From an ivory tower to a lighthouse tower? Following Actor-Network Theory circulations

Transcription

1 From an ivory tower to a lighthouse tower? Following Actor-Network Theory circulations Eduardo Oliveira WP.2/2013 Abstract My purpose with the following text is to discuss the translation model offered by actor-network theory (hereafter referred to as ANT) and its implications for organizational analysis. Initially developed by science and technology studies scholars Michel Callon and Bruno Latour in the early 1980 s, and proceeded by British sociologist John Law and other academics, ANT offers a proximal view of organization whereby mechanisms of power are emphasized as effects and not as causes. Faithful to the plot logic, I start this paper by unfolding the early connections between actors, places, texts, discourses, research, organization studies, and other materials that made the emergence of ANT possible. I carry on with the description of ANT defining assumptions, main concepts and notions, then the research field scope is explored through the presentation of some empirical works, and to conclude, ANT contributions to knowledge are critically analyzed. The becoming of ANT Following Law (1992, p. 381), ( ) almost all of our interactions with other people are mediated through objects of one kind or another. For instance, I speak to you through a text ( ). And to do that, I am tapping away at a computer keyboard. At any rate, our communication with one another is mediated by a network of objects - the computer, the paper, the printing press. This quotation translates fairly describes the communication process happening right here, right now. It also carries some of the ANT fundamental notions: interactions, mediators, network, local, transience, objects, humans, non-humans, hybrids, heterogeneity As Latour stated (1996, p. 238) the social as actor network is hybrid since it is composed by human and non-human coexisting simultaneously at the same level. Does this heterogeneity bring the maxim all different, all equal to organization theory? Analytically, a crucial consequence emerges almost immediately: if discourses, humans, and materials are equally important they cannot, by any mean, be separated from each other. 1

2 But how did ANT become ANT? Who are the actors? What and where are its points of obligatory passage? Was something lost in translation? The ANT plot The beginning of the ANT 1 story can be plotted in Paris at the Centre de Sociologie de l'innovation of the École Nationale Supérieure des Mines, in particular regarding Michel Callon and Bruno Latour work about the processes of innovation and knowledge-creation in science and technology. Callon and Latour were closely followed by the Centre visitor John Law, with whom they share the title of ANT founding fathers. Originated in the field of science and technology studies (STS), ANT quickly developed a new approach to the investigation of the relationship between doing science and the evidences it produces, building upon its own ontological conceptions and theoretical considerations (Latour, 1987). Whilst analyzing the discovery of the DNA double helix, the author introduces the methodological dictum that science and technology must be studied in action or in the making: We will enter facts and machines while they are in the making (Latour, 1987, p. 13). For him, the two-faced roman god Janus depicts precisely two contrasting ways of conducting science: on one hand, the ready all made science, on the other hand, science in the making, happening, which constitutes, in his opinion, the most appropriate way for studying scientific discoveries. Another important notion from Latour (1987) is the disregard for any preconception of what constitutes knowledge; the analysis always starts with a clean slate thus nothing is take for granted. These shifts of focus are critical to the method and claims that emerge from any analysis. Hence, an intermission makes perfect sense here. 1 st Intermission - Organizations? Organization, Organizing The mainstream approach in organization theory has focused for the most part on establishing boundaries, taxonomies and systems that define entities such as groups, organizations, and society. In order to make sense of reality, researchers tend to fix things in supersets, sets and subsets (Graça, 2003). Underpinning this container view is a substance perspective that privileges homogeneity, control, and predictability. But categorizing reality seems to be an error because it is always on the making, always transforming, always connecting. As Damasio (2009) highlighted, even at the brain level, there is constant exchange of information between the left hemisphere (which deals with sequential thinking and reasoning functions) and the right hemisphere 1 - Originally labeled théorie de l'acteur-réseau. 2

