Actor-Network Theory (ANT) is the primary conceptual framework I am utilizing for my dissertation study of sophomore engineers. Yet ANT is a tricky theory to understand, as its creators dislike the term "theory" as applied to a "study", and readily admit that the hyphenated term "actor-network" is intentionally oxymoronic (Law 1999, p.5). The wealth of ANT literature out there makes the oxymoron both more and less clear, as some authors claim to have classic ANT approaches while others are After-ANT scholars and still others are ANT-ish.
ANT originated in the field of Science and Technology Studies, with notable authors including Bruno Latour, Michel Callon, John Law, Madeline Akrich, Susan Leigh Star, and more. In short, Actor-networks are heterogeneous assemblages of human and non-human elements connected through experiences, interactions, and struggles. These networks move and change dynamically through space and time, with some network connections becoming strong and persistent while others diminish or disappear. I focus on mapping student actor-networks formed, changed, and developed within the sophomore year of engineering undergraduate, finding implications and consequences in the ways students strengthen and discard connections within the highly durable disciplinary networks of engineering degree programs. For me, this approach expands conventional views of learning, taking into account all types of interactions that indelibly shape student experiences in undergraduate institutions.
And so what? Currently, my working understanding of ANT based primarily on the writings of Bruno Latour. I read a few of his books in chronological order, starting with Science in Action (1987), then Aramis, or The Love of Technology (1996), and finally Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory (2005). I loved Aramis, and am still wrapping my brain around all of the concepts, thought experiments, and examples Latour presents in these works. Latour and Emilie Hermant made a multimedia companion to Reassembling the Social called Paris: Invisible City which offers a tour of Paris, but not of the common structures and tourist destinations - instead, the typically "invisible" services, objects, and actions that keep the city running.
I bring this up because it helps explain what I am trying to do here in Boulder with the Engineering Center Building - tracing out the typically "invisible" work done by the creators, designers, administrators, students, faculty, staff, janitors, generators, transformers, HVAC systems, and more that keep the structure intact, viable, and persisting through many generations of graduating students. By following the guidelines suggested by ANT to uncover these traces and describe how people and objects become connected and enmeshed in the actor-network of this building, I hope to demonstrate how these actor-networks have both intentional and unintentional consequences that are serious for our students (and teachers).
References :)
- 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. 197–221). Routledge & Kegan Paul.
- Law, J. (1999). After ANT: complexity, naming, and topology. In J. Law & J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor Network Theory and After. Wiley.
- Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Harvard University Press.
- Latour, B. (1996). Aramis, or the Love of Technology. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
- Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
- Star, S. L. (1991). Power, technology and the phenomenology of conventions: on being allergic to onions. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters: essays on power, technology, and domination (pp. 27–57). London ; New York: Routledge.