional mindset that is unsuited to newer, knowledge-based business paradigms, (p. 203). In this section I explore the relevance of ANT in suggesting an epistemological position that view technology as but one of many actors (or actants), that effect the decisions of individual system users.

Lea on ANT
From the perspective Actor-Network Theory (ANT) the classification of content in online databases can be seen as a process of 'information ordering', part of an interaction between a network of both human and non-human agents. In the ANT view the organisation and ordering of information is seen as integral to the maintenance of knowledge within a given social order. While Mary Lea (2004) provides only a cursory introduction to actor-network theory, she highlights how ANT recognises that the material world and the existing social order are integrally related. Citing John Law (1992 //todo check endnote//) Lea argues ANT is a non-reductionist framework since it does not distinguish between human and non-human actants (sic). As Law argues, "knowledge always has a material form," (Lea, pp. 14-15). Law sees that objects operate on us and "influence the way in which [we] act," (Law 1992 quoted Lea p. 15). Knowledge may be seen as manifest in emails and conference papers, and in the skills of those who write and organise content in online databases. Lea contends that literacies should be seen as neither technologically nor socially determined, since either would be reductionist. The literacy of interest – in the case of this research – is the user's skill in creating, classifying and interlinking content in databases on the World Wide Web. ANT provides a conceptual framework from which "knowledge … can be viewed as a social product," the effect of a network of human and non-human actants. (Lea, p. 14). Thus, as Lea suggests, we should consider ANT as a relevant conceptual framework for understanding the skills, and practices of the users of technologies in learning, since ANT brings focus to both human interaction and technology; as Law emphasises: "all our interactions with other people are mediated through objects and networks of objects," (Lea, p. 14). Both ANT and Activity Theory (see below), "blur the distinction between things and humans and between technologies and practices," (Lea, p. 15). In ANT terms, the organisation and ordering of information in its material form is integral to the maintenance and development particular social orders (Lea, 2004), or dear we say 'community'.

[Insert] Suchman on bridge design
//What sort of research values?// e.g. Macome (2002)

There are many descriptions of actor-network theory, (e.g. Latour, 1987, 1991 1997b; Callon 1986, 1991). Lea (2004) points to the work of John Law (1992), reporting that to Law (at least) ANT is concerned with networks of society, agents and machines; ANT does not distinguish between human and non human actants. [define]. Lea offers that ANT, like activity theory, focuses "on the tool-mediated nature of human interaction, [blurring] the distinction between things and humans and between technologies and practices," (check quote Lea, 2004, p.15). Law suggests, according to Lea, "that knowledge always has a material form: manifest for example, in conference papers, the skills of engineers, computer terminals," (Lea, p. 15). Lea also emphasises that "knowledge is also concerned with the organisation and ordering of these material forms," (Ibid.)

To Esselina Macome "Actor-network theory is an alternative approach to the theory of social construction of technology for the conceptualisation of the role of technology in micro-studies," (Macome, 2002, p.40). [//Then Hislop …//] It follows then, that knowledge in ANT is viewed as a 'social product', the effect of a "network of heterogenous material," (e.g. Law, 1992, 2003).

Problems with ANT
As Boston and Standing (2001/2005) point out, "ANT is a hard edged, semiotic form of social constructivism and as such will not be appealing to the mind set that operates in an analytical-realist mode," (p.215). My point is however, to offer ANT as one of three practice theories (PBTs), to amplify the argument for an epistemology that is not positivist and NOT analytical-realist. [More on epistemology].

Why use ANT?
Why use actor-network theory in this research? Cordella and Shaikh argue, ANT "is increasingly used as an analytical framework to inform IS [information systems] research. It has often been described as the theory that gives voice to technological artefacts," (2005, p. 3)

Internal links

 * actant
 * ANT's ontological_categories & constructs