Actor Network Theory - Science topic

In Actor-Network Theory (ANT), the actor and the network are not differentiated. Instead, they are considered as a heterogeneous amalgamation of textual, conceptual, social, and technical actors.

I wish you success, progress and tender in the paths of science and knowledge, looking forward to following the answer for you excellent question .

warm regards,

That means, you "just" want to compute nodes' centrality and relate that to some other node-level characteristics? Density is a network-level concept, so I don't know what you want to do with that in this context.

This is really interesting. I do photovoice research with non-binary young adults. I am currently preparing a study that will have small groups in various locations. Small groups will regularly connect with and report back to the larger collective group. We hope that this allows us to explore region specific issues, along with more broad ones. I'm definitely going to dig into your work!

I would say it is important to first situate the term "permaculture" with a thorough sociology of the sciences approach. To what extent is this term employed explicitly by local actors and not just academics/exterior intellectuals and what relation do these actors have with others in the region. It seems to me that permaculture is first and foremost a social concept, with a specific intellectual genealogy, that needs to be examined as such before being inserted in a non-human network analysis.

I have been using this model for literary criticism of plays where conflict occurs as a result of two groups in opposition. Here, I examine the classical and the romantic in plays produced in romantic period in Germany and France. In fact, this model was specifically applied in my doctoral thesis where I applied it to depict romantic traits in Victor Hugo's Hernani and Wolfgang Goethe's Faust. A paper is about to be published on this. I shall upload it as soon as it is published.

Tom R. Burns has numerous publications on this topic https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=oovHhQoAAAAJ&hl=en with some specific examples:

1. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26523071?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

2. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/9781315684260/chapters/10.4324/9781315684260-11

3.

4. http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A694929&dswid=1974

5. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xBDyPAAACAAJ

6. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5KrGmAEACAAJ

Very interesting questions! Two references come immediately to my mind: the first is Marilyn Strathern's "Cutting the Network" (https://www.jstor.org/stable/3034901?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents), which addresses the limits of networks both as objects and as analytical concepts. The other is John Law and his colleagues' paper "Modes of Syncretism" ( ), which offers a couple of tools to examine how various actor-networks may relate to each other.

Student actors spend much of their training regardless of methodological practice exploring emotion and how to create it, however, is it actually necessary? If they don't 'feel it' but 'fake it' instead and yet the audience is none the wiser, does it matter? From an artistic viewpoint as actor/artist perhaps, but in reality who actually cares? If an actor can't find the real emotion what do they do? Fake it? Why then are they not trained in faking it too? Should we be training actors to be mimics?

According to Latour, Actor-Network Theory is not a theoritical framework. It is an epistemological approach that avoids falling into the trap of analyses that draw their veracity from theoretical frameworks established a priori. I recommend you to read the dialogue between a university professor and a doctoral student told by Latour in his book ( Changer de société, refaire de la sociologie – Bruno LATOUR)

We could look at icons from two very different perspectives: social and personal (many other in-between scales could also be taken into account).

Regarding the former, when we talk about architectural icons, comes to mind landmark or famous buildings. They are supposed to be known by many people, otherwise they wouldn't function as landmarks. People use them as a base or referring point to find and address other places in cities, rural, natural or other environments. For any reasons many people know them. People agree that they are important for some reasons (size, social, economic, historical importance, etc.)

When it comes to the personal perspective, icons might be totally different. They might be hidden. They might be signs in individuals' minds. They might be secret images or sounds or smells or etc. that one remembers as the symbols or benchmarks when s/he thinks about or imagines an environment. Maybe they talk about them; maybe they don't.

Thanks you Andrzej

Thank you, Dr. Jochen Glaser

Your explanation is very helpful and patient.

I agree wtih you and Dr. Peter Weingart. The five characteristics which define the difference between Mode 2 and Mode 1 are not innovative. In addition, there are not many empirical analysis to point out that Mode 2 would replace Mode 1. But in Helga Nowotny, Peter Scott and Michael Gibbons(2003), their purpose was as much to address the need to invent a new language of research. That's why both 《The New Production of Knowledge》 and 《Re-Thinking Science》 were written as reflective essays rather than as empirical studies. So I have tried to view every single research in action with frame of Mode 2 and Mode 1. (Actually I still adopt Latour's spirit to do my research, His ANT method is attractive to a naive graduated student like me.)

