Advertisement

Qualitative Sociology

, Volume 36, Issue 4, pp 465–483 | Cite as

Beware of Allies!

Notes on Analytical Hygiene in Actor-Network Account-making
  • Jan-Hendrik Passoth
  • Nicholas J. Rowland
Article

Abstract

In science and technology studies (STS), reflexivity is not the foremost political or ethical concern that it is for some postmodernists, feminists, anthropologists, or those earnest students of Bourdieu. For us, reflexivity is a practical methodological concern. When reflexivity is raised in our scholarly communications it is, without irony, about crafting scientific communications (i.e., scholarly accounts like articles or books) reflexively. This paper therefore is an actor-network account of making reflexive actor-network accounts, specifically, in the process of writing-up qualitative research findings. It is a paper about research. It is a paper about the research process. As our empirical contribution, we report on research we previously conducted and about the subsequent steps we took toward a (publishable) way of reporting it. We are trying to honestly disclose how the process of preparing a reflexive account is more than merely a matter of cleaning-up the messiness of data, but also, and perhaps foremost, a process of finding, aligning, and occasionally distancing our accounts from our allies — in our case, actor-network theory (ANT) and reflexivity.

Keywords

Actor-network theory Reflexivity Qualitative research Grounded theory 

References

  1. Adkins, Lisa. 2002. Reflexivity and the politics of qualitative research. In Qualitative research in action, ed. Tim May, 332–348. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  2. Adler, Patricia A., and Peter Adler. 1996. Parent-as-researcher: The politics of researching in the personal life. Qualitative Sociology 19: 35–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alvesson, Mats, and Kaj Sköldberg. 2000. Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  4. Ashmore, Malcolm. 1989. The reflexive thesis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Ashmore, Malcolm, Michael Mulkay, and Trevor Pinch. 1989. Health and efficiency: A sociology of health economics. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Becker, Howard S. 1986. Writing for social scientists: How to start and finish your thesis, book, or article (Chicago Guides to Writing, Editing, and Publishing). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bloor, David. 1976. Knowledge and social imagery. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  8. Booth, Charles. 2000. The problems and possibilities of reflexivity in strategy. Electronic Journal of Radical Organization Theory 4: 1–16.Google Scholar
  9. Bolker, Joan. 1998. Writing your dissertation in fifteen minutes a day: A guide to starting, revising, and finishing your doctoral thesis. New York: Owl Books.Google Scholar
  10. Brante, Thomas, and Margareta Hallberg. 1991. Brain or heart? The controversy over the concept of death. Social Studies of Science 21: 389–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Callon, Michel. 1986. Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge, ed. John Law, 196–233. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  12. Chia, Robert. 1996a. The problem of reflexivity in organizational research: Towards a postmodern science of organization. Organization 3: 31–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chia, Robert. 1996b. Organizational analysis as deconstructive practice. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  14. Clifford, James, and George Marcus. 1986. Writing culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  15. Czyzewski, Marek. 1994. Reflexivity of actors versus reflexivity of accounts. Theory, Culture & Society 11: 161–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. eHealth Initiative. 2007. eHealth Initiative Blueprint: Building consensus for common action. Accessed at: http://www.ehealthinitiative.org/sites/default/files/file/eHiBlueprint-BuildingConsensusForCommonAction.pdf No longer available. Previously accessed 8 August 2009. Original available from authors.
  17. eHealth Initiative. 2009. About the eHealth Initiative. Accessed at: http://www.ehealthinitiative.org/about.html No longer available. Previously accessed 8 August 2009. Original available from authors. Currently available at: http://www.ehealthinitiative.org/about-us.html Accessed 10 November 2012.
  18. Emerson, Robert M. 2011. Writing ethnographic fieldnotes (Chicago Guides to Writing, Editing, and Publishing). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Findlay, Linda. 2002. Negotiating the swamp: The opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice. Qualitative Research 2: 209–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Findlay, Linda, and Brendan Gough. 2003. Reflexivity: A practical guide for researchers in health and social sciences. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  21. Foucault, Michel. 1977. Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  22. Foucault, Michel. 1991. Governmentality. In The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality, ed. Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon, and Peter Miller, 87–104. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  23. Gad, Cristopher, and Casper Bruun Jensen. 2010. On the consequences of Post-ANT. Science, Technology, & Human Values 35: 55–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  25. Garfinkel, Harold, and Harvey Sacks. 1970. On formal structures of practical actions. In Theoretical sociology: Perspectives and developments, ed. J.C. McKinney and E.A. Tiryakian, 337–66. New York: Appleton.Google Scholar
  26. Gieryn, Thomas F. 1983. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review 48: 781–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Guice, Jon. 1998. Controversy and the state: Lord ARPA and intelligent computing. Social Studies of Science 39: 103–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hardy, C., N. Phillips, and S. Clegg. 2001. Reflexivity in organization and management theory: A study of the production of the research ‘subject’. Human Relations 54: 531–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hine, Christine. 2007. Multi-Sited ethnography as a middle range methodology for contemporary STS. Science, Technology & Human Values 32: 652–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Horton, Richard. 2000. Genetically modified food: Consternation, confusion, and crack-up. Medical Journal of Australia 172: 148–149.Google Scholar
  31. Klintman, Mikael. 2002. The Genetically Modified (GM) food labeling controversy: Ideological and Epistemic Crossovers. Social Studies of Science 32: 71–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Krathwohl, David R., and Nick L. Smith. 2005. How to prepare a dissertation proposal: Suggestions for students in education and the social and behavioral sciences. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Latour, Bruno. 1988. The politics of explanation: an alternative. In Knowledge and reflexivity, new frontiers in the sociology of knowledge, ed. Steve Woolgar, 155–176. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  35. Latour, Bruno. 1991. Technology is society made durable. In A sociology of monsters, ed. John Law, 103–31. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the social. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Latour, Bruno, and Steve Woolgar. 1979. Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  38. Latour, Bruno, and Steve Woolgar. 1986. Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Law, John, and John Hassard (eds.). 1999. Actor network theory and after (Sociological Review Monographs). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers/The Sociological Review.Google Scholar
