Let it Fly High! On the Need for ANT with a Positivistic Inclination

• Autorzy: Radosław Sojak , Łukasz Afeltowicz , Krzysztof Pietrowicz
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Actor-Network Theory has proven to be highly successful, fulfilling much of its early theoretical and methodological promise. Proponents of ANT have argued, among other things, that an acceptance of the specific (techno-)social ontology which assumes consistent relativity of beings and anti-essentialism will enable us to address the aporia that are haunting sociology. The authors argue that, sociological applications of ANT (at least as regards the dominant understanding of the theory) result in a lowbrow methodology leading to a radical cognitive limitation of the discipline. The text finishes with an attempt to sketch an alternative version of ANT, one with a positivistic inclination opening the path for synthetic sociology. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Actor-network theory; Sociology of science

PL

Teoria aktora-sieci; Socjologia nauki

• Czasopismo: Polish Sociological Review
• Rocznik: 2019
• Numer: nr 3 (207)
• Strony: 255--269

Twórcy

autor

Radosław Sojak

• Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń

autor

Łukasz Afeltowicz

• Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń

autor

Krzysztof Pietrowicz

• Nicolaus Copernicus University, Poland

Bibliografia

• Alcadipani, R., and Hassard, J. 2010. Actor-Network Theory, Organizations and Critique: Towards a Politics of Organizing, Organization 17(4): 419-435.
• Amsterdamska, O. 1990. Review: Surely You Are Joking, Monsieur Latour! Science in Action by Bruno Latour, Science, Technology, & Human Values 15(4): 495-504.
• Ashmore, Malcolm. 1988. The Reflexive Thesis: Wrighting Sociology of Scientific Knowledge. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Bajde, D. 2013. Consumer Culture Theory (Re)visits Actor-Network Theory. Flattening Consumption Studies, Marketing Theory 13(2): 227-242.
• Barry, A. 2013. The Translation Zone: Between Actor-Network Theory and International Relations, Millennium - Journal of International Studies 41(3): 413-429.
• Beaulieu, A., Scharnhorst, A., and Wouters, P. 2007. Not Another Case Study: A Middle-Range Interrogation of Ethnographic Case Studies in the Exploration of E-science, Science, Technology & Human Values 32(6): 672-692.
• Beck, U. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.
• Becker, H. S. 2007. Writing for Social Scientists: How to Start and Finish Your Thesis, Book, or Article. 2nd ed., Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Bloor, D. 1991. Knowledge and Social Imagery. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Calhoun, C., Gerteis, J., Moody, J., Pfaff, S., and Virk, I. (eds.). 2012. Contemporary Sociological Theory. 3rd ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Callon, M. 1986. Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fisherman of St. Brieux Bay, in: J. Law (ed.), Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge?. London: Routledge, pp. 196-229.
• Callon, M. 1987. Society in the Making: The Study of Technology as a Tool for Sociological Analysis, in: W. Bijker, T. Hughes, and T. Pinch (eds.), The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Massachusetts: MIT Press, pp. 83-103.
• Castells, M. 2009. Communication Power. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
• Collins, H. M. 1981. What is TRASP? The Radical Programme as a Methodological Imperative, Philosophy of the Social Sciences 11(2): 215-224.
• Collins, H. M. 1985. Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice. London: SAGE.
• Collins, R. 1994. Why the Social Science Won't Become High-Consensus, Rapid Discovery Science, Sociological Forum 9(2): 155-177.
• Dolwick, J. S. 2009. 'The Social' and Beyond: Introducing Actor-Network Theory, Journal of Maritime Archaeology 4: 21-49.
• Durkheim, É. [1895] 2013. The Rules of Sociological Method and Selected Texts on Sociology and its Method. Translation by W. D. Halls. New York: Free Press.
• Emery, F., and Thorsrud, E. 1976. Democracy at Work: The Report of the Norwegian Industrial Democracy Program. Leiden: Maritinus Nijhoff Social Sciences Division.
• Feyerabend, P. 1975. Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. London: NLB.
• Geels, F. W. 2007. Feelings of Discontent and the Promise of Middle Range Theory for STS Examples from Technology Dynamics, Science, Technology & Human Values 32(6): 627-651.
• Hine, Ch. 2007. Multi-sited Ethnography as a Middle Range Methodology for Contemporary STS, Science, Technology & Human Values 32(6): 652-671.
