My understanding is  that ANT does not have to revolve around a particular project or event, instead it can help you analyse who a particular set of practices got developed, e.g., audit in a particular context/culture, performance management, project management practices, academic rankings etc.

Thanks for your answer :)

Best option is to go over the the British Library eThoS and download a completed ANT thesis. Alternativley, look at a paper by Law or Callon (see link). Myself, I prefer practice theory because it starts and ends with human tacit action, drawing on Bourdieu and Giddens, but ANT is a legitimate approach. It depends if you want to focus on what people do (and how objects are enacted in practice/performed), or to map out the relationships between them. Another good read is a Sociology of Monsters, which is quite explicit in setting out ANT.    

http://ethos.bl.uk/Home.do

http://www.vub.ac.be/SOCO/tesa/RENCOM/Callon%20(1986)%20Some%20elements%20of%20a%20sociology%20of%20translation.pdf

http://biblsrc.btk.ppke.hu/Szociologia/11LawJohn_A_Sociology_of_Monsters.pdf

ANT is a very useful tool to see, understand and explain relationships between actors. It is a good complement to other theoretical concepts e.g. innovation systems.

I think that Matthew's proposal are good. You can see, also, some reading from Bruno Latour like Reassembling the Social – An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory.

If your issue is about technology, you can also read about techno-economic networks by Callon and the work of Thomas Hughes "The evolution of  large technological systems".

Yep, or just read Latour. He is actually quite a humerous writer.

ANT applied in the study of design by :

Yaneva, A. (2009). Made by the Office for Metropolitan Architecture: Na Ethnography of Design. Roterdão: OIO Publishers.

In Education by:

Tara Fenwick

Hi, I do not know, in the ideia of ANT, who is the named actor. A computer,  a human being, a fish, a tree, all this are in the same level of action? 

I'm not  sure of that.

All the best

Silvio Salej

All of them are actors if they have the ability to perform an action that have impact in the other ones.

For example, think in your office. You are part of a network where colleagues, students, your computer, the coffee machine, etc. are part of.  All of them can perform some action with some result on you. Let's focus on the relationship between you and your computer. If your computer suddenly stop working, your work will be affected. Probably you can find another computer and to continue with your job but if your file kept into the hard disk or if you didn't save the last version of it, your problems are a bit more complicated to be solved. Surely you will spend some time thinking how you can get the lost information or if you have no other option than to re-do your last work again.

Now, let's think in a biotech laboratory, in this case the equipment have a more critical role within the network. In this case it appears a new element in the functioning of the network: the translation processes carried out by scientist in order to communicate the equipment results.

Let’s note that automation is not reason by which a computer or a scientist device can be part of the network. The reason is the measure in which one action of it has impact on other actor. I.e. an iron can be part of the network if it can do that you go to work with your shirt ironed or wrinkled if it doesn’t work.

The topic is controversial, however is important to be considered.

It is important to say that neither everything nor everyone are part of a network. Boundary conditions are necessary in order to delimitate adequately a network.

In addition to the Yaneva book noted by Sousa above, sxamples ee also:

Yaneva, A. (2012). Mapping Controversies in Architecture. Farnham, England, Ashgate.

Karvonen, A. (2008). Botanizing the Asphalt: Politics of Urban Drainage. Austin, TX, Doctoral Dissertation: The University of Texas.

Moore, S. A. (2001). Technology and Place: Sustainable Architecture and the Blueprint Farm. Austin, TX, University of Texas Press.

I also recommend Mathew's proposal.  I think Bourdieu Pierre is the king of theory of practice. Please, also check is text on actors and practice:

Bourdieu, Pierre (1990). "Structures,Habitus, Practices", in The Logic of practice, cambridge: polity. pp. 52-65.

Thanks.

Oladele Ayorinde.

There is also a good article by John Law from 1992 that introduces ANT: "Notes on the Theory of the Actor-Network: Ordering, Strategy, and Heterogeneity". In: Systems Practice, 5 (4).

As there are a number of theories of practice being discussed here I also recommend  two articles by Andreas Reckwitz that introduce different theories of practice. From 2002: "Toward a Theory of Social Practices. A Development in Culturalist Theorizing". In: European Journal of Social Theory 5 (2), 243–263 and some further development in German from 2003: "Grundelemente einer Theorie sozialer Praktiken. Eine sozialtheoretische Perspektive/ Basic Elements of a Theory of Social Practices. A Perspective in Social Theory". In: Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 32 (4), 282–301.

Hi Moritz thanks so much I will look up. I think I've got my head around the 'what is ANT' now I'm trying to unpack 'how to use it for research and analysis'. I'm looking at a qualitative approach and wondering if there is a special to analyse using ANT or that you just use ANT language as it were to describe the findings. The research is in the tourism field so I've also been reading up on Van Der Dium's Tourismscapes

Hi Mathew and others thanks a lot for the advice. The proposals are helpful and I'm working my way through Latour! There seems to be an ANT vocabulary that once cracked should be easy to work with?? I'm looking at ANT to study tourism and collaboration practices of a new theater / established theater organisation in a re-generated quarter mainly used presently for hospitality lots of urban design etc within it.

Hi Eilidh, most geographical and sociological studies based on ANT I know prefer ethnographic methods (combinations of participant oberservations, qualitative interviews, collaborative mapping, etc.) with rather intensive field visits to understand how things are assembled. Maybe methods that refer to follow-the-actor and follow-the thing might be appropriate.