3 (responsible for the images and functions considered artistic or creative). The assumption of co-implication, of mutual definition implies that change comes first, that organization should be regarded as an exception. It might therefore be more appropriate to talk about a theory of organization rather than a theory of organizations. In terms of organizational analysis, the rational perspective sees organizations in a logic of substance, defending the ontology of being, has given rise to the relational perspective in the literature looking at organizations in a process view, advocating the ontology of becoming (Graça, 2003). Rationality, order, stability and permanence are the pillars of the sociology of being, whereas equivocality, an indefinite world, indeterminacy, unfinished, partial and precarious happenings characterize a relational sociology of becoming. The differences between these two ways of seeing reality was also captured by Cooper and Law (1995) with the distal and proximal views concepts. Parson s retrospective rational sociology is criticized in light of a proximal view drawn upon Norbert Elias work. The rational view induces polarity and concreteness which impede the consideration of the in between, of the mediation between parts and wholes, between individuals, things, groups and organizations. Distal focus the results, the measurement of outcomes, what is already there (for instance, the organization and its environment) and the analysis is based on preconceived notions. But according to Elias, life is a complex set of ongoing events that produce these results, these state of being - individual, organizational or social - that are, at the end, nothing more than momentary effects. Instead of using categories and hierarchies that supposedly exist as the natural order of things, a proximal view faces categories distinctions as effects of ordering processes (Graça, 2003) rather than emphasizing its order, boundaries or underlying structures. One of the authors that contributed significantly towards exploring organization as process was Karl Weick, principally with his work about organizing and sensemaking (Bakken and Hernes, 2006). Weick s efforts called our attention to place organizing processes at the core of organizational analysis suggesting, through the use of verbs, that movement is being taken into consideration (Hernes and Weik, 2007), thus recasting central notions in the field of organization studies. Assuming that nothing ever really stays the same, Weick (1979) argued that we would be better replacing nouns by verbs, chiefly replacing the noun organization by the verb organizing. For the author the distinction between entities and processes was crucial. In fact, Weick (1979) even claimed that we should stamp out nouns. However, according to Bakken and Hernes (2006), this dichotomy is problematic because it does not address the dynamic features of the relationship between process and entity. It is necessary to account for their mutual transformation, to acknowledge how they transform into one another, in sum, their relationality (Cooper, 2005). Departing clearly from Alfred Whitehead s notion of the inextricable link between 3

4 verbs and nouns, Bakken and Hernes (2006) illustrate their process view using the imagery provided by a pseudopod in which interplay between spatial aspects (nouns: animal, pseudopod) and temporal aspects (verbs: moving and extending) is constantly shaping both nouns and verbs. 2 nd Intermission A Process View The essence of organizational sensemaking lies in the processes (often hidden, emerging, fluid, and continuous) of organizing and ordering by which successes and failures 2 happen. The implications of process thinking are considerable. Yet, process view is not restrained to a single way of thinking organizations and consequently implications should not be understood as universal, rather as specific of the process approach in which they are embedded. Hernes and Weik (2007) make a distinction between exogenous views and endogenous views. The former are based on the assumption that the processes take place within relatively stable contexts, such as the organization or the institutional environment (Hernes and Weik, 2007, p. 252), whereas an endogenous view recognizes the stabilization of entities as part of the process of organizing. An exogenous approach encompasses the influence of the external context of the process (rules, clients, and competitors), building models of in and out, inclusion and exclusion supported in the spatial dimension of processes. On the contrary, the endogenous perspective does not define that kind of framing boundaries; the starting point is the process itself, so much more emphasis is put on the time dimension. Hernes and Weik (2007) labeled process as connectivity as one of the endogenous process views. Saying that everything is connected in the world may well be just another La Palisse truth. Who is going to state the contrary? Going back to the Whiteheadian stance that interaction, connectedness is all that exists; one might find the roots of the approach presented by an emerging group of scholars who think organization as the process of connecting heterogeneous elements. Back to the ANT plot Also known as sociology of translation, ANT presents itself as an alternative to approaches that focus only on the role played by humans, by artifacts or by social structures: it was developed to analyze situations in which it is difficult to separate human and non-humans, and in which the actors have variable forms and competencies (Callon, 1999, p. 183). Indeed, society only exists as an effect of heterogeneous networks and this constitutes one of the arguments Law (1992) uses to 2 - See, for instance, the collapse of Barings Bank (Greener, 2006). 4

