Applying Actor Network Theory and Managing Controversy

Chapter
Part of the Integrated Series in Information Systems book series (ISIS, volume 29)

Abstract

Actor Network Theory has been applied in the IS research for over a decade. However, when applying ANT, IS researchers still face difficulties in ­convincing the academic community of the importance and contribution of their analysis. This chapter reviews some of the key concepts and propositions of ANT, the most common criticism ANT-based IS research would receive from sceptic reviewers and suggests possible ways to deal with it.

Keywords

Actors Network Theory IS implementation IS project management Case study ANT frameworks 

Abbreviations

ANT

Actor Network Theory

SSK

Sociology of Scientific Knowledge

ERP

Enterprise Resource Planning systems

SSM

Soft System Methodology

References

  1. Aanestad, M., & Hanseth, O. (2000). Implementing open network technologies in complex work practices: A case from telemedicine. IFIP 8.2 (pp. 355–369), Aalborg, Denmark, 10–12 June.Google Scholar
  2. Atkinson, C. J. (2000). The ‘soft information systems and technologies methodology’ (SISTeM): An actor network contingency approach to integrated development. European Journal of Information Systems, 9, 104–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bloomfield, B. P., Coombs, R., Knights, D., & Littler, D. (Eds.). (1997). Information technology and organizations: Strategies, networks, and integration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bloomfield, B. P., & Danieli, A. (1995). The role of management consultans in the development of information technology: The indissoluble nature of socio-political and technical skills. Journal of Management Studies, 32(1), 23–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bloomfield, B. P., & Vurdubakis, T. (1994). Boundary disputes, negotiating the boundary between the technical and the social in the development of IT systems. Information Technology and People, 7(1), 9–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bloomfield, B. P., & Vurdubakis, T. (1997). Paper traces: Inscribing organizations and information technology. In B. P. Bloomfield, R. Coombs, D. Knights, & D. Littler (Eds.), Information technology and organizations: Strategies, networks, and integration (pp. 85–111). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bloor, D. (1999). Anti-latour. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 30(1), 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boland, R. J. (1985). Phenomenology: A preferred approach to research on information systems. In E. Mumford, R. Hirschheim, G. Fitzgerald, & T. Wood-Harper (Eds.), Research methods in information systems. New York: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  9. 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. 196–233). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  10. Callon, M. (1991). Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of Monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination (pp. 132–161). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Callon, M., & Latour, B. (1981). Unscrewing the big Leviathan: How actors macro-structure reality and how sociologists help them to do so. In K. Knorr-Cetina & A. V. Cicourel (Eds.), Towards an integration of micro- and macro- sociologies (pp. 277–303). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  12. Callon, M., & Law, J. (1982). On interests and their transformation: Enrolment and counter-­enrolment. Social Studies of Science, 12, 615–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Centre for Science Studies, A. N. T. R. (2001). Actor network resources (Vol. 2001). In W. Law, p. i. m. b. J. (Ed.). Lancaster University, UK.Google Scholar
  14. Collins, H. M., & Yearley, S. (1992a). Epistemological chicken. In A. Pickering (Ed.), Science as practice and culture (pp. 301–326). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Collins, H. M., & Yearley, S. (1992b). Journey into space. In A. Pickering (Ed.), Science as practice and culture (pp. 369–389). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Cordella, A., & Simon, K. A. (2000). Global and local dynamics in infrastructure deployment: The Astra Hassle experience. In C. U. Ciborra & Associates (Eds.), From control to drift: The dynamics of corporate information infrastructure (pp. 172–192). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Cornford, T., Cibbora, C. U., & Shaikh, M. (2005). Do Penguins eat Scallops? European Journal of Information Systems, 14, 518–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Elbanna, A. R. (2006). The validity of the improvisation argument in the implementation of rigid technology: The case of ERP systems. Journal of Information Technology, 21, 165–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Elbanna, A. R. (2007). Implementing an integrated system in a socially dis-integrated enterprise: A critical view of ERP enabled integration. Information Technology and People, 20(2), 121–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Elbanna, A. R. (2009). Actor network Theory and IS research. In Y. K. Dwivedi, B. Lal, M. D. Williams, S. L. Schneberger, & M. Wade (Eds.), Handbook of research on contem­porary theoretical models in information systems (pp. 403–419). Hershey: IGI Global. Chapter 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Elbanna, A. (2010a). Rethinking IS project boundaries in practice: A multiple-projects perspective. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 19(1), 39–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Elbanna, A. R. (2010b). From intention to use to actual rejection: The journey of an e-procurement system. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 23(1), 81–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Faraj, S., Kwon, D., & Watts, S. (2004). Contested artifact: Technology sensemaking, actor networks, and the shaping of the web browser. Information Technology and People, 17(2), 186–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  25. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hanseth, O., & Braa, K. (1998). Technology as Traitor: Emergent SAP infrastructure in a global organization. In R. Hirschheim, M. Newman, & J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Nineteenth international conference on information systems (ICIS) (pp. 188–196). Helsinki, Finland, 13–16 December.Google Scholar
