How can the loggerhead sea-turtle survive? Exploring the journeys of the Caretta caretta using ANT and critical realism

Abstract

The endangered loggerhead sea-turtle (Caretta caretta) nests on the shores of the Mediterranean, but faces threats to its existence from a variety of sources. Answering the question of how this species can survive is complex as it involves examining the relationships between the turtle, its natural environment, local tourists, property developers, conservation organisations, governments and lawmakers. We argue that actor-network theory (ANT) provides a powerful methodology for tracing these relations and identifying crucial actors which enable the survival of this animal. Using a rich ethnography and drawing on insights from 116 interviews, we trace three actor-networks that highlight factors important to the survival of the species. Yet, we also highlight the conceptual difficulties that result from using an ANT ontology for understanding socio-ecological interactions and argue that these may be ameliorated by embedding the ANT methodology within a critical realist (CR) ontology. We argue that this engagement between CR and ANT offers researchers a powerful method for understanding relations between socio-ecological actors whilst overcoming some of the theoretical difficulties of ANT.

On the virtues and vices of combining theories: The case of institutional and actor-network theories in accounting research

“…This tendency for research to bifurbicate along actor-centric and structuralist lines in explaining the process of institutionalization is reminiscent of Cooper et al's (2008, p. 692) observation that researchers have long "flip-flop[ped] between 'structure' and 'agency'" in their efforts to continuously refine and extend IT. Our findings also reinforce emerging concerns about the difficulties in reconciling the ontology of ANT with theories grounded in a more structuralist understanding of the world (Elder-Vass, 2008;O'Mahoney et al, 2017). However, the ontological tensions which emerge from the combination of IT and ANT have been subject to little explicit reflection on the part of researchers.…”

“…For instance accounting tools, formulas and programmes together with those who design and implement them form socio-technical arrangements that perform the reality that they measure (Callon, 1998a(Callon, , 2007. Such a view also displays a lack of depth ontology, that is, the belief that reality consists of distinct but embedded domains (Elder-Vass, 2008;O'Mahoney, O'Mahoney & Al-Amoudi, 2017), placing ANT in stark contrast with the ontological hierarchy that is at least implicit in IT.…”

“…In line with this exhortation, ANT scholars have examined, for instance, the advent of microbiology and vaccination (Latour, 1988), the electric vehicle (Callon, 1986b), carbon markets (Callon, 2009), and digital navigation (Latour, 2010). However, this emphasis on innovation has also made ANT susceptible to critique for a lack of sensitivity to the historical contingency of social embeddness and the possibilities of more enduring forms of structural stability (see e.g., Fourcade, 2007;Elder-Vass, 2008;Yang & Modell, 2015;O'Mahoney et al, 2017).…”

Realist studies of oppression, emancipation and resistance

“…This is not to suggest that reductionist approaches have not generated important insights into the oppression of workers, but that these insights are often despite, rather than because of, their ontological commitments. Indeed, to adequately conceptualise social activity many reductionist accounts make de facto use of realist assumptions in texts which ostensibly reject realist principles (O'Mahoney, 2011;O'Mahoney et al, 2016). This is perhaps unsurprising as the complexities outlined above suggest that oppression, resistance and emancipation cannot be analysed adequately without a non-reductive, multi-level analysis that is sensitive to the relations and distinctions between people, material artefacts, social structures, discourses and organisations.…”

Call for Papers

“…history (Clark and Blundel 2007), recruitment and selection (Taylor 2006), leadership (Edwards and Meliou 2015), business relationship processes (Ryan, Tähtinen, and Vanharanta 2012), ecosystems of endangered species (O'Mahoney, O'Mahoney, and Al-Amoudi 2016), entrepreneurial action, structure and agency (Kitching and Rouse 2017;Martinez Dy, Martin, and Marlow 2018;Vincent, Wapshott, and Gardiner 2014;Vincent and Pagan 2018) and management education (Syed, Mingers, and Murray 2010). It has also made an impact in the related field of information systems (Dobson 2002;Mingers 2004), which arguably has been historically more amenable to discussions of ontology than mainstream business and management literature Scott 2008, 2014).…”