5 advocate the characterization and exploration of such networks as the most important mission sociology has to accomplish. The study of the translation process, that is, of the combinations and associations between materials that make them become patterned and to generate effects like organizations, inequality, and power is crucial (Law, 1992). The model of translation is aware that there is no journey without transformation and that there is no transformation without deformation. In ANT, transportation without deformation is not possible given that any actor-network involves innumerous translations. Family, society, and organization are juxtaposed, ordered, patterned networks of heterogeneous materials whose resistance has been overcome. People are who they are because they are networks, are effects of those networks (Law, 1992). Therefore, translation is a somewhat uncertain process of overcoming resistance, of precarious material alignments. ANT avoids essentialist contextual explanations of events and does not enter in the sociological debate about classic framings such as micro Vs. macro, global Vs. local, agency Vs. structure because these polarity views ought to be bypassed. As the figurational sociology of Elias, ANT too does not rely on categories as analytical resources (Graça, 2003). Social, for ANT, is a circulating entity, a type of momentary association which is characterized by the way it gathers together into new shapes (Latour, 2005, p. 65). ANT thus assumes that the social structure is not a noun but a verb (Law, 1992). More than basing on scales, ANT searches for associations, networks and tries to understand how and why they exist, as well as what are the underlying explanations for some networks being more robust, lasting longer than others. Material Heterogeneity and Actants As an endogenous process-based approach, ANT has a relational way of seeing organization that seeks to unfold the associations between heterogeneous elements (Hernes and Weik, 2007). The primacy of connecting rather than contextualizing brings the process to the center of the analysis. It also implies that the nature of connecting elements goes beyond the human sphere. Connection and reconnection of the physical and social happen as reiteration and novelty produces networks that may well not be intrinsically coherent. Different materials are not conceptualized as primitive causes, on the contrary they interactional effects. The acceptance of a dynamic performativity process entails that entities (institutions, individuals, machines) do not have a preexistence of their own and that nothing lies outside the network of relations. For instance, organizations are recursively reproducing themselves and continuously performing. In sum, entities live as they network. 5

6 Latour (2005) criticizes the restriction of the capability to be social and consequently to be mediators, to humans. In ANT, neither actors play the role of agency, nor networks should be confused with society (Latour, 1999). Agency is not by any means an exclusive human capacity; actors are not synonym of individuals, rather of ordered precarious network of heterogeneous combinations produced by such network. Particularly important here is Latour s (2005) contribution with the actant notion: actors can be human or non-human and there is no obvious reason to distinguish them. The term actant illustrates the dynamic role played by non-human actors in network transient connections transforming, altering, and distorting its elements (Latour, 2005). Some actants assume also a mediator role in several or in a specific network that is worth analyzing since they multiply differences within networks. Therefore, an actant is always a network in movement, in the making (Law, 1992). Just like people, machines are heterogeneous networks composed not only by their electronic, mechanical parts and automatisms, but also evolving from interactions with employees, other machines, maintenance crews, instructions manuals, etc... As a result of the concern with the mapping of multiple material relations, ANT supports that materiality is always relational (humans shape other materials and vice-versa). Symmetry The symmetry principle is perhaps one of the most striking characteristics of ANT. The abandonment of a anthropocentric logic of things by removing people from the analytical pedestal many theories reserve to humans and the proclamation of equal analytical value for materials of all kinds (humans and non-humans) have placed ANT under the controversy spotlight. All the elements in a network can and should be described in equivalent terms, because differences between them are produced networking, thus should not be preconceived. Lindahl (2005) makes this clear when studying the effects of introducing heavy machinery in a company: the machine (its engine), as well as the employees are shaping each other mutually. (Lindahl, 2005, p. 62) emphasizes this to the point of affirming In this company, in this context, the engine makes the people engineers.. In close association with generalized symmetry, two other general stances emerge: the rejection of all types of distinctions between the natural and the social, the macro and the micro, and neutrality connecting the actors in networks (Callon, 1986). 6