In my research context, I try to give an answer to avoid the flaw in 5 methods of Alvin Goldman's " Expert: Which Ones Should You Trust?"(Goldman. 2001). Also, I wish that my research can do pre-work for Harry Collins's "The Third Wave of Science Studies".

If the Department of Science and technology( in Taiwan context) could analysis every single research with 5 characteristics(Context of application, heterogenous, transdiciplinary, accountability, quality control) and make the analysis public. When scientific or technological controversy shows up, policymaker or laypeople would easier to put their credence on experts and empower people to question experts.

Respectfully, thank you again.

Goldman. Alvin. (2001). Experts: Which Ones Should You: Philosophy and Phenomenological Research: 85-110.

Harry Collins, Robert Evans. (2007). Rethinking Expertise: The University of Chicago Press.

Helga Nowotny, Peter Scott and Michael Gibbons. (2003). Introduction: `Mode 2' Revisited: The New Production of Knowledge. Minerva: 179–194.

Check this links the articles maybe help you

Wonderful contribution from the other side of the ditch

David (In Melbourne)

Thanks for all. I will check the softwares for qda to visualize the model and see how ucinet works.

1. Development Studies Research and Actor-Network Theory - ANT4D hummedia.manchester.ac.uk/institutes/cdi/resources/cdi.../ANT4DPaper1Heeks.pdf

by R HEEKS - ‎Cited by 2 - ‎Related articles

concepts of actor-network theory to issues and cases within international development. Paper No. 1. Development Studies. Research and Actor-Network. Theory. 2. Actor-Network Theory Research - Research Explorer

May 28, 2016 - https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/actor-network-theory-research/ ... Actor Network Theory has grown into one of the most innovative and ... 3. Using actor-network theory to understand inter-

organizationalessay.utwente.nl/63005/1/master_thesis_s0211494_final_version.pdf

by D Hu - ‎2011 - ‎Cited by 2 - ‎

To regard this study as an inceptive try for applying actor-network theory in

4. Inter-organizational strategic information systems planning, actor-network theory, ..... of universities, Pirre, 2008.

http://www.tek.fi/ci/tekstra/StrategicCooperation.pdf ...

Dennis

Dennis Mazur

Hi Ralph. In this absence of common policy framework between countries the real objective of OBOR seems everything dominated by China. However by defining process aligning national interests of one participating countries in a way that could achieve some common objective would be an interesting research idea. I have few case studies from Pakistan and I want to make sense of this initiative by applying ANT. I would appreciate your guidance in this regard. You may also contact me at waqas19@qq.com if you are interested in sharing our learning experience. 

It would be best to begin with activity and network theories in genera,l to which activity network theory moves in a more focused context. Carl Butts article in Science Vol 325, No. 5939, pp 414-416 (2009) looks at foundations of network analysis and Tom Brughmans article in Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory Col 20 (2013); Yrjo Engestrom ( one of the leaders in developing activity theory) has written extensively on the subject --see Ergonomics 43, No 7 (2000) and Journal of Education and Work Vol 14, No 1 (2001) for a good bibliography of his work extending back into the 1980s.

Dear Ali, 

Rather than a framework, as suggested by previous commentator, ANT theorist proposed a different ontology of the social, one that does not preassume the relevance of any given relationship nor the type of agent performing them. Therefore the social flows through the association of different agents (actants) that are constantly recreating the world in novel associations. And here is when the role of the researcher is so (politcally) relevant. The researcher is another agent that through his/her description contributes to fix (temporarily) a studied network. "The social" in this case IS the network and is extended as far as the researcher can trace it. This does not mean that "the social" is limites to the researcher role and capacities to describe a given reality, but it does recognize the limititations of the social sciences to re-enact and represent all aspects of life. Nothing better to humourously understand the role of the researcher in ANT than Latour fabule-chapter "On the Difficulty of Being an ANT: An Interlude in

the Form of a Dialog" that you can find in his book Reassembling the Social.

