Controversies as method for ANTi-history: An inquiry into public administration practices

Tureta, C; Américo, BL; Clegg, S

Controversies as method for ANTi-history: An inquiry into public administration practices

Tureta, C Américo, BL Clegg, S

Permalink

Publisher:: SAGE Publications
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Organization, 2021, 28, (6), pp. 1018-1035
Issue Date:: 2021-11-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	13505084211015375.pdf	Published version	184.1 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Tureta, C
dc.contributor.author	Américo, BL
dc.contributor.author	Clegg, S https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6083-4283
dc.date.accessioned	2021-12-12T20:48:16Z
dc.date.available	2021-12-12T20:48:16Z
dc.date.issued	2021-11-01
dc.identifier.citation	Organization, 2021, 28, (6), pp. 1018-1035
dc.identifier.issn	1350-5084
dc.identifier.issn	1461-7323
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/152250
dc.description.abstract	Drawing on Actor-Network Theory and the cartography of controversies, we present a method for ANTi-History research to investigate the implementation of a contract between a labour services company and a public university hospital in Brazil. The research question focuses on how the past is enacted in the present. The method is a general guideline based on five focal points used to organize the fieldwork: identifying controversies; mapping the actor-network; drawing out the translation process; politics of actor-networks and multiple reality/power relations. The proposed method makes two contributions to ANTi-History literature. First, although these focal points have been discussed by ANTi-History scholars, they are scattered throughout the literature. We unite them to offer a guide to doing historically embedded research. Second, we show how controversy analysis can be helpful for mapping the politics of actor-networks and describing multiple realities in the construction of history.
dc.language	en
dc.publisher	SAGE Publications
dc.relation.ispartof	Organization
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1177/13505084211015375
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.subject	15 Commerce, Management, Tourism and Services, 16 Studies in Human Society, 22 Philosophy and Religious Studies
dc.subject.classification	Business & Management
dc.title	Controversies as method for ANTi-history: An inquiry into public administration practices
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	28
utslib.for	15 Commerce, Management, Tourism and Services
utslib.for	16 Studies in Human Society
utslib.for	22 Philosophy and Religious Studies
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Business
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Business/Management Discipline
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access	*
dc.date.updated	2021-12-12T20:48:15Z
pubs.issue	6
pubs.publication-status	Published
pubs.volume	28
utslib.citation.issue	6

Abstract:

Drawing on Actor-Network Theory and the cartography of controversies, we present a method for ANTi-History research to investigate the implementation of a contract between a labour services company and a public university hospital in Brazil. The research question focuses on how the past is enacted in the present. The method is a general guideline based on five focal points used to organize the fieldwork: identifying controversies; mapping the actor-network; drawing out the translation process; politics of actor-networks and multiple reality/power relations. The proposed method makes two contributions to ANTi-History literature. First, although these focal points have been discussed by ANTi-History scholars, they are scattered throughout the literature. We unite them to offer a guide to doing historically embedded research. Second, we show how controversy analysis can be helpful for mapping the politics of actor-networks and describing multiple realities in the construction of history.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/152250