7 The Translation Process But how do actors mobilize, combine, hold together, and stabilize (even transiently) relations? There is a set of translation strategies that can to a certain extent illuminate the ordering of the social: abdication, seduction, placing obstacles on the way, reframing others goals and becoming indispensable, turning ourselves points of obligatory passage. The effects of these actions vary in durability and robustness. A greater understanding of the translation process was brought by Callon (1986) in his study of how three marine biologists tried to develop a conservation strategy for the St Brieuc Bay scallops. The author identified different actions performed by the biologists to secure their participation in the network and to impose their programme of investigation. The rationale behind the four moments of translation defined by the author was the following: a) problematization the definition of the problem s nature, the delineation of a problem-solving scenario in which the researchers programme of investigation becomes an obligatory passage point to other actors; b) interessment biologists tried to envolve other relevant actors into the roles proposed within the programme convincing them that their objectives would be accomplished; c) enrolment enlisting and allocating interrelated roles; and d) mobilization biologists used a set of methods to ensure representativeness of several relevant local collectivities. So, translation is a process composed of different stages: problematization, interessment, enrolment, mobilization of allies, inscription, and as such should never be considered a completed achievement or a guaranteed success and it may fail, as reported in the case described by Callon (1986). In other cases, translation aligns the elements of heterogeneous networks in a relatively stable system. Two well-known examples of actors interests getting translated and inscribed in artifacts are the speed bumps or the heavy hotel keys (Lindahl, 2005). Building on the assumption that translation is contingent, local and variable (Law, 1992), three broad conclusions can be stressed: i) some materials are more durable than others (durability is relational); ii) if the material is inscribed in a more durable platform increasing its mobility, it has the potential to last longer. Mobility is about ordering through space, establishing centers and peripheries; and iii) the effectiveness of translation is superior if the responses and reactions of the materials to be translated are anticipated. Regardless of the effects durability, the recognition of the translation reversibility and instability is of paramount importance (Demant, 2009). Organization is just an emergent effect of organizing. 7

8 Punctualization The black box concept introduced by Latour (1987) helps us to understand the meaning of punctualization. For reasons of expediency, we tend to reify our daily relation with other materials, labeling them PC, Faculty, a car, etc.. The black box metaphor reveals this simplificatory effect produced when dealing with complex and virtually infinite set of networks connecting. An appearance of unit is accepted through network consolidation, but the content of the network stays unexplored and open to modification (Hernes and Weik, 2007). Punctualization is therefore a precarious simplified process that breaks down when, for some reason, the actor-network fails or faces conflicts beyond resolution. But, at the same time, it enables the opening of the black box, rendering visible all the elements involved. Methodological implications ANT is a methodology for practice analysis, for local relations. Its intent is to map connections between materials in order to trace a network. This is the central premise of ANT methodologically. Departing from an agnosticist stance, ANT positions research without any a prioris about actors, rather trying to learn with them: ( ) you have to follow the actors themselves, that is try to catch up with their often wild innovations in order to learn from them what the collective existence has become. (Latour, 2005, p. 12). Although labeled as a theory, ANT is not focused in explanations of why a network is shaped in a certain way, nor in establishing deductive reasoning by means of hypotheses and inferences. In fact, ANT deviates from the modernist logic built upon an objective, rational truth. It follows from this that measurement and precision are not of upmost relevance for ANT. Chief issues for the ANT researcher are the data selection procedures, the mediation between himself and what is being researched or the local consequences of ordering and organizing. And all this bearing in mind that the world is at all times connecting and reconnecting... The ANT research process itself becomes a translation process (Ruming, 2009). Not surprisingly, qualitative techniques such as individual interviews (Ruming, 2009), focus groups (Demant, 2009) and especially document analysis constitute the researcher core tools to follow the actors and to order the plot in which they evolve and interact. Another clear feature of the ANT approach that emerges from its storytelling drive is the firm reliance in case studies as the favorite research design. 8

