The use and Usefulness of Actor‐Network Theory as a Basis for Social Research: A Consideration of Some Recent Publications

Underwood, J

The use and Usefulness of Actor‐Network Theory as a Basis for Social Research: A Consideration of Some Recent Publications

Underwood, J

Permalink

Publisher:: Academic Bookshop
Publication Type:: Conference Proceeding
Citation:: ECRM 2014 - http://academic-bookshop.com/ourshop/prod_3375782-ECRM-2014-13th-European-Conference-on-Research-Methodology-for-Business-and-Management-Studies-ECRM-2014-PRINT-version.html, 2014, pp. 357 - 364 (8)
Issue Date:: 2014-07

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Microsoft Word

Download Accepted Manuscript versionMicrosoft Word (116.5 kB)

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Underwood, J	en_US
dc.contributor.editor	Brown, A	en_US
dc.contributor.editor	Rich, M	en_US
dc.date	2014-06-16	en_US
dc.date.issued	2014-07	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	ECRM 2014 - http://academic-bookshop.com/ourshop/prod_3375782-ECRM-2014-13th-European-Conference-on-Research-Methodology-for-Business-and-Management-Studies-ECRM-2014-PRINT-version.html, 2014, pp. 357 - 364 (8)	en_US
dc.identifier.isbn	9781632666017	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/32942
dc.description.abstract	Abstract: The use of actor‐network theory (ANT) in social research has grown significantly in recent years. The ANT approach has been applied in fields as diverse as information systems development, media studies, accounting, education, geography, and development studies. With any new research approach that is 'trending', it is reasonable to ask how devoted the new followers are to the spirit and letter of the new theory, but in this case the nature of ANT makes the question particularly difficult. The founders and early proponents seem to agree that ANT is not really a theory; perhaps it is a method for studying historical phenomena or socio‐technical systems; perhaps it is a new style of practice‐based theorising; perhaps it is a loose collection of approaches based on a particular philosophical position concerning ontology and epistemology. This looseness of definition, while not surprising for a recent movement, makes it difficult to judge whether and when ANT is being used 'properly'. In this paper I attempt to clarify this question by examining a selection of recent publications that claim to have used ANT in their research. Most of these publications are based on case studies, although pedagogical and theoretical articles are also considered. I briefly mention some key aspects of ANT, then take a considerable sample of articles made available over the last three years and consider how many aspects of ANT they have used as the basis of their research and, in some cases how the authors have attempted to modify or extend ANT, or to combine it with other theories. I conclude by speculating on why some authors might be attracted to ANT even though they do not 'really' believe in it and why this is not necessarily a bad thing. I also suggest possible signs of 'good' ANT research. This paper is intended for those who have already developed some intention to use ANT in their research, but would like to see further examples of how this can be done. Further examples and explanation can be found in Underwood (2008) and Latour (1996).	en_US
dc.publisher	Academic Bookshop	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	ECRM 2014 - http://academic-bookshop.com/ourshop/prod_3375782-ECRM-2014-13th-European-Conference-on-Research-Methodology-for-Business-and-Management-Studies-ECRM-2014-PRINT-version.html	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	13th European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management	en_US
dc.title	The use and Usefulness of Actor‐Network Theory as a Basis for Social Research: A Consideration of Some Recent Publications	en_US
dc.type	Conference Proceeding
utslib.location	Kidmore End, UK	en_US
utslib.location.activity	Cass Business School, City University, London	en_US
utslib.for	0806 Information Systems	en_US
dc.location.activity	Cass Business School, City University, London
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology/School of Systems, Management and Leadership
utslib.copyright.status	open_access
pubs.consider-herdc	true	en_US
pubs.finish-date	2014-06-17	en_US
pubs.place-of-publication	Kidmore End, UK	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.start-date	2014-06-16	en_US

Abstract:

Abstract: The use of actor‐network theory (ANT) in social research has grown significantly in recent years. The ANT approach has been applied in fields as diverse as information systems development, media studies, accounting, education, geography, and development studies. With any new research approach that is 'trending', it is reasonable to ask how devoted the new followers are to the spirit and letter of the new theory, but in this case the nature of ANT makes the question particularly difficult. The founders and early proponents seem to agree that ANT is not really a theory; perhaps it is a method for studying historical phenomena or socio‐technical systems; perhaps it is a new style of practice‐based theorising; perhaps it is a loose collection of approaches based on a particular philosophical position concerning ontology and epistemology. This looseness of definition, while not surprising for a recent movement, makes it difficult to judge whether and when ANT is being used 'properly'. In this paper I attempt to clarify this question by examining a selection of recent publications that claim to have used ANT in their research. Most of these publications are based on case studies, although pedagogical and theoretical articles are also considered. I briefly mention some key aspects of ANT, then take a considerable sample of articles made available over the last three years and consider how many aspects of ANT they have used as the basis of their research and, in some cases how the authors have attempted to modify or extend ANT, or to combine it with other theories. I conclude by speculating on why some authors might be attracted to ANT even though they do not 'really' believe in it and why this is not necessarily a bad thing. I also suggest possible signs of 'good' ANT research. This paper is intended for those who have already developed some intention to use ANT in their research, but would like to see further examples of how this can be done. Further examples and explanation can be found in Underwood (2008) and Latour (1996).

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

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/32942