After ANT: Complexity, Naming and Topology

Abstract

What is a theory? Or, more broadly, what is a good way of addressing intellectual problems? This paper explores the tension central to the notion of an ‘actor’—‘network’ which is an intentionally oxymoronic term that combines—and elides the distinction between—structure and agency. It then notes that this tension has been lost as ‘actor‐network’ has been converted into a smooth and consistent ‘theory’ that has been (too) simply and easily displaced, criticised or applied. It recalls another term important to the actor‐network approach—that of translation—which is another term in tension, since (the play of words works best in the romance languages) to translate is to also betray (traductore, traditore). It is suggested that in social theory simplicity should not displace the complexities of tension. The chapter concludes by exploring a series of metaphors for grappling with tensions rather than wishing these away, and in particular considers the importance of topological complexity, and the notion of fractionality.

Actor-Network Theory and its role in understanding the implementation of information technology developments in healthcare

“…However, networks are constantly evolving as social reality is assumed to be both complex and fluid (further discussed below) [24]. …”

“…Conceptually, the ANT approach can be valuable in helping researchers to appreciate the complexity and fluidity of reality, which may be neglected by research approaches assuming a more linear and causal approach to studying IT implementations [15,24,35]. As a result, ANT helps to conceptualise how different realities are experienced and enacted by different actors, resulting in a more nuanced picture of the dynamic relationships between different actors without neglecting their inter-relatedness.…”

Managing by Design: Enacted Through Situated Networks

“…A postmodern take on grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967) and situational analysis (Clarke, 2003(Clarke, , 2005(Clarke, , 2009) was coupled with actor network theory (ANT; Callon, 1986Callon, , 1999Latour, 1999Latour, , 2005Law, 1999Law, , 2007 as a combined methodology package and defines the strategy for this research.…”

Reading Educational Reform with Actor Network Theory: Fluid spaces, otherings, and ambivalences

“…In the field of organization studies, ANT analyses of innovation and change processes have proliferated to trace failures, showing how networks have imploded or failed to enrol sufficient entities to survive (Latour, 1996;Czarniawska & Hernes, 2005), as well as to examine successes, showing how the networks of 'macro-actors'-large initiatives, associations, bodies of knowledge or practices-have expanded and thrived. After-ANT readings focus on the material practices that become enacted and distributed, but also on the otherings that occur: the fluid spaces and partial belongings that can comprise what appears to be a powerful network (Law, 1999). In education reform, ANT-ish inquiry might ask: How does a new state initiative seeking to generate 'school improvement' produce itself into a 'thing'?…”