9 As a matter of fact, more than a theory, ANT should be viewed as a methodology whose analytical lenses describe carefully the relational ties within a network (Latour, 2005). By doing that, ANT goes beyond the mere definition of entities, categories and territories providing an alternative approach that allows diverse types of circulation to be followed (Latour, 1999). Consequently, the traditional sociological dichotomy between actor-system, or agency and structure is bypassed in such a way that social becomes understood as a circulating entity. Some Empirical Examples From 1990 onwards, ANT has been widely used in areas beyond STS, for instance, in organization studies, informatics, health studies, human geography, sociology, and economics. For illustrative purposes, a few brief description of some ANT research is presented below. In the human geography field, Ruming (2009) used the ANT tools to trace multiple interactions of heterogeneous materials (human and non-human) in the planning policy and residential development of Sydney periphery. Nicolini (2010) made use of the translation model to address an innovation cardiac telecare - in northern Italy. ANT research was the methodological design Demant (2009) found most useful to break with the traditional sociological analyses of alcohol, because it allowed materiality. Instead of centering the analysis in the individuals and in the social body, ANT includes the substance itself in the study of the relationship between alcohol and teenagers. The application of ANT has also been considered suited to analyze accidents and breakdowns involving complex socio-technical systems (Masys, 2012), since it focus the interconnectedness of heterogeneous materials impartially. In a completely different context, Greener (2006) told the story of the collapse of Barings Bank and of Nick Leeson s socio-technical network through the ANT lenses. Regarding the organizational field, ANT contributions are equally diverse and precious. Areas like innovation (Nicolini, 2010), socio-technical systems (Masys, 2012), corporate codes of ethics (Jensen et al., 2009), knowledge management, consumer behavior, power or organizational change are without question in the ANT agenda. ANT perspective about organizational change shows quite well the contribution of the translation model to deal with problems arising from local interpretations and at the same time challenges the dominant managerialism understanding about change in organizations. By emphasizing materials rather than functions, ANT detaches from the big technocratic planned change project presented, among others, by authors like Kotter (1995). It is from the interconnection of heterogeneous actions and materials that the organization emerges in ways often unforeseen. The stepwise mechanism Kotter (1995) proposes forgets the potential 9

10 evolving from the unintended consequences of managers plan of change. ANT displaces the focus in intentionality, in the mental plan in someone s mind to the in tension between events and actions. Furthermore, change cannot be controlled since it happens as a flow of actuality and potentiality. This fluid view (Mol and Law, 1994) implies therefore transformation during transportation. Major Criticisms One of the first criticisms directed at ANT had to do with the theory label, with unwanted connotations of its terms. Network, for instance, was associated with dissolution of humanity through an amoral and apolitical perspective (Walsham, 1997). Some questions arise in this respect: What is the place for intentionality in ANT? Is it not relevant? If agency rests in the heterogeneous associations of actants, how does research deal with infinite and never-ending connections? Does ANT get trapped in an ivory tower? And how to select and follow actors through time and space?... Other critiques advocate that ANT contributions remain entirely descriptive and atheoretical since no explanations for social processes are provided. Moreover, ANT carries the risk of falling into interminable chains of associations. One of the earliest criticisms was that of Amsterdamska (1990) suggesting that the translation process is a mean for naturalizing organizations. In her opinion, the translation is problematic since it can portray many cases without any adaptation, establishing itself as a way to describe nearly everything. But such a description does not account for the different natures and specificities of the connecting process. The disregard for the ethics and political issues of network building gives the impression that ANT is not getting the whole picture when centering in associations and therefore cannot pursue a critical account of organizations Final Note Eventough criticized and criticizable to some extent, ANT offers a relational view that highlights process, the becoming of very different actors and the way in wich they interact to form networks. Living in a messy, complex and mutating world, the potential ANT carries is, in my opinion, crucial to bypass some of the treacheries most organization studies theories still entail and to light the researcher s agenda. 10