Here are some thoughts on this question. As I understand it, actors are nothing but effects of networks. As Law puts it in ANT and Material Semiotics (2007): “Actor-network theory is a disparate family of material-semiotic tools, sensibilities and methods of analysis that treat everything in the social and natural worlds as a continuously generated effect of the webs of relations within which they are located. It assumes that nothing has reality or form outside the enactment of those relations. Its studies explore and characterise the webs and the practices that carry them. Like other material-semiotic approaches, the actor-network approach thus describes the enactment of materially and discursively heterogeneous relations that produce and reshuffle all kinds of actors including objects, subjects, human beings, machines, animals, ‘nature’, ideas, organisations, inequalities, scale and sizes, and geographical arrangements”.

I see no reason why we cannot add “participation” to the list above. Like the other items on the list, "participation" is nothing but  the effect of the webs of relations within which it is located. To me, the crucial point is if it is made to represent this network and its effects. If it is not, it is difficult to speak of it as an actor. Wihtin political discourse, at least, I would say that "participation" does represent a network (all those entities and relations that make up participation) and it does have an effect (it provides democratic legitimacy, for example).

Hi! 

Good question! I interpret it as searching for a paper written after the year 2000? ("21st century"?) Many papers mentioned here in the discussion are surely important for us today, but written in the 20th century.

With this limitation, I would like to suggest George Siemens "Connectivism and connective knowledge"  http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm , not because it it yet so influential, or "right" or fully developed (it isn't) but because it takes very seriously the task of thinking of reconsidering what learning is or should be in an age of information flow and rapid development of knowledge, without falling in a trap of digitalisation of learning content, "e-learning" as something completely revolutionary per se. 

Without being related, the information philosopher Luciano Floridi has similar freshness and approach in taking ICTs seriously, but is very much more radical, he aims at reconstructing philosophy "of our age, gor our age". Learning is important, but used as an area of examples so far. But you can read his "E-ducation and the languages of information" to get an idea of his approach. In learning theory he is a kind of constructionist, like Seymour Papert.

I hope these papers provokes you!

I know nothing about Actor Network Theory beyond scanning WIkipedia, but I do know a lot about systems thinking, having published four books on the subject.  I would support the other comments that what constitutes 'systems thinking' is a much disputed and muddled concept.  It also looks like Actor Network Theory shares similar dynamics.  In which case linking the two could be similar to nailing jello to jello with string.  So what I'd need to know is what you understand by 'systems thinking' (and in my book it's a heck of a lot more than just being aware of inter-relationships).  But perhaps more importantly would be to understand much more about what it is you are actually trying to do.

Feel free to contact me by email - bob@bobwilliams.co.nz

Hi Mohammed

I have a small list of ANT papers which might be interesting for you. I also pulled out a much shorted list of those which address quality issues. I hope that helps.

Regards

Bob

enc

I thoroughly recommend Mützel, S (2009), 'Networks as Culturally Constituted Processes: A Comparison of Relational Sociology and Actor-Network Theory', Current Sociology, vol. 57, no. 6, November 1, 2009, pp. 871-887.

and on the question of  " is ANT a theory? " i find myself shifting on this issue frequently.  To make up your own mind, I refer you to Anne-Marie Mol (2010) who proposes we can conceive of ANT as a theory, where a ‘theory’ is:

"something that helps scholars to attune to the world […] If ANT is a theory, then a theory is a repository of terms and modes of engaging with the world […]  If ANT is a theory, then a theory helps to tell cases, draw contrasts, articulate silent layers, turn questions upside down, focus on the unexpected, add to one’s sensitivities, propose new terms, and shift stories from one context to another."  (Mol 2010, p. 262)

Hi There

Go to this site: http://istheory.byu.edu/wiki/Main_Page 

It has a huge list of IS Models/Theories in alphabetical order and Actor-Network is there. Click on Actor-Network Theory and scroll down to where is says "IS articles that use the theory" .... there are plenty and some are very recent. Enjoy and Good-luck.