Thanks Moritz, I will take an ethnographic approach. It looks rather daunting but I hope worthwhile. Half way through Latour's re-assembling the social

Hi Eilidh

If you revise the book "Science in Action" of Bruno Latour, you could find a good inspiration for framing a good research problem. In that work there are several exemples of the main mantra of ANT: follow the actors.

Despite I'm skeptic of groundings of that theory, this doesn't mean that you can't  find useful tools for your work.

In my opinion, Latour use with a classical epistemological distinction: context of discovery and context of justification.

The background of science and the stage of science.

Kind regards

Hi Eilidh,

one of the best brief illustrations of ANT, that has worked for my students well, is John Law's talk "The Manager and His Powers". I like to recommend it because it illustrates well how to author an ANT account.

I must say that I perceive ANTish studies as mostly quite silent on methods, methodology and how their respective ANTish account has been assembled. For this reason, I allow myself to point you to a paper I authored that attempts to spell out some of the methods and methodological considerations in a study that was heavily inspired by ANT sensibilities (but was in no way a purist ANT attempt; rather, it was also engaging with grounded theorising and ethnomethodological takes): "Studying Reconfigurations of Discourse: Tracing the Stability and Materiality of ›Sustainability/Carbon‹" published in the Journal of Discourse Studies.

To your questions "does it have to revolve around a particular project and event? And if so how recent does the project or event have to be to be relevant?": A good ANT account is only possible by a careful study of particularities. In other words, you need to study something particular. Much of your work is about figuring out what the particularity is that you are studying or that you want to study. Latour et al would recommend "to follow the actor", i.e. map the precise practical and material relations between particular humans and non-humans. So, if you study tourism (which is far too general to be studied easily), you might want to trace the precise actions and devices involved when you book a trip on the internet to a holiday destination. What entities are involved and how are they related?

ANT accounts are usually post-hoc accounts, that is, they are written after something particular occurred. How recent the event was does not so much matter as how well you can actually describe what happened. (On description, you might want to read Latour and Akrich's classic chapters in Shaping Technology/Building Society).

Hope this helps,

best,

Ingmar

http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/resources/sociology-online-papers/papers/law-manager-and-his-powers.pdf

https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/shaping-technology-building-society

Article Studying Reconfigurations of Discourse: Tracing the Stabilit...

Hi Ingar

Thanks so much for your detailed response! I am slowly piecing together the study but only so far as the literature review, sure it will be harder in the field. I will watch John Law's talk and read the resources you recommend. Thanks again, anything that helps with method will be much appreciated - as you say its only really alluded to in most of the literature as being 'ethnographic'

Many thanks

Eilidh

I like to investigate phenomena using the translation concept of ANT. Bruno Latour lists 5 types of translations, which is how the actors are associating and forming the networks. I think this is one of ANT's strengths, because the focus is not on the actors themselves, but on the relationships (hence the actor-network hyphen). In brief:

Translation 1 happens when an actor goes out of his way and assumes the cause of another as his own. If all human and nonhuman actors are free to act, then why would they give up their interests? Certainly one of the actors must impose his will to form a network around him. For example, when students will attend a class, they are assuming the cause of a teacher. In this case, the teacher is a more prominent actor who "reassembling" other actors (students, chairs, room, air-conditioning, smartboard ...).

Translation 2 occurs when a less prominent actor becomes stronger, like a student who shifts the focus of the class to talk about football, for example. It is important to remember that there is only the formation of actor-network if the room also talk about football at that time, because the focus is not on the actors, but on the relationship between them.

When you need to reach your goal, you can take a short cut to solve this problem more quickly. For example, you own a drug development lab and hire a researcher with a doctorate, as he already has a knowledge that would take years for someone else to learn. You form an actor-network taking the shortcut in the studies that someone else has had. This is the Translation 3.

In the fourth translation, the actors associate without losing their identity. I have associated this with the symbiosis that occurs in nature.

Finally, Translation 5 occurs when an actor becomes an obligatory crossing point for other actors. For example, when you hold a patent, everyone who wants to use it will have to pay royalties. Or when you publish an article that becomes a seminal one on that subject, everyone should quote you at the risk of having a poor theoretical framework.

Can somebody explain to me the concept of translation in ANT, or where can I find a definition?. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_somebody_explain_to_me_the_concept_of_translation_in_ANT_or_where_can_I_find_a_definition [accessed May 11, 2017].

best book on ANT and ST ever: http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674015968

interesting theory

ANT is a unique approach to interpreting networks. The fixation on humans as nodes in a network becomes imbued with specificity by identifying non-human actors and giving vitality to such non-human actors, thereby expanding our ability to identify all components of a system. The ability to explain a systems approach that evolves from ANT encompasses all parts as we seek to explain what the systemic movement consists of. This enables us to explain with greater precision elements that encompass the system, their properties and the importance that each nodal value plays in completing the action. In my study, I employ ANT to show how a complaint document moves through a government agency towards resolution thus invoking a protocol associated with conflict resolution. If anyone knows where a source for graphing ANT processes may be found, it would help me immensely as that graph goes far beyond what a flow diagram can elicit when speaking of actants and shareholders that compose non-human elements of a system.