11 List of References Amsterdamska, O. (1990), Surely you are joking, Monsieur Latour!, Science, Technology, & Human Values, Volume 15, Nº 4, pp Bakken, T. e T. Hernes (2006), Organizing is Both a Verb and a Noun: Weick Meets Whitehead, Organization Studies, Vol. 27, Nº 11, pp , DOI: / Callon, M. (1986), Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay, in J. Law (Ed.), Power, action and belief: a new sociology of knowledge?, pp , London, Routledge & Kegan Paul. Callon, M. (1999), Actor-Network Theory - The Market Test, in J. Law & J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor Network Theory and After, pp , Oxford, Blackwell Publishers. Cooper, R. (2005), Peripheral Vision: Relationality, Organization Studies, Vol. 26, Nº 11, pp , doi: / Cooper, R. e J. Law (1995), Organization: Distal and proximal views, in S. Bacharach, P. Gagliardi & B. Mundell (Eds.), Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 13, pp , Greenwich, CT, JAI Press. Damásio, A. (2009), O Erro de Descartes, 25ª edição, Mem Martins: Publicações Europa- América. Demant, J. (2009), When Alcohol Acts: An Actor-Network Approach to Teenagers, Alcohol and Parties, Body & Society, Vol. 15, Nº 1, pp , DOI: / X Geography, Australian Geographer, Vol. 40, Issue 4, pp , DOI: / Graça, M. (2003), «ORGANISATION» E «ORGANISING»: a ontologia na análise organizacional, Cadernos de Ciências Sociais, 23, pp Greener, I. (2006), Nick Leeson and the Collapse of Barings Bank: Socio-Technical Networks and the Rogue Trader, Organization, Volume 13, Nº 3, pp , DOI: / Hernes, T. e E. Weik (2007), Organization as Process: Drawing the Line between Endogeneous and Exogeneous Views, Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 23, Issue 3, pp , doi: /j.scaman Jensen, T., Sandström, J. e S. Helin (2009), Corporate Codes of Ethics and the Bending of Moral Space, Organization, Volume 16, Nº 4, pp , DOI: /

12 Kotter, J. (1995), Leading change: why transformation efforts fail, Harvard Business Review, March-April, pp Latour, B. (1996) "On Interobjectivity", Mind, Culture & Activity, Vol. 3, Issue 4, pp Latour, B. (1999), On Recalling ANT, in J. Law, & J. Hassard, (Eds.) Actor Network and After, pp , Oxford, Blackwell Publishers. Latour, B. (2005), Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press Law, J. (1992), Notes on the Theory of the Actor-Network: Ordering, Strategy, and Heterogeneity, Systems Practice, Vol. 5, Nº 4, pp Lindahl, M. (2005), The little engine that could: On the managing qualities of technology, in B. Czarniawska & T. Hernes (Eds.), Actor-Network Theory and Organizing, pp , Stockholm, Liber and CBS Press. Masys, A. (2012), Complexity and the Social Sciences: Insights from complementary theoretical perspectives, in A. Minai, D. Braha & Y. Bar-Yam (Eds.), Unifying Themes in Complex Systems Volume VII, pp , Cambridge, Massachusetts, Springer/NECSI, DOI: / Mol, A. e J. Law, (1994), Regions, Networks, and Fluids: Anaemia and Social Topology, Social Studies of Science, Vol. 24, Nº 4, pp Nicolini, D. (2010), Medical Innovation as a Process of Translation: A Case from the Field of Telemedicine, British Journal of Management, Vol. 21, pp , DOI: /j x Ruming, K. (2009), Following the Actors: mobilising an actor-network theory methodology in Walsham, G. (1997), Actor-Network Theory and IS research: Current status and future prospects, in A. Lee, J. Liebenau & J. DeGross (Eds.), Information systems and qualitative research, pp , London, Chapman and Hall. Weick, K. (1979), The social psychology of organizing, 2 nd Ed., New York: Random House. 12