Directly an answer to your question:

- "Imagining a Feminist Actor-Network Theory", Andrea Quinla, 2012 (you will find it attached at my answer)

And these ones also are interesting:

- "Men on board: Actor-network theory, feminism and gendering the past", Lawrence T. Corrigan and Albert J. Mills, 2012

- "Reassembling gender: Actor-network theory (ANT) and the making of the technology in gender", Lagesen, V. A., 2012

This article by George Siemens (2004) may interest you:

Connectivism: A learning Theory for digital Age

Retrieved from http://www.ingedewaard.net/papers/connectivism/2005_siemens_ALearningTheoryForTheDigitalAge.pdf

There is a more recent article by Terry Anderson and Jon Dron (2011).

The authors examine “The three generations of cognitive-behaviourist, social constructivist, and connectivist pedagogy are examined, using the familiar community of inquiry model (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000) with its focus on social, cognitive, and teaching presences” (Extracted from the abstract).

As stated by many responses that technology changes the pace and method of teaching, learning including our lifestyle and new laws need to be established in accordance to our digital environment. Winston and Edelbach (2011) theorize that the world is now experiencing a technological revolution. The authors state that the predecessor of the technological revolution was the industrial revolution, which followed the earlier agricultural revolution. The industrial and agricultural revolutions had longer lifespans than the technological revolution, in which new technologies have a shorter lifecycle and faster pace of change.

I believe that constructivism constructs knowledge in cognitive stages, and pragmatism builds knowledge on learners’ past experiences. Pragmatists may possess past relevant technological knowledge that may be useful to conduct research on the complexities of online learning. I argue that the learning paradigm shift follows the cycle of constructivism, social constructivism, and then pragmatism. The cycle will go back to social constructivism when a new demarcation point for learning process is integrated, which includes all the influential factors, such as technological tools.

Finally, I do agree that new learning theories should be proposed. You have posed an interesting discussion question. 

Hi Eilidh,

one of the best brief illustrations of ANT, that has worked for my students well, is John Law's talk "The Manager and His Powers". I like to recommend it because it illustrates well how to author an ANT account.

I must say that I perceive ANTish studies as mostly quite silent on methods, methodology and how their respective ANTish account has been assembled. For this reason, I allow myself to point you to a paper I authored that attempts to spell out some of the methods and methodological considerations in a study that was heavily inspired by ANT sensibilities (but was in no way a purist ANT attempt; rather, it was also engaging with grounded theorising and ethnomethodological takes): "Studying Reconfigurations of Discourse: Tracing the Stability and Materiality of ›Sustainability/Carbon‹" published in the Journal of Discourse Studies.

To your questions "does it have to revolve around a particular project and event? And if so how recent does the project or event have to be to be relevant?": A good ANT account is only possible by a careful study of particularities. In other words, you need to study something particular. Much of your work is about figuring out what the particularity is that you are studying or that you want to study. Latour et al would recommend "to follow the actor", i.e. map the precise practical and material relations between particular humans and non-humans. So, if you study tourism (which is far too general to be studied easily), you might want to trace the precise actions and devices involved when you book a trip on the internet to a holiday destination. What entities are involved and how are they related?

ANT accounts are usually post-hoc accounts, that is, they are written after something particular occurred. How recent the event was does not so much matter as how well you can actually describe what happened. (On description, you might want to read Latour and Akrich's classic chapters in Shaping Technology/Building Society).

Hope this helps,

best,

Ingmar

There are various approaches of social capital in sociology (Bourdieu, Coleman) or Political Science (Putnam): depending on its structure, Social Capital is not always a positive factor for collective action.Quantitative  Network analysis is a good tool to approach this as it is shared by various disciplines.

ANT approaches are exceptionally relevant to innovation as so many great innovations come from the overlapping boundaries of different areas bringing different technologies together to create something unexpected and completely new. See:

The role of a single actor in technical innovation and network evolution: An historical analysis of the leather network

Michael Redwood

David Ford

Journal of Customer Behaviour 01/2012; 11(2). DOI: 10.1362/147539212X13420906144750

Dear all

For your information: I am organizing a meeting for researchers doing research using the translation perspective at Roskilde University, Denmark, in december 2014. Invitation will be send out in june. Hope many of you will be able to participate.

Yours

John

Reassembling the Social, by Latour is a classical work

Thank you, folks.

These answers are very helpful for me to start a math model for ANT. Actually, I'm focusing not on the whole procedure of ANT but on the Translation of ANT. The 'Translation' process can be applied to the product development process in NPD 2.0 era.