  27. Hanseth, O., & Monteiro, E. (1997). Inscribing behaviour in information infrastructure standards. Accounting, Management and Information Technology, 7(4), 183–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hanseth, O., & Braa, K. (2000). Who’s in control: Designers, Managers–or Technology? Infrastructure at Norsk Hydro. In C. U. Ciborra a.o. (Ed.), From Control To Drift: The dynamics of corporate information infrastructure (pp. 125–147). Oxford, New york: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Klischewski, R. (2000). Systems development as networking. Americas conference on information systems (AMCIS) (pp. 1638–1644), Long Beach, CA.Google Scholar
  30. Klischewski, R. (2001). Commitments enabling co-operation in distributed information systems development. The 9th European conference on information systems (pp. 509–519), Bled, Slovenia, June 27–29.Google Scholar
  31. Latour, B. (1986). The powers of association. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge (pp. 264–280). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul plc.Google Scholar
  32. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Latour, B. (1988a). Mixing humans and nonhumans together: The sociology of a door-closer. Social Problems, 35(3), 298–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Latour, B. (1988b). The pasteurization of France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Latour, B. (1990). Drawing things together. In M. Lynch & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice (pp. 19–68). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  36. Latour, B. (1991). Technology is society made durable. In J. Law (Ed.), Sociology of Monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination (pp. 103–131). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Latour, B. (1994). On technical mediation – Philosophy, sociology, genealogy. Common Knowledge, 3(2), 29–64.Google Scholar
  38. Latour, B. (1997). The trouble with actor-network theory. Philosophia, 25(3–4), 47–64.Google Scholar
  39. Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Law, J. (1986a). The heterogeneity of texts. In M. Callon, J. Law, & A. Rip (Eds.), Mapping the dynamics of science and technology: Sociology of science in the real world (pp. 67–83). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  41. Law, J. (1986b). On the methods of long-distance control: Vessels, navigation and the Portuguese route to india. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge (pp. 234–263). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul plc.Google Scholar
  42. Law, J. (1991). Power, discretion and strategy. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of Monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination (pp. 165–191). London: Rutledge.Google Scholar
  43. Law, J. (1994). Organizing modernity. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  44. Law, J. (1996). The manager and his power. Mediaset Convention, Venice, 12 November, 1996.Google Scholar
  45. Law, J., & Callon, M. (1988). Engineering and sociology in a military aircraft project: A network analysis of technological change. Social Problems, 35(3), 284–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Law, J., & Callon, M. (1992). The life and death of an aircraft: A network analysis of technical change. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 21–52). Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  47. Lehoux, P., Sicotte, C., & Denis, J.-L. (1999). Assessment of a computerized medical record ­system: Disclosing script of use. Evaluation and Program Planning, 22, 439–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lilley, S. (1998). Regarding screens for surveillance of the system. Accounting, Management and Information Technology, 8, 63–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McGrath, K. (2001). The golden circle: A case study of organizational change at the London Ambulance Service (case study). The 9th European conference on information systems (pp. 1137–1148), Bled, Slovenia, June 27–29.Google Scholar
  50. Monteiro, E. (2000). Monsters: From systems to actor-networks. In K. Braa, C. Sorensen, & B. Dahlbom (Eds.), Planet internet. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
  51. Monteiro, E., & Hanseth, O. (1996). Social shaping of information infrastructure: On being specific about the technology. In W. J. Orlikowski, G. Walsham, M. R. Jones, & J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Information technology and changes in organizational work (pp. 325–343). London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  52. Pels, D. (1995). Have we never been modern? Towards a demontage of Latour’s modern constitution. History of the Human Sciences, 8(3), 129–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pouloudi, N. and Whitley, E. A. (2000) Representing Human and Non-human Stakeholders: On speaking with authority, IFIP 8.2, Aalborg, June.Google Scholar
  54. Serres, M. (1974). La Traduction, Hermes III. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit.Google Scholar
  55. Vidgen, R., & McMaster, T. (1996). Black boxes, non-human stakeholders and the translation of IT through mediation. In W. J. Orlikowski, G. Walsham, M. R. Jones, & J. I. De Gross (Eds.), Information technology and change in organizational work (pp. 250–271). London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  56. Walsham, G. (1993). Interpreting information systems in organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
  57. Walsham, G. (1997). Actor-network theory and IS research: Current status and future prospects. In A. S. Lee, J. Liebenau, & J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Information systems and qualitative research (pp. 467–480). London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  58. Weick, K. E. (1984). Theoretical assumptions and research methodology selection. In F. W. McFarlan (Ed.), The information systems research challenge (pp. 111–134). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Business SchoolLoughborough UniversityLeicestershireUK

Personalised recommendations