• Johansen, R. 1978. Stress and Sociotechnical Design: a New Ship Organization, in: C. L. Cooper, R. Pane (eds.), Stress at Work. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
• Kien, G. 2009. An Actor Network Theory Translation of the Bush Legacy and the Obama Collectif, Cultural Studies, Critical Methodologies 9(6): 796-802.
• Latour, B. 1983. Give Me a Laboratory and I Will Raise the World, in: K. Knorr Cetina, and M. Mulkay (eds.), Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science. London: Sage, pp. 141-170.
• Latour, B. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
• Latour, B. [1984] 1988a. The Pasteurization of France. Translated by Alan Sheridan and John Law. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press.
• Latour, B. 1988b. The Politics of Explanation: An Alternative, in: S. Woolgar (ed.), Knowledge and Reflexivity: New Frontiers in the Sociology of Knowledge. London: SAGE Publications, pp. 155-176.
• Latour, B. 1991. Technology Is Society Made Durable, in: J. Law (ed.), A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination. London, New York: Routlege, pp. 103-131.
• Latour, B. 1992. Where Are the Missing Masses? Sociology of a Few Mundane Artefacts, in: W. Bijker, and J. Law (eds.), Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, pp. 225-258.
• Latour, B. 1999a. On recalling ANT, The Sociological Review 47: 15-25.
• Latour, B. 1999b. Parndora's Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
• Latour, B. [1992] 2002. Aramis, or The Love of Technology. Translated by Catherine Porter. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press.
• Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxfor University Press.
• Latour, B. 2010a. The Making of Law: An Ethnography of the Conseil d'Etat. Translated by Marina Brilman and Alain Pottage. Cambridge-Malden: Polity Press.
• Law, J. 2004. After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. London: Routledge.
• Lemert, Ch., (ed.). 2013. Social Theory: The Multicultural, Global, and Classic Readings. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
• Lewin, K. 1943. Forces Behind Food Habits and Methods of Change, in: The Problem of Changing Food Habits, Bulletin of The National Research Council 108, Washington, DC: National Research Council and National Academy of Sciences, pp. 35-65.
• Lezaun, J. 2011. Offshore Democracy: Launch and Landfall of a Socio-technical Experiment, Economy and Society 40(4): 553-581.
• Mähring, M., Holmström, J., Keil, M., and Montealegre, R. 2004. Actor-Networks and Swift Translation: Bringing Actor-Network Theory to It Project Escalation Studies, Information Technology & People 17(2): 210-238.
• Mol, A. 1999. Ontological Politics: A Word and Some Questions, The Sociological Review 47: 74-89.
• Mol, A. 2002. The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Durham: Duke University Press.
• Mol, A., and Law, J. 1994. Regions, Networks and Fluids: Anaemia and Social Topology, Social Studies of Science 24(4): 641-671.
• Mol, A., and L a w, J. 2004. Embodied Action, Enacted Bodies: The Example of Hypoglycaemia, Body & Society 10(2-3): 43-62.
• Oppenheim, R. 2007. Actor-Network Theory and Anthropology After Science, Technology, and Society, Anthropological Theory 7(4): 471-493.
• Orr, J. E. 1996. Talking About Machines: An Ethnography of a Modern Job. Ithaca: ILR Press.
• Perrow, Ch. 1999. Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies. New ed., Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Pinch, T. 1986. Confronting Nature: The Sociology of Solar-Neutrino Detection. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
• Radder, H. 1996. In and About the World: Philosophical Studies of Science and Technology. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press.
• Rappert, B. 2007. On the Mid Range: An Exercise in Disposing (or Minding the Gaps), Science, Technology & Human Values 32(6): 693-712.
• Ritzer, G. 2011. Sociological Theory. Eight edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Suchman, L. 1987. Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Van der Duim, R., Ren, C., and Thór Jóhannesson, G. 2013. Ordering, Materiality, and Multiplicity: Enacting Actor-Network Theory in Tourism, Tourist Studies 13(1): 3-20.
• Whyte, W. H. 1968. The Last Landscape. Garden City: Doubleday.
• Whyte, W. H. 1980. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Project for Public Spaces.
• Woolgar, S. 1981. Interests and Explanation in the Social Study of Science, Social Studies of Science 11(3): 365-394.
• Wyatt, S., and Balmer, B. 2007. Home on the Range. What and Where is the Middle in Science and Technology Studies?, Science, Technology & Human Values 32(6): 619-626.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.26412/psr207.01