Hi Eilidh,

I am not sure about the compatibility of ANT and social network theory, but I think that theories of social practice also have a compatible network-perspective on phenomenons that could be useful to you. There is an interesting article by Andreas Reckwitz "The Status of the ‚Material’ in Theories of Culture: From ‚Social Structure’ to ‚Artefacts’, in: Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, no. 2, pp. 195- 217; 2002, DOI: 10.1111/1468-5914.00183 . In the end he discusses how to combine theories of practice (Theodore Schatzki) and ANT and what effects this might have on the theories.

ANT tends to be combined with a number of other theories. I can't speak to the feasibility of combining it with (other) social network theories, but in a review of the literature on translation in organisation studies that I have done with a colleague, we found that the ANT perspective is combined with theories from, among others, accounting, practice-based theory, institutional work, institutional logics, entrepreneurship, management fashion, and critical studies. However, there are ontological issues that could arise when combining ANT with other theories, and these should be addressed.

 Hi all thanks a lot for your interesting responses and links. I think one of the things I find with ANT articles is that they are very ICT focused, the way I plan to look at ANT is through a tourism lens/social science - I'm more concerned about 'things' (that are not ICT) playing a role in networks and collaboration. Influenced by Latour's sociological perspective of ANT. I have downloaded Andreas Reckwitz theory, it will be interesting to read and see if it has less of a focus on technology and more of a focus on social

I don't thin of either ANT or SNA as a "theory" in the sense that they could be tested. Instead, I see ANT as a general orientation for thinking about problems and processes, which could certainly be applied across a wide variety of substantive topics.

As for SNA, it is more of a collection of analytic tools than anything else. If you have some reason to study explicit connections among some set of "actors," then it will provide you with methods for doing so.

You might also look into the Social Worlds perspective (e.g., Howard Becker on Art Worlds, or Adele Clarke on Situational Analysis). This approach is more centered on the actions of human actors as a basis for understanding readily observable aspects of social organizations.

Hi Oz and David, thanks a lot, yup I dont like thinking as either as a theory to be tested either. I'm just looking to explore the role networks. I appreciate your advice, and yup Oz I've read his Latour's student conversation, really good, I wish more people used ANT to explore the social world more! 

Hello Eilidh,

I think Arild has raised the most important constraint on integrating or synthesising ANT with any other theory or, more importantly, methodology. ANT is grounded in an explicit and quite radical ontology (and concomitantly, an explicit epistemology). There are a number of labels that suit this ontology, but perhaps the most common is "sociomaterial" i.e. ANT and related theories view reality as consisting of processes that are simultaneously social, material and semiotic. Social network analysis is based on a quite different ontology that assumes, for example, that social and material processes are different. Unlike ANT, social network analysis can accept as a valid question; "is this outcome a result of social interactions, or material processes ?"ANT does not accept the dualism between social and, for example, technological, factors.

Dave

Hi David

Thanks for your answer, I think SNA and ANT are incompatible based on the epidemiological differences, however I hope to try and weave ANT into network theory of some sort.. 

I thoroughly recommend Mützel, S (2009), 'Networks as Culturally Constituted Processes: A Comparison of Relational Sociology and Actor-Network Theory', Current Sociology, vol. 57, no. 6, November 1, 2009, pp. 871-887.

and on the question of  " is ANT a theory? " i find myself shifting on this issue frequently.  To make up your own mind, I refer you to Anne-Marie Mol (2010) who proposes we can conceive of ANT as a theory, where a ‘theory’ is:

"something that helps scholars to attune to the world […] If ANT is a theory, then a theory is a repository of terms and modes of engaging with the world […]  If ANT is a theory, then a theory helps to tell cases, draw contrasts, articulate silent layers, turn questions upside down, focus on the unexpected, add to one’s sensitivities, propose new terms, and shift stories from one context to another."  (Mol 2010, p. 262)

Hi Jasmine - thanks for your response - I will look up Mustzel (2009). 

Hi again Eilidh,

I can also recommend Mol's description of ANT, and the other useful term I've come across to describe ANT is as a "disposition".

Regards

David