  40. Law, John. 2004. After method. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Lee, Kirby, and Lisa Bero. 2006. What authors, editors and reviewers should do to improve peer review. Nature. Available at: http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05007.html Accessed 9 Aug 2013. doi: 10.1038/nature05007.
  42. Lehoux, Pascale. 2006. The problem of health technology: Policy implications for modern health care systems. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. López, Daniel, and Miquel Domènech. 2009. Embodying autonomy in a home telecare service. The Sociological Review 56(2): 181–195.Google Scholar
  44. Luttrell, Wendy (ed.). 2010. Qualitative educational research: Readings in reflexive methodology and transformative practice. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Lynch, Michael. 2000. Against reflexivity as an academic virtue and source of privileged knowledge. Theory, Culture, & Society 17: 26–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Marcus, George E. 1995. Ethnography in/of the world system: The emergence of multi-sited ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology 24: 95–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Marcus, George E. 1998. Ethnography through thick and thin. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  48. May, Tim. 1988. Reflexivity in an age of reconstructive social science. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 1: 7–24.Google Scholar
  49. Merton, Robert K. 1968. The matthew effect in science. Science 159: 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mol, Annemarie. 2003. The body multiple. Raleigh: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Mort, Maggie, Tracy Finch, and Carl May. 2009. Making and unmaking telepatients: Identity and governance in new health technologies. Science Technology Human Values 34: 9–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mort, Maggie, Carl May, and Tracy Williams. 2003. Remote doctors and absent patients: Acting at a distance in telemedicine? Science Technology Human Values 28: 274–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mulkay, Michael. 1985. The word and the world: Explorations in the form of sociological analysis. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  54. Naples, Nancy A. 1996. A feminist revisiting of the insider/outsider debate: The “outsider phenomenon” in rural Iowa. Qualitative Sociology 19: 83–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Passoth, Jan-Hendrik, and Nicholas J. Rowland. 2009. eHealth: Rethinking state-of-the-art technology for state theory. Washington: Presentation at the Society for the Social Studies of Science Annual Meeting.Google Scholar
  56. Passoth, Jan-Hendrik, and Nicholas J. Rowland. 2010. Actor-network state: Integrating actor-network theory and state theory. International Journal of Sociology 25: 818–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Passoth, Jan-Hendrik, and Nicholas J. Rowland. 2011. Seeing the state in self-care. Las Vegas: Presentation at the American Sociological Society Annual Meeting.Google Scholar
  58. Passoth, Jan-Hendrik, and Nicholas J. Rowland. 2013. The state multiple. San Diego: Presentation at the Society for the Social Studies of Science Annual Meeting.Google Scholar
  59. Pels, Dick. 2000. Reflexivity: One step up. Theory, Culture & Society 17: 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pels, Dick. 2003. Unhastening science: Autonomy and reflexivity in the social theory of knowledge. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rappert, Brian. 2001. The distribution and resolution of the ambiguities of technology, or why Bobby can’t spray. Social Studies of Science 31: 557–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Reno, Joshua. 2011. Managing the experience of evidence: England’s experimental waste technologies and their immodest witnesses. Science, Technology, & Human Values 36: 842–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Richards, Evelleen. 1991. Vitamin C and cancer: Medicine or Politics? London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  64. Rose, Nicholas. 1999a. Powers of freedom: Reframing political thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rose, Nicholas. 1999b. Governing the soul: The shaping of the private self. London: Free Association Books.Google Scholar
  66. Silvia, Paul J. 2002. How to write a lot: A practical guide to productive academic writing. Washington: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  67. Single, Peg B., and Richard M. Reis. 2009. Demystifying dissertation writing: A streamlined process from choice of topic to final text. Sterling: Stylus Publishing.Google Scholar
  68. Star, Susan Leigh, and James R. Griesemer. 1989. Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science 19: 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Steier, Frederick. 1991. Research and reflexivity. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  70. Strauss, Anselm. 1987. Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Tatar, Maria. 2002. The annotated classic fairy tales. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  72. Wallace, David Foster. 1996. Infinite jest. New York: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
  73. Webster, Andrew. 2002. Innovative health technologies and the social: Redefining health, medicine and the body. Current Sociology 50: 443–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Weiss, Robert S. 1994. Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  75. Westrum, Ron R. 1982. Book Reviews: “The human nature of science: Researchers at work in psychiatry” Stewart E. Perry (New York: Macmillan, 1966); “Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts” Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1979), Science Communication 3: 437–440.Google Scholar
  76. Wichroski, Mary Anne. 1996. Breaking silence: Some fieldwork strategies in cloistered and non-cloistered communities. Qualitative Sociology 19: 153–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Winthereik, Brit Ross, Irma van der Ploeg, and Marcus Berg. 2007. The electronic patient record as a meaningful audit tool: Accountability and autonomy in general practitioner work. Science Technology Human Values 32: 6–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Woolgar, Steve (ed.). 1988a. Knowledge and reflexivity. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  79. Woolgar, Steve. 1988b. Reflexivity is the ethnographer of the text. In Knowledge and reflexivity, ed. Steve Woolgar, 14–36. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  80. Zinsser, William. 2006. On writing well, 30th anniversary edition: The classic guide to writing nonfiction. New York: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Technische Universität BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.The Pennsylvania State UniversityAltoonaUSA

Personalised recommendations