Since the 1980s the concept of ANT has remained unsettled. ANT has continuously been critiqued and hailed, ridiculed and praised. It is still an open question whether ANT should be considered a theory or a method or whether ANT is better understood as entailing the dissolution of such modern ‘‘genres’’. In this paper the authors engage with some important reflections by John Law and Bruno Latour in order to analyze what it means to ‘‘do ANT,’’ and (even worse), doing so after ‘‘doing ANT on ANT.’’ In particular the authors examine two post-ANT case studies by Annemarie Mol and Marilyn Strathern and outline the notions of complexity, multiplicity, and fractality. The purpose is to illustrate the analytical consequences of thinking with post-ANT. The analysis offers insights into how it is possible to ‘‘go beyond ANT,’’ without leaving it entirely behind.

Drawing inspiration from Science and Technology Studies (STS), this article develops an understanding of surveillance as a situated activity. Thus, concepts developed by feminist, Donna Haraway, and actor-network theorist, Bruno Latour, are used to establish an analytic attitude in which the 'situatedness' of vision and technologies is seen as a salient feature of surveillance. Empirically, the article examines how surveillance on a Danish fisheries inspection ship is situated in a specific way. This example depicts surveillance as fragile, limited, and partial, and as an ongoing and sometimes difficult achievement, which involves the work of many different actors. It shows how friction and resistance can be part of surveillance processes, and it questions the clear distinction between 'the observer' and 'the observed'. Finally, it shows how, in this instance, surveillance is not only a matter of control, but also of care. The notion of situated surveillance makes the development of overly general conceptions of surveillance (e.g. some interpretations of the Panopticon) problematic. Thus, it urges the researcher to study surveillance empirically, in specific settings.

Practice has become a topic of increasing empirical and conceptual concern within sociology and neighbouring fields. ‘Practice’ can refer to a location or it can refer to action. It is possible to be ‘in practice’, to ‘have a practice’ or to be ‘constituted by practice’. Practice can be a cause, an effect or an explanation. Within science and technology studies (STS), the practice orientation is simultaneously analytical – in the form of various practice theories – and empirical, in that research objects are often defined as ‘practices’. Focusing on a range of examples, especially ethnomethodological, this paper examines some implications and problems that follow when practice slides unnoticed between empirical and conceptual registers. Arguing that a reconsideration of practice thinking is important in order to retain its vigour, we outline a view of practice as a ‘factish’, at once conceptual and empirical, which facilitates analyses of practical ontologies and their transformations. This informs a final discussion of the politics and promises of practice.

No abstract

Organization is increasingly entwined with databased governance infrastructures. Developing the idea of ‘infrastructure as partial connection’ with inspiration from Marilyn Strathern and Science and Technology Studies, this article proposes that database infrastructures are intrinsic to processes of organizing intra- and inter-organizational relations. Seeing infrastructure as partial connection brings our attention to the ontological experimentation with knowing organizations through work of establishing and cutting relations. We illustrate this claim through a multi-sited ethnographic study of ‘The Data Warehouse’. ‘The Data Warehouse’ is an important infrastructural component in the current reorganization of Danish educational governance which makes schools’ performance public and comparable. We suggest that ‘The Data Warehouse’ materializes different, but overlapping, infrastructural experiments with governing education at different organizational sites enacting a governmental hierarchy. Each site can be seen as belonging to the same governance infrastructure but also as constituting ‘centres’ in its own right. ‘The Data Warehouse’ participates in the always-unfinished business of organizational world making and is made to (partially) relate to different organizational concerns and practices. This argument has implications for how we analyze the organizational effects of pervasive databased governance infrastructures and invites exploring their multiple organizing effects.