ontological_categories

toc

ANT's ontological categories & constructs
DRAFT 1160367653 1000 words

Actor-network theory (ANT) offers a distinct perspective on the dynamic relationality of human and non-human actors, and their networks. Consideration of ANT's ontological categories and constructs offers us the chance to think about kinds of entities can or do exist in a particular domain, and what are their conditions of existence; their relational dependencies; and the role of the ontological assumptions or categories that researchers might seek to investigate, be it in ANT or another Practice Based Theory (PBT) (e.g. CoPs or activity theory)?

In actor-network theory (ANT), the creation of reality and meaning within networks of heterogenous human and non-human actants is seen as emergent, dynamic and socially constructed. A recent article by Cordella and Shaikh (2006, forthcoming) emphasises that ANT studies should begin with the assumption that there may be a reality 'out there' but it will only be revealed if each actant is allowed to speak with its own voice. Cordella and Shaikh argue that ANT has a distinct ontological stance, that should be applied to the study of the dynamic emergent relations within networks of heterogenous elements, and not merely used to the researcher’s interpretation of how the element’s meanings and their roles in constructing the actor-network. Understanding ANT's distinctive ontological stance may help use to analyse the dynamic relations of human and non actors and their networks.

Interpretivist ANT
Cordella and Shaikh, in their quest to find the 'truth' behind actor-network theory (ANT), suggest that while ANT has been extensively "used as an analytical framework to inform IS [information systems] research, (2006, intro. sect.), there is a problem in that most ANT research has used ANT as an "interpretive lens rather that an ontological foundation," (ibid, abstract).

To Cordella and Shaikh > actor-network theory] has the potential to provide an alternative ontology to constructivism that can supply a rich milieu to inform research in [information systems], especially for alternative explanations of the nature of dynamic ... interplay between technological artefacts and people. (2006, forthcoming, intro. sect.)

Through much of this literature I have considered the merits of using ANT, (together with activity theory (AT) and CoPs, two other practice based theories PBTs), as multiple interpretive lenses, but Cordella and Shaikh argue ANT is **not** constructionist; and to use ANT only as a lens would be too restrictive and too limiting. While constructionist approaches make the assumption that technological change is the outcome of "a number of technological controversies, disagreements, and difficulties, and involve different //actors//," (Brey, 1997; quoted (Cordella & Shaikh, 2006, forthcoming, ANT sect.), a more ontological approach would be to consider how the categories constructed in an ANT investigation come to be assigned to what elements (an actor, the network and/or the context of the analysis), by whom and how these categories are fluid, and how they are given currency in the research.

How then, might this research project take advantage of what Cordella and Shaikh refer to as ANT’s 'unique ontological foundations'? Could those foundations help inform research into technological artefacts and the practices of human actors, and the interactions and networked relations of both human and non-human actors, and their inter-networked relations with a dynamic community of practice (cops|CoP]]) who members use online systems to create tags and make social connections for the purpose of creating and sharing knowledge?

Cordella & Shaikh claim ANT brings focus onto the mutually constitutive nature of relations between networked elements; that is, ANT privileges: > The relationships developed in a network that dynamically shape and re-shape actors [since it is those relationships that] also define recursively the characteristics of the involved actors. The actor can thus be defined as on output of the relationships in a network. (Cordella & Shaikh, 2006, forthcoming, sect 3.) //[todo check quote]//

In other words, the network of elements can be seen as 'constituted' by the actor's embodied characteristics and their interrelational dimensions. The actors and their networks are mutually constituted in "A process which is circular and recursive, the course that defines and redefines actors in their multiple contexts," (Cordella & Shaikh, 2006, forthcoming, ANT sect.).

ANT's ontological dimension
Cordella and Shaikh highlight that it is the interactions of both human and non-human elements that constitutes each actor's gained characteristics in collective network of mutually constructed realities. To this end, it is both human and non-human actors that have agency. Each actor’s agency is established through practice. (Cordella & Shaikh, 2006, forthcoming, ontology or lens sect.) In other words, technical actors achieve agency through the practices they acquire. Citing Callon and Law (1995), Cordella and Shaikh, (2006) explain that non-human actors can achieve agency through their relations in a heterogeneous network. Thus it is the relations between the non-human and human actors is said to perform, and this performance, in turn, creates agency, (ontology or lens sect.). In John Law ' s view, the network is a "a //collectif// … an emergent effect created by the interaction of the heterogeneous parts that make it up" (Callon & Law, 1995 quoted Cordella & Shaikh, 2006, forthcoming, ontology or lens sect.); that is the collectif achieves agency through its many constituent actants, and their dynamic alignments and interactions, (Cordella & Shaikh, 2006, forthcoming.). Cordella and Shaikh (2006, forthcoming, ontology or lens sect.) argue ANT should not rely on researcher’s interpretation of each actant’s heterogeneous relations, but rather the "researcher must allow the actants to 'speak for themselves,' and not to put words in their mouths," so to speak, because "ANT is concerned with the //interplay// [among multiple actors] and what emerges from this interplay," (2006, forthcoming, ontology or lens sect., emphasis in the original).

Further research
How then are we to understand the ontological foundations of theories we may think of applying to the research problem? How can we look at so called ‘social software’ application and justifiably presume there is a ' community'? Shouldn’t we begin by assuming that the tool is created as part of a network of relations with its users, non-users, commentators, other tools, and notions of community and related sociotechnical discourses about communities and technologies? Cordella & Shaikh (2006) offers a starting point from which to build a new anlysis of practice based theories and their application to the research problem.

Internal links

 * ANT actor-network theory
 * ontologies