Actor-Network Theory

Overview

ANT has evolved from its origins in explaining diffusion (or non-diffusion) of technological innovations to its application to a much broader range of social phenomena in information science, sociology, political science, and many other fields.

Key Concepts and Terms

• Semiotics is the theory and study of communication and language in terms of signs and symbols. As such, ANT is closely related to symbolic interactionism.

• Networks are the integration of the material and semiotic environments. ANT may be seen as a type of "material semiotics." The concept of generalized symmetry is the presumption that the material and semiotic components of networks are co-equal in importance. The concept of entelechy describes the mixing of material and human factors in networks. The term actor-network in ANT's name conveys the idea that the actor does not act "on his own" but only under the influence of a complex network of material and semiotic influences.
  • Simultaneous becoming. Culture, society, and nature are constructed simultaneously (Latour, 1992: 281) and are in a perpetual state of becoming. Therefore it is incorrect to think social causes can explain nature, or that natural science can explain the construction of culture. All are part of an interactive network in constant transition.

• Actants rather than actors is a term used to stress that material causes as well as human actors may be determinants of social interactions and outcomes. The concept of actants in a network also stresses the interaction between material and human factors in any process. Actants may be sea scallops in the study of a network of marine biologists by Callon (1986), or may be technology in the organization, or may be data supporting a scientist's arguments. Human actors define representation of material actants, affecting how material environment interacts with actors in the network. Though representation is necessary for non-human actants, for some authors an "actor" is any system element which influences others in the network, be it a human being, a text, or an artifact. Other authors use "actor" to refer to humans and "actant" to refer to other influential system elements.

• Punctualisation refers to the concept that the whole network is greater than the sum of its constituent parts. As networks build, synergistic capabilities are enabled; as networks fall apart, de-punctualisation refers to the collapse of networked capabilities as individual components struggle to pursue their individual goals separately.

• Tokens are the quasi-objects created through the synergy of network punctualisation. Their repeated creation strengthens and reifies the network. Failure of constituent parts to perform their roles, whether material or human, and whether through incapacity or disinterest, leads to network breakdown and de-punctualisation.

• Translation is the term Callon (1986) used to refer to the process of forming a network, in his case a network of marine biologists seeking to restock the St. Brieauc Bay for the scallop industry. In Callon's conceptualization, the process occurs in four moments or steps, which by their original French labels are: (i) Problematisation, which defines the problem and the set of relevant actors; (ii) Interessement, during which the primary actor seeks to interest other actors in assuming roles in the network; (iii) Enrolment, during which actors actually accept and take on these roles; and (iv) Mobilisation, during which enrolled actors seek to mobilize their constituencies to action. Translation involves negotiations among human actors and representatives of material actants. Negotiations establish common sets of definitions and meanings for understanding the phenomena with which the network is concerned. The outcome of successful negotiations is an actor-network characterized by aligned interests. The degree of alignment is the degree of convergence of an actor-network.

  Negotiation in the translation process is marked by:

  • Obligatory passage points are critical network channels. often designed by the primary actor to ensure communication must pass through his or her domain. That is, through obligatory passage points the actor becomes functionally indispensible to the network.

  • Cooptation, a subprocess by which actants seek to have their individual objectives become agreed to by other actants as part of defining network objectives.

  • Black-boxing , a subprocess by which the network is simplified by treating subnetworks, possibly quite complex ones, as single elements in an actor-network (ex., in a scientific network, the Academy of Sciences may be black-boxed and treated as a an element represented by an actor).

  • Irreversibility is achieved by an actor-network when it is no longer possible to return to an earlier network state or to alternatives present prior to the network.

• Network instability. Actor-networks are in a continual state of becoming, including possible dissolution. From the viewpoint of the primary actor, networks demand continual maintenance or order. Amont the ongoing processes of actor-networks are challenges to the role of the primary actor, desertion, betrayal, recruitment by competing networks, and all manner of changes in the constituent elements of the network.

• Methodology. The primary ANT method is ethnographic, based on interviews with actors. ANT scholars also study "inscriptions," a phrase which refers to all texts and communications in all media. In the study of science and technology, inscriptions may be conference papers, journal articles, grants, and patents. The two methods are related, since inscriptions are the path used by actors to gain credibility in enrolment and cooptation processes during translation. That is, inscription is a process of creating text and communication artifacts that enhance and perpetuate the interests of an actor.

  
  

Assumptions

• Reification. When discussing material actants, ANT scholars must be careful not to reify objects or ascribe intentionality to material objects.

• Equicausality. When discussing the generalized symmetry of networks, ANT scholars must be careful not to ascribe equal causal significance to each network element, even if all are essential to achieving network synergies. Because of the ethnographic and narrative presentation of case material, ANT scholarship can seem to sidestep important causal issues, focusing instead on symbolically interesting aspects of network processes.

• Systemic rather than heroic explanation. ANT is an antidote to heroic interpretations of innovations or events, diminishing the causal role played by individual (ex., scientists with regard to inventions) and increasing the emphasis placed on their material and institutional environment.

• Determinism. Because actor-network theory diminishes the causal independence of the actor and increases the causal importance of the network of material and semiotic influences, an extreme version of ANT would be deterministic, assuming the actor was a function of the network of material and semiotic influences. However, ANT actually stands opposed either material (ex., economic) determinism or to "human free will" explanation of processes and events.

Illustrative Hypotheses

• In accounting for outcomes, both material and human factors will play significant causal roles.

• The development of networks will be describable in terms of Callon's "four moments of translation" described above.

• Network persistence is a function of role repetition by actants.

• Primary actors tend to create and perpetuate obligatory passage points for channeling network communication, such that channels pass through their domain.

Bibliography

• Callon, Michel (1986a). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay." In John Law, ed. (1986). Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• Callon, Michel (1986b). The sociology of an actor-network: The case of the electric vehicle. In M. Callon, J. Law, & A. Rip. Houndmills, eds. Mapping the dynamics of science and technology: Sociology of science in the real world. London: Macmillan.
• Latour, Bruno (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
• Latour, Bruno (1988). The Pasteurization of France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Latour, Bruno (1992). One turn after the social turn ... . Pp. 272-294 in E. McMullin, ed. The social dimensions of science. Notre Dame, IN: University of Note Dame Press.
• Latour, Bruno (1999). On recalling ANT. In J. Law & J. Hassard, eds. Actor network theory and after. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
• Latour, Bruno (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory. NYand Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Law, John (1987). Technology and heterogeneous engineering: The case of Portuguese expansion. In W.E. Bijker, T.P. Hughes, and T.J. Pinch, eds. The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Law, John (1992). Notes on the theory of actor-network: Ordering, strategy and heterogeneity. Systems Practice 5: 379–93.
• Law, John & John Hassard, eds. (1999). Actor network theory and after. Oxford: Blackwell Pub.
• Sarker, S., & Sidorova, A. (2006). Actor-networks and business process change failure: An interpretive case study. Journal of Management Information Systems 23(1), 51-86.
• Walsham, G. (1997). Actor-network theory and IS research: Current status and future prospects. Pp. 466-480 in A. S. Lee, J. Liebenau, & J. I. DeGross, eds. (1997). Information systems and qualitative research. London: Chapman and Hall.